Is Yamani the Commander of Imam al‑Mahdi’s Army?

Dar al-Hedayah | Anyone who searches through Mahdavi (pertaining to the Mahdi) narrations will find no indication that the Yamani is the commander of Imam al-Mahdi’s (aj) army or plays a role in filling the earth with justice. This is raised while the Ahmad Ismail faction claims that the Yamani is the commander of His Eminence al-Hujjah’s (aj) army. This article has been prepared to critique the statements of this movement.

 “The Yamani is the Army Commander!?”

It is astonishing that Ahmad Ismail and his companions have stripped all virtues from Imam al-Zaman (as) and claimed that the Yamani is the very individual who paves the way for Imam al-Mahdi (as) and will conquer lands. In truth, he is the one who fills the earth with justice. They argue that attributing this to His Eminence al-Mahdi (as) is because only the command for this work is with him, not that he himself carries it out—like a king who prepares an army, and whatever this army does will be attributed to the king, even though the king himself did not fight, command, or make any effort.

Nazem al-Oqaili says in this regard:

“We can attribute all the wars and epic deeds that the Yamani carries out to Imam al-Mahdi (aj), on the basis that all of them were by his command and guidance; just as we say, ‘Such-and-such king conquered such-and-such city,’ while it was that king’s army commander who conquered the city. However, we cannot do the opposite; for example, we cannot attribute the epic deeds where Imam al-Mahdi (as) is personally the commander to the Yamani, because at that time the Yamani is merely a soldier like other soldiers and commanders and does not have direct command, ordering, forbidding, or planning.”

Al-Radd al-Qasim ‘ala Munkiri Ru’yat al-Qa’im, Pp. 27 & 54

Nazem al-Oqaili says elsewhere:

“After it is proven that the Yamani is from the children of Imam al-Mahdi (aj), it must be said that many of the matters mentioned in narrations as being done by Imam al-Mahdi (aj) will, in reality, be done by that very Yamani and his son, Ahmad, their successor; including the epic deeds and carrying the sword on his shoulder for eight months, and perhaps other matters that do not come to mind.”

Dirasah fi Shakhsiyyat al-Yamani al-Maw’ud, Vol. 1, P. 61

Nazem al-Oqaili wants to conclude that there is no problem if all that is attributed to Imam al-Mahdi (as) in narrations is done by a Yamani whom al-Oqaili assumes is from the children of Imam al-Zaman (as)—even filling the earth with justice. Believing in such a matter would lead to denying the narrations, because it is only metaphorically (majaz) that a deed done by a son or grandson can be attributed to the father or grandfather.

In this way, Imam al-Mahdi (as) would no longer be the true reformer of the world and would not fill the earth with justice after it has been filled with oppression. Rather, according to these individuals’ claim, the true reformer is Ahmad Ismail, to whom they have attributed all the virtues of Imam al-Mahdi. It is no secret that this statement contradicts the consensus (ijma’) of all Muslims. All Muslims agree that the individual who fills the earth with justice is Imam al-Mahdi (as) himself, and the narrations also attribute this deed to him personally. The requirement of this attribution is to take the speech in its real meaning (haqiqi), which shows that His Eminence is the real agent, not a metaphorical one. Taking the speech metaphorically requires evidence (qarinah), and here there is no evidence indicating that the one who fills the earth with justice is a man from the children of Imam al-Mahdi (as).

 Important Point

It is necessary to mention that if the one who fills the earth with justice were to be one of the children of Imam al-Mahdi (as)—like Ahmad Ismail, who shamelessly claims to be the great-great-grandson of Imam al-Mahdi (as)—then there would have been no need for Imam al-Mahdi (as) to be introduced in the narrations as the individual who will fill the earth with justice. It makes no sense for all narrations to emphasize this matter; rather, it would have been necessary for this action to be attributed in its real sense, at least in some narrations, to Ahmad Ismail himself. Therefore, there is no need for all narrations to be considered metaphorical, as this would cause people to err, indeed to go astray.