SHIA ARE PROPHET'S SUCCESSORS GROUP

 
 

ASFA Discussion Board

 

                            Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 6:53 a.m.

 

The existence of Ibn Saba

 

Murtada al-‘Askari’s entire argument for denying Ibn Saba’s historicity rests upon the fact that Ibn Jarir at-Tabari’s Tarikh, as the major reference for historical  material on Ibn Saba, uses Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tamimi as his sole source for describing the character and exploits of Ibn Saba. He states on page 20:

 

All historians agree that the story [of Ibn Saba] was told first of all by Saif.

 

He then gives a list of 22 historians, all of whom have relied, directly or indirectly, upon the information supplied by Sayf, and remarks:

 

The above list gives evidence to the fact that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari. (Murtada

 

al-‘Askari, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, Part One, p. 21, second edition, published by A Group of Muslim Brothers, Tehran 1981)

 

This is exactly the Achilles’ heel of al-‘Askari’s research. He has—intentionally or unintentionally—displayed myopic scholarship by asserting that Sayf ibn ‘Umar is  the only source for the existence of Ibn Saba. A mere look at the biography of Sayf in Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani’s Lisan al-Mizan (vol. 4 p. 22 of the edition published  by Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, and edited by Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Mar‘ashli) would have revealed to him just how erroneous his assertion is. The  sources from which Ibn Hajar has drawn, such as the 70 volume Tarikh Madinat Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir, and the Musnad by Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili have been  published, and by means of their chains of narration that pass through authorities other than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, eloquently testify to the intellectual deception practiced by al-‘Askari. (See Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq vol. 29 pp. 3-10, where he has filled seven pages with information on Ibn Saba.)

 

Al-‘Askari did in fact make mention of the history of Ibn ‘Asakir in his survey of the historical sources that mention Ibn Saba. However, in his eagerness to create  the (false) perception that all the historical threads link up to Sayf ibn ‘Umar, he committed the deception of singling out one of the twelve independent accounts as being derived by Ibn ‘Asakir through Sayf, and making as if the remaining 11 reports do not exist. (See ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, p. 47) The fact is that 10 of the remaining 11 reports pass through authorities other than Sayf, but that is a fact that al-‘Askari conveniently chose to overlook.

 

The term “intellectual deception” might seem a bit too harsh a description for a researcher who was probably not informed about that wealth of information. But it appears very justified when it is considered that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in the legacy of the Shi‘ah themselves, and by the Imams of the Shi‘ah themselves. If it could be pleaded that al-‘Askari was ignorant of the historical information documented by Ibn ‘Asakir and others, there is no way that same plea could ever be accepted in terms of the legacy of the Shi‘ah. After all, a learned researcher who spent so much time and effort fine-combing the voluminous works of history is definitely expected to encompass the contents of his own legacy first.

 

In his survey of historical works, which he purports to be exhaustive, not a single mention has been made of the literature of the Shi‘ah. Not a single classical Shi‘i source features on the chart he gives on page 50. The fact is that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in almost every Shi‘i biographical work. Dr. Sa‘di al-Hashimi in his book Ibn Saba: Haqiqah La Khayal (pp. 25-28, Maktabat ad-Dar, Madina 1406) has listed over 20 Shi‘i sources that testify to the existence of Ibn Saba. We might mention by way of example just one of those works. Incidentally the book happens to be one of the books contained in the list you mentioned in your letter. The only difference is that your copy is computerised, while ours is a printed book. The book we refer to is Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, which is Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi’s recension of Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi’s 4th century biographical dictionary of Shi‘i hadith narrators. In this book the entry for Ibn Saba spans a full two pages (323-324), and consists of five separate reports, their numbers running from 170 to 174. Below we give you a list of the Imams with whom these five reports originate:

 

170: Imam Muhammad al-Baqir

171: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

172: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

173: Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin

174: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

 

(See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, pp. 323-324, ed. as-Sayyid Mahdi ar-Rijali, published by Mu’assasat Al al-Bayt, Qum, 1404)

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:19 a.m.

 

                                In Response To: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (Brother)

 

Dear brother! assalam alaikum

I think that I have already given answers to these questions, regarding narrations from shias and sunnies, not going through Sayf ibn umar.

Please see it once more.

http://www.meer.net/~audiostore/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=17228

http://www.meer.net/~audiostore/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=17229

 

I hoped that you would discuss on these traditions, but you are again talking about that ones.

 

After giving the details of sunni and shia reports, not transmitted through sayf ibn umar, we were able to draw a conclusion that all these reports are very different from what sayf ibn umar has written. Unfortunately, ahle-sunnah beleive blindy on the misleading reports which are only transmitted by the GREAT LAIR sayf ibn umar. Dear Brother! it is also interesting that before Sayf no one among sahabies, tabaeen, mufasireen, and sunni fuqha(like malik) even reported a single narration about abdullah ibn saba, nor did anybody reported it after sayf till the time of Tabari(sayf wrote complete 2 books Sayf alleging that a Yemenite Jew, called Abdullah Ibn Saba (also known as Ibn Amutus-Sawda'; son of a black slave), declared his Islam at the time of * Uthman *. He willfully associated himself with Muslims and traveled in their cities and towns, from Damascus to Kufa to Egypt, propagating among Muslims that Muhammad (PBUH&HF) will be resurrected like Jesus. He also said Ali is Prophet's executor and was deprived of his divine office by Uthman. He provoked Abu Dhar and Ammar Ibn Yasir to agitate against Uthman and Muawiyah. He provoked Muslims to kill Uthman since he had usurped the seat of Ali. Sayf also alleged that Ibn Saba was the key element in the tragedy of the battle of Camel). Tabari heavily quoted him in his book. Afterwards, this personality became famous and every one coming after them quoted it either directly from Sayf ibn umar or indirectly by tabari. Very interesting thing that none of other sunni historian, fuqha, mufasireen even reported a single narration directly other than Sayf, in the whole period till Ibn-e-asakir(6th century). And what ibn-e-asakir reported, it was very much different than what sayf reported. And unfortunately, ahle sunnah brothers curse their shia brothers only on the bases of narrations reported ONLY AND ONLY AND ONLY by sayf ibn umar, who was the great great lair.(just look what sunni ulama has to say about him).

 

Dear Brother! I thought that you set some criteria about accepting an event(while we were discussing about Ghadeer. You rejected several hadiths, who were even rated authentic by some high level sunni ulama. But here I am shocked to see that you have blindly accepted the narrations only reported by great lair sayf ibn umar, who is unanimously accused of forgery by sunni ulama(and his these 2 books). Just see what a translator of history of tabari has to say

 

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 Hope to hear from you brother. May allah show us the right path-amin-

 

Was-salam

asim zaidi

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:38 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salaam

 

Who is giving any credence to Sayf ibn Umar? This post is directed at those that allege Sayf as being the sole propagator of these alleged fictions. The issue of ghader khum cannot even be likened to the two events. One is historical the other has taken on religious proportions and that is why I address it in particular. The issue of the six books of hadeeth has nothing to do with the issue of ibn Sabaa because it serves as a historical purpose, and the compilers of the hadeeth did not have any intentions of compiling narrations which do not serve any of their purposes. By the way Askari makes a lie when he states all historians agree the narrations orignated with Sayf.

 

One more time:

"Al-‘Askari did in fact make mention of the history of Ibn ‘Asakir in his survey of the historical sources that mention Ibn Saba. However, in his eagerness to create the (false) perception that all the historical threads link up to Sayf ibn ‘Umar, he committed the deception of singling out one of the twelve independent accounts as being derived by Ibn ‘Asakir through Sayf, and making as if the remaining 11 reports do not exist. (See ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, p. 47) The fact is that 10 of the remaining 11 reports pass through authorities other than Sayf, but that is a fact that al-‘Askari conveniently chose to overlook."

 

And 10 of the eleven accounts are independent accounts having nothing to do with Abdullah ibn Sabaa. Not only that one only has to wonder the root of the word Sabaiyyah which is used to describe the actions and extremism of the people of Kufa as quoted by Jafri. This post quoted Muhammad az-Zayn as existing also in his shia fit tarikh.

 

To quote Jafir one more time:

There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi‘i collection of hadith, Al-Kafi, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

 

One has a troublesome time trying to cope with the term sabayee in both shia and sunni literature.

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 9:11 a.m.

 

                              In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (Brother)

 

Salam alaikum

Dear Brother! It is strange that you are not ready to even see a single resemblence common in the 2 events,namely Ghadeer and abdullah ibn saba.

 

You wrote that

>Who is giving any credence to Sayf ibn Umar?

 

Other then Sayf, you have only ibn Asakir left who reported about abdullah ibn Saba. And he is (ibn asakir) 6th century historian. And what he has reported, has nothing to do with the stories of abdullah bin saba, which sunnies blindly believe. No one, shia or sunni, even reported a single narration which confirm the stories of Sayf ibn umar. But strange, still sunnies want to follow this greal lair and forger blindly.

 

Ghadeer has not only been narrated by a great no. of muffasireen, and muhaditheen, but also a great no. of historians. Here is the list

=====================================================

Sunni Commentators of Quran who mentioned Ghadir Khum

=====================================================

The following Sunni commentators mentioned that one or some or all of the mentioned verses of Quran (such as [5:67] which was about the Allah's order to Prophet for announcement of appointment of Ali, [5:3] which was about completeness of religion, and [70:1] which was about the curse of a person who became angry at the Prophet for this announcement) were reported to have been revealed in the event of Ghadir Khum:

 

1. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310), in "Tafsir al-Bayan"

2. al-Jassas (d. 370), in "Ahkam al-Quran"

3. al-Hafiz Abu Nu'aym (d. 430), in "Asbab al-Nuzool"

4. al-Tha'labi (d. 427 or 437), in "Tafsir al-Tha'labi"

5. al-Wahidi (d. 468), in "Asbab al-Nuzool"

6. al-Qurtubi (d. 568), in "Tafsir Jamiul Hukam al-Quran"

7. al-Fakhr al-Razi (d. 606), in "al-Tafsir al-Kabir"

8. al-Khazin Baghdadi (d. 741), in "Tafsir al-Khazin"

9. al-Nisaboori (8th century), in "Tafsir al-Nisaboori"

10. Ibn Kathir (d. 774), in his "Tafsir" (complete version) under the verse

 

5:3 (It is ommitted in coincise version!) narrated from Ibn Mardawayh.

11. al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti (d. 910), in his "Tafsir"

12. al-Khatib al-Sharbini, in his "Tafsir"

13. Abu al-Saud al-Hanafi (d. 972), in his "Tafsir"

14. al-Aloosi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270), in his "Tafsir"

... and many others.

 

===========================================================

Sunni Historians who mentioned the Tradition of Ghadir Khum

===========================================================

1. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276), in "Ma'arif" and "Imamah wal Siyasah"

2. al-Baladhuri (d. 279), in "Ansab al-ashraf"

3. Ibn Zawlaq al-Laithi al-Misri (d. 287), in his book

4. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310), in an exclussive book "Kitabul Wilayah"

5. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463), in "Tarikh Baghdad"

6. Ibn Abd al-Bar (d. 463), in "al-Isti'ab"

7. al-Shahristani (d. 548), in "al-Milal wal Nihal"

8. Ibn 'Asakir (d. 571), in "Tarikh Ibn 'Asakir" and "Yaqoot al-Hamawi"

9. Ibn al-Athir (d. 630), in "Usd al-Ghabah"

10. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654), in "Tadhkirat Khawas al-Ummah"

11. Ibn Abi al-Hadid (d. 656), in "Sharh Nahjul Balagha"

12. Ibn Khalkan (d. 681), in "Tarikh Ibn Khalkan"

13. Abul Fida (d. 732), in his "Tarikh"

14. al-Dhahabi (d. 748) , in "Tadhkirat al-Huffadh"

15. al-Yafi'i (d. 768), in "Miraat al-Jinan"

16. Ibn al-Shaikh al-Balawi, in "Alef Baa"

17. Ibn Kathir (d. 774), in "al-Bidayah wal Nihayah"

18. Ibn Khaldoon (d. 808), in "al-Muqaddimah"

19. al-Nuwairi (d. ~833), in "Nihayat al-Irab fi Finoon al-Adab"

20. al-Maqrizi (d. 845), in "al-Khitat"

21. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852), in "al-Isabah" and "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib"

22. Ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki (d. 855), in "al-Fusool al-Muhimmah"

23. Mir Khand (d. 903), in "Habib al-Siyar"

24. Jalalulddin al-Suyuti (d. 910), in "Tarikh al-Khulafa"

25. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, (d. 974), in "al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah"

26. al-Hafiz Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-'Asimi, in "Zain al-Fata"

27. al-Qirmani al-Dimashqi (d. 1019), in "Akhbar al-Duwal"

28. Noor al-Din al-Halabi (d. 1044), in "al-Sirah al-Halabiyah"

... and many others.

 

Is it not strange that you deny the happening of event of Ghadeer and compelling others to blindly follow the story of abdullah ibn Saba, which is only and only narrated by great lair and forger sayf ibn umar. Is it a justice?

 

Brother! let allah be between us as witness.

was-salam

asim zaidi.

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                    Date: 5/11/0, at 7:02 a.m.

 

                                In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salaam

 

Do you even have any idea what the issue is about? The post refers to the EXISTENCE of Abdullah ibn Sabaa which is confirmed through both shia and sunni accounts that are INDEPENDENT of Sayf ibn Umar. Nobody was referring as of yet to his activities nor his sole responsibility in the anarchy and chaos that had taken to the forefront in the LAST TWO YEARS of Hadhrat Uthman's 13 year period. The collection of various fronts had mainly entered into Hadhrat Ali's party from Jews, Sabaiis, zorastrians and the like. There were culmination of factors ibn Sabaa being among them.

