Since the Hamas Pogrom of October 7th, 2023, I have addressed matters related to the widespread and deliberate phenomenon of polemic mistranslations of the Qur’an, to both demonize the Jewish People and to bury the Jewish Origins of the Historical Muhammad‘s movement (c. 570 – 632 CE). Before that, my first master’s thesis, available in publication as People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”, as well as many of my earlier academic articles had already been available online regarding related topics. The overarching theme of my research, as it relates to Historical Muhammad and Islamic Origins inquiries, has been my own independent observations of what seemed to me from the first perusal of the Qur’an as a teenager, to be Enochian Jewish Apocalyptic motifs and Essenic literary style in the text.
Over the years and decades, the deeper I dug into any number of specifics related to this thesis, the more I found corroboration and confirmation. What astonished me the most was that these scholarly revelations did not astonish the bulk of the Muslim world, self-designated as the Ummah. Indeed, I was not typically discovering something that the Muslim Ummah did not know, I was simply aware of the profundity of these things when placed against a Jewish backdrop.
I read the Qur’an for the first time only a couple of years after my grandparents gifted me the first English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Theodor Herzl Gaster (1906 — 1992), followed by that of Geza Vermes (1924 — 2013), and later still, a Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, which was nearly identical to the later Masoretic standard used in synagogues today.
With my interest piqued, in what Gabriele Boccaccini termed “Enochian Judaism,” it was impossible for me to see the Qur’an through any other spectacles when it first reached me. The style, tone, motifs and the like all made it read like it could have been found amongst the scrolls. Strangely, however, I had found no literature at the time which made such a connection.
The efforts of comparative religion related to Islamic Origins have sought to frame Muhammad’s movement of Muhajarin in terms of similarities and differences between it and normative modes of Christianity and Judaism. The aforementioned People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”, excavated the strata historically obfuscating the context and sitz im leben of Qur’anic origins, by looking specifically at the Jewish sectarian milieu on the eve of Islam as a separate and unique religion.
A God-Send from the Children of Ishma`el
If one finds themselves so inclined, upon reading this work, they could examine some of my recent articles, such as The Qur’an Commands Jews to Keep the Torah and Follow Judaism; The Zionist Qur’an Condemns All Who Oppose Jewish Return to the Land of Israel; The Racist Reason Why Translators Hide the Quran’s Warnings to Arabs.
These articles, and others in the works and to come, narrow the Qur’anic framing within the milieu of the Jewish sectarianism of Late Antiquity, to that of a virulently, almost uncomfortably militant Zionist perspective. Indeed, it can be little wonder then why we would see a Historical Muhammad interested in overthrowing Byzantian rule of Jerusalem.
Corroborating this Zionist intention of the Historical Muhammad was an eighth—century Jewish apocalypse, The Secrets of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Shelomo Dov Goitein (1900 – 1985) observed that “the influence of the [`Isawiyah Diaspora Essene Jews] is discernible,”[1] upon this work. That is to say that the Jewish People of Late Antiquity saw Muhammad, or his immediate followers, as overthrowing the Byzantine Christians in Jerusalem for the sake of the Jewish People. Clearly, the dynastic Caliphates of the Ummayads, Abbasids and so on never got that memo. More on that momentarily…
In the `Aggadic text, we read that the Malakh Ha’Shem — Metatron — revealed to the second century sage, Rabbi Shim`on bar Yochai. We can find the most relevant passage therein – warranting reproduction in full.
When he saw the kingdom of Ishmael that was coming, he began to say: “Was it not enough, what the wicked kingdom of Edom did to us, but we must have the kingdom of Ishmael too?”
At once Metatron the Prince of the Face answered and said: “Do not fear, Son of Adam, for the Holy One, blessed be He, only brings the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness. He raises up over them a Prophet according to His will and will conquer the land for them and they will come to restore it in greatness, and there will be great terror between them and the sons of Esau [the Byzantines].”
Rabbi Shimeon answered and said: “How do we know that they are our salvation?” He answered: “Did not the Prophet Isaiah say thus: “And he saw a troop with a pair of horsemen…?”
Why did he put the troop of donkeys before the troop of camels, when he need only have said: “A troop of camels and troop of donkeys?” But when he, the rider on the camel, goes forth the kingdom will arise through the rider on an donkey. Again, “A troop of donkeys,” since he rides on a donkey, shows that they are the salvation of Israel, like the salvation of the [Messianic] rider on a donkey.”[2]
But if Jews were perceiving the overthrow of the Byzantines in Jerusalem as a “God send,” then this would seemingly indicate a much different movement emanating from the Historical Muhammad than what we have come to expect from the literary Muhammad of the late Sirah genre and equally-late Hadith literature in general.
The Diaspora Essene Missing Link from Second Temple Era Judaism to the Historical Muhammad
The `Isawiyah was apparently not a doctrinally problematic movement in Isfahan (modern-day Iran), where they were said to have resided in great number. Interestingly, we find the Shi`ah of the Ahl al-Bayt migrating to this very region — Persia — where later mutations of mutashay`iyyah still have a stronghold.
Taken as a whole, the first Hijrah century Jewish sources make it quite clear that the Arab conquest was widely hailed among contemporary Jews as an intervention, by God on behalf of “His People,” and thus “as an event full of promise for the future.” Indeed, contemporary Levantine Jews spoke appreciatively of the coming of `Umar al-Faruq (Aramaic for “The Redeemer”), and his forces.
An account attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, writing during the period of the conquest of Jerusalem and the Levant, describes `Umar as “a lover of Israel who repaired their breaches,” going on to insist that “The Holy One is only bringing the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [of Christian oppression].”
This Jewish document widely circulated during the first century of Islamic[ate] rule, notably before the Sirah narrative crafted by Ibn Ishaq (c 704 – 768 CE), described the emergence of the Islamic forces as “an act of God’s mercy.”
In the account, the Angelic “Prince of the Face,” Metatron explains that this “Kingdom of Ishmael” was a “different” phenomenon than the Christian Empire, termed the “Children of Edom” in rabbinic parlance. Metatron explains, “The Holy One, blessed be He… raises up over them a Prophet according to His will and will conquer the land for them and they will come to restore it in greatness.”[3]
Additional evidence of this connection can be found in the third-party anti-Jewish tract, the Doctrina Iacobi. This Greek source is cast in the form of a dialogue between Jews set in Carthage in the years 634 CE. Patricia Crone argues the work was probably written in the Levant within a few years of this date. Within this work, reference is made at one point in the argument to current events in the region, in the form of a letter from a certain Christian convert Abraham.
Truly these happenings today are works of disorder… But you go off, Master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared.” So I, Abraham made enquires, and was told by those who had met him: ‘There is no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only bloodshed: for he says he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”[4]
Crone highlights the most peculiar finding in the Doctrina, noting “its report that the Prophet was preaching the advent of ‘the Anointed One who is to come.’” The “Anointed One,” of course, is the Jewish concept of the Messiah, King of a United Israel and Judea — just as King David (Alef Sh’muel/1 Samuel 16:13), or even King Cyrus the Great for that matter (Sefer Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:1).[5]
Crone elaborates that, “the core of the Prophet’s message, in the earliest testimony available to us outside the Islamic tradition, appears as Judaic Messianism.” This as well, she notes, is also found in a “confused reflection in the prominence in Theophanes’ account of the beginnings of Islam of Jews who take Muhammad to be their expected Christ.”[6]
In other words, our earliest sources on the Historical Muhammad, indicate a persona with much more in common with the later Jewish revolutionary Abu `Isa, than with the Muhammad of the Sirah penned shortly after the revolt thereof. Crone persuasively argues for the early date of the Doctrina. She notes the presence of the “doctrine of the keys” – something which a Byzantine oath of abjuration of Islam mentions yet is written out of Islamicate record very early on.[7] Considering these things, the critical reader should ask themselves why our earliest sources on Muhammad’s movement are in fact ones penned by Jews and Christians. Were Muslims just too busy for a century and a half to write a Sirah biography or compile books of Hadith?
Or perhaps such things were in fact penned very early or – even contemporaneously with the Historical Muhammad, and this didn’t go over so well? These are not answers, these are questions – questions that for some reason it is seen as heretical to even dare to ask within the Islamicate Ummah.
Muhammad the Heretic?
It should be noted that the Doctrina is our earliest source on Muhammad and his movement. Any sources from the actual parties described have been removed from the historical record by the Arab Caliphate. There is simply no biography of Muhammad until a century and a half later, and even then, this exists only in recension by Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE) and Tabari (839–923 CE), a full three centuries after the events and individuals they claim to describe. To put this in perspective, such a gap in time would be as though there were still not one single source on the American Revolution preserved, as of the date of this writing.
Somewhat surprisingly, we find in Freidlander’s “Shiitic Elements” that there were numerous contemporary Jewish movements which held to this view regarding Muhammad as a prophet with a Noachide message for the nations, nevertheless not superseding nor replacing the Torah and its Mitzvot for the Jewish People.[8]
As well, one could familiarize themselves with the subject of Qur’anic heterodoxies — that is, ideas heterodox to normative modes of Islam today, which can be found in the Qur’an itself. Preceding articles like “Resurrection” As Reincarnation in the Qur’an and Buddha as the “Ruler of Kapila” (Zhul Kifl) in the Qur’an, or Qur’anic Sabbath—Breakers as Reincarnated “Apes and Pigs” document a Qur’anic foundation for early Islamic heresies associated with reincarnation. Articles like Critical Scholarship on Islamic Origins, Shariah and Isnad and The Sirah and the Quest for the Historical Muhammad, look at historical critical research as it relates to the origins of Islam as a separate religious identity.
The Muslim Ummah does not deny that the Caliph Umar changed the lunisolar calendar which Muhammad followed, to a purely lunar one. Muslim `ulema today, argue over the sighting of the mood in relation to when the lunar month of Ramadhan begins, and yet the fact that Muhammad would have never observed it in this fashion does not seem to garner much — if any — attention.
Over the course of my research into Islamic Origins and the Historical Muhammad, I came to learn that the litany of antisemitic stories, ahadith, and alleged prophecies millenarian genocide (i.e. “convert or die”), were not early sources, they were in fact some of the latest material.
