In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
The letter of the excellent shaykh and the community reached me. May God establish them in obedience to the Guardian of Religion and preserve them from entering into what the deniers and apostates of this community have approved. I read and understood what you wrote. I was astonished that you joined together to ask about a certain man—may God deal with him according to his deeds— while claiming that you had no news of him and had not met him. You also said that you had not met the person who, according to your report, uttered a condemnation against him. Brethren, it is unbecoming that you should treat facts before you as though they were idle stories concerning which no inquiry was possible.
May God curse anyone who condemns a person undeserving of condemnation. No one can count on the intercession of another to justify what is false. Yet we do not hold you answerable for the inventions of pretenders when those inventions have not reached you accurately. If you fear God, recognize the truth and those who possess it, and judge yourselves fairly. Do not act unjustly toward your own souls by lending support to the ignorance of liars.
You say you believe that a certain estate or village has been endowed to this man, and that the owner wrote the grant in his own hand. You suppose the property remains in his charge, under his management and orders, with authority delegated by the lord who endowed it. The condition of the appointment, however, was that the guardian should introduce no harmful innovation into it, neglect no necessary maintenance when he had the means to carry it out, and remove any steward who was causing ruin. He was to spend the funds and resources entrusted to him for those whom the donor had designated, even where the resources were held separately from the estate.
If this is what you believe, then you must understand the obligations that follow from it. The appointed administrator gave guarantees and brought other persons under sworn commitments, recorded before witnesses. They promised not to betray their trust or introduce changes without authorization. People of judgment know what the conditions meant. We know that you do not wish to deny what you have recognized of them. But to introduce an unrelated argument about 'the three' and 'the two' is to move into a quarrel that others have taken it upon themselves to maintain; you need not bear responsibility for it.
As for your asking without sufficient knowledge about the particular person, this is an improper objection against the people of truth. One who acts in ignorance should not be judged as though the whole matter had already been explained to him. We know more of the circumstances than you do; I shall therefore set them before you, and before everyone to whom this letter is read, so that the man's opposition, corruption, and betrayal of the people of truth may become known.
By God, the man about whom you wrote failed the expectations we had placed in him. He ruined estates instead of developing them. He opened to those under his authority forms of wickedness and prohibited conduct of a kind we had not even heard described before. By this misconduct he made the public say that the people of the Call had licensed the shedding of one another's blood and the taking of their possessions. This was contrary to the order of religion and the conduct required of its people.
He permitted followers to take people's wealth, divided the proceeds with them, and authorized killings among neighboring inhabitants. May God condemn anyone who commanded or approved that. Such conduct was concealed from the true owner of the estate until the community approached the ruin about which you and others have heard. The administrator imposed compulsory labor and payments upon cultivators. He claimed that he would carry their burdens and arrange the expenses required for them, but the object of his dealings was to deceive them out of their money. None of the funds taken reached the owner of the estate as a benefit; they were expended or diverted for worldly advantage.
He wrote to me describing the poverty of the farmers and the losses they had sustained. He sent accounts of many difficult circumstances; I repeatedly forwarded him substantial sums and instructed that they be spent upon the people of the estate. Instead, he took the money himself, then wrote back claiming that he had spent it as instructed. These matters were hidden from us until trusted men, afraid of God, came to inform us after the losses and disasters had occurred.
Later he sent word that he wanted to visit us in Alexandria. I sent an escort with considerable funds for his journey. When he arrived I treated him and those accompanying him with generosity, as was known to people who came to us. I am not describing these temporal affairs because I grieve for money or regret having spent it. I mention them so that you may see that this man sought earthly wealth and showed no gratitude for what he received. He has learned neither how to conduct worldly affairs honorably nor how to act for the hereafter.
While he was staying in our presence, he began to perform the acts of the deceivers. He spoke to the men associated with Abū al-Musharraf among you and used their position as a means of asserting authority over us. His purpose was to establish his own claim to the rank of al-Riḍā. We became convinced that he himself was the source of that claim, which Abū al-Musharraf had heard from the group and then repeated without knowing how corrupt its foundation was. When I confronted him with the reports, he refused to admit the truth, insisting that he would not withdraw from the position whose original proponent deserved condemnation.