 

I don't think it is even necessary to quote all the speeches attributed to Hadhrat Ali (R) in Nahjul Balagha referring to the shamelessness and treachery of the people that were in his army. The people that betrayed Hasan in Sabat Madian before his reconciliation with Muawiya was the place, according to the shia historians themselves, where ibn Sabaa was originally exiled. These facts are even endorsed by Majlisi, the shia fanatic in his book jil al uyyun, and even ibn al-hadid in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha.

 

Not only does ibn Asakir refer to him, there is the published Musnad by Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili. That is why the post you quoted does not even address the accounts quoted by ibn Hajr which are INDEPENDENT of Sayf ibn Umar. If one talks about anything he merely has to analyze these independent accounts of ibn Asakir and the shia accounts themselves and tell us the problems in the narrations.

 

It is the same thing for Ghadeer Khum. Like I said before, whether or not the incident of Ghadeer Khum is accepted, the context of the Tabarsi and the rest is a blatant lie. I have issued the same challenge to quote the tafseer of ibn Katheer or Tabari's tarikh word by word of there commentaries on the verse. By the way the tarikh is full of spurious accounts and Tabari himself acknowledges that he merely collected the information without regard to examining the reports in full. He places the burden on the readers to examine and verify the reports themselves. None of them say these verses were revealed for Ghadeer Khum.

 

Salaam

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/11/0, at 9:16 a.m.

 

                                 In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (Brother)

 

Salam alaikum

Dear Brother! you wrote

<Nobody was referring as of yet to

<his activities nor his sole responsibility in the anarchy and chaos that had <taken to the forefront in the LAST TWO YEARS of Hadhrat Uthman's 13 year period

 

I wished that you have done it. Look at your ulama. Right from tabari to today, accusing abdullah ibn saba for all this anarchy and chaos , and the agitation against usman, and defending usman own MISDEEDS. And also defending aysha, talha, zubair and others from thier role in war of camel. Cursing and blaming shias, that it were these shias who were the only reasons for that anarchy and chaos and agitation. It were they who conspired and started the war of camel.

you wrote

 

<Not only does ibn Asakir refer to him, there is the published Musnad by Abu <Ya‘la al-Mawsili. That is why the post you quoted does not even address the accounts quoted by ibn Hajr which are <INDEPENDENT of Sayf ibn Umar. If one talks about anything he merely has to analyze these independent accounts of ibn <Asakir and the shia accounts themselves and tell us the problems in the narrations.

 

I have already given an account about these narrations. It seems that you even do not care to read the messages and start refuting them. If you think that i have misquoted them, then please correct me and give the exact cotations.

 

Regarding army of hazrat ali a.s and his reffering to thier shameless chracter, insha allah i will tell you how many of them were sunnies and how many were his real shias. Insha allah we will discuss it in separate thread soon. 

 

Regarding Ghadeer! I asked you only if such event happened or not. Why are you taking so late to confirm the happening of such event. And I am eager to hear about your version of event. Is it so difficult for you to do it?

 

allah bless you.

was-salam

asim zaidi.

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                   Date: 5/11/0, at 10:25 a.m.

 

                                In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salaam

 

Your first paragraph is a big hallucination. Every sunni scholar has devoted lengthy discussions over the development of shiaism down to this day. To even say one blames the shias is a total demonstration of the ignorance of the topic. As I asserted to every shia before one has to define what one means by shia. One cannot project shis of today onto the shia of ali and shia of muawiya.

 

Salaam

 

 

 

 

ibn Saba and Ghadeer

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 9:48 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Assalam alaikum

 

Dear Brother! Below i am going to give the list of companions who narrated the event of Ghadeer (needless to say that all references are from sunni literature).

 

Then I will question you why event of Ghadeer is not acceptable as authentic for you and Abdullah ibn saba, who has been only and only reported by sayf(the great lair) is so authentic that you blindly follows him.

 

========================================================

The Companions who narrated the Tradition of Ghadir Khum

========================================================

At least 110 companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) narrated the tradition of

Ghadir Khum. Here are their names listed alphabetically (sorted in Arabic),

followed by some of the Sunni references in which their traditions are

located. Most of them heard it first hand at the site.

 

T | - A - | |

 

1. Abu Huraira al-Dowsi (d. 57~59):

* al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in "Tarikh Baghdad", v8, p290; from two ways.

* Abi al-Hajjaj al-Mazzi, in "Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asmaa al-rijal";

* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", v7, p327;

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "al-Manaqib", p 130;

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt";

* al-Jazri, in "Asna al-Matalib", p3;

* Jalalulddin al-Suyuti, in "al-Durr al-Manthoor", v2, p259;

* Jalalulddin al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114;

* Hamawaini, in "Fara'id al-Samtain";

* Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p154, p403; also from

 

12 companions;

* Ibn Abd al-Bar, in "al-Isti'ab", v2, p473;

* Ibn Kathir, in "al-bidaya wal Nihaya", v5, p214; from various narrators;

* Abi Bakr al-Ja'abi, in "Nukhab al-Manaqib"; via al-Surawi in

"al-Manaqib", v1, p529;

* al-Badukhshi, in "Nuzul al-Abrar", p20.

 

2. Abu Laila al-Ansari (d. 37 in Siffin):

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Manaqib al-Khawarizmi", p35;

* al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114;

* al-Samhoudi, in "Jawahir al-'Aqdain".

 

3. Abu Zainab Ibn 'Aouf al-Ansari:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v3, p307; and v5, p205;

* Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, in "al-Isabah", v3, p408; and v4, p80.

 

4. Abu Fadhalah al-Ansari (who took part in the battle of Badr, was

martyred in Siffin while he was with Ali (AS)):

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v3, p307; and v5, p205;

* al-Qadhy Bahlool Bahjat, in "Tarikh Aali Muhammad", p67.

 

5. Abu Qidamah al-Ansari:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v4, p159; and v5, p276;

* al-Samhoudi, in "Jawahir al-'Aqdain".

 

6. Abu 'Umrou Ibn Muhsin al-Ansari:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v3, p307;

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

 

7. Abu al-Haitham Ibn al-Tihan (d. 37 in Siffin):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt";

* al-Samhoudi al-Shafi'i, in "Jawahir al-'Aqdain".

* al-Qadhy, in "Tarikh Aali Muhammad", p67.

 

8. Abu Rafi' al-Qabti (Servent of the Messenger of Allah):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt";

 

9. Abu Thuwaib Khuwailid (or Khalid) Ibn Khalid Ibn Muhrith al-Hathli (the pre-islamic and post-islamic poet, died during the reign of Uthman):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt", in section 4.

 

10. Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafah al-Taymi (the First Caliph, d. 13):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* al-Mansour al-Razi, in "al-Ghadir"

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri al-Shafi'i, in "Asna al-Matalib", p3.

 

11. Usamah Ibn Zaid Ibn Harithah al-Kalbi (d. 54)

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

 

12. Ubay Ibn Ka'ab al-Ansari:

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah"; in "al-Yaqin", section 37;

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri al-Shafi'i, in "Asna al-Matalib", p4.

 

13. Asmaa bint 'Umaice al-Khadh'amiya

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah"; in "al-Yaqin", section 37;

 

14. Um Salmah (wife of the Prophet):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Samhoudi al-Shafi'i, in "Jawahir al-'Aqdain".

* al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in "Yanabi' al-Mawaddah", p40;

* Ahmed Ibn al-Fadhl Ibn Muhammed ba-Kathir al-Makki al-Shafi'i, in "Wasilat al-Ma-al".

 

16. Um Hani bint Abi Talib:

* al-Bazzar, in "Musnad al-Bazzar";

* al-Samhoudi al-Shafi'i, in "Jawahir al-'Aqdain".

* al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in "Yanabi' al-Mawaddah", p40;

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

 

17. Abu Hamzah Anas Ibn Malik al-Ansari al-Khazraji (the servent of the Prophet, d. 93):

* al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in "Tarikh Baghdad", v7, p377;

* Ibn Qutaibah al-Daynouri, in "al-Ma'arif", p291;

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt";

* al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114; from al-Tabarani;

* Muttaqqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p154, p403;

* al-Badukhshi, in "Nuzul al-Abrar", p20; from al-Tabarani & al-Khatib.

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri al-Shafi'i, in "Asna al-Matalib", p4.

 

 

- B - .

 

18. Baraa Ibn 'Azib al-Ansari al-Awsi (d. 72):

* Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in "al-Musnad", v4, p281; from two ways;

* Ibn Majah, in "Sunan ibn Majah", v1, p28-29;

* al-Nisa'i, in "al-Khasa'is", p16;

* al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in "Tarikh Baghdad", v14, p236;

* Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, in "Tafsir al-Tabari", v3, p428;

* Abi al-Hajjaj al-Mazzi, in "Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asmaa al-rijal";

* al-Tha'labi, in "al-Kashf wal Bayan";

* Ibn Abd al-Bar, in "al-Isti'ab", v2, p473;

* Muhib al-Din al-Tabari, in "al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah", v2, 169;

* Muhib al-Din al-Tabari, in "Dhakha'ir al-'Aqabi", p67;

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "al-Manaqib", p94;

* Ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki, in "al-Fusool al-Muhimmah", p25;

* al-Hafiz al-Ganji al-Shafi'i, in "Kifayat al-Talib", p14;

* al-Fakhr al-Razi, in "Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi", v3, p636;

* al-Nisaboori, in "Tafsir al-Nisaboori", v6, p194;

* Jamaluddin al Zarandi, in "Nudhum Durar al-Samtain";

* "al-Jame' al-Saghir", v2, p555;

* "Mishkat al-Masabeeh", p557;

* Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p152, p397;

* Ibn Kathir, in "al-Bidayah wal Nihayah", v5, p209; v7, p349;

* ... Several others from the above sources.

 

19. Baridah Ibn al-Hasib Abu-Sahal al-Aslami (d. 63):

* al-Hakim, in "Mustadrak al-Hakim", v3, p110;

* Abu Nu'aym al-Isbahani, in "Hilyat al-Awliyaa", v4, p23;

* Ibn Abd al-Bar, in "al-Isti'ab", v2, p473;

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri, in "Asna al-Matalib", p3;

* al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114;

* "al-Jame' al-Saghir", v2, p555;

* al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p397;

* al-Badukhshi, in "Nuzul al-Abrar", p20;

* "Tafsir al-Manar", v6, p464.

 

20. Abu Sa'id, Thabit Ibn Wadi'a al-Ansari al-Khazraji al-Madani:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v3, p307; v5, p205;

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Qadhy, in "Tarikh Aali Muhammad", p67.

 

21. Jabir Ibn Samrah Ibn Janadah, Abu Sulaiman al-Suwa'i (d. 70~74):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt", section 4;

* al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p398;

 

22. Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (d. 73/74/78 in Madina):

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* Ibn Abd al-Bar, in "al-Isti'ab", v2, p473;

* Abi al-Hajjaj al-Mazzi, in "Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asmaa al-rijal";

* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", v7, p337;

* al-Hafiz al-Ganji al-Shafi'i, in "Kifayat al-Talib", p16;

* Ibn Kathir, in "al-Bidayah wal Nihayah", v5, p209;

* Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p398;

* al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in "Yanabi' al-Mawaddah", p41;

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri al-Shafi'i, in "Asna al-Matalib", p3.

* al-Tha'labi, in "Tafsir al-Tha'labi"

 

23. Jublah Ibn 'Amrou al-Ansari:

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

 

24. Jubair Ibn Mut'am Ibn 'Uday al-Qurashi al-Nawfali (d. 57/58/59):

* al-Qadhy Bahlool Bahjat, in "Tarikh Aali Muhammad", p67.

* Shahab al-Din al-Hamadani, in "Mawaddat al-Qurba";

* al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in "Yanabi' al-Mawaddah", p31, p336.

 

25. Jarir Ibn Abdullah Ibn Jabir al-Bajali (d. 51/54):

* al-Haythami, in "Majma' al-Zawa'id", v9, p106; from "al-Mu'jam al-Kabir" of al-Tabarani;

* al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114; from al-Tabarani;

* Muttaqqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p154, p399;

* Ibn Kathir, in "al-Bidayah wal Nihayah", v7, p349;

 

26. Abu Dhar al-Ghafari, Jundub Ibn Janadah (d. 31):

* Hamawaini, in "Fara'id al-Samtayn", section 58;

* al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi, in "Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt";

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* Abu Bakr Ju'abi, in "Nakhb al-Manaqib";

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri al-Shafi'i, in "Asna al-Matalib", p4.

 

27. Abu Junaidah, Junda' Ibn 'Amrou Ibn Mazin al-Ansari:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v1, p308;

* al-Qadhy Bahlool Bahjat, in "Tarikh Aali Muhammad", p67.

 

28. Habbah Ibn Juwayn, Abu Qudamah al-'Urani al-Bajali (d. 76-79):

* al-Haythami, in "Majma' al-Zawa'id", v9, p103;

* Ibn 'Uqdah, in "Hadith al-Wilayah";

* al-Doolabi, in "al-Kuna wal Asmaa", v2, p88;

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v1, p367;

* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in "al-Isabah", v1, p372;

* al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in "Yanabi' al-Mawaddah", p34;

 

29. Hubshi Ibn Janadah al-Salouli:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v3, p307; v5, p205;

* Muhib al-Din al-Tabari, in "al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah", v2, p169;

* al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, in "Kanz al-Ummal", v6, p154;

* Ibn Kathir, in "al-Bidayah wal Nihayah", v5, p211; v7, p349.