Indeed, we only see this stratum of polemic traditions emerge after the humiliation of the Abbasid Caliphate when the `Isawiyah Jews defeated their most elite military task force and fled into what they called their Great Occultation — al-Ghayba al-Kubrah — working thereafter for centuries from the shadows, as it were. Indeed, some of the most prominent Rabbis in history since have been members of the underground group, according to the Tariqat `Isawiyah today — from the “Judeo-Sufi” Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paqudah (c. 1050–1120 CE) to the Chassidic Kabbalist Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772 – 1810 CE), to Rav Kook (1865 – 1935), the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel.
Research further led me to discover the original Ka`bah as a Jewish Sukkah. The fact that the Ka`bah today is not the same Ka`bah, which was destroyed centuries ago, is a something that very few laypeople of the Muslim Ummah seem to be aware of. I further discovered that the original calendar and fasts of Muhammad’s community, were not lunar, but lunisolar — following Qur’anic instruction to use both the sun and moon in calculating the months (10:5).
Even of such a High Holy Day as Yom Kippur (Ashurah) was honored concurrently by Muhammad with the Jewish community which democratically elected (Medinah having had a Jewish majority at the time), him as the leader of Medinah. The very Constitution of Medinah, for that matter, claims that Muhammad saw the Jewish people in general and his own community of Muhajirun as one — an Ummatan Wahidatan. This, of course, is only the most superficial and cursory of glance over this array of relevant subjects. For more on this, the interested reader should see the final chapters of People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”.
With all of this in mind, if this was the way things began, when, where and how did it all go so very wrong in Jewish and Muslim relations? Moreover, what did Muhammad and his family — the Ahl al-Bayt — foretell when envisioning a future age of Islamic reformation and even complete deconstruction of the established religious order?
“Nothing will remain of Islam except its name…”
Contrary to what is nothing short of pure propaganda of the most unhistorical sort, Muslims and Jews did not get along in the Levant (or anywhere else) prior to the advent of Herzlian Zionism. The roots of Islamicate antisemitism are deep within the theological soil of Sirah and Hadith, as well as deliberate obfuscation of translatory Qur’anic rendering.
The truth is that as soon as Islam began to break off from Diaspora Essene Judaism — `Isawiyah in `Arabic — there was a need in terms of Replacement Theology, to demonize the Jewish “other.” This antagonism only intensified after the `Isawiyah revolt against the Abbasid Caliphate.
`Ali ibn Abi Talib is reported to have said that “there will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Qur’an except its text. Their masaajid (mosques) will be splendidly decorated but destitute of Guidance. Their `ulema, scholars will be the worst people under the Heaven; the conflict of fitnah will issue forth from them and come back to them in turn.”[9]
The hadith narration is traditionally sourced to the book Mishkat al-Masabih. This, however, is not the original hadith source, from which this narration derives. It has narrations with reference to other works giving full chain of narrators.[10] An identical hadith is found in Shu’b al-Iman.[11] As well, in his Musnad, al-Daylami reports through al-Hakim the following, narrated by Ibn ‘Umar, which is nearly identical to the above, though attributed to Muhammad, rather than `Ali.
Soon a time would come upon people when nothing will remain of Qur’an except its text (la yubqi min alquran ‘iilaa rasmahu), and nothing of Islam will remain except its name (wa-la min al-islam ilaa asmahu), they will divide and will be farthest from it. Their masaajid will be decorated but devoid of Al-Huda, the Guidance. The scholars of that age will be the worst people under the heavens. From them Fitnah will issue forth and to them it will come back [around in turn].[12]
In his fierier days, decades ago, Louis Farrakhan, the infamous leader of the Nation of Islam, fondly cited a hadith which is variantly worded as “three generations from me will not be of me.”[13]
All in all, it seems to have been widely attested that the Historical Muhammad did not see his particular vision of Qur’anic aslama (or al-islam) as surviving for very long. Indeed, we do not even have a written copy of the Qur’an produced during the first three generations from Muhammad. What Muhammad’s Ummah was actually like during that time is certainly not “anyone’s guess,” as it is said. It is, however, a matter which can only be deciphered through the application of historical critical inquiry.
One thing is for sure, the “Islam” of today is something which Muhammad and `Ali — the historical figures, not those of later faith traditions and narratives — is something which was widely attested as anathema to their own teachings and lives.
This should be a cause for serious pause and concern to anyone defining themselves as Muslim today, who believes it to be their moral duty to follow the sunnah of these historical individuals — not merely the sunnah produced literarily from the imaginations of later authors like Ibn Ishaq, the Caliphate — commissioned dajjaal min dajaajilah, according to Imam Malak ibn Anas (711 – 795 CE), the founder of the Maliki Sunni madhhab school of thought.
Millenarianism and Eschatology
On the heels of the September 11th, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon (and nearly the White House), it seemed that popular culture tuned in somewhat to various motifs and themes of Islamicate (or Mutaslim) eschatology. One related concept and term was that of the prophesied “Mahdi” who was foretold as coming towards the “End of the Age” along with the incorporeal, docetist “`Isa” the “Ruh” or “Ruach” Spirit, according to the Qur’an (4:171; 21:91).
It seemed every Western Evangelical Christian, Catholic as well as Jews, suddenly had taken a keen interest in the mahdi concept. Only a couple of years later, the organization known as the Taliyah al-Mahdi, popularized the Shi`i millenarian concept of 313 elite soldiers or jaysh.
If you haven’t heard terms like Islamicate and Mutaslim, that is perfectly fine — most have not. The first of these two important terms, however, comes from the historian Marshall Hodgson who defined Islamicate as that which “would refer not directly to the religion, Islam, itself, but to the social and cultural complex historically associated with Islam and the Muslims, both among Muslims themselves and even when found among non-Muslims.”[14]
This designation for Andalusia is employed here as there was not a homogenous period permeating the history of Muslim Spain in such a manner that it can be characterized as “Islamic,” in a literal sense, as a whole. It is something of fortunate linguistic coincidence or perhaps qismet, that this term sounds strikingly similar to the word Caliphate — the Anglicized rendering of Khulafah.
From the perspective of Muhammad’s blood relatives, those termed by the Qur’an the Ahl al-Bayt (People of the House), and by extension of their hadith narrations (33:33; 42:23; et al.), the Ahl al-Kisa (People of the Cloak), related to the infamous Qur’anic mubalalah magical invocation of calling down upon the liar in a standoff, the curse of Heaven upon oneself and their immediate family, if Heaven determined them to be lying (3:61; 76:5-22).
In this incident, it was said that the Ahl al-Bayt — namely, Muhammad, `Ali, Fatimah and their children Hassan and Husayn, came to the “event,” as it were, wearing particular cloaks. But that is neither here nor there, relative to this discussion. What is worthy of note here is that the Ahl al-Bayt, from the outset, deemed the Caliphate as invalid and contrary to the literal last will and testament of Muhammad. Thus, the fact that a term like Islamicate indicates something purporting to be of Islam, and yet may not actually be so, seems rather apropos.
The second term, just like the first, means “one who says they are Muslim.” While this all may sound like a da`wah piece for Shi`ism — with the emphasis on primacy of the Ahl al-Bayt related to the will of Muhammad — it is not. Far from accepting the Shi`i world as “Shi`i” or literally of the closest partisans of `Ali ibn Abi Talib, it should instead term those professing to be such as mutashay`in.
Thus, the fascist terror cult which terms itself “Hezbollah,” may claim to be Shi`ah, but they are in fact mutashay`in who are the furthest thing from anything related to the historical `Ali — a man who Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paqudah (c. 1050–1120) no less called a “great Chasid.” In his Gate on Humility, Rabbeinu Bachya relays a version of a famous hadith narration attributed to `Ali.
It is told of an `Amir that, having already brought the whip, he said to one deserving of punishment, “By Allah, had I not been so angry with you, I would have punished you most severely,” whereupon he pardoned that man. It is also told of him that he used to say, “I do not know of any sin that would outweigh my restraint.”[15]
Translator Menachem Mansoor erroneously, and to some insultingly, attributes this to `Ali’s archenemy Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the first of the Umayyad dynastic Caliphs. This arch villain of Shi`ism is never heroified in any Sufi turuq Orders tracing silsilah back to the Imams (a’immah) of the Ahl al-Bayt. It will suffice to point the reader towards Shi`i `Irfan and the Basrah school of `Abdak the Sufi to elucidate the fact that Sufism itself, as a concept and as a silsilah (lineage), trace to the Ahl al-Bayt (The People of the House of Muhammad) and their Shi`ah or partisans.
Indeed, much of what is understood as Sufi is originally Imami. By this it is meant related to the Shi’i Imams yet not necessarily in line with Shi`i orthodoxy of either the dominant Ithna Ashari varieties of `Usuli or Akhbari “Twelver” Shi`ism.
These concepts including those which we find Bachya influenced by. The Sufi notion of the person who is the pole or qutb, as well as walayah, have an unmistakably Shi`i origin. Which if one did not know from any other source, would nevertheless be familiar by its modern political usage in Iran. One of Ibn `Arabi’s best-known Shi`ite followers explored in depth the notion of wilayah as represented in his work. Particularly drawn to these origins, Henry Corbin comments upon this in his History of Islamic Philosophy, saying the following:
Islamic esotericism possibly does not contain a single theme which was not mentioned or initiated by the Shi`ite Imams, in conversations, lessons, sermons and so on. In this respect, many pages of Ibn Al-`Arabi can be read as the work of a Shi`ite author… Ultimately, the mystical experience of the Sufis encompasses a metaphysic… without which it may be impossible to explain the beginnings and the development of Sufism… the Shi`ite gnosis which goes back to the Imams themselves.[16]
The aforementioned, wrongly-ascribed narration, while not fitting at all with Mu`awiyah, does fit several accounts of `Ali where he refuses to act punitively because of his anger. This includes one such famous instance on the battlefield, where a man struck down by the Imam’s Zhul Fiqar double-edged sword is preparing to die. From the ground, the man spits up in `Ali’s face, only to find his vanquisher staying his sword and allowing the felled combatant to live, or at least to rise again to continue the fight honorably. The man in the story, however, no longer fights the equanimous `Ali — instead following him.
