Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq,
Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus –
Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

An Review of Abdullah Hashem, Hashem Studios, and the 2011 Apocalyptic Scare

Introduction

In September 2011, Abdullah Hashem, operating as a leading figure within the Hashem Studios and Yamani movement, published a thread entitled “FEMA NATIONWIDE TEST AS ELENIN PASSES EARTH”.

During that year, NASA announced a comet known as Comet Elenin, which sparked forum discussions connecting Comet Elenin with FEMA’s first nationwide Emergency Alert System test, asteroid warnings, planetary alignments, and broader end-times expectations.

The thread offers a rare glimpse into the historical record of how an online religious community interpreted global events, responded to warnings of imminent catastrophe, and reacted when those expected events did not take place.

More significantly, it also raises doubts about the reliability of the leadership that promoted those warnings.

Abdullah Hashem’s Original Warning

On Friday, 23 September 2011, Abdullah Hashem started a discussion thread drawing attention to what he thought was a strange coincidence. FEMA was preparing to run its first nationwide emergency broadcast test at nearly the same time that Comet Elenin was moving into the inner solar system. The discussion soon turned into doomsday speculation and fears that a major disaster might be on the way.

What Was Comet Elenin?

At first glance, Comet Elenin drew a lot of attention online and quickly became the focus of several conspiracy theories. However, by August 2011, reports were already appearing that the comet was starting to break apart after strong solar activity.

The situation became even clearer in September 2011 when the comet made its closest approach to the sun and kept disintegrating. By late October 2011, when the remains passed near Earth, very little was left except dust and small pieces of ice. In short, the comet that had caused so much fear had mostly disappeared.

When looking at Abdullah Hashem’s forum thread, it is clear that readers were being urged to take these events seriously and get ready for the worst.

Yet the official FEMA announcement included in the same discussion made no link at all between the emergency broadcast test and any astronomical danger.

The joint statement released by FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) simply stated that the exercise was the first nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System. Its aim was to check whether the warning system could work properly across the United States during a national emergency.

Even so, the discussion around the thread went far beyond the official explanation and turned into speculation about a global disaster that never happened.

The Original FEMA Press Release: The joint announcement issued by FEMA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explicitly stated the purpose of the exercise. You can find copies of the original announcement text preserved on government portals, such as the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management November 2011 Press Release.

The FEMA statement simply explained that the exercise was the first nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System and was intended to evaluate communication readiness.

The Federal Purpose Statement: The documentation outlines that the national-level Emergency Alert System (EAS) is designed exclusively to enable the President of the United States to address the public during extreme emergencies. The 2011 test was designed to check if the audio and visual transmission system worked simultaneously across all states and territories. You can view the operational parameters via the State of Idaho Office of Emergency Management EAS Archive.

Despite this, the discussion rapidly evolved into speculation regarding a global catastrophe that did not happen.

Archive Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103113018/http://hashemstudios-board.com/viewtopic.php?f=118&t=5419

The Growth of Fear Within the Community

I had read that aspects of the discussion were being had on members of Abdullah Hashem’s past forum. As we see with many apocalyptic movements, discussions surrounding an impending catastrophe can quickly move beyond speculation and begin to affect people emotionally. This appears to have been the case within the Hashem Studios forum.

Members openly spoke about their fear and anxiety.

One participant wrote, “I have become an insomniac and keep worrying.”

Another replied, “Me too i cant stop worrying or thinking about it, it is so scary.”

Others simply stated, “I’m worried too.”

Perhaps one of the most revealing comments came from a member who said, “To tell you the truth I don’t want to die.”

The reason these comments are important is that they show us that these followers were not treating the discussion as harmless speculation or merely discussing possibilities for the sake of conversation. Rather, they believed there was a genuine possibility that some catastrophic event was drawing near.

As we see from their own words, the discussion had moved beyond curiosity and had begun creating fear within the community itself. Instead of easing those fears, the continuing discussion appears to have reinforced the belief that something extraordinary and potentially catastrophic was about to happen. Fears, the discussion continued to reinforce the expectation that something extraordinary was imminent.

The Rejection of Contradictory Evidence

As concern continued to grow within the community, one member introduced NASA’s own assessment of Comet Elenin. NASA had publicly stated that the comet posed no threat to Earth and would pass approximately 22 million miles away from our planet.

