Letters to the Editor
Q. I am a doctor. I do some work on uniting the Muslims. Recently I received a proposal for marriage.But when my relatives came to know that they belong to tableegh jamat, they oppose it even though the girl has done `Alim course. I am not in a position to convince them. Shall I go against their wishes?
As we began to read, first we thought the writer was a woman. Isn’t it women who receive proposals? And this takes us to the next point. As a man, it is you who should propose: both to the girl as well as to your homefolk. That is, tell them of your decision. Who knows and understands you better than yourself? Yes, if you had been young, inexperienced, uneducated, or had fallen in love, you would have needed other’s help. But, none of these things is true. Indeed, the case is opposite. It is you therefore, who should advise your home folk and not they. After all, it is you who will be living with your wife for life, and not they. They would be gone in 10-20 years. Your relatives seem to be religiously ignorant. Or maybe they are biased. Or they could be of the Ahl al-Bid`ah. They are not afraid of Allah or do not realize that if they reject a girl for religious reasons, they invite His anger. Employing no ambiguous terms, our Prophet has advised us to marry religious women.
In your case our advice is that you look at the case first objectively. Weigh up all the advantages and disadvantages of the alliance from non-religious point of view. If you do not find anything strongly objectionable, then, finally, add the religious factor, that is, the fact that the girl is an ‘Aalimah and of a Tableeghi family. The scale will of course tilt down in her favor. Thereafter, you let the people around you know of your decision, and demonstrate to them that you are no chicken, but a man of firm decision.
You see, your relatives are there to guide you. They earn your love and respect because they can lead you to the good end. But if they prevent good things from happening, then they cannot blame anyone if they are ignored.
Q. I am 47, computer professional, working in a Bank. I am staunch believer of Islam but not staunch ritualistic Muslim. I have several difference in opinion with many of practicing and preaching Muslims. They do all act for the sake of doing but do not live life Islamic way – ethical way – honestly – morally. However, I don’t single out all, I even may be one of them. There are quite a few who lead very good, honest, ethical life, though they are not rich, famous and prosperous – still they are happy. I fall in that category. My problem is: I can not practice all the tenets, rituals as defined. But I do practice life with ethics and morals and help others and guide them to Sunnah way and insist that it is important to read Qur’an and Hadith with meaning and good understanding. What we practice and preach must be in real terms in individuals life and not to be hypocritical. However, the life which I lead in this competitive world keeps me busy from 9-9 PM. That leaves hardly any time to go out for Salah regularly or give talks to people – or to distribute books and magazines which I once used to do. Kindly advise me – should I remain in cocoon of my shell and do my own official practice and remain religious in home or daw’ah is continuous way of life which I can’t do now-a-days.
I even want to abandon my job which is full of pressure and which does not enable me to do all that I like and want to do. But I am left with no choice for survival in this competitive world where my knowledge and experience will get wasted and will not be available to Ummah, instead I’ll become a Mullah, when there is no dearth of Maulavis from Madarsahs and I’ll be encroaching in their area.
Your dilemma is the dilemma of a great many committed Muslims over the globe. They are aware of the demands of Islam on them, but don’t see that the circumstance of life allow them opportunities to do more than what they are doing.
In your case though, we detect a slight weakness: you are not able to do your Prayers on time. This, of course, is unacceptable. You have to do your five daily Prayers, on time, in congregation. Any further improvement of your personality will require this as a condition. Apart from other things, doing the Prayers on time, in congregation, is a sign of submission to the Lord. It might not be submission of the order required. After all, it is submission in a small area of life. But, in contrast, its absence is tantamount to refusal to submit, to any degree. That will deprive one of any chance of spiritual correctness, growth and development. Divine help is not with such a man.
As regards the dilemma, truly speaking we do not look at it as something unusual. Humans have throughout faced this dilemma. One has to face it, make a choice, and get to work. One running is better than walking, and one on the road is better than another lamenting on the side-tracks. You need to move forward, in the correct direction, and steadily move toward the ultimate goal.
Please see this month’s Editorial for a few guidelines.
Q. I have heard that the Jews used to keep a French-cut beard which the Prophet did not like. Could you please throw some light on this and give us the exact context and hadith reference?
