______________________________________,
| w w w |\
| || || | || |\
| o_,_7 _|| . _o_7 _|| 4_|_|| o_w_, |\
| ( : / (_) / ( . |\
|______________________________________|\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Abdullah Ibn Saba (Part V)
=============================
The Opinion of the Historians
=============================
I have already provided the opinion of 15 famous Sunni scholars about the
weakness of the reports of Sayf Ibn Umar in of this article.
Beside them, many Sunni historians have also denied the existence of
Abdullah Ibn Saba and and/or the forged stories attributed to him. Among
them are Dr. Taha Husain, who has analyzed these stories and rejected them.
He wrote in "al-Fitnah al-Kubra" that:
In my opinion, those who have tried to emphasize on the story of
Abdullah Ibn Saba, have committed a crime in the history and hurt
themselves too. The first thing that is observed is that in the
important collections the name of Ibn Saba does not appear when they
discuss the agitation against Uthman. Ibn Sa'd does not mention the
name of Abdullah Ibn Saba when he discusses the Caliphate of Uthman
and the revolt against him. Also the book by al-Baladhuri, "Ansab al-
Ashraf", which I think the most important and the most detailed book
about the revolt against Uthman, the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba has
never been mentioned. It appears that al-Tabari was the first who
reported the story of Ibn Saba from Sayf, and then other historians
quoted al-Tabari in this regard.
In his other book "Ali wa Banuh", he also mentioned:
The story of Ibn Saba is nothing but myth, and is the invention of
some historians, since it contradicts other historical documents. ...
The fact is that the friction between Shia and Sunni have had many
shapes, and each group was advocating itself and denouncing the other
by any means possible. This requires a historian to be much more
cautious when analyzing the controversial reports related to seditions
and revolts.
In , we briefly mentioned the masterpiece of Allamah al-Askari
which was released in 1955 AD. Before that time, no analytical research had
been done on the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba to investigate if he really
existed in physical world and/or if the stories around this man had any
single truth in it. Although Sayf's heresy was well-known for a number of
centuries, no research had been done about the origin of the tale of
Abdullah Ibn Saba. In his research, al-Askari proved that Sayf's narration
attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba and many other things are sheer lie since
they contradict ALL other Sunni documents in content, timing of the events,
names of cities and companions, imaginary chain of narrators, and
miraculous records by Sayf (like talking cows with humans and so on). If
there was any Abdullah Ibn Saba at that time, his story was much different
than what Sayf manipulated.
Here is the response of a Sunni learned man, Dr. Hamid Dawud, the professor
of Cairo University, after reading al-Askari's book (I just give only a
part of his letter):
The 1300th birthday of Islam has been celebrated. During this time,
some of our learned writers have accused Shia of having un-Islamic
views. Those writers influenced public opinion against Shia and
created big gaps between Muslims. In spite of wisdom and learning, the
enemies of Shia followed their own chosen beliefs and partiality,
covering the truth, and accusing the Shia of being superstitious etc.
Hence Islamic science suffered much, as Shia views were suppressed.
As a result of these accusations, the loss to Islamic science was
greater than the loss suffered by Shia themselves, because the source
of this jurisprudence, though rich and fruitful, was neglected,
resulting in limited knowledge. Also, in the past, our learned men
were prejudiced, otherwise we would have benefited from many Shia
views. Anyone who wishes to do research in Islamic Jurisprudence must
consider Shia sources as well as those of Sunni.
Was not the Shia leader, Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH), the teacher
of two Sunni Imams? i.e., Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man (d. 150 AH), and Malik
Ibn Anas (d. 179 AH). Imam Abu Hanifa said: "Except for the two years
Nu'man would have starved," referring to the two years he had
benefited from the knowledge of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq. Imam Malik also
confessed straightforwardly that he had not met anyone learned in
Islamic Jurisprudence better than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq.