* al-Haythami, in "Majma' al-Zawa'id", v9, p106;

* al-Suyuti, in "Tarikh al-Khulafaa", p114;

* Shams al-Din al-Jazri, in "Asna al-Matalib", p4;

 

30. Habib Ibn Badil Ibn Warqaa al-Khaza'i:

* Ibn al-Athir, in "Usd al-Ghabah", v1, p368;

* Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, in "al-Isabah", v1, p304;

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 6:54 a.m.

 

                                In Response To: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (Brother)

 

The reporters of these narrations are all of the Shi‘ah. Therefore, if we were to apply al-‘Askari’s hypothesis to these reports documented by al-Kashshi, we would have to conclude that Sayf ibn ‘Umar even succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of these venerable Imams by making them believe that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, who is supposed to be a figment of his own imagination, actually existed. I think you will agree that such a conclusion is highly absurd. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure that the source of that absurdity is al-‘Askari’s hypothesis, “that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari”.

 

Another book you have listed iThe Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam by S.H.M. Jafri. Please be informed that Jafri does not make any definitive conclusions about Ibn Saba. His words are:

 

Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

 

We have thus far had one Shi‘i writer—al-‘Askari—who completely denies the historicity of Ibn Saba, and another—Jafri—who is undecided. We will add a citation from the work of a third contemporary Shi‘i writer who categorically affirms the existence of Ibn Saba. Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili writes in his book ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh:

 

However it may be, Ibn Saba definitely existed and manifested ghuluww (extremism), even though some people doubt his existence and made him out to be an imaginary character created by personal interests. As for us, on grounds of the latest research we have no doubt concerning his existence and his extremism... Yes, Ibn Saba exhibited extremism in his religion. This innovation of his seeped into the thinking of a group that was by no means small, and that group was named after him. (Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn, ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh, p. 213, Dar al-Athar, Beirut, 1979)

 

Here we have three different positions on the existence of Ibn Saba. All three belong to Shi‘i writers. Two of them are listed by you as “sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates”. Do we have the freedom of choosing the one which seems most likely to be the truth, or is the selection of the true opinion the prerogative of the Shi‘ah?

 

 

The role of Ibn Saba

Now, having dealt with the problem of Ibn Saba’s existence, we may move on to discuss his role in the historical development of Shi‘ism.

 

Ibn Saba is held responsible for the introduction of many phenomena which later developed into hallmark aspects of Shi‘ism. The Shi‘ah (or at least those of them who accept his existence, like Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili) admit that he exhibited extremist tendencies. In the Tarikh of Ibn ‘Asakir he is on record as having

 

1.vilified Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9)

2.believed the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted to ‘Ali special knowledge which was not known to anyone but him. (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)

 

3.believed ‘Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)

 

The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism, while the third one with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat.

 

We have already seen what Jafri has written about Ibn Saba’s role in the origin of the Ghulat. That particular aspect of Ibn Saba’s role finds further corroboration in the Shi‘i biographical literature. Al-Kashshi, for example, reports the following

 

Hisham ibn Salim reports that Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) told his companions the story of Ibn Saba, and his claims of divinity for Amir al-Mu’minin. He said: When he made those claims Amir al-Muminin asked him to repent. He refused to repent, so Amir al-Mu’minin burnt him fire. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 323)

 

Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba. Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300), was the city of Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He writes:

 

There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi‘i collection of hadith, Al-Kafi, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

 

This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shi‘i activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shi‘ah ascribe to the Imams, and which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that the entire edifice of Shi‘ism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams.

 

Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi‘ah are

4.Zurarah ibn A`yan

5.Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifi

6.Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi

7.al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju‘fi

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:37 a.m.

 

                              In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (brother)

 

 

Dear Brother ! assalam alaikum

I think most of your accusations have already been answered in the earlier threat, posted by me. Anyway, you wrote that we took the following teachings from abdullah ibn saba, these are

>1.vilified Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9)

 

>2.believed the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted to ‘Ali special knowledge which was not known to anyone but

him. (Ibn

 

>‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)

 

>3.believed ‘Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)

 

>The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism, while the third one with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat.

 

Dear brother!it is not true. Having some thing common in believes does not necessarily means that believes have been borrowed from each other. You know that same accusations are made by jews and christians about our holy prophet that he had borowed 80% teachings and beleives from them.

 

In my next article, insha allah i will clearly explain you, from where shias took their teachings(i.e the quran and the sayings of holy prophet s.w)

 

As for as Abdullah ibn saba is concerned, there are less than 5-7 traditions in shia literature. And all of them saying that he was ghullat and he said that imam ali a.s is nauoozo billah allah. On hearing this imam ali a.s condemned him and then burnt him.

 

Just imagine, how can we take our believes and teachings out of these 5-7 traditions.

 

Now please go to my next article and you will see from where we took our believes.

Was-salam

asim zaidi.

 

 

 

ASFA Discussion Board

 

                        Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:43 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

==================================

The Doctrine of Ali's Executorship

==================================

Sayf further alleged that Ibn Saba is the one who propagated the idea that Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the executor and the successor of the Messenger of God. He said that there were a thousand prophets before Muhammad, each of which had an executor after him, and that Ali is the executor of the Prophet. Furthermore, Sayf alleged that Ibn Saba said that the three caliphs who ruled after the Prophet were usurpers of the Islamic rule.

 

Sayf and his disciples forgot that they mentioned in their fiction that Abdullah Ibn Saba came to Medina and adopted Islam during the reign of Uthman. This is long after the death of the Messenger of Allah. On the other hand, Sunni history testifies that the Messenger of God himself is the one who declared that Ali would be his executor right at the *beginning of his mission*. Here is the tradition concerning the first open preach the prophet (PBUH&HF):

 

Ali (AS) narrated: When the verse: "And warn your closest tribe" was revealed, the Messenger of God called me and said:" Ali, certainly Allah commanded me to warn my closest tribe, and I feel the difficulty of this mission. I know that when I confront them with this warning, I will not like their response." Then Prophet invited the members of his clan to dine with him on a small amount of food and little milk. There were forty of them. After they ate, the Prophet spoke to them: "O Children of Abdul Muttalib, by God, I do not know of any young man from the Arabs who brought to his people better than I brought to you. I have brought to you the goodness of this world and the Hereafter. The Almighty commanded me to invite you to it. Who among you will assist me on this mission and become my brother, my executor, and my successor?" No one accepted the invitation, and I said: "O Messenger of God, I shall be your assistant." He held my neck and said to them: "This is my brother, my executor (Wasi), my successor (Caliph) among you. So listen to him and obey him." They laughed, saying to Abu Talib: He (Muhammad) commanded you to listen to your son and to obey him.

 

Sunni References:

(1) History of Tabari, English version, v6, pp 88-92 (two traditions)

(2) History of Ibn Athir, v2, p62

(3) History of Ibn Asakir, v1, p85

(4) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Suyuti, v5, p97

(5) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, v1, p311

(6) Shawahid al-Tanzil, by al-Hasakani, v1, p371

(7) Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v15, p15, pp 100-117

(8) Tafsir al-Khazin, by Ala-ud-Din al-Shafi'i, v3, p371

(9) Dala'il al-Nabawiyah, by al-Baihaqi, v1, pp 428-430

(10) al-Mukhtasar, by Abul Fida, v1, pp 116-117

(11) Life of Muhammad, by Hasan Haykal, p104 (First Edition only. In the second edition the last sentence of Prophet (PBUH) has been removed.)

(12) Tahdhib al-Athar, v4, pp 62-63.

 

The above tradition was also reported by important Sunni figures such as Muhammad Ibn Is'haq (who is the most celebrated Sunni historian), Ibn Abi Hatem, and Ibn Mardawayh. It is also recorded by orientalists such as T. Carlyle, E. Gibbon, J. Davenport, and W. Irving.

 

Here we would like ask the following question: Imam Ali reported that the Messenger of God is the one who granted him the office of executorship, brotherhood, and successorship. Sayf Ibn Umar reported that the idea of the executorship of Ali had came from a Jew called Abdullah Ibn Saba. We should ask the members of the Takfeer University (who call everyone who disagree with them unbeliever) the following question: Do you believe in Imam Ali's report or Sayf Ibn Umar's? Sayf was accused by prominent Sunni scholars of weakness, forgery, and heresy.

 

Of course, we should not expect any true Muslim to choose the report of a liar such as Sayf Ibn Umar and to reject the report of the Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Leader of the Faithful, the "brother" of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Messenger of God used to say to Ali: Sunni References:

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56 and 5.700

(2) Sahih Muslim, Arabic, v4, pp 1870-71

(3) Sunan Ibn Majah, p12

(4) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174

(5) al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16

(6) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309

 

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) thereby meant that as Moses had left behind Aaron to look after his people as his Caliph when he went to receive the Commandments, in the same way he was leaving Ali behind as his deputy to look after the affairs of Islam after him. Allah said in Quran:

 

"... And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: Take my place among my community." (Quran 7:142). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except that there shall be no Prophet after me"

 

Sunni References:

(1) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56 and 5.700

(2) Sahih Muslim, Arabic, v4, pp 1870-71

(3) Sunan Ibn Majah, p12

(4) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174

(5) al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16

(6) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309

 

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) thereby meant that as Moses had left behind Aaron to look after his people as his Caliph when he went to receive the Commandments, in the same way he was leaving Ali behind as his deputy to look after the affairs of Islam after him. Allah said in Quran:

"... And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: Take my place among my community." (Quran 7:142). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Notice that "Ukhlufni" and "Khalifa" (Caliph) are exactly from the same root. Do the mercenary writers who endeavor to spread hostility among Muslims forget that while returning from his farewell pilgrimage, and in the presence of over a hundred thousand pilgrims in Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of God declared:

 

"Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?" People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God."

 

Then Prophet (PBUH) held up the hand of Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

 

Some of Sunni References:

(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63

(2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43

(3) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators!!!)

(4) Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572

(5) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371

(6) Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 4,21

(7) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters)

(8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50

(9) al-Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v3, p19

(10) Tarikh al-Khulafa, by al-Suyuti, pp 169,173

(11) al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v3, p213, v5, p208

(12) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, pp 307-308

(13) Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part 3, p144

(14) Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, p26

(15) al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p509; v1, part1, p319, v2, part1, p57, v3, part1, p29, v4, part 1, pp 14,16,143

(16) Tabarani, who narrated from companions such as Ibn Umar, Malik Ibn al-Hawirath, Habashi Ibn Junadah, Jari, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas, Anas Ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, Amarah,Buraydah,...

(17) Tarikh, by al-Khatib Baghdadi, v8, p290

(18) Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p23, v5, pp26-27

(19) al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Chapter of word "ayn" (Ali), v2, p462

(20) Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, pp 154,397

(21) al-Mirqat, v5, p568

(22) al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v2, p172

(23) Dhaka'ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p68

(24) Fayd al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, v6, p217

(25) Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn Athir, v4, p114

(26) Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, by al-Qudoozi al-Hanafi, p297 ... And hundreds more...

 

No Muslim would ever doubt that the Messenger of God is the leader of all Muslims for all generations. The Prophet in his statement granted Ali the same position as his, when he said that Ali is the leader of everyone who follows the Prophet.

 

This declaration which was narrated by more than one hundred and ten companions and rated authentic (Sahih) and frequent (Mutawatir) by the leading Sunni scholars, not only indicates that Ali is the executor of Messenger, but also indicates that Ali takes the place of the leadership of all Muslims after the Messenger of Allah. However, these mercenaries still allow themselves to say that the belief that Ali was the executor of the Messenger had come from a Jew who declared his Islam during the days of Uthman!!!

 

Abdullah Ibn Saba has no base on the disputes immediately after the death of prophet related to his successorship, and all relevant claims of Shia is proven to be on the death of the prophet or even before that, not during the reign of Uthman which is far long after prophet's demise. At the very start and immediately after the death of the prophet (PBUH&HF), the Shia of Ali included those companions who where loyal to Imam Ali, such as Ammar Ibn Yasir, Abu-Dhar al-Ghafari, Miqdad, Salman al-Farsi, Ibn Abbas ...etc., all gathered in the house of Fatimah (AS). Even Talha and Zubair were loyal to Imam Ali at the beginning and joint the others in the house of Fatimah. al-Bukhari narrated:

 

Umar said: "And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr."

 

Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v8, Tradition #817

 

Other Sunni traditionists narrated that on the day of Saqifah:

 

Umar said: "Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Zubair Ibn Awwam and those who were

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

with them separated from us (and gathered) in the house of Fatimah,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the daughter of the messenger of Allah."

 

Sunni References:

- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p55

- Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Hisham, v4, p309

- History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, p1822

- History of Tabari, English version, v9, p192

 

Also:

 

They demanded confirmation of the oath, but Ali and al-Zubair stayed away. al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, "I will not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to Ali." When this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, "Hit him with a stone and seize the sword." It is stated that Umar rushed (to the door of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly.

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189

 

Certainly that Jew did not have any role in the division of the companions into two factions right at the death of Prophet since he was non-existent at that time.

 

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:49 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salaam

 

1. The Prophet (s) himself claimed and Islam claims to be a continuation of the religion of Ibraheem (AS). This is a fundamental teaching of the Quran that the same message has been preached through humanity since its beginning.

 

This cannot be likened to the case of shiaism and its resemblance to the beliefs of others. Point two is a direct contradiction to the principles of Islam, and part one has become a religious belief i.e. to vilify the Companions of the Prophet. The analogy is totally misplaced.

 

2. As for the alleged claim of 5-7 traditions, the whole shia hadeeth books rests on the narrators of kufa of who even the shia books criticize the narrators as liars. Kufa itself as Jafri recognizes was the hotbed of ghullat tendency. The shias take their teachinsg from the hotbed of the ghullat tendency of which ibn Sabaa played pretty well.

