{"id":6124,"date":"2019-12-22T16:02:18","date_gmt":"2019-12-22T16:02:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-12-22T16:02:18","modified_gmt":"2019-12-22T16:02:18","slug":"abdullah-ibn-saba-part-v","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/6124\/abdullah-ibn-saba-part-v\/","title":{"rendered":"Abdullah Ibn Saba (Part V)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Opinion of the Historians<\/strong>
\nI have already provided the opinion of 15 famous Sunni scholars about the
\nweakness of the reports of Sayf Ibn Umar in
\nof this article.
\nBeside them, many Sunni historians have also denied the existence of
\nAbdullah Ibn Saba and and\/or the forged stories attributed to him. Among
\nthem are Dr. Taha Husain, who has analyzed these stories and rejected them.
\nHe wrote in “al-Fitnah al-Kubra” that:
\nIn my opinion, those who have tried to emphasize on the story of
\nAbdullah Ibn Saba, have committed a crime in the history and hurt
\nthemselves too. The first thing that is observed is that in the
\nimportant collections the name of Ibn Saba does not appear when they
\ndiscuss the agitation against Uthman. Ibn Sa\\’d does not mention the
\nname of Abdullah Ibn Saba when he discusses the Caliphate of Uthman
\nand the revolt against him. Also the book by al-Baladhuri, “Ansab al-
\nAshraf”, which I think the most important and the most detailed book
\nabout the revolt against Uthman, the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba has
\nnever been mentioned. It appears that al-Tabari was the first who
\nreported the story of Ibn Saba from Sayf, and then other historians
\nquoted al-Tabari in this regard.
\nIn his other book “Ali wa Banuh”, he also mentioned:
\nThe story of Ibn Saba is nothing but myth, and is the invention of
\nsome historians, since it contradicts other historical documents. …
\nThe fact is that the friction between Shia and Sunni have had many
\nshapes, and each group was advocating itself and denouncing the other
\nby any means possible. This requires a historian to be much more
\ncautious when analyzing the controversial reports related to seditions
\nand revolts.
\nIn
\n, we briefly mentioned the masterpiece of Allamah al-Askari
\nwhich was released in 1955 AD. Before that time, no analytical research had
\nbeen done on the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba to investigate if he really
\nexisted in physical world and\/or if the stories around this man had any
\nsingle truth in it. Although Sayf\\’s heresy was well-known for a number of
\ncenturies, no research had been done about the origin of the tale of
\nAbdullah Ibn Saba. In his research, al-Askari proved that Sayf\\’s narration
\nattributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba and many other things are sheer lie since
\nthey contradict ALL other Sunni documents in content, timing of the events,
\nnames of cities and companions, imaginary chain of narrators, and
\nmiraculous records by Sayf (like talking cows with humans and so on). If
\nthere was any Abdullah Ibn Saba at that time, his story was much different
\nthan what Sayf manipulated.
\nHere is the response of a Sunni learned man, Dr. Hamid Dawud, the professor
\nof Cairo University, after reading al-Askari\\’s book (I just give only a
\npart of his letter):
\nThe 1300th birthday of Islam has been celebrated. During this time,
\nsome of our learned writers have accused Shia of having un-Islamic
\nviews. Those writers influenced public opinion against Shia and
\ncreated big gaps between Muslims. In spite of wisdom and learning, the
\nenemies of Shia followed their own chosen beliefs and partiality,
\ncovering the truth, and accusing the Shia of being superstitious etc.
\nHence Islamic science suffered much, as Shia views were suppressed.
\nAs a result of these accusations, the loss to Islamic science was
\ngreater than the loss suffered by Shia themselves, because the source
\nof this jurisprudence, though rich and fruitful, was neglected,
\nresulting in limited knowledge. Also, in the past, our learned men
\nwere prejudiced, otherwise we would have benefited from many Shia
\nviews. Anyone who wishes to do research in Islamic Jurisprudence must
\nconsider Shia sources as well as those of Sunni.