When `Ali knocked `Amr down and sat on his chest to cut his head, `Amr spat at him. Imam `Ali suppressed his anger, got up and began to walk some steps about the field before killing `Amr. When he was asked about what made him do so, he replied: “I got angry from his immodest act and if I had killed him at that moment, I would have avenged myself on him, but I quenched my anger so that my killing him would be purely for the sake of Allah.”
Notice both that `Ali is known as `Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Believers) in Shi`ism and also the presence of the name `Amr in this hadith; making Bachya’s reference a likely amalgamation of descended in retelling therefrom. This is a famous hadith in Sufism and would likely be what had been the original source of narration.
What Did the Family and Descendants of `Ali Say About the Coming “Mahdi”?
First and foremost, the reader must understand that the term Mahdi absolutely does not originate from late Islamicate eschatology. Indeed, the first documented use of the title is from the `Isawiyah Jews of Isfahan, who were said to view their leader — Yitzchaq ben Ya`qov `Ovadyah, also known as Abu `Isa al-Isfahani — who rose against the Abbasid Caliphate as the “Mahdi.”
Interestingly, the root of “Mahdi” is common with that of “Yahudi” or “Jew.” Before any hadith emerged with this term being utilized for a future Islamicate leader, this was the community designation of the `Isawiyah’s leader in any given generation. Shahrastani intimates that “Abu `Isa maintained that he was a prophet and that he was the messenger of the Messiah, the Expected One.”[17] Friedlander explains, as well, “that Abu `Isa claimed no more than prophecy is repeatedly asserted by Qirqisani.”[18]
Israel Friedlander (1876 – 1920) describes him instead as a “the first Jewish Mahdi” or “rightly-guided” teacher.[19] The Tariqat `Isawiyah today claims, however, that this was the diaspora Essene term for what in the Dead Sea Scrolls is called the Moreh Tzedeq — the Teacher of Righteousness — a phrase which still enjoys use in Judaism. The Ahl al-Bayt are well known amongst mutashay`i academics, `ulema and secular scholars alike, to have foretold “Twelve Mahdiyin” (مهديين) who would come in the future, essentially as reincarnations of the Twelve Imams (a’immah) of the Ithna Ashari line. Indeed, the Qur’an itself refers to the “Guided Ones” in the plural — al-Muhtadun (ٱلمهتدون), in Surat al-Baqarah (2:157).
In spite of this, however, Maqdisi reports that in one visionary experience that Abu `Isa ascended to Jannah (Hebrew: Gan `Eden), where “the Lord anointed his head” (famasaha al-rabb ra’isihi),[20] fitting with the Kabbalistic view — particularly noted in Lurianic Kabbalah and amongst Breslover Chasidut — that Mashiach ben Yosef is a continuously-incarnating mashiach. Indeed, the Ari, Rabbi Yitzchaq Luria (1534 – 1572) and his talmid disciple alike claimed to be incarnations of this primordial Spirit or Ruach — essentially the Kabbalistic Primordial Adam Qadmon.
The Mahdi Versus the Muslim World?
The Hadith narrations regarding the Mahdi do not seem to treat the Arab world any more favorably than the Qur’an does. Indeed, one hadith that stands out relative to this, indicates that Muhammad simply saw Arab as referring to those who are raised speaking Arabic, not to an ethnic group, nor the progeny of Ishma`el. All early reports about Muhammad’s movement, refer to them as “Saraceans” and as “Ishmaelites” or the “Sons of Ishmael.” As the Arabic language cemented with the codification of the Qur’anic Vulgate, we see a corresponding cementing of an Arab identity.
We read further from the reports ascribed to the Ahl al-Bayt, that “when Imam al-Mahdi appears, he will demolish Masjid al-Haram” the Mosque in Mecca containing the Ka`bah itself. He will then “dismember the hands of the Bani Shiaibah” which indeed controls the Ka`bah today. The Ahl al-Bayt continued with a grizzly account, adding that following this maiming of the Bani Shiaibah, the Mahdi will hang those very dismembered hands on the Ka`bah, near a sign saying, “these are the hands of the thieves of the Ka`bah.” Majlisi recorded further, “Verily, al-Qa’im [the Mahdi who will rise] will destroy Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Nabawi” the “Mosque of the Prophet” in Medinah, “until the ground is flattened.”[21]
Why would he do this? The Ka`bah was already said to have been destroyed during the Caliphate of `Abdul Malik in 683 CE, by one Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (661 – 714), sent to squash the rebellion of `Abdullah ibn Zubair. His hands were cut off and his body was hung outside of Masjid al-Haram for three days. Apparently, the Shi`ah hadith on the Mahdi destroying Masjid al-Haram and doing likewise to the “thieves of the Ka`bah” are something of a response to this event. The Qarmatians similarly attacked the Ka`bah during the Hajj of 930 CE and stole and smashed the famous Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad), which was returned and had its pieces somewhat repaired in 952 CE.[22] Their reasoning for this was that the Hajar al-Aswad had become an idol to the Muslim pilgrims on Hajj who adored, touched and kissed them – as is still done today. Much like the late Shaykh M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, they seem to have seen the true fard religious obligation of Hajj as being something very different than a geographical visit to Mecca.[23]
When [the Mahdi] Al-Qa’im arises, he will come with a New Cause — just as Muhammad, at the beginning of Islam, summoned the people to a New Cause.[24]
He also said the following, in a more elaborate expansion of the same forewarning:
Al-Qa’im will not appear except after a great terror among people, earthquakes, seditions, calamities, plague, terrible killing among the Arabs, great disagreements among people, separation in the religion and bad living until one will wish to die in the morning or in the evening because of the oppression of people and their striving to eat each other. Al-Qa’im will disappear after the people will have become so desperate and hopeless to get any deliverance. How blessed is he, who lives until the appearance of al-Qa’im and becomes one of his assistants and woe unto whoever opposes him, objects to his orders and become one of his opponents.[25]
This ominous hadith tells of a time when `Arabs would be associated – rightly or wrongly – with terrible killing. To the believers in these ahadith, this reference is taken to refer to Islamicate terrorism of this era. The apocalyptic scenario in this hadith, indicating rampant cannibalism, has thankfully not come to pass.
Another theme of ahadith on the matter of the Mahdi’s Rise, are those which indicate a tremendously small number of followers. Before we find references to 313 jaysh, we see no more than a dozen companions noted – apparently in paralleling the Gospel account of the “Twelve Disciples.”
I can see [the Mahdi] Al-Qa’im wearing the particular garment and taking out the letter of the Prophet [Muhammad] sealed with a golden seal, and after breaking the seal he reads aloud to the people. The people disperse from him as the sheep do from the shepherd. And no one besides his wazir (vizier) and eleven chiefs remain with him. Then people begin to search for a reformer everywhere. But, since [they did not heed his call, so] they do not find anyone besides him who can help them. Finally, [after a long time] they rush towards him. By Allah, I know what things the Qa’im is telling them which they refuse to acknowledge.[26]
What could such a person possibly say to the Arab world that would make them so upset that only 12 companions remained with him? Don’t answer that question just yet – keep reading…
In response to the question “How many of those who accompany [the Mahdi] Al-Qa’im are `Arabs?” Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq, the sixth Shi`i Imam, said, “Very few.” Then the man replied, “But there are ` `Arabs who profess this Cause” and Imam Ja`far, replied; “People will inevitably be chosen, separated, sifted through, and many are those who will fall through the sifter.”[27]
While this might sound shocking coming from an `Arab source, let alone from the very family of Muhammad, it comports with what the Qur’an says in castigation of the `Arabs — who it views far from favorably. A detailed analysis of the Qur’anic admonitions to the `Arabs can be found in The Racist Reason Why Translators Hide the Quran’s Warnings to Arabs. As it turns out, there are scores of Hadith narrations attributed to the Ahl al-Bayt which contain scathing critiques of the `Arab world. Indeed, they claimed that when the Mahdi rises, it will be `Arabs, not Jews, who oppose him. Moreover, they claimed that he would have homage or bay`ah paid to him at the Temple.
When our man [the Mahdi al-Qa’im] Rises, hurry up to him even crawling. By Allah, as if I see him between the corner (Rukun) and the Place (Maqum) of the [Jerusalem] Temple being paid homage to rule over the people with a New Covenant. He will be severe with the `Arabs. Woe unto the `Arabs from a coming misfortune![28]
The Ka`bah, as it were, has never been called the Temple or Maqom. There is a Maqom in Islamic tradition, but it is a rock where Abraham was said to have stood in constructing the Ka`bah. As well, there is no single corner of the Ka`bah. It is instead known by its four uniform corners. With this Meccan shrine, there are four corners, each named differently. But there is no corner which is considered the corner as though it were the only one. Where, however, is there only one corner of a Temple? At Mount Moriah, the site of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, a place of prayer and pilgrimage sacred to the Jewish people still today. The single ruku corner is found in the Western Wall – Ha’Kotel Ha’Ma`arivi – often called the “Wailing Wall” by Christians and simply the Kotel in Judaism. Interestingly, this location is typically associated with the prayer position of ruku, the Arabic term for bowing from the waist, rather than full prostration or sajdah in Arabic.
The Hebrew word Maqom (מקום) generally means “place” or “location” but Ha’Maqom (המקום), indicates The Temple, as this means properly “The Place.” This concept of Ha’Maqom as a place of worship or a place where something belongs is found in various Biblical passages. In Sefer Ha’Berashit of the Torah (Genesis 28:16), Ya`qov ben Yitzchaq calls the place where he had a dream “the House of God” (בית אלהים) and Sha`ar Shamayim, “the Gate of Heaven” (שער שמים), as well as the Maqom or “Place.”
This passage is commonly interpreted as referring to the city of Bet El or Bethel – about 10.5 miles north of Jerusalem. According to the preeminent medieval Torah commentator Rabbeinu Shlomo Yitzchaki, or “Rashi” (1040 – 1105), as he is best known, this was in fact the future site of the Jerusalem Temple, at Mount Moriah. Indeed, even Ha’Shem is called Ha’Maqom in Judaism. What other place, from a Biblical perspective Abrahamic context, could be appropriately associated with this Divine Name besides Jerusalem?