Yet this did not reassure everyone.

Another participant dismissed NASA altogether and referred to it as “official dajjalian sources.”

The reason this is worth noting is because it shows us what was happening within the discussion itself. We see that information which appeared to support fears of some approaching catastrophe was readily accepted. Yet when information was introduced that pointed in another direction, it was not really discussed on the evidence being presented but rejected because of where it came from.

As we see in other movements that have developed around apocalyptic expectations, once people become persuaded that something extraordinary is about to happen, information that challenges that expectation can become difficult to accept. The question can quickly move away from, “Is this evidence true?” and become, “Can this source be trusted?”

This naturally raises another question. If evidence that challenges a belief can be set aside because the source is already regarded as untrustworthy, how can that belief ever be properly tested against contrary evidence?

Ordinary Events Became Confirmation

As the expected date drew nearer, members increasingly began looking at other events taking place around the world and interpreting them as signs that some catastrophe was approaching. Reports of explosions in Argentina, lights in the sky, news stories about asteroids, military helicopter activity and meteor reports from different countries all found their way into the discussion.

These incidents were separate events taking place in different parts of the world. Yet within the forum they increasingly began to be viewed as though they formed part of the same developing picture.

One member suggested that an explosion in Argentina may have been debris from Comet Elenin. Another described the incident as “a raindrop of what’s to come soon.” A site administrator then replied that there was “possibly a relation.”

The comments are revealing because they show us how the discussion had begun to change. It was no longer simply a discussion about a comet or FEMA’s emergency broadcast test. Other events were increasingly being interpreted through the same lens and were taking on a much greater significance because they appeared to support the expectation that something extraordinary was drawing near.

History shows us that this kind of thinking is not unique. Once people become persuaded that a major event is approaching, ordinary events can start to look different. Incidents that may otherwise have remained unrelated begin to be seen as signs pointing in the same direction.

By this stage, the discussion was no longer centred merely upon whether Comet Elenin posed a threat. It had become a discussion in which more and more events were being absorbed into a wider expectation that something significant was about to happen.

The Prediction Failed

The anticipated date eventually arrived.

November 9th 2011 passed.

The FEMA test took place exactly as officially announced.

Yet nothing extraordinary happened.

No global catastrophe followed. No civilization-ending tsunami occurred. No pole shift occurred. No planetary destruction took place. Furthermore, no evidence emerged linking Comet Elenin to any worldwide disaster.

One might naturally expect that the failure of these expectations would lead people to reconsider the conclusions that had been drawn beforehand.

The reason this is important is because the discussion had been building towards the expectation that some major event was approaching. Fear had developed within the community, ordinary events had increasingly been interpreted as confirmation that something catastrophic was drawing near and information that challenged these expectations had often been viewed with suspicion.

Yet the anticipated date came and went.

As we see throughout the history of failed apocalyptic predictions, this is often the moment when expectations encounter reality. The events that were expected simply do not happen.

The central expectation that had developed throughout the discussion ultimately failed to materialise.

What Happened After Nothing Happened?

This is where the archive becomes particularly interesting.

November 9th had come and gone. The anticipated catastrophe had not occurred and the events that many had feared simply never happened.

One might naturally expect that this would lead to some acknowledgement that the predictions had been mistaken.

Yet this was not the response.

Instead, the discussion quickly turned towards other possibilities that still lay in the future.

One participant asked, “So when is the planet nerbiu coming?”

Another replied, “We are all waiting to see this planet.”

What makes these comments important is that they show us what happened after the original expectation had failed. The discussion moved away from Comet Elenin and towards Nibiru and other future scenarios. The expectation that something extraordinary was approaching did not simply disappear because one prediction had failed. Attention shifted elsewhere.

As we see throughout the history of apocalyptic expectations, the failure of one prediction does not necessarily bring the expectation itself to an end. People can remain convinced that something significant is still coming even if the original event never materialises.

This naturally raises another question. If one failed expectation is simply replaced by another future possibility, how is the original prediction ever meaningfully re-examined?

Moving the Goalposts

Perhaps the clearest example appears in the final stage of the discussion.

By this point, November 9th had passed and the anticipated catastrophe had not occurred. One might naturally expect that the failure of the prediction would bring the discussion to an end.

Yet this was not the response.

