Sunni Feedback on The Issues of Infallibility and Ahulbayt [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Abdullah Ibn Saba (Part V)

The Opinion of the Historians I have already provided the opinion of 15 famous Sunni
scholars about the weakness of the reports of Sayf Ibn
Umar in of this article.

Beside them, many Sunni historians have also denied the
existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba and and/or the forged
stories attributed to him.

Among them are Dr.
Taha Husain, who has analyzed these
stories and rejected them.

He wrote in al-Fitnah al-Kubra that:

In my opinion, those who have tried to emphasize on the
story of Abdullah Ibn Saba, have committed a crime in the
history and hurt themselves too.
The first thing that
is observed is that in the important collections
the name of Ibn Saba does not appear when they discuss
the agitation against Uthman.

Ibn Sa'd does not
mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba when he discusses
the Caliphate of Uthman and the revolt against him. Also
the book by al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf,
which I think the most important and the most detailed
book about the revolt against Uthman,
the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba has never been mentioned.
It appears that al-Tabari was the first who reported the
story of Ibn Saba from Sayf, and then other historians
quoted al-Tabari in this regard.

In his other book Ali wa Banuh, he also
mentioned:

The story of Ibn Saba is nothing
but myth, and is the invention of some historians, since it
contradicts other historical documents.

The fact is that the friction
between Shia and Sunni have had many shapes, and each group was
advocating itself and denouncing the other by any means possible.

This
requires a historian to be much more cautious when analyzing the
controversial reports related to seditions and revolts.

In , we briefly mentioned the masterpiece of
Allamah al-Askari which was released in 1955 AD.

Before that
time, no analytical research had been done on the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba to
investigate if he really existed in physical world and/or if the stories around
this man had any single truth in it.

Although Sayf's heresy was
well-known for a number of centuries, no research had been done about the origin of
the tale of Abdullah Ibn Saba.

In his research, al-Askari
proved that Sayf's narration attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba and many other things are
sheer lie since they contradict ALL other Sunni documents in content,
timing of the events, names of cities and companions, imaginary chain of
narrators, and miraculous records by Sayf (like talking cows with humans
and so on).

If there was any Abdullah Ibn Saba at that time, his story
was much different than what Sayf manipulated.

Here is the response of a Sunni learned man, Dr.
Hamid
Dawud, the professor of Cairo University, after reading al-Askari's book (I
just give only a part of his letter):

The 1300th birthday of Islam has
been celebrated.

During this time, some of our learned writers have
accused Shia of having un-Islamic views.

Those writers
influenced public opinion against Shia and created big gaps between
Muslims.

In spite of wisdom and learning, the enemies of Shia followed their
own chosen beliefs and partiality, covering the truth, and accusing
the Shia of being superstitious etc.

Hence Islamic science suffered
much, as Shia views were suppressed.

As a result of these
accusations, the loss to Islamic science was greater than the loss suffered
by Shia themselves, because the source of this jurisprudence, though
rich and fruitful, was neglected, resulting in limited knowledge.

Also,
in the past, our learned men were prejudiced, otherwise we
would have benefited from many Shia views.

Anyone who
wishes to do research in Islamic Jurisprudence must consider Shia sources as well as
those of Sunni.

Was not the Shia leader, Imam
Jafar al-Sadiq (d.

148 AH), the teacher of two Sunni Imams? i.
e.
,
Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man (d.
150 AH), and Malik Ibn Anas (d.
179 AH).

Imam Abu Hanifa said: Except for the two years Nu'man would have starved,
referring to the two years he had benefited from the knowledge of
Imam Jafar al-Sadiq.

Imam Malik also confessed straightforwardly that
he had not met anyone learned in Islamic Jurisprudence better
than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq.

Yet, some of our so-called
learned men, unfortunately disregard the rules for research to suit their
own ends.

Hence knowledge is not fully disclosed to them and thus
they create a wider gap between Muslims.