When [the Mahdi] Al-Qa’im appears, there will be nothing between him and between the `Arabs and Quraysh except the sword. There will be nothing but fighting [or killing].[29] So why do they urge on his appearance? By Allah, he wears cheap cloths and eats [plant-based diet of] grains. It will be just the sword and killing under the shadow of the sword.[30]
In a hadith reported from several different asanid lines of transmission, Majlisi records the following hadith numerous times – worded in essentially the same way.
Thus, [Al-Mahdi al-Qa’im] will Rise with a New Commission and Command (kharaj yaqum bi`Amr Jadid), a New Book and Bible (Kitab Jadid), a New Sunnah (Sunnat Jadid) and a New Judgment (Qadha’ Jadid), which will be strenuous for one who is `Arab (`ala Al-`Arab shadid). His work is nothing but fighting [injustice] (Al-Qital), and no one will be spared. He will not be afraid of any blame in the execution of his duty, from any but Allah (fi allah lawmat layim).[31]
A hadith narration from the sixth Shi`i Imam, Ja`far as-Sadiq, explains that “out of Bani Hashim there will come forth a Youth [Movement] who will reveal a New Book (Kitab Jadid).” That is to say that he will strengthen and correct moral observance and will make matters of justice incumbent upon the Muslim world, holding the Ummah to a higher standard than it currently holds itself.
In a hadith ascribed to Muhammad al-Baqir, the fifth Shi`i Imam, we read that: “The problems that the [Mahdi] will experience from the people during his advent will be the same as the problems encountered by the Prophet [Muhammad], but even worse!”[32]
Concurring with this, Al-Baqir’s son, the sixth Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq said that “During the uprising of Al-Qa’im [al-Mahdi], he will experience more pain and agony from the ignorant than what the Prophet [Muhammad] had from them.’
“I asked: ‘How and why?’ He answered: ‘The Prophet [Muhammad] was commissioned at a time when the people were worshipping engraved stone, wood and idols, but Al-Qa’im [Al-Mahdi] will Rise up at the time when the people will resort to the Qur’an to oppose him and quote Qur’anic verses to argue against him.”[33]
Muhammad’s Family Attested “Very Few” Arabs to Accompany the Mahdi
Consider those reading these very words right now. Who among the self-described Muslim Ummah today will read this article and engage in communal soul searching? Does this sound very likely? Certainly not the majority of Muslim readers. Instead, cognitive dissonance will naturally cause the reader to put up psychological walls and defend their de facto position, cultural indoctrination and assumptions as relatively inerrant.
Who would oppose such a person as the Mahdi described in these narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt more than the religious hierarchy? Indeed, the anti-Hamas mujahidin of the Jam`at al-Fitrah in Gaza term such `ulema as the “Scholars for Dollars”? In my work with the Taliyah al-Mahdi project over two decades ago, Ayatollah Sistani threatened me with a fatwah against me and my work in reforming the community he represents.
Why? First and foremost was because I called for an “opening of the books” for accounting of the billions of dollars annually collected in khums donations. While the Ayatollah did account for several million in donations, there were hundreds of millions annually which remained mysteriously unaccounted for. At the end of the day, religious hierarchies tend to be about money and material, social power – and what is money if not quantified units of such imagined power? The Hadith literature makes it clear; the “Scholars for Dollars” of the `ulema will be the foremost in opposing the foretold Mahdi. He will summon the people unto him, but none will heed his call. Many narrations in Majlisi’s collection of Bihar al-Anwar (primarily volumes 51-2) indicate that most opposition and enemies will be from the Muslim `ulema – even mutashay`in!
Whether the religious believer sees this as preternatural foresight, or the secular historian of religion concludes simply that these hadith narrations tell a tale as old as time, it would seem that the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt was that very soon, those professing to be of them would not be.
Muhammad was said to have come onto the scene, so to speak, as a stranger, someone seen as teaching something new, while the Qur’an emphasized it was far from new. History goes in cycles, just as do the days and nights, the seasons and our very incarnations, in the beliefs of those who hold to them. This is the way of things with religious movements. This was all the more so the case in ages when there was less access to information. Recall that this was around the time when the Caliphate was able to suppress millennia of knowledge and never truly be held to task for it, by burning the Library of Alexandria.[34]
Today, we are in a different situation where infinite digital copies can be made, where websites can be archived, and where people can transmit information around the globe in seconds. For all the foibles and flaws of the modern world and its fixation on the exponential increase in the rate of technological sophistication, regardless of environmental or social impacts, this global information fail safe is a prerequisite for the human species to break out of the cycle and instead ascend upwards.
The New Sunnah, New Book, the Troops and the Scrolls of the Mahdi
In the work entitled, `Awalim al-`Olum wal Ma`arif by Shaikh Nur’ullah Bahraini, the first Shi`ite Imam and son-in-law of Muhammad, `Ali ibn Abi Talib foretold the following regarding a future Mahdi:
The [313 Troops of the] Jaysh al-Ghadhab, the Army of Rage will come at the end of the era. They will gather like the cloudlets of autumn. [Their numbers will be only] a man, [or] two or three [only] will come from every tribe until they become nine [at the most, from any given tribe of the Earth]. I swear by Allah, I know their `Amir, their Commander, and his name.[35]
Of that `Amir, or Commander, the “Mahdi,” it is not only said that he will rule according to the Sunnah of King David and Shlomo (Solomon) – the Uniters of both the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah – but that his physical build will be like that known to be of the Jewish people at the time – “his stature is that of the men of the Bani Isra’il, the Children of Israel — [that is] firm and robust.”[36]
It’s starting to sound a whole lot like the Ahl al-Bayt were saying the Mahdi is inherently Jewish. Yet over the generations of transmission, those relaying the ahadith like a proverbial game of “Telephone” where the message is distorted slightly with each passing on, we see attempts to dance around the obvious crux of the teaching: the Mahdi is Jewish, just as even the term “Mahdi” linguistically insinuates, and just as the term was originated from the `Isawiyah Jews as a designation for the Moreh Tzedeq, the Jewish Community leader and “Teacher of Righteousness” in any given generation.
When [the Mahdi] al-Qa’im he who will Rise appears, those who have thought themselves as his followers, will apostatize and conceal the truth and those, who seem like worshippers of the sun and the moon, will believe in him.[37]
The phrase “worshippers of the Sun and Moon,” here could indicate those who follow a lunisolar Jewish calendar, or it could reference the Second Temple Era Essene practice of turning to the East for Standing (Qum) Meditation, regardless of the time of day.
As cited in Jewish and Islamic Magic: Forbidden and Permissible Ritual Methods, sources claiming to originate with the Ahl al-Bayt of Muhammad’s family also tell that 27 out of his 313 companions will be from the Israelite Tribe of Levi.
Adding to the already mounting Jewish tone of the purported prophecies, it is further claimed that the Ahl al-Bayt foretold the Mahdi will rule “according to the rulings of Dawud (David) and Sulaiman (Solomon).”
The Jafr and the Jami`ah (Yachad) Scrolls
The myriad of Hadith narrations ascribed to the Ahl al-Bayt even seem to contain veiled references to hidden ancient scrolls of the Jewish People, which will be utilized in executing the Mahdi’s rule. This whole series of reports that seem to foretell the rediscovery of something sounding strangely akin to the Dead Sea Scrolls. One reference to this is as follows — and to be sure, there are many more. According to Kulayni’s collection of Usul Al-Kafi, the Mahdi learns from a book called al-Jafr, which contains the knowledge from the Children of Israel:
The Imam remained silent for a while and then said, “With us there is al-Jafr. What do they know what al-Jafr is?” I then asked, “What is al-Jafr [the parchment or a container]?”
The Imam said, “It is a container made of skin that contains the knowledge of the prophets and the executors of their wills and the knowledge of the `ulema scholars in the past from the Bani Isra’il, the Children of Israel.”[38]
To explore the full range of such texts would encompass a volume all its own. A separate study will example even more of such citations, as well as the corroboration of the traditions on the Jami`ah and Jafr with claims of the early Karaitism of Anan ben David (d. 795 CE). Suffice it to say that we are here told of this secret textual knowledge of the future Imam Al-Qa’im, and that it was filled not only with knowledge of the Children of Israel, but also knowledge which simply does not exist within the Islamicate Ummah today.
Indeed, the sixth Shi`i Imam, Ja`far as-Sadiq was said to have berated those purporting to have the true Inner Door teachings of Muhammad – noting to them that they did not have the knowledge found in the Jafr scrolls, as well as another massive scroll termed Al-Jami`ah (ٱلجامعة). This term has a general meaning of gathering, inclusivity or assembly, related to the congregational term Jam`ah (جامعة), or the Day of Gathering – Jum`ah (جمعة) – the afternoon before the start of Yom Sabt (Hebrew: Yom Shabbat), at dusk (Erev Shabbat). It is also closely-related to one of the names of Allah, meaning “the Gatherer” or “the Uniter” (ٱلجامع).
Interestingly, the Jafr containing the scrolls is said to contain a the Torah as well as the Injil. It is evident enough that the Qur’an and Muhammad’s family held to an early, pre-Christian Hebrew Gospel. That much is already spoiled for us by the various hadith narrations about Muhammad’s in-law Waraqah, his Sefer Torah and his Hebrew copy of a singular Injil (rather than the Christian Awanajil). What then would be the point of having the Torah within it, since indeed there are ahadith attesting to Muhammad’s reverence for the normative Chumash of the Sefer Torah used by the normative Jewish community around him?
This mystery is potentially elucidated by the relatively unknown fact that the Yachad or Jam`ah of the Essenes were said to have regarded the Dead Sea Scrolls text Serekh Yachad – the Community Rule – as their concise and immediate Torah for governing communities like Qumran, or the low hill of Lake Mareotis in Alexandria, Egypt for that matter.
In Ithna `Ashari Shi`i Islam, the term refers to an esoteric, batini book believed said to have been dictated by Muhammad to `Ali – known as Kitab `Ali, the Book of `Ali. If this work was dictated, however, that would seem to indicate that the source text – while in memory – was not in hand. This would make sense of there was oral transmission of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, still cached at that time, in the wilderness.