\nWas not the Shia leader, Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH), the teacher
\nof two Sunni Imams? i.e., Abu Hanifa al-Nu\\’man (d. 150 AH), and Malik
\nIbn Anas (d. 179 AH). Imam Abu Hanifa said: “Except for the two years
\nNu\\’man would have starved,” referring to the two years he had
\nbenefited from the knowledge of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq. Imam Malik also
\nconfessed straightforwardly that he had not met anyone learned in
\nIslamic Jurisprudence better than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq.
\nYet, some of our so-called learned men, unfortunately disregard the
\nrules for research to suit their own ends. Hence knowledge is not
\nfully disclosed to them and thus they create a wider gap between
\nMuslims. Ahmed Amin is one of those deprived of the light of
\nknowledge, remaining in darkness. History has recorded this stain on
\nthe robe of Ahmed Amin and his friends, who blindly followed one
\nspecial Madhab. Of many mistakes made by him, the biggest is told in
\nthe story of Abdullah Ibn Saba. This is one of the tales told in order
\nto accuse Shia of heresy and foregoing events.
\nThe great contemporary researcher, al-Askari, in his book, has proved
\nwith substantial evidence, that Abdullah Ibn Saba was fictitious, and
\nit is therefore a greater lie to say that he was the founder of
\nShi\\’ism.
\nGod has decreed that some learned men disclose the truth regardless of
\nblame they may get. The pioneer in this subject is this man who has
\nmade the Sunni learned men of research revise the history book of
\nTabari (History of Nations and Kings), and to sift out the authentic
\nstories from the false. The stories which have been preserved as God\\’s
\nrevelations.
\nThe honorable writer, with much evidence, has stripped the veil or
\nambiguity from those historical events, and disclosed the truth, to
\nsome extent that some facts seem frightful. But we have to obey the
\ntruth no matter how difficult they appear. The truth is the best to be
\nfollowed.
\nDr. Hamid Hafni Dawud
\nOct. 12, 1961
\nCairo, Egypt.
\nWe just heard from a Sunni Muslim. Now let us see what a third party has
\nto say about Sayf and his character, Abdullah Ibn Saba. The following is
\nthe comment of Dr. R. Stephen Humpherys, from the University of Wisconsin
\nat Madison, who has translated the Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari into
\nEnglish. This comment is written in the foreword of Vol. 15 of the History
\nof al-Tabari. (again, I just give some parts of it. Please refer to Vol. 15
\nfor details):
\nFor events in Iraq and Arabia (the real key to the crises of Uthman\\’s
\ncaliphate) Tabari relies chiefly on Muhammad Ibn Umar al- Waqidi (d.
\n823) and the MYSTERIOUS SAYF IBN UMAR. Both of these authorities raise
\nreal problems … It is Sayf Ibn Umar who is most troubling, however.
\nTabari shows a unique fondness for him, in two senses. First, SAYF IS
\nTHE SOURCE MOST HEAVILY USED BY TABARI for the whole period from the
\nRiddah wars to the battle of Siffin (11-37 AH). Second, no one beside
\nTabari appears to use Sayf at all. There is no obvious way to explain
\nTabari\\’s preference. It is certainly not explained by the formal
\ncharacteristics of Sayf\\’s narratives, for he relies on informants who
\nare usually OBSCURE and often very recent. likewise, he makes heavy
\nuse of the collective report, which blends together in unspecified
\nways the accounts of several transmitters.
\nI would suggest that Sayf appealed to Tabari for two reasons. First,
\nSayf presents a “Sunday school” interpretation of Uthman\\’s caliphate.
