Examination of the Fortieth Hadith in the Book Forty Hadiths of the Mahdiyyin (The First Hadith)

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

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).

A Preliminary Refutation: Ahmed Al-Hasan’s Own Words Prove the Inconsistency

Before examining the specific hadith, we present a preliminary refutation that is sufficient on its own to expose the inconsistency of Nidham Al-Aqili and the followers of Ahmed Al-Hasan.

Ahmed Isma’il (Ahmed Al-Hasan), in his sermon “Bayan al-Bara’ah” (The Declaration of Disassociation), has stated:

“…For indeed, he (the Prophet) bequeathed (وصى) you with my fathers, the twelve Imams, and with me, and with my twelve sons (أبنائي الاثنى عشر)…”

This means that, according to Ahmed Al-Hasan, the Prophet (PBUH) on the night of his passing bequeathed succession to: the twelve Imams (his “fathers”), to Ahmed Al-Hasan himself, and to Ahmed Al-Hasan’s twelve sons. In other words, if we follow the interpretive method of Ahmed Al-Hasan’s followers, he is claiming that the Prophet bequeathed succession to thirteen Mahdi’s (himself plus his twelve sons) – not twelve.

Here is the crucial point: Any response that the followers of Ahmed Al-Hasan give to defend their leader’s statement can be applied equally to the narrations cited by Nidham Al-Aqili. If they try to explain away the apparent contradiction in Ahmed Al-Hasan’s words, the same explanation can be used to refute their misinterpretation of the hadiths. This inconsistency alone is sufficient to expose the flaw in their entire argument.

General Principles for Understanding the Hadiths – Four Key Points

Before analyzing the specific narration, it is important to understand four general principles that can apply to the hadiths cited by Nidham Al-Aqili:

1. The possibility of textual corruption (taṣḥīf) – scribal errors that occurred during the transmission and writing of hadiths.
2. The permissibility of emphasis (ta’kīd) and honorific usage (tashrīf) – using inclusive language for rhetorical or honorific purposes.
3. The permissibility of predominance (taghlīb) – using a general term to refer to a majority, even if there are exceptions.
4. The permissibility of ellipsis (ḥadhf) – omitting certain clarifying words when the context makes them understood.

First Principle: The Possibility of Textual Corruption (Taṣḥīf)

Textual corruption (taṣḥīf) refers to scribal errors that occurred when hadiths were being written down. We can identify taṣḥīf when we find that a hadith appears in one form in Al-Kafi (for example) but appears in its correct form – without the error – in the original source (such as the Usul al-Sittah ‘Ashar) or in the books of Shaykh al-Saduq.

It is highly unlikely that Shaykh al-Kulayni (may Allah have mercy on him) – despite his immense precision and scholarship – would include a hadith in the chapter “The Text (Nass) on the Twelve Imams” if it contradicted the doctrine of twelve Imams. The occurrence of textual corruption in some hadiths is undeniable.

Second Principle: The Permissibility of Predominance (Taghlīb)

Taghlīb simply means “predominance” or “majority.” When the majority of individuals in a group share a particular characteristic, it is sometimes acceptable to say that the entire group possesses that characteristic – even if there are exceptions.

For example, you might precisely say that eleven members of a group have a certain quality. But sometimes you might simply say that the group as a whole has that quality – because the exceptions are few and are either already known or specified elsewhere. In such cases, you don’t need to repeat the exception every time.

This is a recognized linguistic phenomenon in all languages. It is not a contradiction; rather, it is a matter of emphasis and context. If the exception has been clearly explained in other narrations, there is no need to repeat it every time.

Application of Taghlīb to the Twelve Imams

The general rule is that the Imams are from the children of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) – meaning from the children of Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali (AS) and Fatimah al-Zahra (AS). However, Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali (AS) is an exception – he is an Imam, but he is not a child of the Prophet (PBUH). Because everyone knows that ‘Ali (AS) is the first Imam and is not a child of the Prophet, the narrations sometimes omit the clarifying words – such as “except for ‘Ali (AS)” or “most of them” – relying on the reader’s prior knowledge from other narrations. This omission can be understood as ellipsis (ḥadhf) based on contextual and extra-textual evidence.