Yet, some of our so-called learned men, unfortunately disregard the
rules for research to suit their own ends. Hence knowledge is not
fully disclosed to them and thus they create a wider gap between
Muslims. Ahmed Amin is one of those deprived of the light of
knowledge, remaining in darkness. History has recorded this stain on
the robe of Ahmed Amin and his friends, who blindly followed one
special Madhab. Of many mistakes made by him, the biggest is told in
the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba. This is one of the tales told in order
to accuse Shia of heresy and foregoing events.
The great contemporary researcher, al-Askari, in his book, has proved
with substantial evidence, that Abdullah Ibn Saba was fictitious, and
it is therefore a greater lie to say that he was the founder of
Shi'ism.
God has decreed that some learned men disclose the truth regardless of
blame they may get. The pioneer in this subject is this man who has
made the Sunni learned men of research revise the history book of
Tabari (History of Nations and Kings), and to sift out the authentic
stories from the false. The stories which have been preserved as God's
revelations.
The honorable writer, with much evidence, has stripped the veil or
ambiguity from those historical events, and disclosed the truth, to
some extent that some facts seem frightful. But we have to obey the
truth no matter how difficult they appear. The truth is the best to be
followed.
Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawud
Oct. 12, 1961
Cairo, Egypt.
We just heard from a Sunni Muslim. Now let us see what a third party has
to say about Sayf and his character, Abdullah Ibn Saba. The following is
the comment of Dr. R. Stephen Humpherys, from the University of Wisconsin
at Madison, who has translated the Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari into
English. This comment is written in the foreword of Vol. 15 of the History
of al-Tabari. (again, I just give some parts of it. Please refer to Vol. 15
for details):
For events in Iraq and Arabia (the real key to the crises of Uthman's
caliphate) Tabari relies chiefly on Muhammad Ibn Umar al- Waqidi (d.
823) and the MYSTERIOUS SAYF IBN UMAR. Both of these authorities raise
real problems ... It is Sayf Ibn Umar who is most troubling, however.
Tabari shows a unique fondness for him, in two senses. First, SAYF IS
THE SOURCE MOST HEAVILY USED BY TABARI for the whole period from the
Riddah wars to the battle of Siffin (11-37 AH). Second, no one beside
Tabari appears to use Sayf at all. There is no obvious way to explain
Tabari's preference. It is certainly not explained by the formal
characteristics of Sayf's narratives, for he relies on informants who
are usually OBSCURE and often very recent. likewise, he makes heavy
use of the collective report, which blends together in unspecified
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ways the accounts of several transmitters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would suggest that Sayf appealed to Tabari for two reasons. First,
Sayf presents a "Sunday school" interpretation of Uthman's caliphate.
In his presentation, one sees a profound unity and harmony within the
core community of Muslims, a unity and harmony founded on strict
fidelity to the legacy of Muhammad. It is unthinkable that men such as
those portrayed by Sayf could have been moved by worldly ambition and
greed. On the contrary, in Sayf's presentation most conflicts are
illusory, a reflection of malicious misinterpretations by later
commentators. Where real conflicts did arise among sincere Muslims,
they were instigated by outsiders like the notorious Abdullah Ibn
Saba, a converted Jew from Yemen.
On this level, at least, Sayf's version of events is obviously a very
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
naive one, and no doubt Tabari perceived that as clearly as we do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even so, it served a very useful function for Tabari: By making Sayf's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reports the visible frame work of his narrative, he could slip in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
much less flattering interpretations of early Islamic history
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
presented by his other sources. Ordinary readers would dismiss this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dissident testimony as irrelevant, and only few critical readers would
catch his hint and pursue the issues raised by such secondary
accounts. In this way, Tabari could say what needed to be said while
avoiding accusations of sectarianism. Accusations of this kind were of
course no small matter in view of the enormous social and religious
tensions in Baghdad during the late 9th and early 10th centuries.