Ahmed Amin is
one of those deprived of the light of knowledge, remaining in
darkness.

History has recorded this stain on the robe of Ahmed Amin and his
friends, who blindly followed one special Madhab.

Of
many mistakes made by him, the biggest is told in the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba.

This
is one of the tales told in order to accuse Shia of heresy and
foregoing events.

The great contemporary
researcher, al-Askari, in his book, has proved with substantial evidence, that
Abdullah Ibn Saba was fictitious, and it is therefore a greater lie to
say that he was the founder of Shi'ism.

God has decreed that some
learned men disclose the truth regardless of blame they may get.

The
pioneer in this subject is this man who has made the Sunni learned men of
research revise the history book of Tabari (History of Nations and
Kings), and to sift out the authentic stories from the false.

The
stories which have been preserved as God's revelations.

The honorable writer, with much
evidence, has stripped the veil or ambiguity from those
historical events, and disclosed the truth, to some
extent that some facts seem frightful.

But we
have to obey the truth no matter how difficult they
appear.
The truth is the best to be followed.
Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawud Oct.

12, 1961 Cairo, Egypt.
We just heard from a Sunni Muslim.

Now let us
see what a third party has to say about Sayf and his character, Abdullah Ibn Saba.

The
following is the comment of Dr.
R.
Stephen
Humpherys, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who has translated the Vol.
15 of
the History of al-Tabari into English.

This comment is written in the
foreword of Vol.
15 of the History of al-Tabari.

(again, I just give some parts of
it.

Please refer to Vol.
15 for details):

For events in Iraq and Arabia
(the real key to the crises of Uthman's caliphate) Tabari relies chiefly
on Muhammad Ibn Umar al- Waqidi (d.
823) and the MYSTERIOUS SAYF IBN
UMAR.

Both of these authorities raise real problems .

It
is Sayf Ibn Umar who is most troubling, however.

Tabari shows a unique fondness
for him, in two senses.

First, SAYF IS THE SOURCE MOST HEAVILY USED BY
TABARI for the whole period from the Riddah wars to the battle of
Siffin (11-37 AH).

Second, no one beside Tabari appears to use Sayf at
all.

There is no obvious way to explain Tabari's preference.

It
is certainly not explained by the formal characteristics of Sayf's
narratives, for he relies on informants who are usually OBSCURE and often
very recent.

likewise, he makes heavy use of the collective report,
which blends together in unspecified ways the accounts of several
transmitters.

I would suggest that Sayf
appealed to Tabari for two reasons.

First, Sayf presents a Sunday
school interpretation of Uthman's caliphate.

In his presentation, one sees a
profound unity and harmony within the core community of Muslims, a
unity and harmony founded on strict fidelity to the legacy of
Muhammad.

It is unthinkable that men such as those portrayed by Sayf could
have been moved by worldly ambition and greed.

On the
contrary, in Sayf's presentation most conflicts are illusory, a reflection of
malicious misinterpretations by later commentators.

Where
real conflicts did arise among sincere Muslims, they were instigated by
outsiders like the notorious Abdullah Ibn Saba, a converted Jew from
Yemen.

On this level, at least, Sayf's
version of events is obviously a very naive one, and no doubt Tabari
perceived that as clearly as we do.

Even so, it served a very useful
function for Tabari: By making Sayf's reports the visible frame work
of his narrative, he could slip in the much less flattering
interpretations of early Islamic history presented by his other sources.

Ordinary
readers would dismiss this dissident testimony as
irrelevant, and only few critical readers would catch his hint and pursue the
issues raised by such secondary accounts.

In this way,
Tabari could say what needed to be said while avoiding accusations of
sectarianism.

Accusations of this kind were of course no small matter in view
of the enormous social and religious tensions in Baghdad during the
late 9th and early 10th centuries.