The First Hadith Under the Fortieth Heading

The first narration that Nidham Al-Aqili cites under the fortieth heading is as follows:

Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Muhammad ibn Ahmad, from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, from Abu Sa’id al-‘Usfuri, from ‘Amr ibn Thabit, from Abu al-Jarud, from Abu Ja’far (AS), who said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:

“Indeed, I and twelve from my progeny (ithna ‘ashara min waladi) – and you, O ‘Ali, are the peg (zirr) of the earth” – meaning its stakes (awtad) and its mountains. Through us, Allah has pegged the earth so that it does not sink with its inhabitants. When the twelve from my progeny depart, the earth will sink with its inhabitants, and they will not be given respite.”

Source: Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 534

Critical Analysis – Two Major Refutations

Refutation One: Textual Corruption (Taṣḥīf) in the Hadith

This hadith contains textual corruption. The original source of this narration is the “Asl (Original) of Abu Sa’id al-‘Usfuri”. In that source, the phrase appears as “Indeed, I and eleven from my progeny (ahada ‘ashara min waladi)” – NOT twelve. This proves the limitation of Imamate to twelve Imams and refutes the Imamate of false claimants like Ahmed Isma’il al-Basri.

What strengthens this argument is the fact that this same narration is quoted in Shaykh al-Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah with the phrase “Indeed, I and eleven from my progeny” – which clearly indicates that the version in Al-Kafi contains a scribal error (taṣḥīf).

Textual evidence: The narration in Al-Ghaybah (Shaykh al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him) reads:
“Indeed, I and eleven from my progeny (ahada ‘ashara min waladi) – and you, O ‘Ali, are the peg of the earth…”

This confirms that the correct reading is “eleven” – not “twelve.” The number eleven, plus Imam ‘Ali (AS), makes twelve Imams in total. If the reading were “twelve,” that would make thirteen Imams in total – which contradicts the established doctrine.

Refutation Two: Even If We Accept the Reading “Twelve from My Progeny” – It Includes Fatimah al-Zahra (AS)

Even if we were to accept – for the sake of argument – that the reading in Al-Kafi is correct and that the hadith says “twelve from my progeny”, this still would not support the claim of the Mahdiyeen. Why? Because the hadith is not specifically speaking about the Imams; it is speaking about the pegs of the earth – i.e., the divine proofs (Hujaj) of Allah. This includes Fatimah al-Zahra (AS) as well.

The esteemed scholar Mulla Salih al-Mazandarani (may Allah have mercy on him) in his commentary on Usul al-Kafi explicitly points this out:

Commentary on his saying “and twelve from my progeny”: “They are the twelve along with Fatimah (peace be upon them).”

Source: Sharh Usul al-Kafi (by al-Mazandarani), Vol. 7, p. 380

This means that if we take the phrase “twelve from my progeny” literally, it refers to twelve individuals from the Prophet’s progeny, plus Fatimah (AS) – making the total number of divine proofs thirteen. This does not support the Mahdiyeen claim; it simply affirms the well-established doctrine that the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) – including Fatimah (AS) – are the divine proofs of Allah.

Furthermore, this interpretation would mean that “twelve from my progeny” refers to the eleven Imams from the children of Fatimah (AS) and Imam ‘Ali (AS), plus Imam ‘Ali (AS) himself – who is considered “from the progeny” through a broader linguistic usage – along with Fatimah (AS) as the thirteenth. This has nothing to do with a separate group called “Mahdiyeen” or “children of Imam Mahdi (AS).”

Conclusion on the First Hadith Under the Fortieth Heading

The Twelve from my progeny hadith textual corruption has been thoroughly examined. This analysis conclusively demonstrates:

1. Ahmed Al-Hasan’s own words in Bayan al-Bara’ah – where he claims the Prophet bequeathed succession to his “twelve sons” – create an internal contradiction that his followers cannot resolve without applying the same interpretive methods that would refute their own arguments.
2. The hadith in Al-Kafi contains textual corruption (taṣḥīf). The original source and Shaykh al-Tusi’s Al-Ghaybah both read “eleven from my progeny” – not twelve.
3. The correct reading – “eleven from my progeny” plus Imam ‘Ali (AS) – confirms the limitation of Imamate to twelve Imams and refutes the claim of any additional Imams (Mahdiyeen) after Imam Mahdi (AS).
4. Even if we accept the reading “twelve from my progeny,” it can be explained through the principle of predominance (taghlīb) or through including Fatimah al-Zahra (AS) among the “pegs” of the earth – as explicitly stated by Mulla Salih al-Mazandarani.
5. Under no interpretation does the hadith support the existence of “Mahdiyeen” as twelve Imams from the children of Imam Mahdi (AS).

Thus, the first hadith under the fortieth heading provides absolutely no support for the alleged Yamani sect’s core doctrine and, when correctly understood, actually refutes it.