We suppose by the French-cut beard you mean a bush of hair on the chin with those on the sides and cheek shaved off. If yes, why do Indians call it a French beard when the French do not sport this kind of beard? In fact, their great majority sport no beard. The designation suggests inferiority complex. Indeed, if anyone, it is the Arabs who grow a beard of this sort and hardly ever the Jews.
Further, there isn’t any report that describes the beard that the Jews of the Prophet’s time kept. But it is likely that they did not trim their beards very short, for the Prophet has said, “Do against the Pagans. Shorten the moustaches and grow the beards long.” He is also reported to have said, “Do against the Zoroastrians and shorten your beards.” In our knowledge, he is not reported to have named the Jews. Therefore, it can be deduced that the Jews of his time grew their beards long, although there is every likelihood of some of them sporting the beards as what you have referred to as the French Beard.
For Muslims, the important thing is to grow a beard, and adopt an appearance that leads to his identification as a Muslim. If he trims it from here and there, then, according to the majority, there is no harm in it.
Q. Can we donate our body parts to others in need, such as, e.g., medical institutions?
The religion of Islam lays great stress on human sanctity. It treats the human body as sacred whose rights of dignity cannot be violated, no matter what its condition, whether dead or alive. Yet, it does not give man its possession. That is, both a man’s life as well as the body in which life resides, are given into man’s possession but without the ownership rights. They remain in the ownership of Allah. Therefore, a man is responsible for his body and will be questioned about how he treated it. Indeed, he will be questioned about how he treated the bodies of other people, even if those other people’s bodies were of the dead. Therefore, the Prophet got the dead bodies of the pagans killed in battles against him buried. When dead funerals were taken by him, he stood up in respect. Beyond human imagination, the Prophet taught us to respect the dead long after their death. He prohibited that a Muslim sit over a grave. Most people who talk of Human Rights today use the slogan as a political tool. In practice they treat humans as cockroaches. But those who talk earnestly and truly care for the humans, are mere children in the adult world of Islamic civilization.
In view of the above, and of the fact that the body does not belong to a person, whose ownership returns completely to Allah after his death, many scholars have disallowed that dead bodies or parts of them be removed and put to use in any manner. That applies to those cases too in which a man leaves a will donating his body or parts of it. His will is invalid because he is donating something that does not belong to him. He could do that in his life, during which he was allowed a temporary possession, but on condition that he does not harm it. Thus, he cannot commit suicide. He cannot also give away a part of him which is likely to lead to his own death or to permanent disability. He can only, during his life, give away that part of his body without which he can live on normally without any serious problems to himself. Thus, he can donate blood since his body will make up for the loss quite quickly. He can also donate one of the two kidneys since he can live on one kidney. He could also donate some skin. If medical technology further develops, and it becomes possible to donate other parts without causing serious impairment, then donation of other parts would also become allowable.
A few scholars however, have offered a different ruling. They have said that if relatives of a dead man agree to the donation of some parts, then that might be permissible. A few conditions that they add are:
(1) it is the immediate relatives who have the right of decision,
(2) the whole body cannot be given away, and
(3) no monetary benefit should be involved, either to the donor or his relatives, and, finally, the dead man should have allowed it.
As regards benefits to educational institutions, it might be pointed out that experiments can as well be carried out on animals. They have the same organs and the same functional set up within their bodies as the humans, down to the genetic level. They are indeed more useful for experiments since experiments can be carried out on their living ones, once pain killers have been administered, without the fear of their ultimate death. A dead organ is a poor substitute in most studies, and absolutely useless in specialized studies. Medical science has depended much on the animals for its development. Indeed, today, the emphasis is on research and medical treatment at the genetic level, which can be obtained from the living human beings.
Q. Since E-Mail service is available, why don’t you answer the questions through the Internet? This will save your time and we don’t have to wait weeks for the answers.
Firstly, Internet facility is the prerogative of a few. It is not available to many in smaller towns and villages.
Secondly, the delay in answering is not only because of the space in this magazine. It is also because of the time that can be allotted to answering the questions. Sometimes we are able to clear the backlog, but to our surprise a cluster of them arrives to pile up before us.
Finally, we concentrate on the legal and conceptual aspects, which retain their freshness long after the contingency situation has passed away.
Q. Allah (swt) has bestowed you with a facility to communicate with people through your magazine (YMD). You have to use it to unite the people and establish brotherhood, harmony and affection between them, showing the facts and experiences you have encountered.