Reference: History of al-Tabari, v15, pp xv-xvii Also in the foreword of Volume 11 of the English version
of the History of al-Tabari, the translator writes:

Although Tabari scrupulously
cited his sources and can be shown to have often quoted from them
almost verbatim, these source themselves can be traced with certainty
only to an earlier stage in the collection of Islamic history,
represented by the writers Ibn Is'haq (d.
151/767), Ibn al-Kalbi
(d.
204/819), al-Waqidi (d.
207/822),
and Sayf Ibn Umar (d.
~170/786).

From
the first three, all of whom are cited in this volume, there are
works extant that enable us to assess their tendencies to some extent,
as well as to verify their use of their own sources.

For
an assessment of the value of their transmission, the reader is
referred to the relevant articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam and other
secondary literature.

It is the fourth writer
extensively quoted by al-Tabari, SAYF IBN UMAR, with whom we are mainly
concerned here.

As his work survives principally in the transmission
of al-Tabari and those who took from him and IS FOUND NOWHERE IN
INDEPENDENT FORM, he has unfortunately been rather ignored in modern
criticism.

Yet it is Sayf's lengthy reports that fill most of the
pages of this and several other volumes.

The historical evaluation of
this volume therefore depends to a large extent on our assessment of the
nature of Sayf's reports and al- Tabari's use of them, and it is
to these problems that we must turn our attention.

Abu Abdillah Sayf Ibn Umar al-Usayyidi
al-Tamimi was a Kufan traditionist who died in the
reign of Harun al-Rashid (170-93/786- 809).

Other than the
possibility that he was accused of MANICHAEISM (Zandaqah) in the inquisition (Mihnah)
that began under al-Mahdi in 166/783 and continued into the
time of al-Rashid, nothing is known of his life, except what can be
determined from his tradition.

(On Mihnah itself, see History of al-Tabari,
v3, pp 517, 522, 548-551, 604, 645;
and the book called Zindiqs
by Vajda, pp 173-229.
On accusations against Sayf, see Majruheen, by
Ibn Hibban, v1, pp 345-346; Mizan, by al-Dhahabi, v2, pp 255-256;
Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar, v4, p296).

As he is alleged to have
transmitted from at least nine traditionists who died in 140-146/757-763, and
even from two who died in 126-128/744- 746, he may have been elderly
when he died.

This is also suggested by the possibility that Abu Mikhnaf,
who died considerably earlier than Sayf in 157/774, may have quoted
from him.

Sayf's work was originally recorded in two books which are
now lost but survived for a number of centuries after Sayf's own
lifetime.

They made an enormous impact on the Islamic historical
tradition, especially because al-Tabari chose to rely mainly on them for the
events of 11-36/632-656, a period that spanned the reigns of the first
three caliphs and included all the early conquests of Iraq, Syria,
Egypt, and Iran.

Although al-Tabari also quoted other sources in
this volume, as we have indicated, the overwhelming bulk of his
material for this period is from Sayf.

In
deed, it is also probable, though not certain, that he has reproduced the vast
majority of Sayf's work.

Sayf is only rarely cited by other writers
independently of al-Tabari.

Generally, Sayf's description of
the conquests transmitted in this and other volumes of al-Tabari
emphasizes the heroism of the Muslim warriors, the hardships they
endured, and the toughness of their opponents, features that seem
plausible enough and are also found in other conquest narratives beside
those of Sayf.
However, Sayf's narratives differ in the extent
to which he introduces traditions not found elsewhere, often reporting
them from transmitters not otherwise known.

These UNIQUE
narratives frequently contain fantastic or legendary motifs to an extent
far greater than is found in the versions of other historians.

Although
the fantastic and tendentious nature of Sayf's reports has
often been noted, for example, by Julius Wellhausen (see skizzen, pp
3-7), the exact value of his corpus as a primary source has never been
assessed in detail.

Although he
hailed from Kufa, the crucible of early Shi'ism, Sayf belonged to a completely anti-Shi'i
undercurrent, representing the Kufan faction that had earlier
opposed the rebellions of al-Husain Ibn Ali and Zayd Ibn Ali.

