Critique of the 20th Hadith from “Forty Hadiths on the Mahdiyeen” – “Al-Mawla alladhi yali amrahu” Does Not Mean Successor

Dar al-Hidayah | Nidham Al-Aqili, one of the official representatives of the alleged Yamani (Ahmed Al-Hasan), continues to cite hadiths from his book “Forty Hadiths on the Mahdiyeen and the Children of the Qa’im (AS)” to prove his group’s belief in 12 Imams from the children of Imam Mahdi (AS), known as the Mahdiyeen. This article examines the 20th hadith.

Nidham Al-Aqili’s core claims are:

• Imamate is not limited to twelve Imams.
• The Mahdiyeen, after Imam Mahdi (AS), hold the station of Wasayah (successorship) and Imamate.
• The Mahdiyeen are the Itrat (progeny) and children of Imam Mahdi (AS).

The 20th Hadith on the Mahdiyeen

Another hadith that Nidham Al-Aqili cites as his 20th proof is presented as follows:

From al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar, who said: I heard Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) say: “Indeed, the Master of this Affair has two occultations. One of them will be prolonged until some will say he has died, some will say he has been killed, and some will say he has gone away. There will remain from among his companions upon his command only a small number. No one from among his children nor anyone else will know his location, except the Mawla who is in charge of his affairs.”

Source: Al-Ghaybah (by Shaykh al-Tusi), p. 162

Important Note: Persian-speaking followers of Ahmed Al-Hasan have mistranslated this phrase as: “No one knows his location except the Mawla who has authority and successorship after him.” This is a deliberate mistranslation, as will be proven below.

Critical Analysis of the 20th Hadith

First Point: Nidham Al-Aqili Himself Did Not Claim This “Mawla” Is a Successor or a Child

Importantly, even Nidham Al-Aqili himself never claimed that “al-Mawla alladhi yali amrahu” means a successor (Wasi) or one with authority (Wilayah) after the Imam. He also never claimed that this Mawla is a child of Imam Mahdi (AS). Nidham Al-Aqili only used this hadith to prove one thing: that Imam Mahdi (AS) has children (dhurriyyah) during the occultation. He writes: “This narration is explicit in the existence of progeny for Imam Mahdi (AS) during the occultation.”

It is the Persian-speaking followers who have misunderstood even their own leader’s argument. They have falsely injected the concept of “successorship” into a hadith where Nidham Al-Aqili himself never mentioned it. The evidence for this is that Nidham Al-Aqili spends significant effort trying to prove that the phrase “min waladihi” (from his children) appears in the original narration. If his concern were proving a successor (Wasi) rather than merely proving the existence of children, it would not matter whether the phrase was “min waladihi” or “min waliyyihi.” His effort to prove “min waladihi” proves his intent was only to establish that Imam Mahdi (AS) has children—not to establish a successor.

Second Point: Textual Variation (Idtirab) in the Hadith

There is significant textual variation in this hadith across different sources. Consider the following:

Version from Nu’mani’s Al-Ghaybah:

From al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju’fi, from Abu ‘Abdillah al-Sadiq (AS), who said: “…No one from among a Waliyy (a friend/successor) nor anyone else will know his location, except the Mawla who is in charge of his affairs.”

Source: Al-Ghaybah (by al-Nu’mani), p. 172

Another Version from Shaykh al-Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah:

From al-Mufaddal, who said: I heard Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) say: “…No one will know his location and his affair, nor anyone else, except the Mawla who is in charge of his affair.” (No mention of “children” at all)

Source: Al-Ghaybah (by Shaykh al-Tusi), p. 61

Even though Nidham Al-Aqili tries to prove that Nu’mani’s version contains a scribal error, we see that even within Shaykh al-Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah there is inconsistency. One version contains “min waladihi” and another does not. Therefore, the hadith cannot be used as evidence. Without “min waladihi,” it does not even prove the existence of children. With “min waladihi,” it only proves existence of children (which is not disputed) but says nothing about Imamate or successorship.