This was another way to gain worldly standing and force acceptance of the false claim he had previously circulated. I admonished him and treated him gently, but could find no means of persuading him. He repeated, in substance, that the matter had been authorized by our Lord or by someone he called his Master. But the only source of that command was his own foolish mind; no true authority had ordered him to assert it.
When he failed to achieve his aim while living with us, he resolved to leave and establish himself somewhere else. He asked permission to depart. At his new location he sent the corrupt intermediary already mentioned to tell the others that his earlier claims still stood and that his departure had not been disobedience to our command. We learned of this when reports came from the districts and from Ḥasan ibn al-Maʿādh. Each report exposed another effort to persuade the people that his pretension was authorized.
Among the communications reaching us was a proposal that the people should kill a man named Qays. As soon as we heard of it, we sent a letter with Qays himself, directing the people in unequivocal terms: 'Do not kill Qays.' Afterward another messenger, called, came from your region with news that the communities and their settlements had been devastated by the practices the pretender encouraged. We sent another written condemnation of whoever had done such things, cursing those who approved them and continued in rebellion.
Ibn al-Kurdī came and followed the same path; he engaged in further practices for which God will hold him to account. When I realized that the communities were being ruined, I wrote a letter to the people and sent it by ʿAmmār to the inhabitants and managers of the estate. Its purpose was to reveal the baseness of the doctrine, repudiate those who approved it, and explain what just conduct required. The accused learned that ʿAmmār had set out, and a consultation followed with a shaykh described as their leader. It was said that their situation could not be corrected unless an outsider, not a member of their community, were sent to explain what was right. The accused then sent to Banū Tamīm; they came to him, and he departed in company with one of their men.
I wrote a second letter to ʿAmmār, recounting the reports we had received concerning the community. But the conspirators assembled to kill ʿAmmār so that he could not reach us with accurate news of what was occurring. By God, I maintain that ʿAmmār was killed by the accused man's command. May God condemn whoever ordered it and hold that person answerable in this world and the next.
A month ago a report reached us that they had murdered ʿAmmār and divided his clothes among themselves. Earlier reports had said that they attacked and wounded him when he first read out the letter, but some of them restrained the others and said: 'Let him go out from your land, follow him, and then kill him.' The sword of ʿAmmār was found with Ibn Jandal, who acknowledged possessing it and said: “It was entrusted to me for safekeeping.” We learned of Abū Jumʿa’s words among the Sākiziyya. He said: “His letter remained with me for fifteen days, and we did not send it out.” He meant ʿAmmār’s letter. By God, ʿAmmār was killed only on the accused man’s orders. The shameful acts they performed were the result of his command.
If such acts seem acceptable to you, our answer to your inquiry has failed. But we have not concealed the information from you. You are people of religion and I advise you sincerely. How strange that you omit ʿAmmār's murder from your inquiry! You were told that the attackers first wounded him and took his possessions; afterward they pursued and killed him when he had left their territory. Yet you leave this case aside and ask instead for an explanation of a claim whose truth you have not established. It troubles me that you have permitted yourselves to stand in such a position.
Brethren, whoever believes that God and His Guardian are true must acknowledge that God does not place an unjust and corrupt person in authority over the world while calling that person a just and fair guardian. By attributing these acts to the authorized rule of the Call, you have in effect represented that just authority as oppressive. Do not receive every story without distinction, like a container that accepts pure water and foul water equally. First learn where clean water comes from and where the foul is found.
Was the letter we sent condemning the apostate and his breach of the trust the foul water? Or was the pretender's order, which you found pleasing, the pure? I tell you that a person who holds such contradictory opinions would scarcely welcome a truthful answer. Yet I shall not withdraw the explanation, since you may not have known all the facts.
We excuse you now, brethren, because perhaps the person who induced this inquiry has concealed his acts and you did not know the offences of which we have learned. You remain, on that account, excused for what you did not know. But after being informed you must weigh the evidence and judge as men who care about their religion.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh, Abū Jumʿa and others belong to the accused man's party, he having appointed them. They are unjust men who attribute to us things we have never done. We received reports concerning a person called Abū Tamīm and his actions, none of which we had commanded. His statements and those of his associate were made in agreement with false and invented claims, not with our authorization.
