Dar al-Hedayah | Nazim al-Uqaili, one of the official representatives of the claimant Yamani, authored a book titled “Forty Hadiths Regarding the Mahdiyyin and the Children of the Qa’im (as)” to prove his faction’s belief in the existence of 12 Imams from the descendants of Imam al-Mahdi (aj). In this book, he claims to cite forty hadiths proving the twelve Imams after Imam al-Mahdi (aj). He asserts:

Nazim’s Claims Regarding the “Mahdiyyin”:

1. Imamate is not confined to twelve Imams.

2. The “Mahdiyyin” after Imam al-Zaman (aj) hold the station of succession (wisayah) and Imamate.

3. The “Mahdiyyin” are the very progeny and children of Imam al-Zaman (aj).

 The Fourth Narration of the “Mahdiyyin” Book

Another narration that Nazim al-Uqaili cites in his book as the fourth hadith to prove his three claims is the following:

عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِلصَّادِقِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ (ع) يَا ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ مِنْ أَبِيكَ (ع) أَنَّهُ قَالَ يَكُونُ بَعْدَ الْقَائِمِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ مَهْدِيًّا، فَقَالَ: إِنَّمَا قَالَ اثْنَا عَشَرَ مَهْدِيًّا وَ لَمْ يَقُلْ اثْنَا عَشَرَ إِمَامًا، وَ لَكِنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ مِنْ شِيعَتِنَا يَدْعُونَ النَّاسَ إِلَى مُوَالاتِنَا وَ مَعْرِفَةِ حَقِّنَا.

Translation: From Abu Basir (who was among the elite companions of Imam al-Sadiq (as) and a confidant of his secrets) who said: I said to al-Sadiq, Ja’far ibn Muhammad (as), “O son of the Messenger of Allah, I heard from your father (as) that he said: ‘After the Qa’im there will be twelve Mahdiyyin.'” So he (Imam al-Sadiq (as)) said: “He only said ‘twelve Mahdiyyin’ and did not say ‘twelve Imams.’ Rather, they are a group from our Shi’a who call the people to our guardianship (wilayah) and the recognition of our right.”

*Kamal al-Din, Vol. 2, p. 358*

Critique and Examination: The Narration Itself Refutes the Claim

Imam al-Baqir (as) does not say the Mahdiyyin are Imams. Imam al-Sadiq (as) emphasizes this point further and adds that they have never been titled ‘Imam,’ and his father did not call them Imams either, but rather “a group from our Shi’a.”

Important Supporting Narration:

Another narration from Imam al-Baqir (as) clarifies the term “Mahdi”:

Hanan ibn Sadir said: I asked Abu Ja’far (al-Baqir) (as) about Ibn al-Hanafiyyah (Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah): “Was he an Imam?” He (as) said: “No, but he was a Mahdi.”
*Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah min al-Hayrah, Vol. 1, p. 60*

This means Imam al-Baqir (as) negates Imamate from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and states he was a Mahdi. Similarly, Imam al-Sadiq (as) negates Imamate from the “Mahdiyyin” and says they are Mahdis and a group from our Shi’a.

Therefore, according to this hadith, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was among the “Mahdiyyin” (i.e., those who called people to the guardianship of the Imams). The Mahdiyyin at the time of Imam al-Zaman’s (aj) reappearance, if they exist, would likely have a similar role to Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, as the Imam says: “They call people to our guardianship and the recognition of our right.”

A Crucial Distinction:

These “Mahdiyyin” do not call people to themselves. If they were Imams, they would necessarily first call people to accept their own Imamate. However, these “Mahdiyyin” absolutely do not call to themselves; rather, they call to the guardianship of the Twelve Imams. Therefore, they are certainly not Imams.

Ironically, the first person given the title of “the promised Mahdi and Qa’im” seems to have been Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (by the Kaysaniyya sect, who believed in his Imamate, though he himself made no such claim). History seems to be repeating slightly, as now some attribute Imamate to the “Mahdiyyin” of the reappearance era, while the true status of the real Mahdiyyin is free from such claims—they are from the Shi’a, not false claimants to the stations of Imam al-Zaman (aj).

Thus, by juxtaposing these two narrations, it becomes clearer that the Mahdiyyin are not Imams.

 Nazim al-Uqaili’s Deceptive Justifications and Their Refutations

Nazim al-Uqaili attempts to distort the meaning of this clear hadith with deceptive justifications to prove the Imamate of his faction’s imaginary “Mahdiyyin.”

1. First Justification & Refutation:

• His Claim: “The Mahdiyyin are Imams, but their rank is lower than that of the Imams.”