\nIn his presentation, one sees a profound unity and harmony within the
\ncore community of Muslims, a unity and harmony founded on strict
\nfidelity to the legacy of Muhammad. It is unthinkable that men such as
\nthose portrayed by Sayf could have been moved by worldly ambition and
\ngreed. On the contrary, in Sayf\\’s presentation most conflicts are
\nillusory, a reflection of malicious misinterpretations by later
\ncommentators. Where real conflicts did arise among sincere Muslims,
\nthey were instigated by outsiders like the notorious Abdullah Ibn
\nSaba, a converted Jew from Yemen.
\nOn this level, at least, Sayf\\’s version of events is obviously a very
\nnaive one, and no doubt Tabari perceived that as clearly as we do.
\nEven so, it served a very useful function for Tabari: By making Sayf\\’s
\nreports the visible frame work of his narrative, he could slip in the
\nmuch less flattering interpretations of early Islamic history
\npresented by his other sources. Ordinary readers would dismiss this
\ndissident testimony as irrelevant, and only few critical readers would
\ncatch his hint and pursue the issues raised by such secondary
\naccounts. In this way, Tabari could say what needed to be said while
\navoiding accusations of sectarianism. Accusations of this kind were of
\ncourse no small matter in view of the enormous social and religious
\ntensions in Baghdad during the late 9th and early 10th centuries.
\nReference: History of al-Tabari, v15, pp xv-xvii
\nAlso in the foreword of Volume 11 of the English version of the History of
\nal-Tabari, the translator writes:
\nAlthough Tabari scrupulously cited his sources and can be shown to
\nhave often quoted from them almost verbatim, these source themselves
\ncan be traced with certainty only to an earlier stage in the
\ncollection of Islamic history, represented by the writers Ibn Is\\’haq
\n(d. 151\/767), Ibn al-Kalbi (d. 204\/819), al-Waqidi (d. 207\/822), and
\nSayf Ibn Umar (d. ~170\/786). From the first three, all of whom are
\ncited in this volume, there are works extant that enable us to assess
\ntheir tendencies to some extent, as well as to verify their use of
\ntheir own sources. For an assessment of the value of their
\ntransmission, the reader is referred to the relevant articles in the
\nEncyclopedia of Islam and other secondary literature.
\nIt is the fourth writer extensively quoted by al-Tabari, SAYF IBN
\nUMAR, with whom we are mainly concerned here. As his work survives
\nprincipally in the transmission of al-Tabari and those who took from
\nhim and IS FOUND NOWHERE IN INDEPENDENT FORM, he has unfortunately
\nbeen rather ignored in modern criticism. Yet it is Sayf\\’s lengthy
\nreports that fill most of the pages of this and several other volumes.
\nThe historical evaluation of this volume therefore depends to a large
\nextent on our assessment of the nature of Sayf\\’s reports and al-
\nTabari\\’s use of them, and it is to these problems that we must turn
\nour attention.
\nAbu Abdillah Sayf Ibn Umar al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi was a Kufan
\ntraditionist who died in the reign of Harun al-Rashid (170-93\/786-
\n809). Other than the possibility that he was accused of MANICHAEISM
\n(Zandaqah) in the inquisition (Mihnah) that began under al-Mahdi in
\n166\/783 and continued into the time of al-Rashid, nothing is known of
\nhis life, except what can be determined from his tradition. (On Mihnah
\nitself, see History of al-Tabari, v3, pp 517, 522, 548-551, 604, 645;
\nand the book called “Zindiqs” by Vajda, pp 173-229. On accusations
\nagainst Sayf, see Majruheen, by Ibn Hibban, v1, pp 345-346; Mizan, by
\nal-Dhahabi, v2, pp 255-256; Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar, v4, p296).