When your letter reached me, I gave thanks for what was sound in it, but was astonished by the rest. One who knows the source of a benefit refers his affairs to that source; one who knows the leader of a corrupt innovation repudiates it and seeks the protection of God and His Guardian. Yet you have failed to distinguish between benefactor and pretender. You deserted the former, listened to the latter, and accepted his inventions. The true people of religion should be far removed from the wiles of such men.
If you wish to save yourselves through the religion, judge your own conduct with care. Reflect upon truth and the conduct befitting its people: purity, restraint, endurance of suffering, patience, good character, decent treatment of families and proper relations with the brethren. Then compare these with what the claimants have permitted: indecencies, the taking of people's property, the killing of persons whom the Creator has forbidden to be killed, and the ruin of families for worldly profit. What crime, I ask, did ʿAmmār commit against them that these men should pursue and kill him?
The justice required of me is to counsel you and make the argument plain. This time is the time of the great interval (al-fatra al-kubrā). No one can hide what he has done, however fiercely he tries to conceal it. The pretenders have multiplied, and false knowledge has been advanced in place of the truth. Every person should therefore hold fast to what he genuinely knows, preserve the true teachings he has received, and not incline toward a preacher merely because he possesses a title. Rely upon the authentic writings of the Proof, the possessed servant of the Guardian of the Age, insofar as they agree with the Guardian's own word.
It has even reached us that a man said: 'If Abū al-Musharraf arrives, kill him.' May God condemn whoever issued and repeated such an instruction. Another, Abū Jumʿa, said before travelers that he had retained a letter for fifteen days and had not delivered it. The people seemed ready to do every evil act that lay within their power. These reports show why it is no longer right to entrust the community to their direction.
I therefore direct you: do not heed anyone's instruction in this period merely because he belonged to the former missionary order. Do not obey Sayf, Masʿūd (Ibn al-Kurdī), Abū Jumʿa, Abū ʿAbd Allāh, or any other person who now advances one of these pretensions. They are the Callers of the interval and the trial, not authentic Callers of truth. Their aim is to make themselves powerful and to win goods for themselves. They have betrayed the authority they were instructed to obey and have taken people away from truth toward falsehood.
None of them retains a right of command or prohibition over any of you. This is my command to you and a proof binding between us. Whoever is obedient and regards himself as one of the believers must put away the desire for privileges and rank. Let no man set himself above another in this period. All are equal in the absence of recognized earthly authority. Distinctions now depend on the wisdom people have preserved, the righteous conduct they have practiced toward their brethren, and their continued obedience to the Guardian's genuine instructions.
Whoever among the persons who once claimed appointment by the possessed servant accepts this condition, denies any exclusive right to command, and lives as a brother among brethren is to be treated as one of you. Whoever refuses it, insists that he possesses an independent command and prohibition, or clings to what has been declared illicit, separates himself from this community and falls under its condemnation. The doors of such men's teaching are doors of wrath, not mercy, for they have abandoned the religion and assisted the killing of its adherents.
I warned you of the coming interval years ago in the epistle called On the Realities. Its date is known and a copy is among some of you. Look at what was said there about this time and its people: 'Brethren, make use of the period of respite; draw near to your Guardian through righteous works before the leaves are folded and the pens dry, before the doors of mercy close, the mouths are sealed and speech comes to an end, before the gates of wrath are opened against those who manifest resistance and retaliation. These are the first signs that the guardian witnesses will stand, and the most evident tokens of the coming proofs.' The precise boundaries of the reused passage require comparison with that earlier epistle.
The present letter is thus a warning to everyone who seeks the road of truth, not merely a private reply. Whoever hears the explanation should recognize that the pretender may try to divert him with the claim that some authoritative person has died and been transferred to another rank. The one who justified the killing of the truthful people is a deceiver. His companions are the 'Jews of this community', worse even than their predecessors: those earlier enemies persecuted out of ignorance, while these men attacked persons whom they already recognized as Unitarians.
