Following is some excerption of what he stated in his precious book al-Fitnah al-kubra, the 2nd volume, under the chapter "Ali wa banuh" (Ali and his sons), when discussing the Battle of Siffin.331 The least thing indicated by the historians' shunning the Saba'ites and Ibn al-Sawda' in the Battle of Siffin, being that their affair was only superficially imposed and lean, with being lately innovated when controversy heated between the Shiah and other Islamic sects. That was when the Shi'ah opponents intended to foist a Jewish element into this (Shi'i) madhhab, vigorously in teasing and defaming them. Had the claim of Ibn al Sawda' been based on even one foundation of truth and reliable history it would have been natural to see its impact when Ali's companions differed regarding the issue of government, and also in particular in forming this new party, which was averse to reconciliation, charging with impiety anyone inclining to it or taking part in it. But no reference was made to Ibn al-Sawda' when mentioning the Khawarij. How can this negligence be explained? Or what reason we can give for ignorance of Ibn Saba' to the Battle of Siffin and establishment of the Court Party? On my part, I explain both the cases with one reason, being that Ibn al-Sawda' was nothing but an imaginary character... and had he actually existed, he was not of that danger portrayed by the historians, who illustrated his activities too during the reign of Uthman and first year of Ali's caliphate! In fact he was a person reserved by the Shi'ah alone not for the Khawarij... etc. Following is a sample of this craft in regard of a critical matter through which the Islamic history changed its course:
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