 

Salaam

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 8:57 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salam alaikum

Dear Brother! next you wrote that

 

>Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman

 

>al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, >was invented by Ibn Saba.

 

===========================================

Attacking Two of Most Beloved Companions of

the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and Their Disciples

===========================================

Sayf alleged that Ibn Saba is the one who instigated the two prominent companions of the Prophet Muhammad, namely Abu Dhar (RA) and Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA), against Uthman. He said this Jew met Abu Dhar in Damascus, and that he introduced to him the idea of prohibiting treasuring gold and silver. Sayf included the following great companions of prophet and their disciples, among the list of the followers of Ibn Saba:

 

(1) Abu Dhar (RA),

(2) Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA),

(3) Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr (RA), son of the first Caliph,

(4) Malik Ashtar (RA).

... and more

 

To better understand the heresy of Sayf and his allegation, let us quickly review the biography of the above great Muslim pioneers:

 

(1) Abu Dhar al-Ghafari (Jundub Ibn Jonadah): He is the THIRD person in the list of the four pioneers who first embraced Islam. He was a monotheist even before his conversion. He frankly declared his faith in Islam at Mecca beside the Holy House of God. The infidels of Mecca beat him almost to death but he survived, and on the instruction of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) he returned to his tribe. After the Battles of Badr and Uhud he came to Medina and stayed with Prophet until the demise of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). During the reign of the early Caliphs, Abu Dhar was sent to Damascus where he could not agree with Muawiyah. Later Muawiyah complained about Abu Dhar to Uthman, the third Caliph, and thus Uthman sent Abu Dhar into exile at Rabadha where he later died. Rabadha was known for having the worst climate.

 

(2) Ammar Ibn Yasir: He was also known as Abuyaqzan. His mother's name was Somayyah. He and his parents were pioneers in embracing Islam, and he was the SEVENTH person to declare his faith. His parents were executed after the torture by the infidels of Mecca, because of their conversion to Islam, but Ammar managed to escape to Medina. Ammar fought on Imam Ali's side in the battle of Jamal (Camel) and later in the war of Siffin where he was killed in the battle field by Muawiyah soldiers, at the age of ninety-three.

 

(3) Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr: He was adopted by Imam Ali after his father, Abu Bakr, died. Muhammad was one of the commanders of the army of Imam Ali (AS) in the battle of Camel. He was also in the battle of Siffin. Imam Ali appointed him as the governor of Egypt, and he took his office 15/9/37 AH. Later, Muawiyah sent an army under the leadership of Amr Ibn al-Aas to Egypt in the year 38 AH, who fought and captured Muhammad, and then killed him. His body was placed in a belly of a dead donkey and then was brutally burnt. (See al-Istiab, v1, p235; History of al-Tabari, v4, p79; Ibn Kathir, v3, p180; Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p182)

 

(4) Malik Ashtar al-Nakha'i: He met the Prophet and was one of the trustworthy disciple of companions (Tabe'in). He was chief of his tribe, and after receiving an injury to one of his eyes in the battle of Yarmuk, he became known as Ashtar. He was the general of the army of Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and known for his bravery and combating the enemies of Islam. At the age of 38, he was appointed by Imam Ali as the governor of Egypt. But on his way to Egypt, near the Red Sea, he died after eating poisonous honey which had been planned by Muawiyah.

 

The above were the short bibliographies of some eminent Muslim pioneers. It is regrettable that some historians who reported from Sayf's heresy, allege that they followed a mysterious Jew. The mercenary workers did not even hesitate to attack such outstanding companions. They said that Abu Dhar and Ammar Ibn Yasir met Ibn Saba, were affected by his propaganda, and thus turned against Uthman. However, we should not forget that by their attacking those two prominent companions, they are actually attacking the Messenger of God who attested to their purity and righteousness frequently:

 

The Messenger of God said: "Certainly Allah commanded me to love four persons and informed me that He loves them." The companions asked:

 

"O' Messenger of God, who are those four persons?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Ali is from them (repeating that three times), Abu Dhar, Salman al-Farsi, and Miqdad."

 

Sunni references:

- Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, pp 52-53, Tradition #149

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p130

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v5, p356

- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p648, Tradition #1103

- Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v1, p172

 

The Messenger of Allah also said:

 

"Every prophet was given by God seven righteous companions. I was given fourteen righteous companions". He included in them Ali, al- Hasan, al-Husain, Hamza, Ja'far, Ammar Ibn Yasir, Abu Dhar, Miqdad, and Salman.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Sunni references:

- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, Traditions #109, #277

- Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p329, p662

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp88,148,149 from several chain of narrators

- al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v6, p264, p265

- Hilyatul Awliya', by Abu Nu'aym, v1, p128

 

Also al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, al-Hakim and many others narrated that the Messenger of Allah said:

 

"Heaven has not shaded, nor has the earth carried a person more straight forward than Abu Dhar. He walks on earth with the immaterialistic attitude of Jesus, the son of Mary."

 

Sunni reference:

- Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p334, Tradition #3889

- Tahdhib al-Athar, v4, pp 158-161

- Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, #6519, #6630, #7078

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p342

- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v4, part 1, pp 167-168

- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, pp 329-330

 

Ibn Majah, in his authentic Sunan, narrated that Imam Ali said:

 

I was sitting in the house of the Prophet and Ammar asked to see him. Then Prophet said: "Welcome the good and the purified." Ibn Majah also narrated that Aisha narrated that the Messenger of God said

 

"Whenever Ammar is given two alternatives, he always chooses the most righteous of the two."

 

There are much more authentic narrations told by the Prophet (PBUH&HF) about Ammar, such as "Ammar is full of faith." Also Prophet said:

 

"A band of rebels will kill Ammar."

 

Sunni references:

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter # MCCV, pp 1508-1509,

 

Trditions #6966-6970 (five traditions).

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p383

 

Now to see who those rebels were, look at Musnad Ahmad and Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd who narrated:

 

"In the Battle of Siffin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was cut off and taken to Muawiyah, two people were arguing over it, each one claimed that he had killed Ammar."

 

Sunni references:

- Musnad Ahmad (Pub. in Dar al-Maarif, Egypt 1952), Tradition #6538, #6929

- Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

 

Also it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said:

 

"Paradise longs for three men, Ali, Ammar and Salman."

 

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p332, Tradition #3884

 

Moreover al-Tirmidhi narrated:

 

When the Messenger of God heard that Ammar and his parents were tortured in Mecca, he (PBUH&HF) said: "Members of Yasir's family, be patient. Your destination is paradise."

 

Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p233,

 

Thus, Ammar and his parents were the first people declared by the Prophet to be dwellers of paradise.

 

Here we should say: When a Muslim knows that the Prophet has commended these two important companions (Abu Dhar & Ammar Ibn Yasir) so highly, and if he is a believer in the truthfulness of Muhammad, he does not allow himself to insult these two companions. Such an insult discredits the Prophet. As we just saw, the above authentic traditions in the six Sunni collections claim that Prophet said he has only four or fourteen righteous companions, out of his 1400 companions. Interestingly enough that Abu Dhar and Ammar Ibn Yasir were mentioned among those very few individuals.

 

We find that the hostility of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi, who lived during the second century after the Prophet, and the hostility of his students towards the Shi'ites, motivated them to spread such cheap propaganda. Sayf knew that attributing the revolt against Uthman to the work of Ibn Saba contradicts known historical facts which show that the two companions, Abu Dhar and Ammar, were opposed to Uthman's ever coming to power. Because Sayf knew of their opposition to Uthman, he tried to smear their reputations by adding the names of the two prominent companions to the list of students of

that fictitious Jew.

 

If Ibn Saba ever existed, he had declared his Islam after Uthman was killed. Now let us suppose we accept what Sayf alleged concerning that Abdullah Ibn Saba declared his faith after Uthman came to power. Abu Dhar and Ammar Ibn Yasir, on the other hand, had been opposed to Uthman's caliphate before he came to power. The two companions were followers of the Imam Ali (AS), and they firmly believed that Ali was appointed by the Prophet to be his successor. Since this was their belief before the appearance of Ibn Saba, the story of Sayf about their being influenced by Ibn Saba, is unfounded and untrue.

 

Thus, in order to clear the third caliph from all accusations pertaining to his ill-management of the Islamic treasury, Sayf accused the revolters being the students of Ibn Saba. He then completed his story by adding the two companions to the class of Ibn Saba's students, intentionally overlooking the fact that the two companions belong to the first successful class of the school of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF). They were among the important companions who were honored by the Prophet. In fact, Sayf was led by his untrue story to reject the testimony of the Prophet. By this, Sayf had disproved his whole tale.

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 9:31 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salam alaikum

Dear Brother! I hoped that you would not accused all the shias of ghullat(extremists) due to the presence of some extremists among them. We never claimed that all the hadiths in our shia collections are true. In order to differentiate the truth from falshhood, there are several uloom. Each and every hadith has to pass a strict exam in order to be accepted. Hence according to the sahih guidance of our imams and ulama, we were able to differentiate the truth from falshhood.And we condemned extemist abdullah ibn saba.

 

But do you think justice to accuse all shias hadith literature due to the presence of some extreme reports, who are even not accepted by shias.

 

And, please look at yourself too. What is about 600,000 hadiths in your literature. How many of them do you accept (please in %. And if your standards are same as you showed in case of Ghadeer, then I am sure that There are less than 0.00001 % hadiths who you claim to be sahih, or even more less). Are you going to condemn due to this reason all of your hadith literature?

 

And just look the deviated sects in ahle sunnah. Should we condemn all of sunni brothers due to presence of these sects. Would it be just?

 

And let allah be witness between us.

Was-salam

asim zaidi.

 

 

 

Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar

 

                                         Posted By: brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 6:54 a.m.

 

                              In Response To: Re: Sabaa and shiasm and sayf bn Umar (brother)

 

All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men:

 

Zurarah ibn A‘yan

Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)

 

Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.

 

Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams  al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)

 

On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:

 

By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)

 

Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!

 

Muhammad ibn Muslim

Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by al-Kashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his great-grandfather!

 

Abu Basir al-Muradi

In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)

 

However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:

 

Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)

 

Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq just like Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali!

 

 

al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar

Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy).

 

But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p.612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows:

 

‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja‘far said]: “By Allah, no one besides

 

Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

 

The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:

 

Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”

 

[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O

 

Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

 

This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’I as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which al-Mufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.

 

Conclusion

 

We have used the above three narrators merely as a specimen of the men upon whose narrations the edifice of Shi‘ism rests. We consistently find disturbing points of resemblance between them and Ibn Saba. They are cursed by the Imams just as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali. Some of them held beliefs that are identical to Ibn Saba’s innovations. They hail from Kufa, which Jafri tells us was the stronghold of the Saba’iyyah.

 

Thus, after we have proven the historical existence of Ibn Saba, this investigation into the men responsible for the narration, or creation, of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah leads us to the unequivocal conclusion that what exists today as Shi‘ism, and specifically Twelver Shi‘ism, contains a substantial chunk of the original heresy of Ibn Saba. We therefore feel that we have quite convincing reasons to look upon ‘Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.

 

If this conclusion fails to find favour in Shi‘i circles, that cannot be helped. Just as the concern of the Shi‘ah for Muslim unity in the face of the vicious enemies of Islam has never constituted an impediment for them to state exactly how and what they perceive the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah to be, similarly, we feel that it is only fair if the Ahl as-Sunnah too, can exercise the right to publish their viewpoint on the origin of Shi‘ism, without anyone, and least of all the Shi‘ah,

demanding from them to consider the danger that poses to Muslim unity.

 

If the state of Iran and its diplomatic representatives in South Africa are sincere in their concern for Muslim unity, we suggest that they take a very serious look at the extent to which Shi‘ism is being propagated in South Africa, as well as the provenance of the funding that supports those missions. Only when you have proven your sincerity for the cause of Islam by removing that essential stumbling block would we feel that your protest against the publication of an article like Abdullah ibn Saba: the Founder of Shi‘ism deserves something more than a decisive dismissal.

 

____________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASFA Discussion Board

 

                      Abdullah ibn Saba in Shia/sunni literature

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 2:29 a.m.

 

 

Dear Brothers in Islam! Assalam alaikum

Enemies of Islam whose goal were/are to split the Muslims, in their effort to explain the emergence of Shia, claim that the Shia are a sect which was originated by Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew who embraced Islam during the reign of Uthman Ibn Affan, the third caliph. They further state that Abdullah Ibn Saba traveled in Muslim cities and towns, from Damascus to Kufa to Egypt, propagating among Muslims that Ali is the Prophet's successor. He provoked Muslims to kill Uthman since he believed Uthman had occupied the seat of Imam Ali. He also made mischief in the armies of Ali and his opponents in the battle of Camel. He was also responsible for all the false ideas of the Shia forward. These mercenary writers believe that Abdullah Ibn Saba is the ORIGIN of Shia; and since he himself was a hypocrite and a falsifier of tales, then all the knowledge and beliefs of the Shia are also false. In fact, Abdullah Ibn Saba is the best scapegoat for all the claims of some Sunnis The primary sources about the stories of Abdullah ibn Saba are these

1) Stories reported by Sayf ibn Umar

2) Narations from Ibn Asakir

3) Some shia narations.

 

We will discuss these stories and narrations step by step, with the allahs help, in order to find the truth.

======================

The Origin of The Tale

======================

The tale of Abdullah Ibn Saba is over twelve centuries old. Historians and writers, one after the other recorded it, adding more and more to it.

 

With a glance at the chain of transmitters of this story, you will find the name of Sayf sitting in there. The following historians recorded directly from Sayf:

 

(1) Tabari.