\nAs he is alleged to have transmitted from at least nine traditionists
\nwho died in 140-146\/757-763, and even from two who died in 126-128\/744-
\n746, he may have been elderly when he died. This is also suggested by
\nthe possibility that Abu Mikhnaf, who died considerably earlier than
\nSayf in 157\/774, may have quoted from him. Sayf\\’s work was originally
\nrecorded in two books which are now lost but survived for a number of
\ncenturies after Sayf\\’s own lifetime. They made an enormous impact on
\nthe Islamic historical tradition, especially because al-Tabari chose
\nto rely mainly on them for the events of 11-36\/632-656, a period that
\nspanned the reigns of the first three caliphs and included all the
\nearly conquests of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Although al-Tabari
\nalso quoted other sources in this volume, as we have indicated, the
\noverwhelming bulk of his material for this
\nperiod is from Sayf. In deed, it is also probable, though not certain,
\nthat he has reproduced the vast majority of Sayf\\’s work. Sayf is only
\nrarely cited by other writers independently of al-Tabari.^^^^^^^^^^^^
\nGenerally, Sayf\\’s description of the conquests transmitted in this and
\nother volumes of al-Tabari emphasizes the heroism of the Muslim
\nwarriors, the hardships they endured, and the toughness of their
\nopponents, features that seem plausible enough and are also found in
\nother conquest narratives beside those of Sayf. However, Sayf\\’s
\nnarratives differ in the extent to which he introduces traditions not
\nfound elsewhere, often reporting them from transmitters not otherwise
\nknown. These UNIQUE narratives frequently contain fantastic or
\nlegendary motifs to an extent far greater than is found in the
\nversions of other historians. Although the fantastic and tendentious
\nnature of Sayf\\’s reports has often been noted, for example, by Julius
\nWellhausen (see skizzen, pp 3-7), the exact value of his corpus as a
\nprimary source has never been assessed in detail.
\n…Although he hailed from Kufa, the crucible of early Shi\\’ism, Sayf
\nbelonged to a completely anti-Shi\\’i undercurrent, representing the
\nKufan faction that had earlier opposed the rebellions of al-Husain Ibn
\nAli and Zayd Ibn Ali. (This is also indicated by his quotation from
\nsources who were involved in the killing of al-Husain. See for
\ninstance v11, pp 204, 206, 216, 222)…
\nThe egregious tendentiousness of Sayf\\’s corpus comes out most plainly
\nin other volumes of al-Tabari, in such episodes as Saqifah Bani
\nSa\\’idah (Tabari, v1, pp 1844-50), the burial of Uthman (3049-50), and
\nthe tale of ABDULLAH IBN SABA (2858-59,2922,2928,2942-44,2954,3027,
\n3163-65,3180). In each of these instances, other versions that do not
\nconfirm Sayf\\’s own are available for comparison and reveal the
\nimpudence of his daring constructions.
\n… Beside exaggerating the roles of certain Companions in the early
\nconquests, Sayf also embellished his work with the exploits of other,
\nIMAGINARY COMPANIONS and with heroes whom he invented, especially to
\nrepresent his own tribal group. The most outstanding of these
\nfabrications is al-Qa\\’qa Ibn Amr, a hero and alleged Companion of the
\nProphet, who is, not surprisingly, said to be a member of Sayf\\’s own
\nsubtribe, the Usayyidi (in this volume, pp 8,24,36,40,42-43,45,48,60-
\n63,65,90,95,166,168). His being an Usayyidi suggests that his
\nfabrication is owing to Sayf himself and not to any of Sayf\\’s alleged
\nsources, as none of the latter is identified as an Usayyidi. In
\naddition, many other persons supposedly belonging to the Tamim tribal
\ngroup appear to be fabrication, some of them having stereotypical
\nnames that suggest almost playful invention, like “Wrap, the son of
\nSkirt”, “Spring Herbage, the son of Rain, the son of Snow”, and “Sea,
\nthe son of Euphrates”. The reader will find dozens of persons who are
\nnamed only in Sayf\\’s traditions recorded in this volume. …
\nBeside having FABRICATED many of the personages who appear in his
\ntransmissions, it also appear that Sayf FABRICATED the names of many,
\nperhaps most, of his alleged authorities. …
\nFrequently it seems that these invented “authorities” served as
\nintermediate links between Sayf and earlier genuine traditionists
\nwhose authority Sayf wished to use to bolster his own inventions.
