People were left adrift in an ocean of uncertainty knowing not where the stand is for them and to which shore they should land. The writer has magnified the things because he is looking through a microscope of prejudice. Any little thing would appear to him big. The things were not as he is pretending to have been. A little commentary on his statements seems necessary. Chaos and tumult; they are a natural corollary of uncertainty. There were those who were faithful to their belief and ardent in their faith. They knew who their Imam were and who the present one was.
They also had pre-knowledge of the absence of the Imam as they had heard or read the Prophet’s (S) sayings. It is a common practice to ask. They should have told as they should have been asked. Had there really been a chaos where was it? In the center town of the Shias in Qum we did not hear nor did we witness such chaos.
What the writer says come out to prove that the Shia belief of twelve Imams hails from a strong origin. The scholars, the thinkers and other personalities of the day were believers in the Imamate of the son of Imam Askari (as) and in his occultation (Ghaybat). He refers to the ministerial families of Bani Furat and the relations of Abu Suhail Nou Bakhti.
This is the strength of a religion. The curiosity of the enemies should have tried to find out the fact. They could not establish otherwise. During the Ghaybat a link of deputies with the Imam take his orders, it seems practicable as well as reasonable.
All the traditions about the Ghaybat narrated by Shazan, Nomani, Kamaluddin are attested by sources of authority and based on evidence passed on from the Imams by the Prophet (S) himself. All these sayings were predictions, that is, years behind the events and the events far ahead the sayings.
The Shias who were in various provinces and parts would not have accepted to revert, refer or consult to the Nawabs (deputies) of the Imam had there not been a cogent conviction for them. There had been links that establish the connection with the Imam. It was a well-organized and systematic network of communication to the Imam and from the Imam. Ali Bin Babway, a man of thought and knowledge, writes a letter to the Imam through the Nawab (Imam’s deputy) and gets an answer through the same channel.
Had there not been a truth in it a man of Ali Bin Babway’s like would not have corresponded with the Imam. This in itself is proof.
The writer says on the authority of Fathia that a group of Shia believed in the Imamate of Ja’far and many yielded to his authority. By saying so the writer wants to say what he, of course, does not say but means to say, however does not want to go that far. Well, we say that he means that Mahdi was fake Imam because of Ja’far. Why does he not ponder the other way? Why wasn’t Ja’far a false Imam? The biography of Ja’far was known to one and all. His reputation, his conduct his behavior, his temperament brought him no respect from the people.
Therefore, he was immediately ignored although he was supported by the government of the day in order to create a rift and split. Those who gathered around him were the paid agents of the government.
Another mistake. The writer sees the Imam as an infant. But the consensus shows that the Imam had attained his boyhood.
The unity among Shias is of course due to a belief common among them. In a stock all are shareholders; and all are united too. The belief in the Imamate of the twelfth Imam has brought all Shias together. But the writer says that the
Imam’s deputies (Nawabs) had brought all together. Of course they were men of reliance and respect in all the Shia places. For example, Abulafer Omravi was very much respected. They were symbols of unity and honor of the Shia but not the reason for it. The Nawabs were only agents of the Imam. The cardinal and supreme factor was the very Imamate of Mahdi, which held the mosaic together. Today too this belief in Imamate holds the jurisprudents in awe and reverence and the deputies of the Imam.