(2) Dhahabi. He has also cited from Tabari(1).

(3) Ibn Abi Bakir. He has also recorded from Ibn Athir(15), who has recorded from Tabari(1).

(4) Ibn Asakir.

 

The following have recorded indirectly from Sayf:

(5) Nicholson from Tabari(1).

(6) Encyclopedia of Islam from Tabari(1).

(7) Van Floton from Tabari(1).

(8) Wellhauzen from Tabari(1).

(9) Mirkhand from Tabari(1).

(10) Ahmad Amin from Tabari(1), and from Wellhauzen(8).

(11) Farid Wajdi from Tabari(1).

(12) Hasan Ibrahim from Tabari(1).

(13) Saeed Afghani from Tabari(1), and from Ibn Abi Bakir(3), Ibn

 

Asakir(4), and Ibn Badran(21).

(14) Ibn Khaldoon from Tabari(1).

(15) Ibn Athir from Tabari(1).

(16) Ibn Kathir from Tabari(1).

(17) Donaldson from Nicholson(5), and from Encyclopedia(6).

(18) Ghiath al-Din from Mirkhand(9).

(19) Abul Fida from Ibn Athir(15).

(20) Rashid Ridha from Ibn Athir(15).

(21) Ibn Badran from Ibn Asakir(4).

(22) Bostani from Ibn Kathir(16).

 

The above list gives evidence to the fact that the fictitious stories around the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba has been started by Sayf and cited next by Tabari directly from Sayf's book as Tabari mentioned himself (See the chain of narrators of traditions related to Abdullah Ibn Saba, inside the History of Tabari. For instance, see the index of Vol. 15, English version, under the name of Sayf Ibn Umar or Abdullah Ibn Saba). Therefore, Sayf's character and his history should be studied and analyzed with a great care.

 

============

Who Is Sayf?

============

Sayf Ibn Umar al-Dhabbi al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi lived in the second century of the Muslim era (8th century AD) and died after the year 170 AH (750 AD). al-Dhahabi said that Sayf died during the rule of Haroon al-Rashid in Baghdad (Iraq). During his life, Sayf wrote the following two books which were available even during the reign of Umayad:

 

1. "al-Fotooh wa al-Riddah" which is the history of the period before the death of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) until the third Caliph Uthman resumed office as the ruler of Muslim world.

 

2. "al-Jamal wa Maseeri Aisha wa Ali" which is the history from the murder of Uthman to the battle of Jamal (the fight that happened between Imam Ali and some companions).

 

These books are now lost but survived for a number of centuries after Sayf's own lifetime. Based on what we found, the last person who had said that he had possessed Sayf's books was Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH).

 

=====================================

What Do Sunni Scholars Say About Sayf?

======================================

The following leading Sunni scholars confirm that Sayf Ibn Umar was a well- known liar and untrustworthy:

 

(1) al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) wrote: "Sayf is accused of being a heretic. His narrations are abandoned."

(2) al-Nisa'i (d. 303 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and they should be disregarded because he was unreliable and untrustworthy."

(3) Yahya Ibn Mueen (d. 233 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and useless."

(4) Abu Hatam (d. 277 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is rejected."

(5) Ibn Abi Hatam (d. 327 AH) wrote: "Scholars have abandoned Sayf's narrations."

(6) Abu Dawud (d. 316 AH) wrote: "Sayf is nothing. He was a liar. Some of his Hadiths were conveyed and the majority of them are denied."

(7) Ibn Habban (d. 354 AH) wrote: "Sayf attributed fabricated traditions to the good reporters. He was accused of being a heretic and a liar."

(8) Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 462 AH) mentined in his writing abut al-Qa'qa: "Sayf reported that al-Qa'qa Said: I attended the death of the Prophet Muhammad." Ibn Adb al-Barr continued: "Ibn Abu Hatam said: Sayf is weak. Thus, what was conveyed of the presence of al-Qa'qa at the death of the Prophet is rejected. We mentioned the Sayf's traditions for knowledge only."

(9) al-Darqutini (d. 385 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak".

(10) Firoozabadi (d. 817 AH) in "Towalif" mentioned Sayf and some others by saying: "They are weak."

(11) Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak."

(12) Safi al-Din (d. 923 AH) wrote: "Sayf is considered weak."

(13) Ibn Udei (d. 365 AH) wrote about Sayf: "He is weak. Some of his narrations are famous yet the majority of his narrations are disgraceful and not followed."

(14) al-Suyuti (d. 900 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is weak."

(15) Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) wrote after mentioning a tradition: "Many reporters of this tradition are weak, and the weakest among them is Sayf."

 

It is interesting to see that although al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) has quoted from the book of Sayf in his History, he has mentioned in his other book that Sayf as a weak narrator. In "al-Mughni fi al-Dhu'afa'" al-Dhahabi wrote:

 

"Sayf has two books which have been unanimously abandoned by the scholars." (al-Mughni fi al-Dhu'afa', by al-Dhahabi, p292)

 

The result of the investigation into Sayf's life shows that Sayf was an agnostic and an unreliable story teller. Stories told by him are dubious and are entirely or partly forged. In his stories, he has used names of cities which never existed in the world. Abdullah Ibn Saba are the star of those stories. He also introduced some 150 imaginary companions for the Prophet to fill out the empty characters of his scenarios, by giving them some strange names which are not found in any other documents. Also the timing of the events given by Sayf's narrations contradict the authentic Sunni documents. Sayf has also used imaginary chains of narrators, and reported many miraculous events (like talking cows with human etc...).

 

Some of the defenders of Sayf hold the opinion that eventhough he was known as a weak transmitter and many scholars of Hadith do not trust his reports, it is only in the matter of the Shari'ah (the Law), but not in the matter of historical report!

 

By that, they want to rely on the "historical" stories of someone who was regarded a liar and "zindeeq"! If the problem of Sayf was just lack of knowledge about Shari'ah (divine law), one could say he can be trusted on other accounts. But the problem with Sayf was that he was a liar, and made lots of forgery by constructing the events, attributed fabricated traditions to good narrators. Then such person becomes questionable for almost everything. As for his historical accounts we will witness in Part V that even Christian historins have confirmed great inconsistencies between his historical report and other sober transmitters. No need to mention Sunni and Shia opinion on the heretical nature of Sayf.

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

 

Reports NOT transmitted through Sayf ibn umar

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 2:31 a.m.

 

                             In Response To: Abdullah ibn Saba in Shia/sunni literature (asim zaidi)

 

==========================================

Reports about Abdullah Ibn Saba which

were NOT transmitted through Sayf Ibn Umar

==========================================

We should point out however that there are less than 14 reports available in the collections of Shia and Sunni which mentions the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, and are supplied with the chain of authorities, but in their chain of authorities the name of Sayf does not exist.

 

As for the Shia, he was al-Kushshi (or al-Keshshi; also abbreviated as Kash) (d. 369) who wrote his book "Rijal" in 340 AH. In that book he mentioned few traditions in which there exists the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, from the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt which were quoted below. As we will see, these traditions give a very different picture than those mentioned by Sayf. However, it has been proven for Shia scholars that the book of al- Kushshi (Kash) has a lot of errors, especially in the names and also few errors in quotations. He has reported many weak traditions in his book of al-Rijal, and as a result, his book is not considered a reliable source for Shia. Not to mention that the reports of al-Kushshi (Kash) are not found in any of the major 4-books of tradition for Shia. (For a critical evaluation of his errors, please see al-Rijal by al-Tusteri as well as al-Askari.)

 

Other Shia scholars who mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba, have quoted al-Kushshi or the two historians mentioned above (i.e., al-A'sh'ari al-Qummi and al- Nawbakhti who did not provide any chain of transmitters or any source for their report). Among those who quoted al-Kushshi (Kash) are: Shaikh al-Tusi (d. 460), Ahmad Ibn Tawoos (d. 673), Allama al-Hilli (d. 726), etc.

 

As for the Sunnis, beside those who quoted from Sayf Ibn Umar whose names were given earlier, there are few reports from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani which provide the very similar information of what al-Kushshi (Kash) provided (see below).

 

For these very few Shi'i and Sunni reports, we would like to mention the following points:

 

1. The story that these few Sunni and Shia traditions provide, are totally different than the heavy narrations propagated by Sayf Ibn Umar. These tradition say that there was a poor man in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared AT THE TIME OF government of Imam Ali (AS). He claimed that he was a Prophet and Ali was God, and as soon as Imam Ali heard the news, he imprisoned him, and asked him to repent. He did not do so, and thus, Imam Ali ordered to burn him. The traditions confirm that Imam Ali and his descendants cursed this man and disassociated themselves from his claim of deity for Imam Ali (AS). This is all there is about it, provided that these few traditions are genuine in the first place.

 

2. These few (less than 14) traditions do NOT exist in any authentic book. In fact, there is NO mention of Abdullah Ibn Saba in ANY of the six authentic Sunni collections (Sihah). Moreover, these few reports were NEVER rated authentic by Shia or Sunni scholars, and there is a great possibility that a person in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba never existed in the world, and was the total invention of Sayf Ibn Umar, similar to his invention of 150 imaginary companions for the Prophet (PBUH&HF) which do not exist in any other independent report. Granted that Abdullah Ibn Saba ever existed, Sayf has used his character and attributed many events to him for which there exists NO SIMILAR REPORT by other Sunni narrators. Not only that, but also Sayf's reports clearly contradict other reports by the Sunnis, as we will show in this part and the next parts. Such malicious construction of the events were easy to detect even by the Sunni scholars.

 

 

SHIA REPORTS

 

It is attributed to Abu Ja'far (AS) saying:

 

Abdullah Ibn Saba used to claim being a prophet and claimed that The Commander of Believers, Ali (AS) is God. Allah is Higher than such (claim). This news reached to The Commander of Believers (AS), so he called him and questioned him. But he repeated his claims and said:

 

"You are Him (i.e., God), and it has been revealed to me that you are God and I am a prophet." So The Commander of Believers (AS) said: "How dare you! Satan has made a mockery of you. Repent for what you said. May your mother weep at your death! Quit (your claim)." But he refused, so (Imam Ali) imprisoned him and asked him three times to repent, but he didn't. Thus he burnt him with fire and said: "Satan had taken him into his whim, he used to come to him and to induce these (thoughts) in him." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)

 

Moreover it is reported that Imam Ali Ibn Husain (AS) said:

 

"May the curse of Allah be upon those who tell lies about us. I mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba and each hair in my body stood up, Allah cursed him. Ali (AS) was, by Allah, a proper servant of Allah, the brother of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF). He did not earn the graciousness/honor from Allah except with the obedience to Allah and His Messenger. And (similarly) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) did not earn the honor from Allah except with his obedience to Allah."

(Rijal, by al-KuShshi)

 

It is reported that Abu Abdillah (AS) said:

 

"We are a family of truthfulness. But we are not safe from a liar telling lies about us to undermine our truth with his lies in front of people. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) was the most truthful among people in what he said (Lahjatan) and the most truthful among all humanity; and Musaylima used to lie on him. The Commander of Believers (AS) was the most truthful one among the creation of Allah after the Messenger of Allah; and the one who used to lie on him, and tried to undermine his truthfulness and claimed lies about Allah, was Abdullah Ibn Saba." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)

 

Also:

 

"As he (Aba Abdillah - Ja'far al-Sadiq) was telling his companions in the subject of Abdullah Ibn Saba and that he claimed in Godness of The Commander of Believers, Ali Ibn Abi Talib. He said: When he claimed that in Ali, he asked him to repent and he refused, so he burnt him with fire." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

Sunni Reports and Conclusion

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 2:32 a.m.

 

                          In Response To: Reports NOT transmitted through Sayf ibn umar (asim zaidi)

 

---------------------------

SUNNI REPOTS AND CONCLUSION

---------------------------

 

As for the Sunnis, few reports from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani which provide the very similar information of what al-Kushshi (Kash) provided. Ibn Hajar mentioned:

 

"Abdullah Ibn Saba was one of the extremist (al-Ghulat), dualist/seducee/manichaeist (Zindeeq), and misguided, which is conveyed that Ali burnt him with fire." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

 

Then Ibn Hajar continues:

 

"Ibn Asakir mentioned in his History that `his origin (Abdullah Ibn Saba) was from Yemen and that he was a Jew who adopted Islam and traveled in the cities of Muslims and preached them to disobey their rulers, to induce evil amongst them, then he entered Damascus for that purpose.' Then Ibn Asakir mentioned a LONG STORY from the book of al-Futooh of Sayf Ibn Umar, which does not have correct support/ authorities (isnad)." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

 

Then Ibn Hajar gives a tradition among whose chain of authorities two individuals are missing. In footnote he says that its has been dropped. This is the tradition:

 

"Ali ascended the pulpit and said: What is wrong with him? people said: He is denying (or lying upon) Allah and His Messenger." (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p289)

 

In another tradition, Ibn Hajar reported:

 

"Ali said to Abdullah Ibn Saba: I have been told that there shall be thirty liars/imposters (who claim prophethood) and your are one of them" (Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p290)

 

He also wrote:

 

"Ibn Saba and his followers believed in the deity of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and certainly Ali burnt them by fire during his rule."

(Lisan al-Mizan, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, p290)

 

These Sunni traditions were not rated authentic either. The total of these tradition by both Shia and Sunni (reported by other than Sayf), do not exceed fourteen at most. They will be even less if you remove repetitions. These few Sunnite and Shi'ite traditions convey that:

 

1. Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (AS), and not during the rule of Uthman as Sayf alleged.