About unity there has always been a misunderstanding. It is thought that it can be created by striking a deal with the differing parties. If this is true, then how else shall we define opportunism?
Q. But you have misused it by writing Mehdevis as non-Muslims and tried to spoil the brotherhood and harmonious relations between Mehdevis and non-Mehdevis, which we are enjoying since centuries.
We cannot remember having called Mahdevis non-Muslims. We have always said that anyone who believed in such and such a thing is a Muslim, or disbelieved in such and such a thing is not a Muslim. After all, Islam and non-Muslims have to be defined and the dividing line drawn.
Indeed, Mahdevis themselves insist on the division by not saying, “We are Muslims first and last, and we do not qualify ourselves any further.” If they spelled out these simple words, they would melt into the mainstream and no criticism, except aimed at all, can be aimed at them.
Q. As you said, “Anyone who pronounces his belief in the Oneness of Allah and the Messenger-ship of Prophet Muhammad, as the final prophet, enters into the fold of Islam.” Isn’t that 100% true?
It is true so long as one does not say or do something to negate or contradict the Kalimah, such as, for example, to disbelieve in well-known, well-spread, well-accepted reports of the Prophet (ahaadith al-mutawaatirah).
Q. We Mehdevis not only pronounce the Kalimah but also stick to it. For Kalimah is in our breath, Kalimah is our Blood and Kalimah is our everything. We believe that Prophet Muhammad is the last and final prophet to the mankind.
So far, so good. We wish the mainstream Muslims could also make a similar claim with reference to the Kalimah.
Q. You have quoted a tradition “A Mehdi will arrive who will fill the world with peace and justice as it was filled with strife and tyranny before his arrival”. Here, the concept of Mehdi spreading justice throughout the world [auzubillah] contradicts the Holy Qur’an. Allah (swt) said in the Holy Qur’an (11: 118-119) “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people: but they will not cease to dispute. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy. That is how He has created them….”
This means that all people will not accept faith, and that there will not be peace and justice (or mutual understanding) in this world up to the end of the world.
So here comes the negation of the Kalimah. The second half of the Kalimah says that “Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah.” And, belief in the Messenger of Allah implies belief in everything which he said. If he said, for example, that a Mahdi will fill the land with peace and justice, then, that’s it. If the statement is authentic, and is understood properly, then what he said has to be accepted as true to happen.
What happens when we discover that a hadith appears to be contradicting the Qur’an? The answer is, since both: the Qur’an as well as authentic hadith, are revelations, in their own different ways, we need to find out if the two can be reconciled. If that can be done, then the statement must be accepted – if the Kalimah is in our heart, mind and soul.
Your argument that the Mahdi being able to unite the hearts of the people – when he comes – contradicts the Qur’an because it said that enmity and hatred will remain among some people until the end of the world, does not hold water. See explanation below.
Q. Further, the Quran says in (10: 99) “If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?”
If your argument is correct, then there is no need to go into the Hadith literature looking for contradictions. Apparently, the Qur’an contradicts itself. For example, it says, right at the start (2: 6), “Surely, those who have disbelieved, equal it is unto them whether you warned them or did not warn them: they will not believe. Allah has placed a seal on their hearts, on their ears, and against their eyes is a veil.” But we all know that since the Qur’an made this statement, tens of thousands of “those who had disbelieved” entered into the fold of Islam. Yet, no one of the Arabs ever went to the Prophet during whose life-time it was happening, to remind him that the Qur’an had contradicted itself. That is because they had the commonsense to realize that the Qur’an had made a statement about a specific people, without naming them, who will appear in every age, (the first being the Quraysh stalwarts) and that such a sweeping statement could not be applied to every situation up to the end of the world.
Q. Also, it is narrated that the Prophet has said “When in my ummah this sword will commence its work, it will not stop still the Day of Judgment.”
Surely, you have not understood the hadith. It is not saying that the Ummah will be fighting each other, 24 hours of the day, 365 days of the year, until the Day of Judgement. It is only telling us that armed conflicts between the Ummah – once opened – will never end. They will erupt from time to time. That there have been centuries in between conflicts when the Ummah did not fight between itself does not contradict the hadith.
Q. Further, it is there in the Quran with reference to Christian’s (5:14) “… So We placed among them enmity and hatred for one another, to the Day of Judgment.” And in (5: 54) with reference to Jews “… Amongst them We have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment.”