(This
is also indicated by his quotation from sources who were involved in the
killing of al-Husain.
See for instance v11, pp 204, 206, 216,
222).

The egregious tendentiousness of
Sayf's corpus comes out most plainly in other volumes of al-Tabari,
in such episodes as Saqifah Bani Sa'idah (Tabari, v1, pp
1844-50), the burial of Uthman (3049-50), and the tale of ABDULLAH IBN SABA
(2858-59,2922,2928,2942-44,2954,3027, 3163-65,3180).

In each
of these instances, other versions that do not confirm Sayf's own are available
for comparison and reveal the impudence of his daring
constructions.

Beside
exaggerating the roles of certain Companions in the early conquests, Sayf also embellished
his work with the exploits of other, IMAGINARY COMPANIONS and with
heroes whom he invented, especially to represent his own tribal group.

The
most outstanding of these fabrications is al-Qa'qa Ibn Amr,
a hero and alleged Companion of the Prophet, who is, not
surprisingly, said to be a member of Sayf's own subtribe, the Usayyidi (in this
volume, pp 8,24,36,40,42-43,45,48,60- 63,65,90,95,166,168).

His
being an Usayyidi suggests that his fabrication is owing to Sayf
himself and not to any of Sayf's alleged sources, as none of the latter
is identified as an Usayyidi.

In addition, many other persons
supposedly belonging to the Tamim tribal group appear to be fabrication,
some of them having stereotypical names that suggest almost
playful invention, like Wrap, the son of Skirt, Spring
Herbage, the son of Rain, the son of Snow, and
Sea, the son of Euphrates.

The
reader will find dozens of persons who are named only in Sayf's traditions
recorded in this volume.

Beside having FABRICATED many of
the personages who appear in his transmissions, it also appear
that Sayf FABRICATED the names of many, perhaps most, of his alleged
authorities.

Frequently it seems that these
invented authorities served as intermediate links between Sayf
and earlier genuine traditionists whose authority Sayf wished to
use to bolster his own inventions.

This assessment of Sayf in no
way undermines the authority of other early Muslim writers whose works
may have an entirely different character, just as the Late
Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus is in no way affected by the fraud of
the Historia Augusta.

On the contrary, it is greatly to the credit of
the medieval Sunni Muslims who assessed ^
the quality of traditions in the
Rijal books that they unanimously rejected Sayf's authority in the
most absolute way possible.

They did so despite the fact that his
traditions could have been used to back their emerging Sunni consensus
on early Islamic history.

This suggests that their condemnation of
Sayf's traditions was motivated by a concern for the truth, rather
than by a wish to gain advantage in the partisan arena of the time.

They
realized that his transmissions were exaggerated and fraudulent, and
they said so.

In fact, the condemnation of Sayf by the
medieval Muslim Ulama ought to serve as a reminder to modern scholars that
ancient and medieval texts were not always dictated by the
prevailing political or religious climate and that the search for truth had
its place in earlier times as well as in our own.

In describing the conquests
generally al-Tabari scarcely deviated from Sayf's reports.

This
brings us to the second attraction that Sayf may have had for al-Tabari: DETAIL.

Sayf's
transmissions are almost always far more verbose than parallel
reports of more sober traditionists.

This characteristic probably not
only made them preferable to al- Tabari but may have seemed a
guarantee of their accuracy.

Living in medieval times, al-Tabari did
not, in the majority of instances, have available to him the modern
tools that would have enabled him to discover Sayf's tendentiousness.

And,
after all, Sayf's reports have continued to receive the
approbation of a minority of scholars even up to the present.

Reference: History of al-Tabari, v11, pp xv-xxix Also Professor James Robinson, (D.
Litt.
, D.
D.
Glasgow,
U.
K.
) wrote:

I would like to make a remark
about Tabari who had no hesitation in quoting from Sayf.

His
history is not a historical work in the manner of modern writing, for his main
purpose seems to have been to record all the information in his
possession without necessarily expressing an opinion on its value.
One
is, therefore, prepared to find that some of his material is less reliable
than others.
So, perhaps we can excuse him for using a method
not approved nowadays.