 

2. Abdullah Ibn Saba did not say that Ali is the successor of Prophet (PBUH&HF) as Sayf claimed. Rather he said Ali (AS) is God.

 

3. Imam Ali (AS) burnt him along with all other extremists (al-Ghulat). This is while Sayf does not state such a thing.

 

4. There is no mention of his existence or his playing a role at the time of Uthman. There is no mention of his agitation against Uthman which ended up with assassination of Uthman as Sayf attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba.

 

5. There is no mention of the role of Abdullah Ibn Saba in the battle of Camel as Sayf attributed to him.

 

6. These traditions do not indicate that any righteous companions of Prophet followed Abdullah Ibn Saba. This is while Sayf maliciously alleged that some of the most faithful pioneers of Islam such as Abu Darr (RA) and Ammar Yasir (RA) were the students of Abdullah Ibn Saba during the reign of Uthman.

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

 

Re: Reports NOT transmitted through Sayf ibn umar

 

                                         Posted By: Brother (rckvll-130-234.usae.bah.com)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 7:17 a.m.

 

                          In Response To: Reports NOT transmitted through Sayf ibn umar (asim zaidi)

 

Salaam

 

Please quote those hadeeth reported by ibn Hajr which pass through thirteen different chains.

 

Salaam

 

 

 

 

Ibn Saba Vs. Talha

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 2:34 a.m.

 

                                  In Response To: Sunni Reports and Conclusion (asim zaidi)

 

Dear Brothers!

In the article below, my aim is not to prove that it is 100% right history. You have the right to accept it or reject it. My only aim of producing this article is to COMPARE the authenticity of these historical facts with the allegations made by ONLY AND ONLY SAIF IBN UMAR.

 

========================

Agitation Against Uthman

========================

Sayf alleged that the main reason behind the agitation against Uthman was Abdullah Ibn Saba. He provoked Muslims of different towns and provinces such as Basra, Kufa, Syria, and Egypt, to rush to Medina and to kill Uthman since he believed Uthman had occupied the seat of Ali. Sayf also alleged that the companions inside Medina such as Talha and Zubair did not oppose Uthman.

 

Similar to his other allegations, this allegation of Sayf Ibn Umar about Abdullah Ibn Saba has NOT been reported by any other reporters. No trace of Ibn Saba can be found on the issue of agitation against Uthman, except through Sayf. In fact, other authorities have a totally the opposite story.

 

Should a reader of Islamic history be liberated from his emotion toward or against the third Caliph, he can be assured that the call for a revolt against Uthman did not start in Basra, Kufa, Syria, or Egypt. The weakness of Uthman in handing the affairs of the State caused many companions to oppose him. This naturally resulted in a power struggle among the influential companions in Medina. Sunni historians such as al-Tabari, Ibn Athir, and al-Baladhuri and many others provide traditions (reported by other than Sayf) which confirm that the agitation against the Caliph started right inside Medina by some influential individuals among the companions. These companions were the first who asked the other companions, resided in other cities, to join them in revolt against Uthman. Ibn Jarir

al-Tabari reported:

 

When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       

other companions who were scattered  throughout the frontier provinces:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad's

 

Dear Brothers!

In the article below, my aim is not to prove that it is 100% right history. You have the right to accept it or reject it. My only aim of producing this article is to COMPARE the authenticity of these historical facts with the allegations made by ONLY AND ONLY SAIF IBN UMAR. There is no other report other than him. Unfortunately, some brothers blindly believe in the stories of this LAIR SAIF IBN UMAR and blame only and only Shias/Sabaies for the agitation against hazrat Usman.

 

========

a) Talha

========

Talha Ibn Ubaydillah was one of the biggest agitator against Uthman and was the one who plotted his murder. He then used that incident for revenge against Ali by starting the first civil war in the history of Islam (i.e., the battle of Camel). I just give few paragraphs from both of al-Tabari and Ibn Athir to prove my point. Here is the first one which is narrated by Ibn Abbas (in some manuscripts it is Ibn Ayyash):

 

I entered Uthman's presence (During the agitation against Uthman) and talked with him for an hour. He said: "Come Ibn Abbas/Ayyash," and he took me by the hand and had me listen to what the people were saying at his door. We heard some say, "what are you waiting for," while others were saying, "wait, perhaps he will repent." While the two of us were standing there (behind the door and listening), Talha Ibn Ubaydillah passed by and said: "Where is Ibn Udays?" He was told, "He is over there."

^^^^^

Ibn Udays came to (Talha) and whispered something with him, and then went back to his associates and said: "Do not let anyone go in (to the house of Uthman) to see this man or leave his house."

Uthman said to me: "These are the orders of Talha." He continued, "O God! Protect me from

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Talha for he has provoked all these people against me. By God, I hope nothing will come of it, and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that his own blood will be shed. Talha has abused me unlawfully. I heard the Messenger of God ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

said: 'The blood of a Muslim is lawful in three cases: apostasy, adultery, and the one who kills except in legitimate retaliation for another.' So why should I be killed?"

 

Ibn Abbas/Ayyash continued: I wanted to leave (the house), but they blocked my path until Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr who was passing by requested them to let me go, and they did so.

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 199-200

 

The Sayf's claim is shattered into pieces when its is compared with any other reports similar to above. The above report gives evidence to the fact that Uthman himself knew companions like Talha were doing all this to him, and not the personage of Abdullah Ibn Saba. Do these mercenaries claim that they understand the situation better than the Caliph Uthman while they were born centuries after the incident? The following report also supports that the murder of Uthman was led by Talha, and the killers came out to inform their leader that they took care of Uthman: Abzay said: I witnessed the day they went in against Uthman. They entered the house through an opening in the residence of Amr Ibn Hazm.

 

There was a skirmishing and they got in. By God, I have not forgotten that Sudan Ibn Humran came out and I heard him say: "Where is Talha Ibn Ubaydillah? We have killed Ibn Affan!"

                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p200

 

Uthman was besieged in Medina while Imam Ali (AS) was in Khaibar. The Imam (AS) came to Medina and found people gathering at the residence of Talha. Then Imam Ali (AS) went to met Uthman. Ibn Athir wrote:

 

Uthman said to Ali: "You owe me my Islamic right and the right of brotherhood and relationship. If I have non of these rights and if I were in pre-Islamic era, it would be still shame for a descendants of Abd Munaf (of whom both Ali and Uthman are descendants) to let a man of Tyme (Talha) rob us of our authority." Ali said to Uthman: "You shall be informed of what I do." Then Ali went to Talha's house. There were a lot of people there. Ali spoke to Talha saying: "Talha, what is this condition in which you have fallen?" Talha replied: "O' Abul Hasan! it is to late!"

 

Sunni reference: al-Kamil, by Ibn Athir, v3, p84

 

Tabari also reports the following conversation between Imam Ali and Talha during the siege over Uthman:

 

Ali said to Talha: "I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman." Talha replied: "No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right." (Uthman was the head of Umayad).

 

Reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p235

 

Talha even deprived Uthman of water: Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: "I constantly saw Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman."

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 180-181

 

To know why Imam Ali (AS) deserted Uthman, see the traditions close to the end of this article.

 

Furthermore, the historians confirm that those who plotted his killing, did not let the body of Uthman be buried in a Muslim Cemetery, and that he was finally buried in a Jew Cemetery called "Hashsh Kawkab", without washing and without a shroud. (See History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 246-250). If Jews were doing all that, they wouldn't permit to bury him in their own Cemetery!!! After Muawiyah came to power, he joint that Jew Cemetery to al-Baqi including the land between them. (See History of Tabari, English version, v15, pp 246-250).

 

religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad's religion." Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph

                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(Uthman).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Aysha and Amr Ibn al-Ass

 

                                          Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                  Date: 5/10/0, at 2:36 a.m.

 

                                       In Response To: Ibn Saba Vs. Talha (asim zaidi)

 

Dear Brothers!

In the article below, my aim is not to prove that it is 100% right history. You have the right to accept it or reject it. My only aim of producing this article is to COMPARE the authenticity of these historical facts with the allegations made by ONLY AND ONLYSAIF IBN UMAR. There is no other report other than him. Unfortunately, some brothers blindly believe in the stories of this LAIR SAIF IBN UMAR and blame only and only Shias/Sabaies for the agitation against hazrat Usman.

 

========

b) Aisha

========

Talha was not the only collaborator against Uthman. Sunni history tells us that his cousin, Aisha (the mother of believers), was collaborating and campaigning against Uthman as well. The following paragraph also from the History of al-Tabari shows the cooperation of Aisha with Talha in overthrowing Uthman:

 

While Ibn Abbas was setting out for Mecca, he found Aisha in al-Sulsul (seven miles south of Medina). Aisha said: "O' Ibn Abbas, I appeal to you by God, to abandon this man (Uthman) and sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. (By the current siege over Uthman) people have shown their understanding, and light is raised to guide them. I have seen Talha has taken the possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph (after Uthman), he will follow the path of his parental cousin Abu-Bakr." Ibn Abbas said: "O' Mother (of believers), if something happens to that man (i.e., Uthman), people would seek asylum only with our companion (namely, Ali)." Aisha replied: "Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you."

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239

 

 

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:

 

"Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever."

^^^^

Sunni references:

- History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206

- Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141

- al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290

- Sharh al-Nahj, by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

 

As we can see, the main figures in plotting against Uthman are some highly influential individuals, like Talha and Aisha. These Sunni reports are in clear contradiction with the reports related to Abdullah Ibn Saba, which were made up to cover up for those individuals centuries after the incident.

 

Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, in his history (Ansab al-Ashraf) said that when the situation became extremely grave, Uthman ordered Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Abdurrahman Ibn Attab Ibn Usayd to try to persuade Aisha to stop campaigning against him. They went to her while she was preparing to leave for pilgrimage, and they told her:

 

"We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you." Aisha said: "I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request... I wish he (Uthman) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea."

 

Sunni reference: Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, part 1, v4, p75

 

 

Certainly the revolution against Uthman * started * in Medina, and not in Basra, Kufa, and Egypt. The prominent people of Medina are the ones who first wrote to those outside Medina and instigated them against Uthman. To say that a Jew, named Ibn Saba, is the one who inspired people to revolt against the Caliph is not logical unless we accept that he was the one who also inspired Aisha, Talha, and Zubair to revolt. But those who speak of Ibn Saba and his role, do not include Aisha and people of her position as the followers of Ibn Saba.

 

The alleged role of Ibn Saba, in the revolt against Uthman, would also be credible if we were to say that Ibn Saba was the one who persuaded the Caliph to follow a path contrary to the first two Caliphs, and that he was the one who advised Uthman to give Islamic funds to his relatives and appoint them governors of Islamic provinces.

 

The manner in which Uthman conducted the affairs of the Islamic states gave Aisha, Talha, and Zubair and others, a reason to provoke Muslims against Uthman. However those who attribute the revolution against Uthman to Ibn Saba, do not accept that Ibn Saba was the one who advised Uthman to follow that wrong policy. They are right, because that alleged Jew with such achievements never existed except in the imagination of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi and those who quoted from him. A few (less than 15) traditions (which are not even in any authentic Sunni books nor in any reliable Shia books) related to Abdullah Ibn Saba narrated by people other than Sayf give a totally different story in compare with Sayf's heavy documentation which is being distributed everywhere. These traditions do NOT mention the presence of Ibn Saba in the revolt against Uthman.

 

=================

c) Amr Ibn al-Aas

=================

It is amazing that such an important role in the revolution against Uthman is attributed to a Jew for whose existence neither Shia nor Sunni have any strong evidence. Yet historians forget the important role which was played by a person well known in Islamic history, namely Amr Ibn al-Aas. He was more intelligent and more clever than any Jew ever existed in that era. Amr had all the reasons to conspire against the Caliph, and he had all the abilities to instigate most of the people of Medina against him.

 

Amr Ibn al-Aas was one of the most dangerous agitators against Uthman. He was the governor of Egypt during the reign of the second Caliph. However, the third Caliph dismissed him and replaced him with his foster brother, Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abu Sharh. As a result of this, Amr became extremely hostile towards Uthman. He returned to Medina and started a malicious campaign against Uthman, accusing him of many wrong doings. Uthman blamed Amr and spoke to him harshly. This made Amr even more bitter. He used to meet Zubair and Talha and conspire against Uthman. He used to meet pilgrims and inform them of the numerous deviations of Uthman. According to Tabari, when Uthman was besieged, Amr settled in the palace of al-Ajlan and used to ask from people about the situation of Uthman:

 

...Amr had not left his seat before a second rider passed by. Amr called him out: "How is Uthman doing?" The man replied: "He has been killed." Amr then said: "I am Abu Abdillah. When I scratch an ulcer, I cut it off. (i.e., when I desire an object, I attain it). I have been provoking (people) against him, even the shepherd on the top of mountains with his flock." Then Salamah Ibn Rawh said to him: "You, the Quraishites, have broken a strong tie between yourselves and the Arabs. Why did you do that?" Amr replied: "We wanted to draw the truth out of the pit of falsehood, and to have people be on an equal footing as regards the truth."