Reference: History of al-Tabari, v15, pp xv-xvii
Also in the foreword of Volume 11 of the English version of the History of
al-Tabari, the translator writes:
Although Tabari scrupulously cited his sources and can be shown to
have often quoted from them almost verbatim, these source themselves
can be traced with certainty only to an earlier stage in the
collection of Islamic history, represented by the writers Ibn Is'haq
(d. 151/767), Ibn al-Kalbi (d. 204/819), al-Waqidi (d. 207/822), and
Sayf Ibn Umar (d. ~170/786). From the first three, all of whom are
cited in this volume, there are works extant that enable us to assess
their tendencies to some extent, as well as to verify their use of
their own sources. For an assessment of the value of their
transmission, the reader is referred to the relevant articles in the
Encyclopedia of Islam and other secondary literature.
It is the fourth writer extensively quoted by al-Tabari, SAYF IBN
UMAR, with whom we are mainly concerned here. As his work survives
principally in the transmission of al-Tabari and those who took from
him and IS FOUND NOWHERE IN INDEPENDENT FORM, he has unfortunately
been rather ignored in modern criticism. Yet it is Sayf's lengthy
reports that fill most of the pages of this and several other volumes.
The historical evaluation of this volume therefore depends to a large
extent on our assessment of the nature of Sayf's reports and al-
Tabari's use of them, and it is to these problems that we must turn
our attention.
Abu Abdillah Sayf Ibn Umar al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi was a Kufan
traditionist who died in the reign of Harun al-Rashid (170-93/786-
809). Other than the possibility that he was accused of MANICHAEISM
(Zandaqah) in the inquisition (Mihnah) that began under al-Mahdi in
166/783 and continued into the time of al-Rashid, nothing is known of
his life, except what can be determined from his tradition. (On Mihnah
itself, see History of al-Tabari, v3, pp 517, 522, 548-551, 604, 645;
and the book called "Zindiqs" by Vajda, pp 173-229. On accusations
against Sayf, see Majruheen, by Ibn Hibban, v1, pp 345-346; Mizan, by
al-Dhahabi, v2, pp 255-256; Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar, v4, p296).
As he is alleged to have transmitted from at least nine traditionists
who died in 140-146/757-763, and even from two who died in 126-128/744-
746, he may have been elderly when he died. This is also suggested by
the possibility that Abu Mikhnaf, who died considerably earlier than
Sayf in 157/774, may have quoted from him. Sayf's work was originally
recorded in two books which are now lost but survived for a number of
centuries after Sayf's own lifetime. They made an enormous impact on
the Islamic historical tradition, especially because al-Tabari chose
to rely mainly on them for the events of 11-36/632-656, a period that
spanned the reigns of the first three caliphs and included all the
early conquests of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Although al-Tabari
also quoted other sources in this volume, as we have indicated, the
overwhelming bulk of his material for this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
period is from Sayf. In deed, it is also probable, though not certain,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that he has reproduced the vast majority of Sayf's work. Sayf is only
rarely cited by other writers independently of al-Tabari.^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Generally, Sayf's description of the conquests transmitted in this and
other volumes of al-Tabari emphasizes the heroism of the Muslim
warriors, the hardships they endured, and the toughness of their
opponents, features that seem plausible enough and are also found in
other conquest narratives beside those of Sayf. However, Sayf's
narratives differ in the extent to which he introduces traditions not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
found elsewhere, often reporting them from transmitters not otherwise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
known. These UNIQUE narratives frequently contain fantastic or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
legendary motifs to an extent far greater than is found in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
versions of other historians. Although the fantastic and tendentious
nature of Sayf's reports has often been noted, for example, by Julius
Wellhausen (see skizzen, pp 3-7), the exact value of his corpus as a
primary source has never been assessed in detail.
...Although he hailed from Kufa, the crucible of early Shi'ism, Sayf
belonged to a completely anti-Shi'i undercurrent, representing the
Kufan faction that had earlier opposed the rebellions of al-Husain Ibn
Ali and Zayd Ibn Ali. (This is also indicated by his quotation from
sources who were involved in the killing of al-Husain. See for
instance v11, pp 204, 206, 216, 222)...