Third Point: The Hadith Explicitly Denies That Any Child Knows the Imam’s Location

The followers claim that this “Mawla” is from the children of Imam Mahdi (AS). However, the hadith explicitly states: “No one from among his children nor anyone else will know his location” (la yattali’u ‘ala mawdihi ahadun min waladihi wa la ghayrihi). This is an explicit negation (nafy) of knowledge for the children. The followers are directly contradicting the hadith by claiming that a child of the Imam knows his location.

The logical structure of the hadith contains two negations:

1. Specific negation (nafy khas): No one from his children knows his location.
2. General negation (nafy ‘aam): No one else (any other person) knows his location.
3. Exception (istithna’): Except the Mawla who is in charge of his affairs.

The exception applies to the general negation, not to the specific negation. Therefore, the specific negation remains intact: No child of the Imam knows his location. This alone refutes Ahmed Al-Hasan’s claim to be a son of Imam Mahdi (AS), because if he were truly a son, he would not know the Imam’s location—yet he claims special knowledge.

Fourth Point: Explanation from Al-Kafi – The “Mawali” Are Servants

Shaykh al-Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah is not the only source. A clearer narration in Al-Kafi explains exactly who is meant:

Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, from Ibn Mahbub, from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar, who said: Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) said: “The Qa’im has two occultations. One is short, the other long. During the first occultation, no one knows his location except the elite of his Shia. During the other (long occultation), no one knows his location except the elite of his Mawali.”

Source: Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 340

From this narration, we understand:

1. “Mawali” is plural (many servants), not a single person.
2. These Mawali are present throughout the long occultation, serving the Imam.
3. This completely refutes the claim that “al-Mawla alladhi yali amrahu” means a successor or next Imam—because the hadith says “Mawali” (many), not a single successor.
4. It is clear that “Mawla” and “Mawali” here mean the passive sense (maf’uli): servants, attendants, and caretakers—not rulers or successors.

Fifth Point: The Linguistic Meaning of “Mawla alladhi yali amrahu”

The followers’ mistranslation stems from ignorance of basic Arabic morphology and usage. Let us clarify:

The Meaning of “Wilayah”

Wilayah means guardianship or authority. The words Waliyy and Mawla are used in both active and passive senses:

• Active sense (one who has authority): “Allah is the Waliyy of the believers.”
• Passive sense (one under authority, servant/freed slave): “He is a Mawla (freed slave) of so-and-so.”

The Phrase “Yali Amrahu”

In Arabic, when someone “yali amra” a person, it means they manage the affairs of that person as a servant or caretaker—not that they have authority over that person. When narrations want to express governance over people, they use phrases like “yali amra al-nas” (governs the affairs of the people) or “yali amra hadhihi al-ummah” (governs the affairs of this nation).

For example, the Prophet (PBUH) said about Mu’awiyah: “…until a man with a wide throat governs the affairs of this nation…” (Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 44, p. 23). That construction uses “yali amra hadhihi al-ummah”—governs the nation’s affairs. In our hadith, it says “yali amrahu”—manages his (the Imam’s) affairs. This is the language of service, not governance. The caretaker manages the Imam’s personal and domestic affairs, not the affairs of the people.

The Exception Proves the Rule

In hundreds of narrations, “Mawla” in the passive sense appears as “servant, slave, freed slave, attendant.” For example, in Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 463, Imam al-Sadiq (AS) uses “Mawlahu,” “Mawalihi,” and “Mawlak” all in the sense of a servant or attendant.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis, the Mawla alladhi yali amrahu hadith meaning is definitively proven to be:

1. Nidham Al-Aqili himself did not claim this Mawla is a successor or a child of the Imam. He only sought to prove that Imam Mahdi (AS) has children—a point not in dispute.
2. Textual variation (idtirab) across Nu’mani’s and Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah undermines any argument based on this narration.
3. The explicit text negates that any child of Imam Mahdi (AS) knows his location. This refutes Ahmed Al-Hasan’s claim to be a son.
4. Al-Kafi’s parallel narration clarifies that “Mawali” are servants, plural, not a single successor.
5. Linguistically, “Mawla alladhi yali amrahu” means “the servant who manages his (the Imam’s) personal affairs”—not a successor, not an Imam, and certainly not a Mahdi.

Thus, the 20th hadith provides absolutely no support for the existence of “Mahdiyeen” as Imams after Imam Mahdi (AS), nor for the claims of Ahmed Al-Hasan.