Do not object that the community cannot be maintained without a person possessing a right to command. The prophetic warning had described an age in which holding to one's religion would be like clutching hot coals, and the believer would flee from one height to another, from one teacher to another, seeking a truthful Caller. This was not said because every claimant would be absent, but because truthful claimants would be few and apostate pretenders many. This is that time.
The written teachings also say that when the Qāʾim appears he will first deal with those who claim his name but disobey his command before he deals with his other opponents. These men have professed him with their tongues while repudiating the commands he gave. The Creator has not left you without knowledge of the trial; its signs have been explained, and those who have heard remain responsible for their conduct.
I shall not send further commands in this matter beyond what is now written, unless a new direction comes from the holder of the Command. If a new condition is established, it will stand outside the rules of the present interval. The blame for the offenses already committed rests upon those who chose them, not upon the innocent brethren who rejected the offenders.
I have made the explanation plain, without elaborate rhyming and verbal adornment, so that it may be understood like a conversation among you. No one should be able to say that the language prevented him from understanding. There is no compulsion or force in religion here: it is a declaration to the nations and a matter of choice. If the Creator wishes to visit calamity upon a people, none can repel it. The pretenders have revealed their hidden corruption by taking the life of ʿAmmār, and the deed will become known among all who investigate the religion. The disclosure itself is part of the distinction between truth and falsehood at the hour of trial.
Reports have now reached us from many regions, including Damascus, concerning this unfortunate man. They agree that the order to kill ʿAmmār came from him. He did not strike the blow with his own hand, but would have struck the messenger who delivered the letter had he been able. A man of this kind is the worst possible person to place over the followers of truth; he has neither religion, knowledge, nor just conduct. His associates know his deficiencies. Muṣʿab once took precedence over him in gatherings, and the pretender resented his lesser position. When this was reported, I wrote to Muṣʿab, who corrected his conduct on hearing the warning. Such episodes show the difference between a man who receives a truthful rebuke and one who insists upon falsehood.
Since the pure shaykh ʿAmmār has been killed, you must repudiate the accused and his followers. Muḥammad al-ʿĀwī must also be rebuked for dishonest correspondence and his willingness to follow the same pretender. A person who sets himself up as a witness and guide by lying has learned nothing from religion except the conduct that resembles his own appetite. I reject such men and the authority they claim.
Brethren, truth is a straight and visible door, a clear path. Falsehood is a rough and difficult passage attended by deceivers and their helpers. Choose for yourselves which company you wish to keep, and follow the side you have knowingly chosen. Peace rests upon those who act with justice and good will. Until this moment I remain on the shore of the salt sea; today I intend to travel toward Antioch, fleeing the hearing of these dreadful reports. Praise belongs to God as is fitting. His blessings upon His trustworthy messenger and His peace upon the messenger's pure family. He suffices me and is the best helper.
This additional section reached me after I had written the letter. Brethren, if in earlier days you held that obedience to Masʿūd was a true religious obedience, you must know that it came to you from a true source. The person who appointed him did not invent an office without authority. Your religion, in that earlier act, was rendered sincerely to God, His Guardian, and the recognized intermediary between you and the one who had commissioned Masʿūd. He did not derive his rank from himself or from any other person of his own choosing.
Therefore obedience to him now, after he has disobeyed the very authority that appointed him, is a contradiction and an act of disobedience to God. You know that the one who appointed Masʿūd could, had he wished, appoint another in his place. Neither Abū Masʿūd nor anyone else could rightly object to that new commission. The question is not settled by force, personal bias or attachment to a leader. The transgressor is disobedient and accursed; you remain free to choose, while I repudiate him and those who knowingly follow his rebellion.
Everything I have set down concerning this man has not been collected from remote rumor alone: it includes what was established in his presence, with the testimony of the people assembled. What he and his companions have done by appropriating estates, towns, houses, their occupants and their possessions is more extensive than a brief letter could enumerate. Those estates and goods belonged to their proper owners; taking them is not a right of religious office. These actions concern the affairs of this world, and their shame does not disappear by attaching a holy name to them.
The warning has been delivered. You remain responsible for your own choice. A sincere messenger is bound only to convey the matter clearly. Praise to God alone; through Him I seek assistance.
The rebuke of the unfortunate claimant is complete. Praise to our Lord alone, and thanks to His Guardian and servant.