The egregious tendentiousness of Sayf's corpus comes out most plainly
in other volumes of al-Tabari, in such episodes as Saqifah Bani
Sa'idah (Tabari, v1, pp 1844-50), the burial of Uthman (3049-50), and
the tale of ABDULLAH IBN SABA (2858-59,2922,2928,2942-44,2954,3027,
3163-65,3180). In each of these instances, other versions that do not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
confirm Sayf's own are available for comparison and reveal the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
impudence of his daring constructions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... Beside exaggerating the roles of certain Companions in the early
conquests, Sayf also embellished his work with the exploits of other,
IMAGINARY COMPANIONS and with heroes whom he invented, especially to
represent his own tribal group. The most outstanding of these
fabrications is al-Qa'qa Ibn Amr, a hero and alleged Companion of the
Prophet, who is, not surprisingly, said to be a member of Sayf's own
subtribe, the Usayyidi (in this volume, pp 8,24,36,40,42-43,45,48,60-
63,65,90,95,166,168). His being an Usayyidi suggests that his
fabrication is owing to Sayf himself and not to any of Sayf's alleged
sources, as none of the latter is identified as an Usayyidi. In
addition, many other persons supposedly belonging to the Tamim tribal
group appear to be fabrication, some of them having stereotypical
names that suggest almost playful invention, like "Wrap, the son of
Skirt", "Spring Herbage, the son of Rain, the son of Snow", and "Sea,
the son of Euphrates". The reader will find dozens of persons who are
named only in Sayf's traditions recorded in this volume. ...
Beside having FABRICATED many of the personages who appear in his
transmissions, it also appear that Sayf FABRICATED the names of many,
perhaps most, of his alleged authorities. ...
Frequently it seems that these invented "authorities" served as
intermediate links between Sayf and earlier genuine traditionists
whose authority Sayf wished to use to bolster his own inventions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This assessment of Sayf in no way undermines the authority of other
early Muslim writers whose works may have an entirely different
character, just as the Late Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus is in
no way affected by the fraud of the Historia Augusta. On the contrary,
it is greatly to the credit of the medieval Sunni Muslims who assessed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the quality of traditions in the Rijal books that they unanimously
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rejected Sayf's authority in the most absolute way possible. They did
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
so despite the fact that his traditions could have been used to back
their emerging Sunni consensus on early Islamic history. This suggests
that their condemnation of Sayf's traditions was motivated by a
concern for the truth, rather than by a wish to gain advantage in the
partisan arena of the time. They realized that his transmissions were
exaggerated and fraudulent, and they said so. In fact, the
condemnation of Sayf by the medieval Muslim Ulama ought to serve as a
reminder to modern scholars that ancient and medieval texts were not
always dictated by the prevailing political or religious climate and
that the search for truth had its place in earlier times as well as in
our own. ...
In describing the conquests generally al-Tabari scarcely deviated from
Sayf's reports. This brings us to the second attraction that Sayf may
have had for al-Tabari: DETAIL. Sayf's transmissions are almost always
far more verbose than parallel reports of more sober traditionists.
This characteristic probably not only made them preferable to al-
Tabari but may have seemed a guarantee of their accuracy. Living in
medieval times, al-Tabari did not, in the majority of instances, have
available to him the modern tools that would have enabled him to
discover Sayf's tendentiousness. And, after all, Sayf's reports have
continued to receive the approbation of a minority of scholars even up
to the present.
Reference: History of al-Tabari, v11, pp xv-xxix
Also Professor James Robinson, (D.Litt., D.D.Glasgow, U.K.) wrote:
I would like to make a remark about Tabari who had no hesitation in
quoting from Sayf. His history is not a historical work in the manner
of modern writing, for his main purpose seems to have been to record
all the information in his possession without necessarily expressing
an opinion on its value. One is, therefore, prepared to find that some
of his material is less reliable than others. So, perhaps we can
excuse him for using a method not approved nowadays. He has at least
provided a mass of information. It remains for acute scholars to
distinguish between the genuine and the false.
