The Ahulbayt in Quran [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contradicts other historical documents.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.