One participant wrote, “Even if the catastrophe on earth will not be happening on 11/2011 as predicted so far but it could be more probable some time in the next year 2012.”

Later another stated, “Who knows it might be next year or next 5 years.”

What makes these comments important is that they show us how the expectation itself was changing. The original prediction was no longer tied to a specific date. Rather than concluding that the prediction had been mistaken, the anticipated catastrophe was simply moved further into the future.

As we see in other movements that have developed around apocalyptic expectations, the failure of one timeline does not necessarily end the expectation that something extraordinary is approaching. The date may change and the circumstances may change, yet the expectation itself can remain intact.

This naturally raises another question. If one timeline fails and another immediately takes its place, at what point is the original prediction ever meaningfully re-examined?

The Historical Pattern

The significance of this archive extends beyond Comet Elenin itself.

When examining the discussion as a whole, a recognisable pattern begins to emerge. The reason this is important is because the events surrounding Comet Elenin do not appear entirely unique. Rather, they reflect a pattern that has been documented repeatedly in apocalyptic movements throughout history.

A warning is issued.

Followers become emotionally invested.

Current events increasingly begin to be interpreted as confirmation that the expectation is correct.

Information that points in another direction is viewed with suspicion or dismissed altogether.

The anticipated date eventually arrives.

The prediction fails.

A new timeline then emerges.

Yet the underlying expectation itself remains remarkably unchanged.

What makes the Elenin discussion particularly valuable is that it allows us to observe this process unfolding in real time. We can see concerns developing within the community, we can see ordinary events increasingly being interpreted as signs that something extraordinary was approaching and we can see what happened when the anticipated catastrophe ultimately failed to occur.

As we see in other movements that have developed around prophetic expectations, the failure of a prediction does not always bring the expectation itself to an end. The details may change and new timelines may emerge, yet the underlying belief can remain surprisingly resilient.

The Elenin discussion therefore provides a real-time example of how apocalyptic expectations can develop, adapt and continue even when the original prediction fails to materialise.

Questions for Abdullah Hashem

The issue here is not whether Abdullah Hashem sincerely believed the warnings that were being discussed. People can be sincere and still be mistaken.

The issue is what happens afterwards.

November 9th came and went. The anticipated catastrophe did not occur and the fears that had developed throughout the discussion ultimately proved to be unfounded.

At that point, a number of questions naturally arise.

Should warnings of an approaching catastrophe be looked at again after the expected events fail to happen?

Should inaccurate predictions be openly acknowledged?

Should followers be told when fears that had been widely discussed ultimately prove to be unfounded?

Should lessons be learned when expectations and predictions turn out to be wrong?

What makes these questions important is that they are not unusual or hostile questions to ask. They are reasonable questions that arise whenever a movement claims special insight into world events and encourages people to take extraordinary warnings seriously.

As we have seen throughout this discussion, followers became worried, ordinary events increasingly began to be interpreted as confirmation and expectations developed that something catastrophic was approaching. Once those expectations failed to materialise, questions concerning accountability naturally followed.

Conclusion

The historical record itself tells the story.

In 2011, a discussion initiated by Abdullah Hashem brought together Comet Elenin, FEMA emergency broadcasts, planetary alignments and wider end-times expectations. As the discussion developed, fears grew within the community and predictions of some approaching catastrophe became increasingly widespread.

The reason this is important is because the expectations being discussed were not treated as remote possibilities. Members became fearful and ordinary events increasingly began to be viewed as signs that something extraordinary was approaching. At the same time, information that appeared to support these expectations was readily accepted, while information that pointed in another direction was often viewed with suspicion.

Then the anticipated date arrived.

Yet the feared events never happened.

No global catastrophe followed and no evidence emerged linking Comet Elenin to a worldwide disaster.

Yet the failed prediction was never meaningfully acknowledged. Instead, attention moved towards new dates and different future scenarios. The expectation itself did not disappear. It simply found a new focus.

As we see throughout this archive, fears developed, expectations grew and ordinary events increasingly became invested with prophetic significance. Yet when the anticipated catastrophe ultimately failed to materialise, the underlying expectation remained.

The Elenin archive therefore provides an important historical case study of how failed apocalyptic expectations were handled within the early Hashem Studios and Yamani movement that later contributed to the emergence of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light.