It is shown that Sayf often quotes men who are unknown. This raises
the question why none of them should have been quoted by other
transmitters, and leads one further to suggest that Sayf has invented
them. This serious accusation is a reasonable assumption by comparing
Sayf with others.
It is pointed out that Sayf has stories miraculous of happenings which
are difficult to believe, such as desert sands becoming water for
Muslim armies, seas becoming sand, cattle speaking and informing the
Muslim army where they were hidden, etc. In Sayf's time it was
possible for him to succeed in passing off such stories as history,
but nowadays the critical student naturally finds such stories quite
impossible. Effective arguments are also used to show how Sayf's
information about Ibn Saba and the Saba'iyya is quite unreliable.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sayf who lived in the first quarter of the second century belonged to
Tamim, one of the Mudar tribes who live in Kufa. This helps one to
study his tendencies and the influences leading to this legends. There
is discussion of Zindeeq and of Manichaeism. Party spirit is said to
have continued from the Prophet's time, till that of the Abbasids.
Sayf upholds the northern tribes, inventing heroes, poets praising the
tribe's heroes, companions of the Prophet from Tamim, wars and battles
which had no reality, millions killed and large numbers of prisoners
with the purpose glorifying the heroes he invented, Poems attributed
to imaginary heroes were in praise of Mudar, then Tamim, then Ibn Amr,
the subtribe to which Sayf traced his origin. Sayf mentioned men of
Mudar as leaders of battles which were led by men of other tribes, his
fictitious leaders sometimes being real people, sometimes names
produced by his imagination. It is argued that the falseness of his
information was partly to upset the faith of many and partly to give
non-Muslims a wrong conception. He was so skillful in his forgeries
that they were accepted as genuine history.
There is a big difference between a Hadith work, such as Sahih al-Bukhari,
and a history work such as the History al-Tabari. al-Bukhari was selective
toward the traditions and might have recorded 1/10 of traditions that was
conveyed to him, since he dropped all traditions which might have been weak
in his point of view. However al-Tabari, though he was selective in his
other works, but for his History he recorded 9/10 of what he had heard, and
this is due to the nature of historical documentations which are not
necessarily as accurate as the Hadith collections.
As a result, al-Bukhari did NOT transmit EVEN ONE SINGLE TRADITION about
Abdullah Ibn Saba in his nine-volume Sahih. But historians who favored
heavy documentations more than the authenticity of narrators, recorded
heavily about Abdullah Ibn Saba through Sayf.
The Shia historians are not exempt from the above reasoning. They have also
recorded most of the things they have got. This includes those reports that
they were not sure about. The final research by Shia related to Abdullah
Ibn Saba was released only in 1955 AD, and it was not so clear before that
time that the stories related to Abdullah Ibn Saba have been the total
manipulation of Sayf with political motives. The two Shia historian who
mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, lived 10 centuries before the
publication extensive research about Abdullah Ibn Saba. A person is called
expert in the history of Islam, if s/he has read all the early history
books. As a matter of fact, many early history books were written by the
Sunni authors under the direct fund of Umayad and later Abbasid rulers. A
Shia historian does not ban Sunni sources, and consequently his work is
affected, one way or another, by previous works. This is clear when one
observes that the two Shia historians who mentioned the name of Abdullah
Ibn Saba, did not give any chain of transmitters for their report meaning
that they got it from rumor the mouth people which the result of Sayf's
mass propaganda.
As for those few traditions which have the chain of narrators (independent
of Sayf), they provide a much different story which do not support any of
the allegations of Sayf. These traditions picture an accursed man whom
Ahlul-Bayt have declared their innocence from what he attributed to Imam
Ali (declaring Ali as God). The Shia, their Imams and their scholars
declare the curse of Allah to that man (if ever existed) he was lost,
misguided and cursed. There is nothing in common between us and his name
except our curse on him and all other extremists who believed in deity of
Ahlul-Bayt.