You have failed to understand these Qur’anic verses also. They are saying that the Jews and Christians will not be united (in faith) till the Day of Judgment. That is, Jews will remain Jews and Christians, Christians, despite their holy literature (the Bible) being one.
As for the Prophetic traditions, they too do not predict that the Mahdi will be able to unite the Jews and Christians. It says that the Jews and Christians will turn Muslims and will be united under him. In other words, the Jews and Christians will not remain Jews and Christians. They would either become Muslims or will be wiped out and no Jew or Christian will be left except to be united under the Mahdi. So, contradiction with the Qur’anic verse does not arise.
Q. Summing up the above verses and hadith, we can say that the world will be filled with strife and tyranny till Dooms Day.
Since the elements were wrong, the summing up is also wrong.
Q. It is true that the Mehdi we believe in was from the kinfolk of Prophet.
So, you choose to accept of the hadith what suits you and reject what does not. Reports coming from the Prophet say two things (apart from other things) about the Mahdi:
(1) he will be of the Prophet’s kinsfolk, and
(2) he will fill the land with justice. You accept one half and reject the other!
Q. Also in the above tradition (quoted by you) Al-Arz (the world) does not mean to say the whole world, but a part of the world. To prove this let us look in to the 128th verse of Surah-e-Al-Araf, “Said Moses to his people ‘Pray for help from Allah, and (wait) in patience and constancy; for the earth (Al-Arz) is Allah’s to give as a heritage to such of His servants as He pleaseth and the end is (best) for the righteous.” Here Al-Arz means Egypt and not the whole world. Again in the next verse “They said: ‘we have had (nothing but) trouble, both before and after thou cometh to us.’ He said: ‘It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you inheritors in the earth (Al-Arz); that so He may try you by your deeds.” Again here also Al-Arz means Egypt and not the whole world.
In general, the argument is correct. But, in particular, in both the citations, “Al-Arz” (correctly “Al-Ard”) is for the Syrian region and not for Egypt.
Secondly, we wish to point out that the word “Al-Arz” of the hadith which says the Mahdi will fill “Al-Arz” with peace and blessings, has to be understood as “the land.” It cannot be understood as a “plot of land.”
What we mean is that the Mahdi of your claim did not bring peace and blessing to “a land.” The “Al-Arz” of the Mahdi of your belief was perhaps no more than a plot of land (perhaps measuring a few thousand square feet – if that). The rest of India has never witnessed the promised justice for a single day. But the hadith is promising it over “the land” and not a “plot of land.” Hence, it is not applicable to the Mahdi of India, or of Sudan (who also made similar claims) nor others who ever made such claims.
Q. According to the tradition you have mentioned, Mehdi and Jesus will appear in the world during the same time which is false. We believe this according to the sayings reported from Prophet “How could my Ummah ever come to ruin, with Me at its beginning, Jesus son of Mary coming at its ending and the Mehdi from among My descendents appearing in its middle.”
The hadith that you have quoted is not found in any of the 30-35 books of hadith, except in Abu Nu`aym’s collection, and is untrustworthy, if not fake altogether.
Q. There is a hadith in Mishkat….
We could not trace the Mishkat hadith as your translation is erroneous.
Q. …And the Prophet has also warned against the appearance of two leaders of the community (Khalifah) at the same time, saying “If the people swear allegiance to two leaders at the same time, then kill the one who has appeared second.”
The Prophet did not warn against “two leaders.” He warned against two persons claiming Khilafah at the same time, over the same land.
In contrast, the two: ‘Isa (asws) and Mahdi will not be two Khalifahs at one time. One of them, ‘Isa (asws) will return as a Prophet, whereas Mahdi will be the Khalifah. Subsequent to ‘Isa’s descent, the Mahdi will, according to one opinion, act as his Khalifah in religious matters. Although, admittedly, there is a second opinion. Nevertheless, one may not be misguided by the fact that ‘Isa (asws) will follow the Mahdi in the Prayers. After all, our own Prophet Prayed behind some of his followers.
As for two leaders at one time, for the same community, we have an example from the Qur’an itself. Da’ud (asws) was a Prophet among the Israelites while Talut was a king and commander. In religious matters he would have acted as the Khalifah of Da’ud. Both ruled in their own spheres at the same time.