He has at least provided a mass of information.

It
remains for acute scholars to distinguish between the genuine
and the false.

It is shown that Sayf often
quotes men who are unknown.
This raises the question why none of them
should have been quoted by other transmitters, and leads one
further to suggest that Sayf has invented them.

This serious
accusation is a reasonable assumption by comparing Sayf with others.

It is pointed out that Sayf has
stories miraculous of happenings which are difficult to believe, such
as desert sands becoming water for Muslim armies, seas becoming
sand, cattle speaking and informing the Muslim army where they were
hidden, etc.
In Sayf's time it was possible for him to succeed in
passing off such stories as history, but nowadays the critical
student naturally finds such stories quite impossible.

Effective
arguments are also used to show how Sayf's information about Ibn Saba and
the Saba'iyya is quite unreliable.
Sayf who lived in the first
quarter of the second century belonged to Tamim, one of the Mudar tribes
who live in Kufa.
This helps one to study his tendencies and the
influences leading to this legends.

There is discussion of Zindeeq and of
Manichaeism.

Party spirit is said to have continued from the
Prophet's time, till that of the Abbasids.
Sayf upholds the northern
tribes, inventing heroes, poets praising the tribe's heroes, companions of
the Prophet from Tamim, wars and battles which had no reality, millions
killed and large numbers of prisoners with the purpose glorifying the
heroes he invented, Poems attributed to imaginary heroes were in
praise of Mudar, then Tamim, then Ibn Amr, the subtribe to which Sayf
traced his origin.
Sayf mentioned men of Mudar as leaders of battles
which were led by men of other tribes, his fictitious leaders sometimes
being real people, sometimes names produced by his imagination.

It
is argued that the falseness of his information was partly to upset
the faith of many and partly to give non-Muslims a wrong conception.

He
was so skillful in his forgeries that they were accepted as
genuine history.

There is a big difference between a Hadith work, such as
Sahih al-Bukhari, and a history work such as the History al-Tabari.

al-Bukhari
was selective toward the traditions and might have recorded 1/10 of
traditions that was conveyed to him, since he dropped all traditions which
might have been weak in his point of view.

However al-Tabari, though
he was selective in his other works, but for his History he recorded 9/10 of what
he had heard, and this is due to the nature of historical documentations
which are not necessarily as accurate as the Hadith collections.
As a result, al-Bukhari did NOT transmit EVEN ONE SINGLE
TRADITION about Abdullah Ibn Saba in his nine-volume Sahih.

But
historians who favored heavy documentations more than the authenticity of
narrators, recorded heavily about Abdullah Ibn Saba through Sayf.

The Shia historians are not exempt from the above
reasoning.

They have also recorded most of the things they have got.

This
includes those reports that they were not sure about.
The final research by
Shia related to Abdullah Ibn Saba was released only in 1955 AD, and it was not so
clear before that time that the stories related to Abdullah Ibn Saba have
been the total manipulation of Sayf with political motives.

The
two Shia historian who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, lived 10
centuries before the publication extensive research about Abdullah Ibn Saba.

A
person is called expert in the history of Islam, if s/he has read all the
early history books.

As a matter of fact, many early history
books were written by the Sunni authors under the direct fund of Umayad and later
Abbasid rulers.

A Shia historian does not ban Sunni sources, and
consequently his work is affected, one way or another, by previous works.

This
is clear when one observes that the two Shia historians who mentioned the
name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, did not give any chain of transmitters for
their report meaning that they got it from rumor the mouth people which the
result of Sayf's mass propaganda.

As for those few traditions which have the chain of
narrators (independent of Sayf), they provide a much different story which do
not support any of the allegations of Sayf.

These traditions
picture an accursed man whom Ahlul-Bayt have declared their innocence from what he
attributed to Imam Ali (declaring Ali as God).