Ja`far al-Sadiq refers to the Jami`ah as a scroll or sahifah measuring 70 cubits long (سبعون ذراعا). This is certainly a large scroll, if taken literally – and to do so is not necessarily problematic. It is worth observing, however, that the only ayah in the Qur’an which speaks of the measurement of a cubit (ذراع, dhira) happens to mention exactly 70 cubits in length (69:32). This ayah speaks of people being yoked together by a chain of seventy cubits (سبعون ذراعا) in length.
What is a chain if not the interconnectedness of individual links? The Torah is openly spoken of in Judaism (and in the Christian writings of Paul of Tarsus for that matter), as being the yoke which we have willingly taken on as a consecrated people.
`Abd’ullah ibn Shubruma, a jurist from Kufa (d. 761), is thus disparaged by the sixth Imam, Ja`far as-Sadiq. Similar to this, Ja`far al-Sadiq claims that `Abd’ullah ibn Al-Hasan, a leader of the rival Shi`i Hasanid branch, only has access to the texts that are available to the normative Muslim community. Sadiq claims that these scrolls were buried after a close companion of Muhammad, Mughirah ibn Sa’id, who later regarded as a Shi`i of the ghulat “extremists” – was crucified on the orders of the Umayyad governor Khalid al-Qasri (d. 743), in (c. 737-6 CE).
Regardless of the public denunciations of the ghulat – perhaps a matter of taqiyyah necessary for survival – this crucifixion clearly caused the Imam to see the Jafr and Jami`ah as a threat to the heterodox, should these scrolls fall into the hands of the Caliphate authorities.
Correlative to this, by tradition it is said that the aging process of the Jami`ah is somehow slowed or stopped, so that nothing written therein can be erased or darasa. The caching of the scrolls within jars – how we found the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls – would seem to indicate something very much like this.
All of this would perhaps seem like a bit of a stretch if not for the fact that this was not the only case of a community or charismatic individual having access to copies of otherwise cached Dead Sea Scrolls. For centuries, Western scholars scoffed at the “Book of the Giants” – Sefer Refa’im – which the Persian prophet Mani (216 – 274 CE) claimed was from the grandparent community of his parents’ own Elchasiate Diaspora Essenes. A detailed sectarian pedigree from the Qumran Essenes to the Ossaeans to the Elchasites can be found in the aforementioned People of the Book: What the Religions Named in the Qur’an Can Tell Us About the Earliest Understanding of “Islam”.
Needless to say, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were rediscovered, scholars were astonished to find that his esoteric book of Mani’s was indeed from the very Essene source he had claimed (found in fragments 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q556, 4Q206, and 6Q8). As it turned out, this work was not a product of Mani’s own literary invention, as had been almost universally surmised in academia. Just as documented in the above-mentioned People of the Book, there is no question that the Essene community had survived in the Galut or Diaspora Jewish communities.
This was not, however, the only of the scrolls to have been identified outside of the discoveries from the eleven caves near Khirbet Qumran, on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. The Damascus Document (4Q271Df), first termed the Zadokite Fragment, is another key 20th century Jewish find – discovered both in the largely Judeo-Arabic Cairo Genizah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like the foretold scrolls of the Ahl al-Bayt, the work includes answers to all legal questions. In the Damascus Document, this is down to details of paying blood-money for a scratch or bruise.
The medieval recension appears to have been shorter than the Qumran version, but where they overlap there is essentially no meaningful divergence. Whereas the Serekh Yachad appears to be for the monastic Qumran hermitage, the Damascus Document appears to be an equivalent text for the Essenes fund “in every city,” as was claimed by both Josephus and Philo alike. Indeed, as is documented in People of the Book, the vast majority of Essenes were never in one centralized location, such as Qumran. In any event, it is clear from this Genizah and Qumran document that outside of the sequestered commune most commonly associated with the Essenes, the group’s members were permitted to marry, as well as to own private property.
In her “The Damascus Document As A Rewriting of the Community Rule” Annette Steudel (2012) argues that the literary comparison of the Serekh Yachad or Community Rule indicates that the Damascus Document was something of a rewriting of the earlier Serekh. The Damascus Document, of course, closely follows the text of the Serekh (such as in sections 1QS V-VII). The lengthy Fourth Admonition of the Damascus Document is essentially an elaboration of another passage in the Serekh (1QS V,l-7a).
The absence of Moreh Tzedeq in the Serekh, indicates the chronology of the two works. Moreover, a later passage in the Serekh (1QS VIII-IX) may represent a what was a continuous dialogue between editions of each document. Each of these sister texts then would represent a reaction to the rewriting and reinterpretation offered by the other.
There is no question that the North African Genizah, filled with so many letters and other writings of a Judeo-Sufi nature, indicate the North African Jewish community to have had some circles who apparently had access to secret Essene writings – just as Mani did.
The Ahl Al-Bayt Origins in the `Isawiyah Jewish Community
All of this discussion should be framed within the context of an ongoing academic discourse, inaugurated by Israel Friedlander’s comparison of what Ronald Paul Buckley, and scholars in general, call “early proto-Shi`ism” with the Jewish `Isawiyah. This group was also termed the `Isuniyah in some Judeo-Arabic sources – apparently to more clearly articulate the Essene identity of the sect of Persia and Arabia.
Israel Friedlander, in his “Shiitic Elements in Jewish Sectarianism”, notes fifteen points of major correlation between the `Isawiyah and proto-Shi`ah “ghulat.” Wasserstrom comments that the group can be dated to a period he calls “the second Purge,” (736-737). During this time period, “interrelated uprisings” from Muhammad al-Baqir, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah led by Mughira ibn Sa`id, Bayan ibn Sam`an and Abu Mansur al-`Ijli were all “crushed” by the Caliphate. Wasserstrom comments that Friedlander has already established that “the `Isawiyah are most clearly related to these groups.”[39]
If that is the case, it seems that the broad support for and similarities with the `Isawiyah and its connections to an array of anti-Caliphate uprisings in the early history of Islam evidences an as-of-yet unwritten story about `Isawiyah roots of the Mu’minin and Muhajirun who followed Muhammad, yet apparently vehemently opposed the direction his movement was taken from the moment he departed from this world.
Unlike earlier Jewish revolts under the Caliphate, like that of the libertine Serenus (fl. 720 – 723), the `Isawiyah were more – not less – strict than normative Jewish practice. They observed seven prayers day, as was the practice of King David (Tehillim/Psalms 119:164), and night. They abstained from meat and alcohol as well – in accordance with their interpretation of Jewish Nazirut. This was apparently consistent with the interpretation held by proto-Nazarene Ebionites, or Evionim.
According to the Tariqat `Isawiyah today, the Second Temple Era Essenes at Qumran, related satellite groups, as well as the Alexandrian Buddhist-influenced Essenic branch of the Therapeutae, also held this interpretation of Nazirut.[40] The Buddhist proselytism of Emperor Ashoka (c. 304 – 232 BCE), in Alexandria is documented in the well-known Edicts of Ashoka rock inscriptions. The presence of Buddhists in the region was similarly attested by Roman sources, only slightly later (Cassius Dio 54:9; Stromata 1:15; et al.).
Religiously, we will see that they employed the same Jewish sources as normative, rabbinic Judaism, holding to Talmudic holidays and “the same Torah”, seeing the Mitzvot as compulsory for members of the Jewish religion, yet they maintained that Christianity and Judaism were appropriate forms of religion for non-Jews, who had not committed to the mitzvot.
As such, the Tariqat `Isawiyah distinguished the Qur’anic `Isa from the `Arabic Christian Yasua` (Jesus) and the Historical Muhammad as prophets – albeit prophets whose teachings did not supersede the Torah, nor did they purport to abrogate it for the Jewish People. While atypical at certain times and places, this article contends that there was nothing unorthodox about the doctrines of the `Isawiyah, and it is for this reason that our sources on them derive not from rabbinical objections, but from Karaite and Muslim sources.
Yitzhaq ben Yaqov is generally regarded as the Jewish name of a figure known by the pseudonym “Abu `Isa”.[41] Khwarizmi calls him “`Isa al-Isfahani”[42] Ibn Hazm calls him “Muhammad ibn `Isa.” This name, Steven M. Wasserstrom points out in his Isawiyah Revisited, “sounds like the ultimate appellative for a Jew who taught that Muhammad and [`Isa] were prophets,” as Yitzhaq “Abu `Isa’s” movement did. This, however “may well be an error” Wasserstrom points out, as a number of scholars – Steinschneider, Poznanski and Nemoy – all note “that no Jew could be called Muhammad” under Caliphate rule, “and the `Isawiyya were indubitably seen as Jewish.”[43]
The Tariqat `Isawiyah today explains, through the current head of the community, the Moreh Tzedeq, Rabbi `Oseh of Gaza, that both Mahdi and Muhammad were titles. Thus, they explain, to say someone is “Ibn Muhammad” or “Abu `Isa” is “an indication of something deeper than the surface meaning,” according to Rabbi `Oseh. Shahrastani intimates that “Abu `Isa maintained that he was a prophet and that he was the messenger of the Messiah, the Expected One.”[44]
Friedlander explains, as well, “that Abu `Isa claimed no more than prophecy is repeatedly asserted by Qirqisani.[45] In this regard he is unique amongst various Jewish leaders of similarly millenarian movements, in that he eschewed claims of messiahship, which others often rushed to, and could only be characterized instead, as Israel Friedlander describes him, as a “the first Jewish Mahdi” or “rightly-guided” teacher.[46]
In spite of this, however, Maqdisi reports that in one visionary experience, reminiscent of the miraj of Muhammad, Abu `Isa ascended to heaven, where “the Lord anointed his head” (famasaha al-rabb ra’isihi).[47] He did, according to all sources, see himself as a prophet, and similarly saw prophethood as a continuous process that had never ceased at any point in history.
The Mahdi’s Hebrew Prayers and Allah’s “Supreme Name” (Al-Ism Al-Akbar) in Hebrew
In all, Israel Freidlander has documented no less than fifteen points of overlap and strong correlation between the teachings and practices of the Ahl al-Bayt and the `Isawiyah Jews. As well, in Shi`ah sources, there are some surprising examples of Jewish ritualism and linguistic employment that still embarrasses the sect, and thus – according to the methodologies of historical-criticism, particularly the Criterion of Double Dissimilitude – these very likely approximate historical statements from the Ahl al-Bayt.