\nThis assessment of Sayf in no way undermines the authority of other
\nearly Muslim writers whose works may have an entirely different
\ncharacter, just as the Late Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus is in
\nno way affected by the fraud of the Historia Augusta. On the contrary,
\nit is greatly to the credit of the medieval Sunni Muslims who assessed
\nthe quality of traditions in the Rijal books that they unanimously
\nrejected Sayf\\’s authority in the most absolute way possible. They did
\nso despite the fact that his traditions could have been used to back
\ntheir emerging Sunni consensus on early Islamic history. This suggests
\nthat their condemnation of Sayf\\’s traditions was motivated by a
\nconcern for the truth, rather than by a wish to gain advantage in the
\npartisan arena of the time. They realized that his transmissions were
\nexaggerated and fraudulent, and they said so. In fact, the
\ncondemnation of Sayf by the medieval Muslim Ulama ought to serve as a
\nreminder to modern scholars that ancient and medieval texts were not
\nalways dictated by the prevailing political or religious climate and
\nthat the search for truth had its place in earlier times as well as in
\nour own. …
\nIn describing the conquests generally al-Tabari scarcely deviated from
\nSayf\\’s reports. This brings us to the second attraction that Sayf may
\nhave had for al-Tabari: DETAIL. Sayf\\’s transmissions are almost always
\nfar more verbose than parallel reports of more sober traditionists.
\nThis characteristic probably not only made them preferable to al-
\nTabari but may have seemed a guarantee of their accuracy. Living in
\nmedieval times, al-Tabari did not, in the majority of instances, have
\navailable to him the modern tools that would have enabled him to
\ndiscover Sayf\\’s tendentiousness. And, after all, Sayf\\’s reports have
\ncontinued to receive the approbation of a minority of scholars even up
\nto the present.
\nReference: History of al-Tabari, v11, pp xv-xxix
\nAlso Professor James Robinson, (D.Litt., D.D.Glasgow, U.K.) wrote:
\nI would like to make a remark about Tabari who had no hesitation in
\nquoting from Sayf. His history is not a historical work in the manner
\nof modern writing, for his main purpose seems to have been to record
\nall the information in his possession without necessarily expressing
\nan opinion on its value. One is, therefore, prepared to find that some
\nof his material is less reliable than others. So, perhaps we can
\nexcuse him for using a method not approved nowadays. He has at least
\nprovided a mass of information. It remains for acute scholars to
\ndistinguish between the genuine and the false.
\nIt is shown that Sayf often quotes men who are unknown. This raises
\nthe question why none of them should have been quoted by other
\ntransmitters, and leads one further to suggest that Sayf has invented
\nthem. This serious accusation is a reasonable assumption by comparing
\nSayf with others.
\nIt is pointed out that Sayf has stories miraculous of happenings which
\nare difficult to believe, such as desert sands becoming water for
\nMuslim armies, seas becoming sand, cattle speaking and informing the
\nMuslim army where they were hidden, etc. In Sayf\\’s time it was
\npossible for him to succeed in passing off such stories as history,
\nbut nowadays the critical student naturally finds such stories quite
\nimpossible. Effective arguments are also used to show how Sayf\\’s
\ninformation about Ibn Saba and the Saba\\’iyya is quite unreliable.
\nSayf who lived in the first quarter of the second century belonged to
\nTamim, one of the Mudar tribes who live in Kufa. This helps one to
\nstudy his tendencies and the influences leading to this legends. There
\nis discussion of Zindeeq and of Manichaeism. Party spirit is said to
\nhave continued from the Prophet\\’s time, till that of the Abbasids.
