The decisive statement regarding the Imam Al-Mahdi affair.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "A man from the Banu Umayya will appear in the sea, and he will aim at the people of the sea, or he will be taken from them, and he will flee to Rum. Then he will flee to Rum, and then to the land of Islam, and he will be the first of the rulers."

"Muhar" means "Muhar" from the warriors, and it is not the state of "Muhar". And whoever says that "Muhar" is the state of "Muhar" with the letters and diacritics, then the Noble Quran was not ambiguous or problematic, and the authentic Hadiths were not ambiguous, especially the Hadiths of the Fitnah. And if the readers differed in reciting the verse: "Go down to a city," then Al-Bukhari read it with diacritics, and Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Mas'ud read it with the letters.

So, if this Hadith was revealed in the Quran, the reciters would have differed in what they differed in, so how can the Hadiths be diacritized? It is strange that I came across someone who weakens a narration from Al-Dua'a, saying: "If it appears, it appears like this," and he says the word "like this" is odd, and the more correct is "like this." This is what he said! While the Noble Quran was revealed in two letters, in His saying: "You are arguing about the Hereafter and the Hereafter. But you will soon know." Al-Bukhari read: "Indeed, you will soon know," and Abu Ja'far and his companions read it: "You will soon know" with the letter "th". But these people, due to their narrow understanding, resort to weakening the narrations to understand it from the word.

As for Ibn Al-Hajj, he did not resort to the Umayyads and did not flee to Rum. Does the Prophet (peace be upon him) mean that if you see a man from the sons of the Arabs in the sea, he will aim at the people of the sea and flee to a neighboring state - the state of the Turks - then he will flee directly to Rum!?