A lengthier treatment of this subject is handled in my article for the Times of Israel, entitled “Jewish and Islamic Magic: Forbidden and Permissible Ritual Methods.” To summarize, however, the Hadith collection entitled Bihar al-Anwar explains that Imam `Ali and other A’immah performed miracles through their mastery of the “Supreme Name” of Allah, called alternatively Al-Ism al-A`zam or al-Ism al-Akbar of Allah which, they explain, is in Hebrew.[48]
As well, after receiving permission to manifest himself, the hidden Mahdi will pronounce the Supreme Hebrew Name of Allah. Then his 313 companions, from every tribe and nation, will gather around him, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn. [49]
Of this Hebrew Name we are told that it is typically ineffable – created in the beginning as subtle, whispered, non-sonorous letters, with unpronounced vowels. It is “a Perfect Word… composed of Four Parts.[50] This seems to be a clear reference to the Biblical Tetragrammaton, composed of four letters: Yud (י) Hey (ה) Vav (ו) Hey (ה) – . This Name, often wrongly-transliterated as Yah-weh or Jeh-ho-vah.[51]
In Harald Motzki’s compilation of essays, Maher Jarrar notes, in his article “Sirat Ahl al-Kisa,” a report concerning the fifth Shi`ite Imam Muhammad al-Baqir “who was heard reciting Elijah’s prayer in Hebrew.”[52] Jarrar even explains that “some Persian scholars claimed that the [Shi`ah] Persians were descendants of Isaac”[53] (Ishaq in Arabic; Yitzchaq in Hebrew), indicating, as many anti-Shi`ah Muslim sources have always maintained, that the origins of the partisans of `Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt were historically Jewish.[54]
The collection of Ahadith entitled Bihar al-Anwar explains that Imam `Ali and other A’immah of the Ahl al-Bayt performed miracles through the Hebrew “Supreme Name” and that “when the Imam Al-Mahdi calls out, he will pray to Allah in Hebrew.”[55] Thus, it is not simply the Tetragrammaton which will be employed in Hebrew by the Mahdi, according to the Ahl al-Bayt, but the Mahdi’s prayers themselves will actually be made in Hebrew rather than Arabic.
There are many accounts of Jewish magic that appear to be drawn directly from, if not at least paralleled in, Midrashic accounts, yet ascribed to the secret knowledge of the Ahl al-Bayt – descending from Muhammad himself. One hadith seems to echo the sun standing still for the Biblical Joshua (Sefer Yehoshua`/Joshua 10:13). In this narration, `Ali and his companions are in Babylonia (Ard Babil); the sun is about to set, and it is time for evening prayer; `Ali then proclaims that the land of Babylonia is damned because it was the first region where idols were worshiped, and that they should thus proceed and avoid praying there.
`Ali’s companions are worried, of course, because the sun is setting, and they are going to miss the best time for evening prayer – maghrib or ma`ariv. When the sun completely disappeared over the horizon, `Ali tells his companions to prepare for the prayer, which they were apparently now late for. Imam `Ali, withdrawing from the group, whispers a phrase which the narrator says was either in Syriac Aramaic or Hebrew (Suryani aw `Ibrani). As a result, the sun was said to begin to reappear from behind the mountains.
The hadith adds that `Ali had spoken the Supreme Name of Allah, and that through the power of this Name he was able to reverse or bend spacetime. Such an account seems akin to Jewish lore of Q’fitzat Ha’Derekh (קפיצת הדרך). This phrase was, of course, borrowed in popular culture, by Frank Herbert’s Dune (1965). Therein, the Kwisatz Haderach is a concept of the Bene Gesserit, describing a person who could see both the past and the future.
In a Hadith attributed to the eighth Shi`i Imam `Ali ar-Ridha (765 – 818), we read when the Mahdi appears, “the Earth will be illuminated by the Nur Allah, the Light of God and it will move quickly under his feet,” and thus he would be able to quickly traverse great distance “and he will not have a shadow.”[56]
Such tales are common throughout Jewish `Aggadah legends, particularly within Chassidut emanating from the Ba`al Shem Tov (1698 – 1760) and his progeny. The Ba`al Shem Tov, of course, is a title meaning “the Master of the Good Name.” The Besht himself was named Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer. It was his mastery of the secrets of Kabbalah, Jewish magic and of course the Holy Name of the Tetragrammaton, for which he was given this title.
According to many Shi`ah accounts, only prophets and those of high spiritual rank like the Ahl al-Bayt are able to stand the power of the Hebrew Name of Allah.[57] The sixth Imam, Ja`far as-Sadiq, the son of Muhammad Al-Baqir, said that the close Companion of Muhammad, Salman al-Farsi had been initiated into the secrets of Muhammad and his heirs. Accordingly, he had been taught the Supreme Name in Hebrew, suggests that the terrifying Name was taught to initiates who had been especially tested.[58] Ja`far thus added in this account that if Abu Dharr [Al-Ghifari] had received Salman’s `Ilm — a term meaning both “knowledge” and “science” — he would fall into kufr (disbelief, concealment of truth).[59]
According to the hadith, Salman and Abu Dharr were both close disciples of Muhammad and then of the Shi`ah of Imam `Ali. They formed is in a sense the prototype of an esoteric (batini) spirituality, and the latter of an ascetic exoteric (zhahiri) spirituality. The term kufr, here and at its root, indicates “covering over.” In its cognate form, Judaism uses the term to indicate apostasy, rather than simple disbelief.[60]
Salman, of course, was so highly praised by Muhammad that he was designated as a member of the Ahl al-Bayt — an honor not recorded as having been bestowed upon any other of the Sahabah companions of Muhammad. The teaching in this then is that Ahl al-Bayt was not about genetic lineage, but about the spiritual connection to this Ahl or Ohl – “Tent” in Hebrew – of the “House” of Muhammad, who in Tasawwuf is regarded as the Nur Allah, the Light of God, itself.
The True Name of Muhammad and the Common Title “Muhammad”
This Nur Allah is known in Tasawwuf as the Nur Muhammadan. There is a common Sufi understanding that Muhammad is the Nur or Light of Allah and `Ali is the Qutb or Axis. When we consider the interrelatedness of a solar light source and the gravitational axis of a given solar system, it is clear that there is no separation between the two. Who can say where the Nur begin or the Qutb ends?
In illustration of this unique interrelatedness of Muhammad and `Ali, as well as the Sufi concept of Muhammad not as a singular physical personage, but as a primordial Light of the Creator, a popular story is relayed of two Companions or Sahabah of Muhammad, `Ali and `Umar. In this tale, the two went to track down a great mystic or `arif who Muhammad told them was known as `Uways al-Qarani.
Though Muhammad and `Uways had never met in the physical world, Muhammad claimed that this individual was very closely connected to him. In fact, he claimed that the two of them had met many times on the spiritual planes. Muhammad had thus given them directions and descriptions, by which to find and identify `Uways.
In a well-known Sufi hadith narration about this event, it is reported that `Ali ibn Abi Talib said, ”When the Prophet was passing away, he called `Umar and myself before him and said, ‘After I die, you take the clothes I am wearing, when I pass away, as an inheritance from me to [one called] `Uways al-Qarani. You will find him in such-and-such a place.’”
After a long search for the individual described, `Umar said: “O `Ali, we haven’t found him, and no one here knows of him. We might as well go back.”
`Ali replied, “O `Umar, that is impossible. If the Prophet said he is here, then he is here, and we must find him. Perhaps he is known by a different name [and this was simply a name he used with Muhammad alone].”
The two continued asking [the locals] “Do you know someone who is a shepherd? He takes care of his mother and never leaves her.”
Some people said, “Yes. But his name is not `Uways al-Qarani, his name is `Abdullah.” Then the people led `Ali and `Umar to where he lived.
The two followed to a place where they say a man sitting in the distance with his back to them in fikr meditation. They met greeted, gave him the robe which was entrusted to him. His reaction to the gift seemed strange to `Umar who did not know why `Uways would hug and kiss this garment so seemingly filthy and drenched in sweat. Sensing this internal questioning, `Uways said: “O `Umar, how many times have you seen the Prophet?”
`Umar was astonished at this question and noticeably angered. He said, “That is a strange question. I spent my whole life in the company of the Prophet.”
`Uways clarified, “I am asking for a reason. How many times did you actually see him?”
`Umar replied, “How do you mean? I was with him all the time!”
To which `Uways said, “Describe him to me.”
`Umar began to describe the Prophet, his height, his hair color, his eyes, his features; all of the details of his outward appearance. Then `Uways interjected, “O `Umar, this description is known to everyone, including those who disbelieved in him!”
Then he looked to `Ali and said, “O `Ali, how many times did you see the Prophet?”
Knowing exactly what he meant, `Ali said, “O `Uways, in my life I only saw the Prophet one time.”
`Umar was astonished and looked at `Ali as though he had lost his mind.
`Ali continued, “I saw him one time. The Prophet called me and told me, ‘Look at me from my navel and above. I looked and I saw that the Prophet from his navel up filled the universes and the Seven Heavens. From his neck and up, I was unable to see, but it was above the Sidrat al-Muntahah (Furthermost Limit). Then he told me [and said] ‘Look from my navel and down.’ I looked and I saw all these worlds, all these worlds, stars and planets had disappeared and all that I saw was the Prophet, from his waist to his knees filling up that entire space. And from his knees down to his feet I was unable to see. Then he said, ‘Look at all of me, from top to bottom.’
“I looked at him, and the Sidrat al-Muntahah and all these worlds disappeared, and all I saw was Muhammad – Muhammad everywhere. At that time, I knew the Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah (the Reality of the true Existence of Muhammad).”
Then `Uways looked at `Ali and said, “Truly, you saw the Prophet! And this is why he said about you, ‘I am the Madinat al-`Ilm, City [or State] of Knowledge and `Ali is its Gate.’”[61]
Allamah Majlisi recorded in his compilation of Bihar al-Anwar, a Hadith almost identically presented in an array of sources. In that narration, the sixth Imam, Ja`far as-Sadiq said:
Allah ta`ala, the Blessed and Exalted, created fourteen [manifestations of] Divine Light (arba`at `ashar Nuran), before Creating the creatures by fourteen thousand years, and these are our Spirits (Arwahuna – Arwah being the plural of Ruh)’.