\nSayf upholds the northern tribes, inventing heroes, poets praising the
\ntribe\\’s heroes, companions of the Prophet from Tamim, wars and battles
\nwhich had no reality, millions killed and large numbers of prisoners
\nwith the purpose glorifying the heroes he invented, Poems attributed
\nto imaginary heroes were in praise of Mudar, then Tamim, then Ibn Amr,
\nthe subtribe to which Sayf traced his origin. Sayf mentioned men of
\nMudar as leaders of battles which were led by men of other tribes, his
\nfictitious leaders sometimes being real people, sometimes names
\nproduced by his imagination. It is argued that the falseness of his
\ninformation was partly to upset the faith of many and partly to give
\nnon-Muslims a wrong conception. He was so skillful in his forgeries
\nthat they were accepted as genuine history.
\nThere is a big difference between a Hadith work, such as Sahih al-Bukhari,
\nand a history work such as the History al-Tabari. al-Bukhari was selective
\ntoward the traditions and might have recorded 1\/10 of traditions that was
\nconveyed to him, since he dropped all traditions which might have been weak
\nin his point of view. However al-Tabari, though he was selective in his
\nother works, but for his History he recorded 9\/10 of what he had heard, and
\nthis is due to the nature of historical documentations which are not
\nnecessarily as accurate as the Hadith collections.
\nAs a result, al-Bukhari did NOT transmit EVEN ONE SINGLE TRADITION about
\nAbdullah Ibn Saba in his nine-volume Sahih. But historians who favored
\nheavy documentations more than the authenticity of narrators, recorded
\nheavily about Abdullah Ibn Saba through Sayf.
\nThe Shia historians are not exempt from the above reasoning. They have also
\nrecorded most of the things they have got. This includes those reports that
\nthey were not sure about. The final research by Shia related to Abdullah
\nIbn Saba was released only in 1955 AD, and it was not so clear before that
\ntime that the stories related to Abdullah Ibn Saba have been the total
\nmanipulation of Sayf with political motives. The two Shia historian who
\nmentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, lived 10 centuries before the
\npublication extensive research about Abdullah Ibn Saba. A person is called
\nexpert in the history of Islam, if s\/he has read all the early history
\nbooks. As a matter of fact, many early history books were written by the
\nSunni authors under the direct fund of Umayad and later Abbasid rulers. A
\nShia historian does not ban Sunni sources, and consequently his work is
\naffected, one way or another, by previous works. This is clear when one
\nobserves that the two Shia historians who mentioned the name of Abdullah
\nIbn Saba, did not give any chain of transmitters for their report meaning
\nthat they got it from rumor the mouth people which the result of Sayf\\’s
\nmass propaganda.
\nAs for those few traditions which have the chain of narrators (independent
\nof Sayf), they provide a much different story which do not support any of
\nthe allegations of Sayf. These traditions picture an accursed man whom
\nAhlul-Bayt have declared their innocence from what he attributed to Imam
\nAli (declaring Ali as God). The Shia, their Imams and their scholars
\ndeclare the curse of Allah to that man (if ever existed) he was lost,
\nmisguided and cursed. There is nothing in common between us and his name
\nexcept our curse on him and all other extremists who believed in deity of
\nAhlul-Bayt.
\nThe followers of Ahlul Bayt never claimed that Ali is God, nor did they
\nclaim the rest of 12 Imams are God. This, in fact, shows that those who
\ngave life to the stories attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba had hatred toward
\nShia, and tried to misrepresent the Followers of the Members of the House
\nof Prophet. If Shia were the followers of that mysterious Jew, they should
\nhave believed in deity of Ali and should also respect their mentor Abdullah
\nIbn Saba, instead of cursing him!
\nIf Abdullah Ibn Saba is such an influential and important figure for the
\nShia, how come they NEVER quote him like they do with the Imams of Ahlul
\nBayt? Surely, if Abdullah Ibn Saba was their Master Teacher, they must
\nquote him and be proud to do so? A religious student always quotes his
\nteacher, why then would the Shia be any different? Why should they curse
\nhim instead? If one answers that the reason that the Shia do not quote from
\nhim is that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, then I would ask him what
\nwas the religion of the companions before converting to Islam? Was not Abu
\nHuraira a Jew who killed a Muslim before converting to Islam? Was not that
\nhe converted to Islam just 2 years before the death Prophet? Then why do
\nthe bulk of traditions in the Sunni collections come from him? while the
\ntraditions reported by Imam Ali (who was the first male who embraced Islam)
\nin the Sunni collections is less than 1% of what is reported by Abu
\nHuraira? This is a sign for those who reflect.