The followers of Ahlul Bayt never claimed that Ali is God, nor did they
claim the rest of 12 Imams are God. This, in fact, shows that those who
gave life to the stories attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba had hatred toward
Shia, and tried to misrepresent the Followers of the Members of the House
of Prophet. If Shia were the followers of that mysterious Jew, they should
have believed in deity of Ali and should also respect their mentor Abdullah
Ibn Saba, instead of cursing him!
If Abdullah Ibn Saba is such an influential and important figure for the
Shia, how come they NEVER quote him like they do with the Imams of Ahlul
Bayt? Surely, if Abdullah Ibn Saba was their Master Teacher, they must
quote him and be proud to do so? A religious student always quotes his
teacher, why then would the Shia be any different? Why should they curse
him instead? If one answers that the reason that the Shia do not quote from
him is that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, then I would ask him what
was the religion of the companions before converting to Islam? Was not Abu
Huraira a Jew who killed a Muslim before converting to Islam? Was not that
he converted to Islam just 2 years before the death Prophet? Then why do
the bulk of traditions in the Sunni collections come from him? while the
traditions reported by Imam Ali (who was the first male who embraced Islam)
in the Sunni collections is less than 1% of what is reported by Abu
Huraira? This is a sign for those who reflect.
Moreover, It is a custom of Shia that they celebrate the birthday of
Prophet and 12 Imams and Lady Fatimah, peace be upon them all. They also
mourn in the memory of their martyrdom. Why then they do not hold the same
practice for Abdullah Ibn Saba if he was their master?
Besides, are the Shia so stupid and ignorant that after 1400 years, they
have never figured out that their belief and faith are based on fabricated
traditions and tales going back to Abdullah Ibn Saba? I doubt, then, how
the Shia, if they were indeed so stupid as to believe a so-called hypocrite
Jew in their theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, history, and
interpretations of the Quran, have survived to this day? Surely if the
knowledge of the Shia was based on such a shaky foundation as Abdullah Ibn
Saba, they would have perished a long time ago. It is more interesting when
we see the Imams of the majority of the Sunnis were the students of the
Imams of Shia (Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja'far Sadiq, peace be upon
them). Then one would say the Sunni schools got the basics of their Fiqh
from Shia, which means the Sunnis along with Shia were the followers of the
very same person, the mysterious Abdullah Ibn Saba! Who is left then?
Perhaps the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab!
Moreover, if Abdullah Ibn Saba did in fact exist with such stories that
Sayf attributed to him, then there is 150 years between his birth and the
publication of the story of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi. During those 150
years, there lived an innumerous number of scholars, scribes, historians,
and philosophers who contributed many books. Why didn't any of them EVER
mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba? Surely, if he was such an
influential figure for the Shia, you can bet that the Sunnis would have
known him before Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi! The fact that he was NEVER
mentioned in ANY book before the book of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi is enough
to cast doubt on the entire story attributed to him and even his existence.
Can you believe that in the 150 years or so between the so-called birth of
Abdullah Ibn Saba and the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi, no book
ever mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba? Yet some people still claim he with such
stories existed!
More strange thing is that even in the next 160 years after the publication
of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi not too many people knew the story of Abdullah
Ibn Saba. It wasn't wide-spread until the story of Ibn Saba extensively
showed up in the History of al-Tabari (160 years after Sayf's publication),
and it was at that time when some mercenaries started giving it weight as
a means of defense against Shia.
Now, what do these mercenaries have to offer? NOTHING!!! They still cling
to their own-made version of history, thereby contradicting themselves and
the above proofs as well as the documented Sunni history, simply to defend
their ignorant statements about the Shia.
Wassalam.
Comments
Post a Comment