The Shia, their
Imams and their scholars declare the curse of Allah to that man (if ever existed)
he was lost, misguided and cursed.

There is nothing in
common between us and his name except our curse on him and all other extremists who
believed in deity of Ahlul-Bayt.

The followers of Ahlul Bayt never claimed that Ali is
God, nor did they claim the rest of 12 Imams are God.

This, in
fact, shows that those who gave life to the stories attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba
had hatred toward Shia, and tried to misrepresent the Followers of the
Members of the House of Prophet.

If Shia were the followers of that
mysterious Jew, they should have believed in deity of Ali and should also respect
their mentor Abdullah Ibn Saba, instead of cursing him!

If Abdullah Ibn Saba is such an influential and important
figure for the Shia, how come they NEVER quote him like they do with the
Imams of Ahlul Bayt? Surely, if Abdullah Ibn Saba was their Master
Teacher, they must quote him and be proud to do so? A religious
student always quotes his teacher, why then would the Shia be any different? Why
should they curse him instead? If one answers that the reason that the Shia
do not quote from him is that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, then I
would ask him what was the religion of the companions before converting to
Islam? Was not Abu Huraira a Jew who killed a Muslim before converting to
Islam? Was not that he converted to Islam just 2 years before the death
Prophet? Then why do the bulk of traditions in the Sunni collections come from
him? while the traditions reported by Imam Ali (who was the first male
who embraced Islam) in the Sunni collections is less than 1% of what is
reported by Abu Huraira? This is a sign for those who reflect.

Moreover, It is a custom of Shia that they celebrate the
birthday of Prophet and 12 Imams and Lady Fatimah, peace be upon them
all.

They also mourn in the memory of their martyrdom.
Why
then they do not hold the same practice for Abdullah Ibn Saba if he was their master?

Besides, are the Shia so stupid and ignorant that after
1400 years, they have never figured out that their belief and faith are
based on fabricated traditions and tales going back to Abdullah Ibn Saba?
I doubt, then, how the Shia, if they were indeed so stupid as to believe a
so-called hypocrite Jew in their theology, philosophy, jurisprudence,
history, and interpretations of the Quran, have survived to this
day? Surely if the knowledge of the Shia was based on such a shaky
foundation as Abdullah Ibn Saba, they would have perished a long time ago.

It
is more interesting when we see the Imams of the majority of the Sunnis were the
students of the Imams of Shia (Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja'far Sadiq,
peace be upon them).

Then one would say the Sunni schools got
the basics of their Fiqh from Shia, which means the Sunnis along with Shia were
the followers of the very same person, the mysterious Abdullah Ibn Saba! Who
is left then?

Perhaps the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab!

Moreover, if Abdullah Ibn Saba did in fact exist with
such stories that Sayf attributed to him, then there is 150 years between
his birth and the publication of the story of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi.

During
those 150 years, there lived an innumerous number of scholars,
scribes, historians, and philosophers who contributed many books.

Why didn't any of them EVER mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba? Surely, if
he was such an influential figure for the Shia, you can bet that the
Sunnis would have known him before Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi! The fact
that he was NEVER mentioned in ANY book before the book of Sayf Ibn Umar
al-Tamimi is enough to cast doubt on the entire story attributed to him and
even his existence.

Can you believe that in the 150 years or so between the
so-called birth of Abdullah Ibn Saba and the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar
al-Tamimi, no book ever mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba? Yet some people still
claim he with such stories existed!

More strange thing is that even in the next 160 years
after the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi not too many people knew the
story of Abdullah Ibn Saba.

It wasn't wide-spread until the story
of Ibn Saba extensively showed up in the History of al-Tabari (160 years after
Sayf's publication), and it was at that time when some mercenaries started
giving it weight as a means of defense against Shia.

Now, what do these mercenaries have to offer?
NOTHING!!! They still cling to their own-made version of history, thereby
contradicting themselves and the above proofs as well as the documented Sunni history,
simply to defend their ignorant statements about the Shia.

Wassalam.