Q. Mehdi and Jesus will not come at the same time, but first Mehdi will come and then at the end Jesus will come. Which implies, they will not fight with the Dajjal together and will not offer Salah in the same congregation with one as Imam and the other as follower.
Who told you that? That is, what is your source of information? Future historical matters are not subjected to guesses and implications. There has to be a Qur’anic verse or a hadith making such a statement.
Ahadith clearly say that ‘Isa (asws) will offer Prayer behind the Imam of the Muslims, the Mahdi. These ahadith are of mutawaatir status and cannot be rejected because of what other reports imply.
Q. Sheikh Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani (722 AH-791AH) a famous scholar of logic, rhetoric, grammar, theology and jurisprudence of Samarqand during the rule of Timur wrote after long research, “As for what people say about the Mehdi following in obedience Jesus, or Jesus following in obedience the Mehdi, this is a matter on which there is no reliable proof either way, so nobody should pronounce the truth to be one way and not the other.”
How did you know that Taftazani wrote after a long research?
In any case, you have not understood Taftazani. What he meant is that we can’t be sure who will take the command: Mahdi or Jesus (asws). He did not say, in the statement quoted above, that both will not appear together at all. In fact, his statement implies that according to him they will appear together. Otherwise, the question of who will follow whom does not arise.
We might also remind at this point that occasional scholars have denied the appearance of the Mahdi (such as Ibn Khaldun). But the great majority of scholars have believed, throughout Muslim history, that the Mahdi will appear along with Jesus.
Q. Our Hazrat Mehdi spread justice on Al-Arz by his Dawath of Mehdiyath and Islam and there was no need for him of a kingship and Government to do so.
There lies the difference and the reason why the mainstream Muslims rejected him. The true Mahdi will not spread Mahdi-ism. He will not come with a new Shari`ah, nor even ‘Isa (asws).
We have already pointed out above that “Al-Arz” of the Qur’an cannot be accepted as a “plot of land” but rather as “a land.” Your Mahdi did not spread justice in “a land.” Perhaps, he did so on a plot of land.
Further, there are other conditions that must be met with for someone to be accepted as a Mahdi.
Q. With reference to Murshidism, you are right. We follow our Murshid’s advice and they advise us according to Qur’an and Hadith.
If you mean advice in common affairs of life, such as, for example, etiquettes, manners, etc., then, yes, a Murshid will do. But if it is legal matters, you need a school of Fiqh, with the Fiqh matters properly coded for common people to live by. Fiqh is Law. And laws cannot be worked out by individuals. You need a whole group of law men working over a long period to do that. There are only four such well-developed, well-known Fiqh schools, and no fifth exists. Which one do you follow?
Q. With reference to Tarawih prayers you have approached a wrong Mehdevi. May be he was too lazy to offer all prayers. But Mehdevi’s of strongfaith offer almost all Tarawih prayers irrespective of age and sex in their mosques.
Has the Prophet allowed construction of mosques other than the mosques of the mainstream Muslims?
Secondly, do your words “almost all Tarawih prayers” imply some serious differences in details?
Q. We follow the Shari’ah and know the dictates of our religion. We cherish the memory of all four of the Prophet’s close Companions, and believe that all four legal methods are valued-based.
But to believe that they are “value-based” is not enough. Do you believe that all the four are valid and a Muslim can follow any of them?
Q. Our practices are not against the religious law at all, and we only act on that which is in accord with the Qur’an and the example of Prophet Muhammad.
It is not enough to follow “the example” of the Prophet. It is important to accept “his Sunnah”. There is a great difference between the two as the former allows for choosing what one likes, while the latter does not.
Q. Our doctrines are surely within the bounds of the Sunni community.
You seem to be riding two horses. Instead of saying, “our doctrines are within the bounds of the Sunni community”, you must say, “we are Sunnis, and follow Sunni doctrines.”
Q. We declare that the Mehdi has already come and is gone. He said “Mazhab-e-ma Kitab ullah-o-itheba-e-Muhammad Rasool-ullah”. i.e., “My religion is of Qur’an and I follow Muhammad Rasool-ullah.
We disagree with the statement. It should be said, “We follow the Qur’an and Sunnah.” (Merely “following” brings in a grey area).
Q. Besides five mandatory obligations of Islam, Mehdi Maud taught his followers, i) Tark-e-Dunya (Renunciation of world implying apathy towards worldly lust which comes in the way of pure love of Allah)..