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 171-172

 

 

The divider of Muslims ignored what is well known in the history of Islam which was reported by important Sunni reporters. The revolt against Uthman was as a result of the efforts of prominent personalities in Medina, such as Aisha, Talha, Zubair, Aburrahman Ibn Ouf, and Amr Ibn al-Aas. Instead of attributing the revolution to real people who rebelled against Uthman, the dividers of Muslims refuse to accept the truth or to mention it. They attribute the revolution to a fictitious Jew, relying on the reports of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi, a man who was accused by prominent Sunni scholars to be a man of lies and innovations. They chose to accept Sayf's report in order to cover up for the Caliph, Aisha, Talha, and Zubair. It is even more amazing that Aisha, Talha, and Zubair, and Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan fought Imam Ali in two wars, unprecedented in the history of Islam, yet non of them accused the followers of Imam Ali to be students of Ibn Saba. Sunni history books and Sunni collections of traditions clearly state that Muawiyah commanded all the Imams of the mosques throughout the Muslim world to CURSE Imam Ali in every Friday prayer. If the fictitious Jew, Ibn Saba, had any small role in the revolt against Uthman, Muawiyah would have made it the main topic of his defamation campaign against the Imam and his supporters. He would have publicized throughout the world that those who killed Uthman were the student of Abdullah Ibn Saba, and that they were ones who brought Ali to power. However neither Muawiyah nor Aisha took this route, because such stories attributed to Ibn Saba was invented by Sayf Ibn Umar who lived in the second century after Hijrah, long after their death.

 

The murder of Uthman provided a nice scapegoat for those who were fighting over more power, while serving under the government of Uthman. They were mainly his relatives, the Umayads such as Muawiyah and Marwan, who thoroughly took advantage of Uthman's life as well as his death. The story of Ibn Saba in this regard has served to cover the face of those power- hungry individuals, and yet another way to attack Imam Ali and his true followers.

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

 

 

Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Uthman

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/10/0, at 2:46 a.m.

 

                            In Response To: Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Aysha and Amr Ibn al-Ass (asim zaidi)

 

Dear Brothers!

In the article below, my aim is not to prove that it is 100% right history. You have the right to accept it or reject it. My only aim of producing this article is to COMPARE the authenticity of these historical facts with the allegations made by ONLY AND ONLY SAIF IBN UMAR. There is no other report other than him,neither sunni nor shia, that claim that Shias/Sabaies revolted against Uthman.

 

Unfortunately, some brothers blindly believe in the stories of this LAIR SAIF IBN UMAR and blame only and only Shias/Sabaies for the agitation against hazrat Usman.

 

============================================

Few Reasons behind the Revolt Against Uthman

============================================

The Third Caliph, Uthman, was given the allegiance of the people with the stipulation that he would manage the affairs of the nation according to the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). He was to follow the method of Abu Bakr and Umar, if there was no instruction from the Quran or the Prophet.

 

It is well-known that the first two caliphs lived simple lives. They did not give members of their clans a preference over other people, nor did they appoint any of their relatives to prominent positions in the State.

 

Uthman, on the other hand, had his own opinions. He allowed himself to live luxuriously. He put members of his clan (Umayad) in prominent and strong positions in the State, preferring them over other Muslims, without monitoring their affairs. However, his relatives were not righteous. Perhaps Uthman thought that his preference towards them was in accordance with the Book of God because Quran urges people to be kind to their relatives! This method of handing the affairs of the State did not please many companions. They found it extravagant and extreme.

 

The Companions criticized the Caliph for the following issues:

 

1. He brought his uncle, al-Hakam Ibn Abi al-Aas (son of Umayyah, son of Abd Shams), to Medina after the Prophet had exiled him from Medina.

 

It was reported that al-Hakam used to hide and listen to the words of the Prophet as he spoke secretly to prominent companions, and then circulated what he heard. He used to imitate and ridicule the Prophet in the way he walked. The Prophet one time looked at him while he was being imitated and said: "This way you will be." al-Hakam immediately started shaking and continued that way until he died. It is also reported that:

 

One day, while sitting with some of his companions, the Messenger of God said, "A cursed man will enter the room." Shortly thereafter, al-Hakam entered. (He was the cursed man.)

 

Sunni reference: al-Isti'aab, by Yusuf Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, pp 359-360

 

2. After bringing him to Medina, Uthman gave his uncle al-Hakam 300,000 Dirhams.

 

3. He made Marwan, son of al-Hakam, his highest assistant and top advisor, giving him influence equal to his own. Marwan bought a fifth of the revenues of the North Africa for 500,000 Dinars!!! However, he did not pay this amount. The Caliph allowed him to keep the money. This amount was equal to ten million dollars!!!

 

Imam Ali (AS) frequently reminded Uthman about the danger of Marwan, but in vain. The following conversation between Imam Ali and Uthman testifies this fact. It happened when Uthman was being attacked, and thus he asked Ali for help. Uthman said to Imam Ali:

 

"You see the trouble caused by this band of dissidents when they came to me today. I know that you enjoy prestige among people and that they will listen to you. I want you to go to them and send them away from me. I do not wish them to come before me, for that would be an insulting act toward me on their part. Let others hear this as well." Ali said: "On what grounds shall I send them away?"

 

Uthman replied: "On the grounds that I shall carry out what you have counseled me to do and you thought right, and I will not deviate from you direction." Then Ali said: "In fact I have spoken to you time after time, and you and I discussed such matters at length. All this is the doing of Marwan Ibn al-

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hakam, Saeed Ibn al-Aas, Ibn Amir, and Muawiyah. You have listened to them and defied me."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Uthman said: "then I shall defy them and listen to you."

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p173

 

 

Then Imam Ali spoke to people and asked them to go away from Uthman, and thus many of them retreated. Then Imam came to Uthman and informed him that people are gone, and said:

 

"Make a statement which the people will testify that they have heard from you, and God will be witness as to whether or not you desire to repent in your heart."

 

Thus, Uthman went out and preached the sermon in which he laid before the people his heartfelt desire to repent, and said: "By God, O people, if any one of you has blamed (me), he has not done anything that is unknown to me. I have done nothing unknowingly. But my soul has raised vain hopes within me and lied to me, and my virtue has slipped away from me. ...I ask God's forgiveness for what I have done and I turn to him. A man like me yearns to repent."

 

Then people had pity on him, and some among them wept. Saeed Ibn Zayd stood up before him (Uthman) and said: "O commander of faithful, (from now on) no one comes to you who does not support you. Fear God, in your soul fear God, and fulfill what you have said!"

 

When Uthman descended (from the pulpit), he found Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Seed Ibn al-Aas, and a few other Umayad at his house. Marwan said: "Should I speak (to people) or remain silent?" Uthman's wife said: "Nay! Be silent, for they will kill him of sin. He has made a public statement from which he can not rightfully withdraw." Marwan said: "What does this have to do with you?"

 

Then Marwan said to Uthman: "To persist in an error for which you must seek God's forgiveness is

                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

better that to repent because you are afraid. If you so will, you may seek repentance without

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

acknowledging error." Uthman said: "Go out and speak to them, for I am ashamed to do so."

 

So Marwan went (to people) and said: "Why have you gathered here like looters? ... You have come to snatch our power (Mulk; kingship) from us. Go! By God, if you mean us (any harm), you will encounter something distasteful from us, and you will not praise the result of your opinions. Return to your homes, for by God we are not men to be robbed of our possessions."

 

People informed Ali of the news. Then Ali came to Uthman and said: "Surely you have satisfied Marwan (again), but he is satisfied with you only if you deviate from your religion and reason, like a camel carrying a litter that is led around at will. By God, Marwan is devoid of sense in regard to his religion and his soul. I swear by God, I think he will bring you in and then not send you out again. After this visit, I will not come again to chide you. You have destroyed your own honor and you have been robbed of your authority."

 

When Ali departed, Uthman's wife told him: "I have heard that Ali said to you that he will never return to you, and that you have obeyed Marwan (again), who leads you wherever he wishes." Uthman said: "What shall I do?" She responded: "You should fear God alone, who has no partner, and you should adhere to the practice of your two predecessors (Abu Bakr and Umar). For if you obey Marwan, he will kill you. Marwan enjoys no prestige among the people, and inspires neither awe nor love. People have only abandoned you due to Marwan's position (in your councils). Send to Ali, then, and trust in his honesty and uprightness. He is related to you and he is not a man whom people disobey." So Uthman sent to Ali, but he refused to come, saying: "I told him I would not return."

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 176-179

 

 

On the death of Uthman, Imam Ali (AS) said:

 

By God! I have persisted in defending him (Uthman) until I was filled with shame. But Marwan, Muawiyah, Abdullah Ibn Amir, and Sa'd Ibn al- Aas have dealt with him as you witnessed. When I gave him sincere counsel and directed him to send them away, he became suspicious of me, until what you now see has happened.

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p198

 

 

Marwan and his descendants were the basis for some of the most serious charges of corruption and nepotism levied against Uthman. Marwan, of course, ultimately seized the Caliphate and ascended the throne in year 64/684, and was the lineal ancestor of all succeeding Umayad kings in Damascus as well as the Amirs of Cordoba till after 756 AD.

 

4. The Caliph appointed his foster brother, Abdullah Ibn Sa'd, as the governor of Egypt. At that time, Egypt was the largest province in the Muslim State. Ibn Sa'd had declared his Islam and moved from Mecca to Medina. The Prophet listed him as a recorder of the revelation. However, Ibn Sa'd then deserted the faith and returned to Mecca. He used to say: "I shall reveal equal to what God revealed to Muhammad."

 

When Mecca was conquered, the Prophet ordered the Muslims to kill Ibn Sa'd. He was to be killed even if he was found tying himself to the cloth of the Ka'aba. Ibn Sa'd hid himself at the house of Uthman. When the situation calmed down, Uthman brought Ibn Sa'd to the Prophet and informed him that he had put Ibn Sa'd under his protection. The Prophet remained silent for a long while, hoping that one of those who were present, would kill Ibn Sa'd before he honors Uthman's request. The companions, however, did not understand what the Prophet meant by his long silence. Since no one moved to kill Ibn Sa'd, the Prophet approved the protection of Uthman.

 

 

 

Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Uthman(part 2)

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/10/0, at 2:48 a.m.

 

                                   In Response To: Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Uthman (asim zaidi)

 

Part 2

============================================

Few Reasons behind the Revolt Against Uthman

============================================

 

5. The Caliph Uthman appointed Walid Ibn Aqabah (one of his Umayad relatives) as the governor of Kufa after dismissing the previous governor, the famous companion of Prophet, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas. Sa'd was a famous marksman known for combating the enemies of Islam in the Battle of Uhud.

 

On the other hand, the behavior of Walid during the time of the Prophet was not honorable. Quran discredited him and called him a transgressor. For instance, the Messenger sent him to Bani al-Mustalaq to collect their Zakat. Walid witnessed from a distance that Mustalaqites coming toward him on their horses. He became frightened due to a previous hostility between the Mustalaqites and him. He returned to the Messenger of God and informed him that the Mustalaqites wanted to kill him. This was not true. However, Walid's information infuriated the Muslims of Medina, and they wanted to attack the Mustalaqites. At this time, the following revelation came down:

 

"O you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news, try to verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; then you may consequently regret your hasty action."

 

Walid continued in his non-Islamic way for the rest of his life. He used to drink wine and several witnesses testified to the Caliph that they had witnessed Walid drunk while leading a congregational prayer!!! Upon the testimony of good witnesses, Walid was lashed eighty times and was dismissed by the Caliph. The Caliph was expected to replace this transgressor with a good companion of the Prophet but, instead, he replaced Walid with Saeed Ibn al-Aas, another member of his Umayad relatives!

 

The following dialog between Imam Ali (AS) and Uthman, is also written in the History of al-Tabari which gives more insight to the situation of Uthman long before his murder:

 

People gathered and talked to Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Thus Ali went to Uthman and said:

 

People came to me, and they have spoken to me about you. ... Remember God! You will be not awarded your sight after you become blind, by God!, nor you are being instructed after you were in ignorance. Verily the Path is manifest and clear, and the signs of true religion are standing upright.

 

Know, Uthman, that the best servant in the eyes of God, is a JUST IMAM (leader), one who has been guided to the way, and who himself gives the right guidance (to people), for he upholds the true Sunnah and destroys rejected innovations. By God, every thing is clear. Sound and true Sunnah stands clearly, as do blameworthy innovations. The WORST IMAM in the eyes of God, is a tyrannical leader, the one who has gone astray himself, and by whom others are led astray, for he destroys a true Sunnah and revives a rejected innovation. Verily I heard the messenger of Allah saying: 'In The Day of Resurrection, the tyrannical leader will be brought while he will have no helper and no advocate, so that he will be cast to the Hell, and he will be turning about in Hell as the mill turns, and he then will plunge into the fiery flood of Hell.' I tell you (Uthman), to be aware of God and His sudden assault and His retaliation, for His punishment is harsh and painful indeed. I tell you to beware lest you be the

                                                                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

murdered leader of this community. Indeed it is said that a leader will be killed in this community,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and its bloody strife will be loosed upon it until the day of rising (of Imam Mahdi), and its affairs

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

will become hopelessly entangled. It will leave people as sects, and they will not see the truth due

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

to the great height of falsehood. They will toss therein like waves and wander in confusion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Then Uthman replied: By God, I knew that (people) would be saying what you have said. But by God, if you were in my place, I would not have blame you nor left you in the lurch nor shamed you nor behaved unfairly. If I have favored my relatives, and appointed them as governors, some of them are those whom Umar used to appoint. I appeal you by God, O Ali, do you know that al-Mughirah Ibn Shubah is not there? Ali said: Yes. Then Uthman said: Do you know that Umar made him a governor? Ali said: Yes. Then Uthman said: So why do you blame me for having appointed him Amir, simply because he is my relative?

 

Then Ali said: I would tell you that every one appointed by Umar, was kept under close inspection by him, and Umar would trample on his ear. If Umar would hear a single word concerning him, he would flog him and punish him with the utmost severity. But you do not do that. You have been weak and

                                                                                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

easygoing with your relatives. Uthman said: They are your relatives as well. Ali replied: By my life,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they are closely related to me, but merit is found in other people. Then Uthman said: Do you know that Umar was the one who kept Muawiyah in the office throughout his entire reign, and I have only done the same.

