Salaam un alaikum,
Are anyone of you in town? What is happening?
Take a look at this discussion about the Island where Imam al Mahdi (ATF) is said to be residing – Jazira Khadra’. I have copied a small part of the discussion http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-10.htm . The complete book can be referred to here: http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm.
Mr. Hoshyar: The story of Jazira Khadra’ is as I have narrated for you in brief. Let me hasten to add that this story has no credibility and that it resembles a legend and a fiction for the following reasons:
First, its chain of transmission (sanad) is unreliable. The story has been taken from an unidentified manuscript. ‘Allama Majlisi himself says thus: “Since I have not found this story in any authentic book, I created a special section to report it [so that it does not get mixed up with the other reliable contents of Bihar al-anwar].”
Second, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. I am sure you noticed that in one place Sayyid Shams al-Din tells the narrator that he was the deputy of the Imam, but he had not seen him. Moreover, he says: “. . . but my father used to say that he would hear his voice but could not see him. But my grandfather used to hear his voice and see him too.” The same Sayyid later on says that he sees the Imam every Friday morning and encourages the narrator to do the same. The Shaykh who brought the narrator to that island also tells him that the Sayyid and those like him are the only ones who can meet with the Imam. As you have noticed this is a contradictory statement. The interesting part of the story is that if the Sayyid knew that he was the only one who could meet with the Imam, why did he propose to the narrator that he should go to the mountain and see the Imam?
Third, the story makes reference to alterations in the Qur’an, and such a view is impossible to maintain. Muslims scholars have unanimously rejected such a contention about the Holy Book of God.
Fourth, the lawfulness of the khums has been touched upon in the story, which, according to the jurists, is unacceptable.