It was said to him, ‘O son of the Messenger of Allah! Who are these fourteen?’ He replied: ‘Muhammad, `Ali, Fatimah, and [their progeny] Hassan and Husayn, and the A’immah (Imams) from the progeny of Husayn, the last of them being Al-Qa’im, who will Rise (yaqumu) after his ghaybah, occultation, and [when he returns] he will fight the Imposter, the Dajjal, and cleanse the land from every tyranny and injustice.”[62]
Here we see the singular Nur employed to describe a full fourteen manifestations of Divine Light, rather than the plural Anwar, utilized even in the title of Majlisi’s almost unfathomably large Hadith collection.
We [the A’immah of the Ahl al-Bayt] were near our Lord, and other than us there was no one; we were enveloped in Green Shadow (kunna ‘inda rabbina laysa ‘indahu ghayruna fi Zillatin Khadra[63]), the first of Allah’s creations was Muhammad and us Ahl al-Bayt, out of the Light of Divine Majesty (min Nur ‘Azamatihi); then Hu made the same number of Green Shadows (fa awqafana Azilla Khadra) placed before Hu; and at that time the Heavens and the Earth, the day and the night, the sun and the moon had not yet come into being.[64]
Thus, the Nur Muhammadan is the Nur Allah, not limited to one single physical individual or incarnation. All fourteen Ma`sumin of Ithna `Ashari Shi`ism, are manifestations of the Nur Muhammad, which `Uways of course informed us is the actual Muhammad.
Though Muhammad is today the world’s most popular name, it is commonly assumed that Muhammad was somewhat uniquely named in his own generation. There were, nevertheless, many people termed Muhammad during the lifetime of the individual we most commonly associate with the name.
There are only four references to the name Muhammad in the entire Qur’an (3:144; 33:40; 47:2; 48:29). But there were at least seven other people with this name or title during the same period. Hadith literature reports on the following distinct individuals, all living concurrently with Muhammad Ibn `Abdullah (c. 570 – 632).
Muhammad ibn Uhayha ibn Al-Jallaah Al-Awsi
Muhammad ibn Maslamah Al-Ansaary
Muhammad ibn Bara’ Al-Bakry
Muhammad ibn Sufyan ibn Mujashi
Muhammad ibn Himran Al-Ja`fy
Muhammad ibn Khuza`a As-Salmi
Muhammad ibn Al-Hamad
That is certainly a lot of people named “Muhammad” in one person’s biography. It may well be that this was not simply a common name, but in fact a designation or title of nobility. We know, for instance, that Muhammed said he was called other miscellaneous names, such as the well-known Ahmad, but also Al-Mahi, Hashir, and so on. Moreover, in perhaps the most startling Hadith relevant to this topic, Muhammad claimed his actual proper name was Israel – that is Yisrael ben `Ovadyah!
“I am the servant of Allah (`abdullah), my name is beloved (ahmad) and I am the servant of Allah (`abdullah), my name is Israel (ismi Isra’il). What Allah Commanded to Israel, Allah has Commanded to me and what concerned Israel [in the past] is what concerns me [now].”[65]
انا عبد الله اسمى أحمد وأنا عبد الله اسمى إسرائيل فما أمره فقد أمرني وما عناه فقد عناني
This, “Muhammad” bin `Abdullah would thus have been known in Hebrew, as Yisrael ben `Ovadyah, by his wife Khadijah’s family. We know her relative Waraqah was fluent in Hebrew and had both the Sefer Torah and the Sefer Besar in Hebrew – which only the Diaspora Essene Jews of the `Isawiyah Jewish community had – and which the Tariqat `Isawiyah claims to have continued to transmit to this day No one outside of the Jewish community was fluent in Hebrew at that time or for many centuries before – and certainly not in `Arabia.
Recall the numerous ahadith that say he fasted on the Jewish fast day of the “Tenth of the Holy Month” the Ashurah of Muharram. In the Jewish calendar this is the tenth or Assarah of Tishrei. This means that the original day of Muhammad’s family’s fast of Ashura was in sync with the Jewish community’s lunisolar calendar, as ahadith say.
Muhammad wrote in the Constitution of Medinah, that the Jewish People and Muslims constitute an Ummatan Wahidatan – One Religious Community – as it is often translated when the phrase appears in the Qur’an.
The Qur’an reminds us that Muhammad was not told anything new. “In Truth [Allah] sent down to you ‘The Book,’ which confirmed those which proceed it” (3:3) The Qur’an tells us that there was nothing revealed to him that was not revealed before, and it asks the people why they would come to him with a question about something which was already revealed to them in the Torah (5:43). Moreover, we are told that “it had been revealed to you as has been revealed to those before you” (39:65) and that it is the “Law” which was revealed “to the Messengers whom We sent before you: you will find no change in Our Law” (17:77)
Finally, we hear that “God wishes to make clear to you and guide you to the Law that was revealed to those before you” (4:26). Indeed, in we are told in a hadith narration that Muhammad paid honor to the Sefer Torah in his day, setting it on a cushion and saying to it: “I believe in you and in the one who revealed you.”[66]
The tenth of the “Holy Month” Muharram, of the High Holy Days and the uprising of Muhammad’s family and their supporters against the Caliphate of Yazid (647 – 683). Yazid, of course, in his cowardice, dispatched his military forces to attack Muhammad’s fasting family. This is when the Caliphate slaughtered Hussein bin `Ali’s son, family, his companions, supporters, and decapitating Hussein himself, parading his decapitated head around on a spear, just as Herod did when the Essene, Yechiyah Ha’Qadosh – Shim`on ben Yosef – rose against him![67]
These are all things which Muslim sources say. Regardless of the dalil proof texts or citations within Islamic sources, imagine the reception a leader in the Muslim world would be met with if they came praying in Hebrew, as the Ahl al-Bayt say they themselves and other initiates under Muhammad did, and as the Mahdi is said to. Imagine further that the same person came teaching secret rites and rituals with the Holy Name of Ha’Shem annunciated in Hebrew. Imagine that they called Muhammad by the name he said was literally his name – “ismi Isra’il.”
Such a person would not only be opposed, takfir upon them would be a given, as would the hillah or even wajibat of killing them in the name of religion. What does this mean or say then about the state of the Islamicate Ummah? Is it not safe to say, not only has such knowledge been cut off from even most elevated of `ulema in the Muslim world, but even the knowledge that such knowledge had ever been transmitted has been lost?
The implications of this are immense. Unfortunately, most are far from interested in critically examining Islamic Origins. Perhaps this is for fear of being branded by the Edward Saidian moniker “Orientalist.” Perhaps it is itself the result of a fetishizing of the perceived “other” – imagining the Near East to be incapable of being held to the same intellectual rigor and standards of what is and is not acceptable as a credible historical source. Perhaps it is sheer laziness, or the relative lack of intimate familiarity with esoteric, batini teachings related to these matters – at least as far as it goes for those outside of the Islamicate Ummah. Perhaps it is a combination of all these things. Whatever the case may be, such apprehensiveness simply does not register with the critical scholar of history and Islamic Origins, and it certainly is not a deterrent to this work.
Endnotes
[1] Jews and Arabs (New York, 1970) 170. Graetz was the first to assert this connection between the piyyul and the sect: he was widely followed in this regard, for example by a popularizer like J. H. Greenstone, The Messiah Idea in Jewish History (Philadelphia, 1906: reprint, 1948) 122-123. For an annotated translation of the poem, accompanied by another interpretation along these lines, see B. Lewis, “An Apocalyptic Vision of Islamic History, BSOAS 13 (1950) 308-338.
[2] Cited in Crone p 5
[3] Baron 93; Goitein 63; cited in Crone 5; examples of this are further summarized in T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islām London, 1913, and S. D. Goitein, Jews and Arabs, Their Contacts Through the Ages New York: Schocken Books, 1964; She reasonably notes that the lack of knowledge of the outcome of the events argues for an earlier date. See F. Nau, “La Didascalie de Jacob,” in R. Graffin and F. Nau (eds) Patrologia Orientalis, Paris 1093-, vol. viii, pp 715f.
[4] Doctrina 86f
[5] Many people are anointed in the Jewish Bible, or Tanakh. Many are referred to with the term mashiach, messiah or anointed one. The high priest is called the anointed priest (Vayiqra/Leviticus 4:3). Ha’Shem tells the prophet Eliyahu (Elijah) to anoint two different men as kings of their people. The first is Chazael, King of Aram (Alef Melakhim/1 Kings 19:15) and Yehu son of Nimshi as King of Israel. The Tanakh further says that Ha’Shem also instructed Eliyahu to anoint his own successor, Elisha` son of Shaphat, as prophet (ibid. 19:16). At this point, the term mashiach, messiah or anointed one did not indicate any sort of apocalyptic figure.
[6] Endnotes cite the Chronographia, A.M. 6122; Crone and Cook 153
[7] Crone 4
[8] Friedlander, 243
[9] Mishkat al-Masabih 1/91 Hadith 276
[10] Allegedly from Al-Baihaqi to Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdan to Ahmad bin ‘Ubayd as-Safar to Muhammad bin `Isa bin Abi Iyas to Sa’id bin Suleman to ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn to Ja`far bin Muhammad to Muhammad bin `Ali to `Ali bin Hussain to `Ali bin Abi Talib to Muhammad
[11] Hadith 1765
[12] Al-Daylami, Musnad 1/107 – the `Arabic text is reproduced here in full because of the controversial tone permeating the hadith.
سيأتي على الناس زمان لا يبقي من القرآن إلا رسمه، ولا من الإسلام إلا اسمه، يقسمون به وهم أبعد الناس منه، مساجدهم عامرة، خراب من الهدى، فقهاء ذلك الزمان شر فقهاء تحت ظل السماء، منهم خرجت الفتنة، وإليهم تعود
As such, anyone can verify these words and translation for themselves here.