 

Then Ali said: I ask you by Allah, do you know that Muawiyah was more afraid of Umar than was Umar's own slave, Yarfa? Uthman said: Yes. Ali continued: Now it has been reached to the point that Muawiyah makes decisions on the issues without consulting you, and you know it. Muawiyah says to people "This is Uthman's command", and you hear of this, but you do not denounce him. Then Ali left Uthman, and Uthman went out on his heels. Then Uthman ascended the pulpit and said: By God, you have surely blamed me for things like those you accepted from Umar. But he trampled you underfoot, smote you with his hand, and subdued you by his tongue, and thus you submitted to him whether you liked it or not. But I have been lenient with you. I let you step on my shoulders while I restrained my hand and tongue, and therefore you have been rude toward me. By God, I am stronger in the number of relatives, and have allies closer at hand, and possess more supporters. I have appointed your peers over you. But you have attributed to me a nature that I do not possess. Restrain your tongue from slandering your rulers... By God! I have achieved no less than my predecessors or those about whom you have not disagreed. There is a surplus wealth, so why should I not do as I wish with the surplus?

 

Otherwise why did I become leader?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 141-144

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

 

Ibn Saba in Battle of Camel

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/10/0, at 2:52 a.m.

 

                                In Response To: Re: Ibn Saba Vs. Hazrat Uthman(part 2) (asim zaidi)

 

Dear Brothers!

In the article below, my aim is not to prove that it is 100% right history. You have the right to accept it or reject it. My only aim of producing this article is to COMPARE the authenticity of these historical facts with the allegations made by ONLY AND ONLY SAIF IBN UMAR. There is no other report other than him. Unfortunately, some brothers blindly believe in the stories of this LAIR SAIF IBN UMAR and blame only and only Shias/Sabaies for the agitation against hazrat Usman.

 

================================

Who Started The Battle of Camel?

================================

The battle of Camel (Jamal) was the first war declared against Imam Ali (AS) in Basra in year 36/656 after people appointed Ali as their leader of the Muslim community. It was called so, because Aisha, one of the leaders of the opposition group was riding a camel. The other leaders among the opposition were Talha and Zubair who were two well-known companions of the messenger of Allah. This war is also known in the history as the battle of Basra. The result was shedding the blood of more than ten thousand Muslims.

 

The circulators of false accusation against the Followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet quote from Sayf that the followers of Ibn Saba started the battle of Basra at night just before the negotiations between Imam Ali and his three opponents (Aisha, Talha, and Zubair) were about to succeed. They started the battle at night by attacking the two armies simultaneously in order to make them plunge into battle. Ibn Saba wanted to make each of the two armies accuse the other of starting the battle. This would abort the peaceful efforts whose stipulations were supposed to include the punishment of Uthman's killers.

 

This allegation is in contradiction with many clear historical facts, of which the following events were recorded by the Sunni historians and traditionists:

 

1. al-Sha'bi (Amir Ibn Sharahil al-shi-abi) reported the following:

 

The right side of the army of the Commander of Believers (Ali) attacked the left side of Basra's army. They fought each other and people resorted to Aisha and most of them were from Dhubbah and al-Azd tribes. The Battle started after sunrise and continued until afternoon. The Basrites were

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

defeated and a man from the tribe of al-Azd said: 'Come back and attack.' Muhammad (Ibn al-Hanafiya), son of Ali, hit him with his sword and severed his hand. The man shouted: 'Azdites, run away.' When the Azdites were overwhelmed by the army of the Ali, the Azdites shouted: 'We belong to the religion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.'

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, Arabic version, Events of year 36 AH v4, p312. (The English version of this part is not yet published at the time of writing of this article)

 

 

The above report gives evidence to the fact that the fight did NOT start during the night as the inventor of Ibn Saba claimed. Rather it started AFTER the sunrise. This collapses the whole alleged conspiracy of simultaneous attack to both armies during the night.

 

2. Qatadah reported the following:

 

When the two armies faced each other, Zubair appeared on his horse while he was

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

well armed. People said to Ali, 'This is Zubair.' Upon that Ali said: 'Zubair is the more

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

expected of the two to remember God, if he is reminded.'

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Talha also came to face Ali. When Ali faced them, he said: 'Certainly you have prepared arms, horses, and men. Did you prepare an excuse for the Day of Judgment when you meet your Lord? Fear God and do not be like the lady who unravels her weaving after she had woven it strongly. Was I not your brother and you used to believe in the sanctity of my blood? Did anything happen to make it legal for you to shed my blood?' Talha said: 'You have instigated people against Uthman.'

 

Imam Ali replied, quoting from the Quran: 'On that day (the day of judgment), Allah will pay them their just due, and they will know that, indeed, Allah is the Manifest Truth.(Quran 24:25).' Then Ali continued: 'Talha, you are fighting for the blood of Uthman?

 

May God curse those who killed Uthman. Zubair, do you remember the day when you passed by with the Messenger of God at Banu Ghunam and he looked at me and smiled? I smiled back at him and you said to him: 'Ibn Abu Talib is always conceited. 'The Messenger of God said to you: 'He is not conceited, and you shall fight him unjustly.'

 

Zubair said: 'By God, this is true. Had I remembered that, I would not have made this journey. By God, I shall never fight you.' Then Zubair left and informed Aisha and his son Abdullah that he took an oath to never fight Ali. His son counseled him to fight against Ali and pay atonement (Kaffaarah) for breaking his oath. Zubair agreed and made his atonement by freeing his slave Mak'hul.

 

Sunni references:

- History of al-Tabari, Arabic version, Events of year 36 AH, v4, pp501-502

- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p240

- al-Isti'ab, Ibn Abd al-Barr, v2, p515

- Usdul Ghabah, v2, p252

- al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p557

 

 

This event clearly tells us that Talha and Zubair confronted Imam Ali (AS) BEFORE the start of the battle, and the confrontation was in the day time rather than at night. Otherwise, people could not have seen the confrontation or heard the conversation between the Imam and his opponents and recognize each other in the Helmet (metal head-cover). We are sure that there was no electricity for light, nor was there any voice amplifier to make conversations heard.

 

Since the conversation and the confrontation took place before the start of the battle, it is clear that the report of Sayf about the battle starting during the dark night and unpredictably, is a sheer lie.

 

 

3. al-Dhabbi narrated:

 

We were in the camp of Ali on the day of Battle of Camel, where Ali

sent for Talha to talk to him (before the beginning of war). Talha came forward, and Ali told him: I adjure you by Allah! Didn't you hear the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) when he said: `Whoever I am his MAWLA, this Ali is his MAWLA. O God, love whoever loves him, and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him'?" Talha replied: "Yes." Ali said: "Then why do you want to fight me?"

 

Sunni references:

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 169,371

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, on the authority of Ilyas al-Dhabbi

- Muruj al-Dhahab, by al-Mas'udi, v4, p321

- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p107

 

 

4. Yahya Ibn Sa'id narrated:

 

Marwan Ibn al-Hakam who was in the ranks of Talha, saw Talha is retreating (when his army

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

was being defeated in the battlefield). Since he and all Umayad recognized him and al-Zubair

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

as the murderers of Uthman, he shot an arrow at him and severely wounded him. He then said to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Aban, the son of Uthman, that: "I have spared you from one of your father's murderers."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Talha was taken to a ruined house in Basra where he died.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Sunni references:

- Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'ad, v3, part 1, p159

- al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v3, pp 532-533

- History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p244

- Usdul Ghabah, v3, pp 87-88

- al-Isti'ab, Ibn Abd al-Barr, v2, p766

- History of Ibn al-Kathir, v7, p248

- A similar report is given in al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 169,371

 

 

5. al-Zuhri, another important Sunni narrator who is famous for his dislike

of Ahlul-Bayt, reported the following dialogue of Imam Ali with Zubair and

Talha before the battle:

 

"Ali said: 'Zubair, do you fight me for the blood of Uthman after you killed him?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

May God give the most hostile to Uthman among us the consequence which that very person dislikes.' He said to Talha: 'Talha, you have brought the wife of the Messenger of God (Aisha) to use her for war and hid your wife at your house (in Medina)! Did you not give me your allegiance?' Talha said: 'I gave you the allegiance while the sword was on my neck.' (At this point, Ali tried to invite them to peace, leaving them no excuse.) Ali addressed his own army saying: 'Who among you will display this Quran and what is in it to the opposing army with the understanding that if he loses one of his hand he will hold the Quran with his other hand...?' A youth from Kufa said: 'I will take the mission.' Ali went through his army offering them the mission. Only that youth accepted it. Then Ali said to him: 'Exhibit this Quran and say to them: It is between you and us from its beginning to its end. Remember God, and spare your blood and our blood.' As the youth called upon them to resort to the Quran and surrender to its judgment, the Basrites army attacked and killed him. At this time, Ali said to his army: 'Now the fight has become legal.' The battle then started.

 

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, Arabic version, Events of year 36 AH v4, p905

 

 

All these reports and the similar ones clearly indicate that the battle started in the day time rather than at night as Sayf Ibn Umar alleged. The breaking war was not abrupt since the two armies met and talked to each other just before the start of battle. Had the confrontation between Imam Ali and Talha and Zubair taken place at night, the final call of Imam Ali would have had no benefit because the two armies would not have been able to witness it or hear their conversation. Also, the confrontation between the carrier of the Holy Quran and the Basrites would have been useless. None of the opposing soldiers could have seen the Quran in the hands of the young man at night.

 

Furthermore, the alleged agreement between the Imam and the three rebellious leaders, to punish the individuals who murdered Uthman, would be logical only if the three leaders were serious in seeking punishment for the killers. But the three leaders (Aisha, Talha, and Zubair) were the main agitators who provoked people to kill the Third Caliph. As we see in the above tradition, Imam Ali clearly stated that Zubair was among those who killed Uthman.

 

Imam Ali said in the battle of Camel:

 

"Truth and falsehood can not be identified by the virtue of people. First understand the truth, you will then realize who is adhering to it." (Nahjul Balaghah, by Imam Ali)

 

 

 

Ibn Saba a short summary

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/10/0, at 2:54 a.m.

 

                                      In Response To: Ibn Saba in Battle of Camel (asim zaidi)

 

========================================================================

Short Summary of Comparing reports on the Character of Abdullah Ibn Saba

========================================================================

Story of Abdullah Ibn Saba based Story of Abdullah Ibn Saba based

on the reports provided by Sayf on the reports whose chain of

Ibn Umar and those who quoted him authorities do not include Sayf

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

1) Sayf provided a mass of 1) The number of these reports information and a huge number of which have the chain of narrators lengthy and verbose reports for do not exceed 14. And they are very which there exists no similar short. report by the sober traditionists.

 

2) These and all other reports 2) These few traditions were NOT of Sayf were rejected since he rated authentic by Shia or Sunni was accused of forgery, heresy, scholars, and thus, the existence inquisition and manichaeism by of a person in the name of Abdullah the leading Sunni scholars. Ibn Saba remains under question.

 

3) Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared when 3) Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared when Uthman came to power. Imam Ali (AS) came to power.

 

4) Ibn Saba claimed that Prophet 4) Nothing was reported about Ibn Muhammad will return like Jesus Saba in this regard. Other Sunni before the day of judgment. He reports claim that Umar was the claimed that Prophet Muhammad has first who claimed the return of not died. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and that he did not die.

 

5) Abdullah Ibn Saba claimed that 5) Abdullah Ibn Saba claimed that Ali is the successor of Prophet. he is a prophet and Ali is God.

 

6) Ibn Saba claimed that Uthman 6) Nothing was reported about Ibn should be overthrown because he has Saba in this regard. Other Sunni occupied the seat of Ali. Ibn Saba reports claim that Talha, Zubair, was the main agitator in revolt Aisha, and Amr Ibn al-Aas were the against Uthman. The agitation did main agitators against Uthman. They not start from Medina, and Talha started the campaign in Medina and and Zubair did not oppose Uthman. then invited others to join them.

 

7) Ibn Saba instigated the battle 7) Nothing was reported about Ibn of Camel at night in order to Saba in this regard. Yet other plunge the two armies into battle. Sunni reports say that the battle started after sunrise and after the final speech of Imam Ali to the rebellions when the two armies faced and met each other.

 

8) Some of the pioneers of Islam 8) No report about the relation of among the companions of Prophet any companions of Prophet with such as Abu Dar and Ammar Ibn Yasir Abdullah Ibn Saba. Other authentic were the students of this Jew. Sunni traditions indicate that Abu Dar and Ammar were among the best companions and the most beloved ones to the Prophet (PBUH&HF).

 

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 

 

 

Ibn Saba & The Opinion of the Historians

 

                                           Posted By: asim zaidi (yeti.is.fh-hamburg.de)

                                                    Date: 5/10/0, at 2:56 a.m.

 

                                      In Response To: Ibn Saba a short summary (asim zaidi)

 

 

=============================

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

 

For details about Abdullah ibn Saba, please visit these sites(They are brief, but very informative).

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/1.html (part 1)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/2.html (part 2)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/3.html (part 3)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/4.html (part 4)

http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/5.html (part 5)

 

 


 

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ {41:18}

But We delivered those who believed and practised righteousness

 

  Shia in the light of Quran
Term Shia in Quran and Hadith
 The Spiritual Message of Shi'ism
 Sunni Scholars says about Shia
 Divne Copyright Laws
 

IBN SABA

   ASFA Discussion
 Kaab or Saba 1
 Kaab or Saba 2
 Debate about Ibn Saba
 

Copyright ©2011
All rights reserved

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ     اللهم صلى على محد و ال محد.... و عجل فرجهم