Since “Tark-e-dunya” (“giving up the world”) – being an impossibility – has been prohibited by our Prophet, let it be changed to “Tark-e-mahabbat-e-dunya”, meaning, “giving up the love of this world.”
Q. ii) Uzlat-az-khalakh (Retirement, avoiding as far as possible mixing up with crowds);
This goes against a hadith which says that “a believer who mixes with the people and observes patience (in dealing with them), is better than he who does not mix and does not observe patience.” You be the judge about which statement is better.
Q. iii) Sohbat-e-sadiqin (Being in the company of the truthful);
You better get it changed it to “Suhbat-e-Saliheen” (meaning “companionship of the righteous”), for two reasons. One, “sadiq” (truthful) can be interpreted as, for instance, “one who believed in the Mahdi is “Sadiq” but if he did not, then he is”kadhib” (liar); and, two, every “Sadiq” is not necessarily a “Salih” whereas every “Salih” is necessarily a “Sadiq.”
It is true that the Qur’an has said (9: 119), “be among the truthful”, it is in the background of the “untruthful” who tried to deceive the Prophet in giving false reasons for staying back from the Tabuk expedition. But, generally, the Qur’an has recommended that we stay in the company of the Saliheen (the righteous).
Q. iv) Tawakal (Reliance on Allah in all matters); v) Zikr-e-kaseer (Always remembering Allah and repeating His name; vi) Talab-e-Deedar-e-Khuda (Intense desire for the vision of Allah);
This too should be altered to “lazzatun-Nazr ila wajhika” (meaning, “the joy of looking into Thy Face”), or, in Urdu, “lazzat-e-deedar”.
The difference is seemingly small, but it is subtle and great. The Prophet never asked for “a look at the Face of the Lord” in his supplications, nor taught that. He taught ‘Ammar b. Yasir to ask, “the joy of seeing Thy Face.” And the scholars have pointed out that merely looking at the Lord’s Face can be in fear also, (as on the Day of Judgement) and not necessarily out of joy. But to seek “the joy of looking into Thy Face” is to seek the sight in Paradise. Hence the hadith words.
This subtlety in the Prophetic words, and a thousand others, is the reason why we say that the Prophet should be directly followed in non-legal matters. No Murshid can ever be observant of such subtlties.
Q. vii) Hijrath (Exile or Migration for the sake of Allah) etc.
Hijrah is not part of everyday Islamic living. It is only when the unbelievers make it impossible to live by the Islamic injunctions that Hijrah becomes obligatory.
But perhaps, what is meant is Hijrah from the inhabitations of the mainstream Muslims to dwellings inhabited by the Mahdawis. If that is so, it must be removed.
Q. This is our Iman, please check, investigate, research on Mehdevi’s and then please clarify your doubts. For further doubts please visit our Ulema and clarify your doubts.
Inayath Ulla Khan,
Before we close, we might point out that there can be room for differences in opinion over the Mahdi, whether he appeared or not. But, to live apart in settlements comprising of those who believed in him, construct separate mosques, or work out a new Shari`ah, on that basis is unacceptable.
Secondly, there are no less than fifty direct traditions of the Prophet (of various strength), and some twenty-eight statements of the Companions (Aathaar) on the topic of the Mahdi. The large number of reports imply that the affair of the Mahdi is an important and consequential one. If someone appeared in a remote area, claimed his Mahdi-hood, and then left unnoticed, then, the question is why there had to be 50 ahaadith and 28 other reports for a person of such minor significance? After all, reformers of his kind (but non-Mahdis) have done greater works than him. Men such as Imam Ghazali, or Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, or, on a lesser scale Mawlana Ilyas, or Mawlana Mawdudi better deserved prediction. They left greater mark on the Ummah than the Mahdi of your belief, who was unknown beyond a few villages during his own time.
Further, how can someone be accepted as a Mahdi, who came and went away, but the great majority of the scholars never heard of him? If a Mahdi appears in a remote corner of the globe, and goes away without those beyond his village of appearance noticing his appearance, then, doesn’t it mean that the 50 ahaadith and 28 other reports failed in their function?
Allah has freed us from the iron clutches of our elders by giving us intellect. It is animal-like people who follow the faith and beliefs of their parents and ancestors. Should we not, as those who have been bestowed with intellect and the gift of Islam, consider the above points seriously?