Sunday, October 24, 2021 AD / Rabi' al-awwal 17, 1443 AH
Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani
(64) The need for the Mahdi derives from the need to know the rules of God and their establishment, which cannot be achieved except through His Caliph on earth, and it is clear that knowing the rules of God and their establishment is necessary for His servitude and consequently the salvation of people in this world and the hereafter and therefore, nothing can make people needless of Mahdi. (Section: Criticisms and investigations)
Criticism & investigation

In the book Return to Islam, he has mentioned Sayyid Jamal Asadabadi and has introduced him as a person who wrote a letter to the scholars of Islam as a reformer, but they refused to listen to fair words due to arrogance. Of course, there is no doubt that some scholars are arrogant and stingy, and there is no question that Sayyid Jamal has raised the right issues. But the point is that in some sources, Sayyid Jamal al-Din has been introduced as an agent of the British government and a freemason and in the service of British interests, and in fact in an Islamic and divine appearance, he has been in the service of evil interests. Also, the identity of this person is vague that some consider him a native of Hamedan and some a native of Afghanistan.

Ismail Ra’in, in his famous book “Forgetting Home and Freemasonry in Iran”, writes:

“Sayyid Jamal al-Din Asadabadi, known as Afghani, is one of the early freemasons of Iran who was a member of 9 masonic lodges. He was the head of the lodge and the visitor at the Malkolm forgetting home lodge...”

It is also stated in some sources that he did not follow the duties of Ramadan and consumed cognac in Cairo and denied God...!

His Excellency Allamah Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani, in about five lines from the honorable book “Return to Islam”, on the occasion of discussing “Arrogance of scholars”[1], has referred to Sayyid Jamal al-Din and has said:

“Just as Sayyid Jamal Al-Din (Died 1314 AH) wrote letters for some Muslim scholars and invited them to be alert against infidel unbelievers and stand against the colonialism, many of them did not respond to him. Because they saw themselves more aware about what to do and what not to do than him, and they found their dignity so higher than him to let an unknown and anonymous man assign them their dos and don’ts! Even Mirza Hassan Shirazi (Died 1312 AH) who responded to his invitation primarily and released a Fatwa that banned tobacco, regretted what he did soon afterwards, because he assumed that Sayyid Jamal Al-Din has deceived him!”

In connection with this excerpt of the valuable statement from his Honor, it is necessary to pay attention to the following points:

Firstly, Sayyid Jamal al-Din’s correspondence with “some Muslim scholars” and his invitation of them “to be alert against infidel unbelievers and stand against the colonialism” is a well-known and historical definite fact that its documents and evidences exist in the books of some of his disciples, such as Muhammad Abdu and his disciples’ disciples, such as Muhammad Rashid Reza; Just as non-responding of some of these scholars to his letters is certain and well-known, and has been reflected in numerous historical books, and naturally could not have any cause other than their arrogance; because these letters have been either the truth or falsehood in their opinion, and in any case, it has been necessary to respond to them; considering that a scholar must acknowledge the truth and deny falsehood, and his silence against the truth or falsehood has no justification; except for the arrogance that prevents him from paying attention to it. Just as an objective example, the honorable book “Return to Islam”, written by Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani, has been sent to many Muslim scholars today, but most of them have remained silent about it due to their arrogance; because they consider commenting on it as entering unimportant matters and in contradiction with their greatness, and prefer the fools of the streets and the bazaar to comment on it, rather than themselves!

Secondly, his Excellency Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani has not judged anywhere in his statements about the character of Sayyid Jamal al-Din, but has only judged a particular act of him that has been correspondence with “some Muslim scholars” and inviting them “to be alert against infidel unbelievers and stand against the colonialism”. Rather the fair is that he has also not made a judgment about this particular act as far as Sayyid Jamal al-Din has been concerned, and his judgment refers to “some Muslim scholars”; in the sense that “some Muslim scholars” have not paid any attention to Sayyid Jamal al-Din’s letters out of arrogance, and this has not been a decent work, regardless of whether Sayyid Jamal al-Din has been right or wrong. Just as their inattention to Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani’s book, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, has no justification and only stems from their arrogance; because if they agree with it, they must state their agreement, and if they disagree, they must state their disagreement, and in any case, their silence about it is meaningless. In any case, Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani has had reluctance to judge Sayyid Jamal al-Din and has avoided it, to the extent that he even has mentioning his name alone, without the suffix “Afghani” or “Asadabadi”, so that he does not get involved in the conflict of ignorant people over his nationality!

Thirdly, if “in some sources, Sayyid Jamal al-Din has been introduced as an agent of the British government and a freemason and in the service of British interests that in an Islamic and divine appearance, he has been in the service of evil interests”, in some other sources he has been introduced as a Muslim and liberal thinker who has had no concern other than serving Islam and the salvation of Muslims from the conspiracy of colonialism, and has had an effective role in the formation and expansion of moderate Islamic movements in the Arab world and with this description, there is no reason to prefer the first sources over the second ones; rather the fair is that the second sources take precedence over the first ones; because firstly, it is clear that this man is a Muslim, considering the remaining words from him and his obvious invitation to Islam and Quran; secondly, the principle about every Muslim is the innocence and correctness of his action, until its opposite is proven by valid intellectual and religious methods and with this description, it is not permissible to have ill-suspicion about this man; as God has said: ﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ ۖ[2]; “O you who believed! Avoid many suspicions; because some of suspicions are sins”; especially given that critics and reformists like him are habitually slandered by their enemies, and libeling them is very common and usual; as today, the enemies of Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani make many slanders against him and propound various claims about him, whereas none of them is based on the reality, and all of them are out of enmity and hatred.

Fourthly, those who accuse Sayyid Jamal al-Din of having secret relations with Britain or membership in secret organizations, are often accused of having such relations and membership themselves and therefore, are not considered as reliable sources in this regard; because they report something contrary to the principle and appearance that, to their supposition, has been “secret” and “hidden” and has not been known to non-British and the above-mentioned organizations and with this description, their access to it seems suspicious.

Fifthly, the entry of Sayyid Jamal al-Din into the secret organizations, if true, also is not clear what intentions he has had, and it may be with the motivation of infiltrating them in order to get acquainted with their thoughts and strike at them.

As a result, on the one hand, his Excellency Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani has not had any specific judgment about the character of Sayyid Jamal al-Din to be disputed and criticized, and on the other hand, the appearance of Sayyid Jamal al-Din’s situation has been good, and the intellectual and religious principle about him is innocence, and there is no plausible reason for his blasphemy (Kufr) and sin and espionage, and God is more aware of the facts.

↑[2] . Al-Hujurat/ 12
The website for the office of Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani The section for investigating criticisms
Share this content with your friends.
You can also read this content in the following languages:
If you are familiar with another language, you can translate this content to that language. [Translation form ]
Translation form
Please enter the security code.
Writing criticism
Dear user! You can write down your academic criticisms about the works of allamah Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani in the following form and submit to us so that they are investigated academically.
Attention: Your name may be shown as the author of this criticism in the website.
Note: Since our response goes to your email address and is not posted in the website necessarily, it is important that you put your email address correctly.
Please note the following points:
1. Your criticism may have been already investigated in the website. Therefore, it is better to review relevant criticisms in the website or use the search bar before you write your criticism.
2. Usual time to investigate the criticisms is between 3 to 10 days.
3. It is better to avoid multiple and unrelated criticisms in one request. Because such criticisms will be investigated separately and probably will take longer than usual.
* Please enter the security code. Captcha loading