• Refutation: This justification is merely a refusal to accept the truth. When Imam al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (peace be upon them) do not call them Imams, it is because they are not Imams. If they were Imams, there would be no reason to deny their Imamate, even if their rank were lower. The complete absence of any explicit text (nass) on their Imamate exposes the fallacy of this excuse. If, according to al-Uqaili’s illusion, the rank of Amir al-Mu’minin (as) is higher than other Imams, does that mean we shouldn’t call the other Imams, “Imams”? No, they were Imams and were called Imams. The correct form of this justification is: The Mahdiyyin simply do not possess the station of Imamate at all.

2. Second Justification & Refutation:

• His Claim: “Prophet Ibrahim (as), Imam al-Hasan, and Imam al-Husayn (as) were both Shi’a and Imams. So being Shi’a doesn’t negate being an Imam.”

• Refutation: That Prophet Ibrahim (as) was both a Shi’a and a Prophet has no logical connection to the idea that any other Shi’a can also be an Imam. Not every round thing is a walnut! Prophet Ibrahim was an Imam due to an explicit Quranic verse (2:124). No such explicit text exists for the Mahdiyyin; on the contrary, narrations against it are plentiful. In this very hadith, Imam al-Sadiq (as) first negates their Imamate (“He did not say twelve Imams”) and then emphasizes they are from our Shi’a who call to us. They have no independent station or authority.

3. Third Justification & Refutation:

• His Claim: “Imam al-Sadiq (as) spoke about the matter of the Mahdiyyin with dissimulation (taqiyyah) in the presence of some people because the Imams (as) always strove to keep the matter of the Mahdiyyin secret.”

• Refutation: It is impossible for someone to be an Imam, for knowledge of him to be obligatory, for that knowledge to be attainable only through the Messenger of God and the Ahl al-Bayt, and yet for there to be no text or evidence from them. Doing so because of taqiyyah is truly impossible and contrary to the Shari’ah. It is noteworthy that when these followers want to proselytize, they say “Ahmad has proven his decisive arguments with hadiths and textual proofs,” but when it comes to explicit texts about Imamate or the Yamani, they say “it’s taqiyyah, it’s a hidden divine secret.” Consider: Abu Basir was among the very best of companions, a confidant of secrets. If they were Imams, Imam al-Sadiq (as) would have at least told Abu Basir.

4. Fourth Justification & Refutation (Regarding the “Seal of the Successors”):

• His Claim: To resolve the contradiction between the continuation of Imamate through the “Mahdiyyin” and Imam al-Zaman (aj) being the “Seal of the Successors,” he claims the title means the Seal of the specific Imamate of the Twelve Imams, just as Amir al-Mu’minin (as) is described as the “Seal of the Successors” yet successors came after him.

• Refutation: When narrations call Amir al-Mu’minin (as) the “Seal of the Successors,” it means the Seal of the direct, immediate successors of the Prophets. After him, there is no new prophet to have a direct successor. A hadith from Amir al-Mu’minin (as) states: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sealed 124,000 prophets, and I sealed 124,000 successors.” (Basa’ir al-Darajat, Vol. 1, p. 121). Therefore, the title is not general to all successors ever, but specific to the chain of direct vicegerency of the prophets, which ended with him. It does not contradict the Imams after him, who are his successors within a continuous chain.

🚨 Fraud in Translation and Final Conclusions

A Glaring Act of Dishonesty:
In their Persian translation of this hadith, the followers deliberately mistranslate the text. While the Arabic they themselves cite clearly says “twelve Mahdiyyin,” their translation says “twelve Imams.” This is a clear forgery designed to create a false premise that Imam al-Sadiq (as) was merely correcting Abu Basir’s “mistake” in narration, rather than explicitly negating their Imamate.

The Clear Meaning of “But” (Lakin):
Imam al-Sadiq’s (as) statement contains two explicit negations:

1. “He did not say twelve Imams.”

2. The particle “But” (Lakin): This word is inherently negative. It negates what comes before it and introduces a corrective statement. Its meaning is: “This is not the case, rather…” Its structure negates the possibility that they could be Imams and asserts their true status as callers from among the Shi’a.

Conclusion: The Hadith Explicitly Negates the Core Claim

This fourth narration, which Nazim al-Uqaili himself relies upon, decisively refutes his own doctrine:

1. It explicitly negates Imamate from the “Mahdiyyin” (لم يقل اثنا عشر إماما).

2. It explicitly defines them as callers from among the Shi’a, not as possessors of independent divine authority (قوم من شيعتنا يدعون الناس إلى موالاتنا).

All of al-Uqaili’s justifications are convoluted attempts to explain away this clear text. The act of mistranslating the very term “Mahdiyyin” to “Imams” exposes the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of this faction’s argumentation. The hadith stands as a clear proof against the innovation of a new chain of “Imams” after the Seal of the Imams, Imam al-Mahdi (aj).