\nMoreover, It is a custom of Shia that they celebrate the birthday of
\nProphet and 12 Imams and Lady Fatimah, peace be upon them all. They also
\nmourn in the memory of their martyrdom. Why then they do not hold the same
\npractice for Abdullah Ibn Saba if he was their master?
\nBesides, are the Shia so stupid and ignorant that after 1400 years, they
\nhave never figured out that their belief and faith are based on fabricated
\ntraditions and tales going back to Abdullah Ibn Saba? I doubt, then, how
\nthe Shia, if they were indeed so stupid as to believe a so-called hypocrite
\nJew in their theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, history, and
\ninterpretations of the Quran, have survived to this day? Surely if the
\nknowledge of the Shia was based on such a shaky foundation as Abdullah Ibn
\nSaba, they would have perished a long time ago. It is more interesting when
\nwe see the Imams of the majority of the Sunnis were the students of the
\nImams of Shia (Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja\\’far Sadiq, peace be upon
\nthem). Then one would say the Sunni schools got the basics of their Fiqh
\nfrom Shia, which means the Sunnis along with Shia were the followers of the
\nvery same person, the mysterious Abdullah Ibn Saba! Who is left then?
\nPerhaps the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab!
\nMoreover, if Abdullah Ibn Saba did in fact exist with such stories that
\nSayf attributed to him, then there is 150 years between his birth and the
\npublication of the story of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi. During those 150
\nyears, there lived an innumerous number of scholars, scribes, historians,
\nand philosophers who contributed many books. Why didn\\’t any of them EVER
\nmention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba? Surely, if he was such an
\ninfluential figure for the Shia, you can bet that the Sunnis would have
\nknown him before Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi! The fact that he was NEVER
\nmentioned in ANY book before the book of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi is enough
\nto cast doubt on the entire story attributed to him and even his existence.
\nCan you believe that in the 150 years or so between the so-called birth of
\nAbdullah Ibn Saba and the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi, no book
\never mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba? Yet some people still claim he with such
\nstories existed!
\nMore strange thing is that even in the next 160 years after the publication
\nof Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi not too many people knew the story of Abdullah
\nIbn Saba. It wasn\\’t wide-spread until the story of Ibn Saba extensively
\nshowed up in the History of al-Tabari (160 years after Sayf\\’s publication),
\nand it was at that time when some mercenaries started giving it weight as
\na means of defense against Shia.
\nNow, what do these mercenaries have to offer? NOTHING!!! They still cling
\nto their own-made version of history, thereby contradicting themselves and
\nthe above proofs as well as the documented Sunni history, simply to defend
\ntheir ignorant statements about the Shia.
\nWassalam.<\/h4>\n

shiastudies.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Abdullah Ibn Saba Abdullah Ibn Saba Abdullah Ibn Saba Abdullah Ibn Saba Abdullah Ibn Saba<\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 reignof Uthman Ibn Affan, the third caliph. While the existence of a person in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba in the early history of Islam is seriously under question, what is clear after extensively researching this topic is that even if a poor man with such name ever existed at that time, the stories propagated about this person are legendary, false, fabricated, and fictitious, and there exists no proof for the validity of these stories attached to him. This point will be studied in this discussion, by the willing of Allah.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9253,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7453,7759],"tags":[16033,7556],"class_list":["post-6124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bank-of-subjects-of-articles","category-history","tag-abdullah-ibn-saba","tag-shiastudies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6124\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shiastudies.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}