[13] Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 819; et al
[14] Venture of Islam, v. 1, p. 59
[15] Paquda, Duties 305
[16] Corbin 1993, p 28
[17] Wa-za`ama [Abu] `Isa annahu nabiyyun wa-annahu rasul al-masih al-muntazhar
[18] Friedlander 261; ed. Harkavy, 284, 6, 311
[19] Israel Friedlander, Jewish-Arabic Studies. I. “Shiitic Elements in Jewish Sectarianism,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Oct., 1912), pp. 235-300, also see parts 1 and 2 from April 1910 and 1912. 490
[20] Maqdisi, Kitab al-Bad’ wa al-Ta’rikh (ed. and trans. C. Huart) 4 vols. (Paris, 1899-1919) vol. 4., p. 35:
Once during the time of the Prophet, a hypocrite named Qays ibn Mutatiyah tried to pour scorn and disgrace on sections of the community. Qays had come upon a halqah study circle in which were Salman al-Farsi (a Persian), Suhayb ar-Rumi (a Greek) and Bilal al-Habashi (an Ethiopian) and remarked: “The Aws and the Khazraj have stood up in defense of this man (Muhammad). And what are these people doing with him’?” Muadh was furious and informed the Prophet of what Qays had said. The Prophet was very angry. He entered the mosque and the Call to Prayer was given, for this was the method of summoning the Muslims for an important announcement. Then he stood up, praised and glorified God and said: “Your Lord is One. Your ancestor is one. Your religion is one. Take heed. `Arabism is not conferred on you through your mother or father. It is through the tongue (i.e. the language of `Arabic), so whoever speaks `Arabic, he is an `Arab.”
[21] Shaykh Al-Mufid, Kitab Al-Irshad. p. 411 and Al-Tusi, Kitab al-Ghaybah, p. 282, also see al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 387[22] Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. The Rituals of Hajj and ’Umrah, Mizan, Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences, Lahore
[23] See my work The Ka`bah as a Jewish Sukkah: Why Muhammad Prayed Towards Jerusalem and Mecca as well as M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, Hajj: The Inner Pilgrimage. The Fellowship Press (1998)
[24] Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 338
[25] Tajul Mawaleed p.150, Bihar al-Anwar, vol.52 p.235, Bisharat al-Islam p.91, Mo’jam Ahadith al-Imam al-Mahdi, vol.3 p.214.
[26] ibid., Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 326
[27] Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Nu’mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah, pp. 298-99
[28] Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52 p.293; Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Nu’mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah p.365
[29] The term qital in Arabic does not distinguish between non-physical fighting, physical fighting or physical killing.
[30] Mu’jam Ahadith al-Imam al-Mahdi, compiled and written under `Ali Kurani by Mu’assisa Ma`arif Islami, vol. 3 p.253, Muhammad Amin al-Astarabadi, Ar-Raj`a, p. 157
[31] Imam Ja`far As-Sadiq, recorded by Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 2 p. 986
[32] Nu’mani, Ghaybah, p. 297; Hilyah al-Abrar, vol. 2, p. 361; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 362; Bisharah al-Islam, p. 222
[33] Nu‘mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah, p. 297; Hilyah al-Abrar, vol. 2, p. 361; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 362; Bisharah al-Islam, p. 222.
[34] After the conquest of Egypt in 642 CE, the Arab commander of the Caliph Omar’s forces, ‘Amr ibn al-’As consulted him about potentially problematic works within the Library of Alexandria. According to this narrative, following the sacking of Alexandria, there was a decision to destroy the collection, attributed to Caliph Omar’s counsel (Blackburn, 2003). This suggests that during the destruction of the library was either ordered or endorsed by Caliph Omar as part of the broader reorganization of cultural institutions in conquered Egypt. Serious scholarly discussion reveals only debate regarding the Caliph Omar’s specific role in the library’s destruction, with some suggesting that accountability primarily lies with ‘Amr ibn al-’As’ forces. Blackburn, R. (2003). The ancient alexandrian library: part of it may survive! Library History, 19(1), 23-34; Lapouge, G. (1988). Books in flames. Diogenes, 36(141), 1-20; Tsoucalas, G., Kousoulis, A., Poulakou‐Rebelakou, E., Karamanou, M., Papagrigoriou-Theodoridou, M., & Androutsos, G. (2013). Queen cleopatra and the other ‘cleopatras’: their medical legacy. Journal of Medical Biography, 22(2), 115-121.
[35] Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52 p. 247
[36] Ibn Tawus, Malahim, p. 142
[37] ibid., vol. 52 p. 363; Bisharat al-Islam p. 222; Mu’jam Ahadith Al-Imam al-Mahdi, compiled and written under ‘Ali Kurani by Mu’assisa Ma`arif Islami, vol. 3 p.501
[38] al-Kafi, Hadith 635, Ch. 40, h 1
[39] Steven M. Wasserstrom, “Isawiyya Revisited” Studia Islamica, No. 75 (1992), 72
[40] With the interest no doubt piqued following such a bold assertion as this, the reader is advised to “dog ear” this reference until the publication of an upcoming dedicated article addressing this matter.
[41] Due to the revolutionary context of his activity, I argue that this was more of an alias than a kunya.
[42] Mafilth al-’lum, 34
[43] This issue has been discussed by Nemoy in his study “Attitudes of the Early Karaites Toward Christianity,” Salo Willmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1974) vol. II 697-715, at 701 n. 14. See also Samuel Poznanski, “Le nom de `Isa porte par les juifs,” REJ 54 (1927) pp. 276-279, at p. 277, and Goldziher, “Gesetzliche Bestimmungen Ober Kunya-Namen im Islam, ZDMG LI (1897) 256- 266
[44] Wa-za`ama [Abu] `Isa annahu nabiyyun wa-annahu rasul al-masih al-muntazhar
[45] Friedlander 261; ed. Harkavy, 284, 6, 311
[46] Israel Friedlander, Jewish-Arabic Studies. I. “Shiitic Elements in Jewish Sectarianism,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Oct., 1912), pp. 235-300, also see parts 1 and 2 from April 1910 and 1912. 490
[47] Maqdisi, Kitab al-Bad’ wa al-Ta’rikh (ed. and trans. C. Huart) 4 vols. (Paris, 1899-1919) vol. 4., p. 35:
[48] An-Nu’mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah p. 326
[49] ibid., ch. 20 p.445
[50] Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, “Kitab al-Hujja,” Bab Huduth al-Asma, vol. 1 p.151-52, num 1; Ibn Babuye, Kitab al-Tawhid, hadith 29, p. 190-91, 3
[51] יהוה or ���� in Paleo-Hebrew script.
[52] Citing Ṣaffar al-Qummi, Baṣa’ir ad-Darjat, 335-54l Kulini, al-Kafi, I, 227-8; Motzki 119
[53] ibid.
[54] Citing W.M. Watt, “Ishak,” in EI, 4, 109-10
[55] Nu’mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah p. 326
[56] Kamaluddin, p. 372; Kifayah al-Athar, p. 323; I’lam al-Wara, p. 408; Kashf al-Ghammah, vol. 3, p. 314; Fara’id al-Samtayn, vol. 2, p. 336; Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, p. 489; Nur ath-Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 47; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 51, p. 157. See Kifayah al-Athar, 324; Ihtijaj, vol. 2, p. 449; I’lam al-Wara, p. 409; Khara’ij, vol. 3, p. 1171; Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, vol. 2, p. 33.
[57] On Jwayris ibn Mushir al-`Abdi al-Kufi, see at-Tusi, Rijal, p.37 num 4; Al-Ardabili, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p.169-70; Basa’ir, section 5, ch. 2, pp 217-19; see also Ibn Babuye, Am`Ali , “majlis” 71, p.467-68, num. 10 (`Ali states that the Supreme Name is in Syriac). Basa’ir section 4, ch 12, nadir min al-bab, p.210, num 1
[58] al-Kashshi, Rijal, p.7; al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.11
[59] al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.12; al-Majlisi, Bihar, vol. 6 p783
[60] Al-Kashshi, Rijal, p.7; al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.11
[61] This narration is found within countless Sufi texts and in normative compilations of Hadith literature. The phrasing I present here represents how it was first articulated to me by the teacher of Shaykh M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen in 1999, who first introduced me to the Tariqat `Isawiyah.
[62] Allamah Al-Majlisi, Bihar Al-Anwar – V. 25, “The Book of Imamate” P 2 Ch. 1 Hadith 29; V. 15, “The Book of the Prophets” Ch. 1 Hadith 40
[63] The irregular Arabic plural of Zil here is the cognate from the Hebrew Zel. Kabbalistically, one of the names of Ha’Shem is Tzel Shaddai, the Divine Shadow [Ruler] of the Shades – a term roughly equivalent to the `Arabic concept of jinn. The Hebrew word tzel means shadow or protective shade. Thus, we read in the Tehillim (Psalms) “Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the Tzel Shaddai (צל שדי)” (91:1). Indeed, the English etymology of shade seems to descend from the biblical shed, sheddim and shaddai.
Perhaps of further interest is the color noted here. The Khadhra of Green in this narration, is of course a reference to the Sufi description of the Chief or Khadra of the Archangels – Metatron – termed Al-Khidhr, the Green One. Khidhr is of course associated with the unnamed enigmatic teacher who Musa, Mosheh Rabbeinu, cannot seem to bear with – in spite of his pledges of bay`ah – in Surat al-Kahf of the Qur’an. Metatron, al-Khidhr, whatever title or description one may favor, the reference here is ultimately to the Primordial Adam Qadmon – to whom the Malakhim or Mala’ikah in both Midrash `Aggadah and the Qur’an, were said to prostrate (all, save Iblis, or Samael).
[64] Nu’mani, Kitab al-Ghaybah, p. 328; Ibn `Ayyash, Muqtadab, p. 95; Allamah al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 15, p. 25
[65] Tafsir al-Ayyashi, v. 1, p. 44
[66] Narrated by Abu Dawud, Book 38.4434; Entry 7294 of Tahrir Taqrib published by Mu’assasat al-Risalah 1997
[67] Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.57-59 and Jewish Antiquities 17.273-277; Israel Knohl, “The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context”, in Matthias Henze (ed.), Hazon Gabriel: New Readings of the Gabriel Revelation (Early Judaism and Its Literature 29), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
