Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
^ great article bro ibn sadique can you also name & describe who were ibn saba's followers and if ibn saba was allegedly burnt by fire by Ali what did Ali do to his followers
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Brother** Das Reich** I am glad that you liked the article. Somehow I had the feeling that you would like it for the that you seem to be and intellectual type of person.
For a start it is well researched and to the point.
If you had read the whole article you would have got the answer to your question, and it is fro shia source!!!!
[QUOTE]
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)
[/QUOTE]
I have a very nice book which i think you have mentioned in your posts if I recollect rightly.
It is written by Iranian Shia named Moojan Momen *and the book is called **An Introduction to Shi'i Islam*
On page 46 he mentions that Ibn Saba's followers were called Saba'iyya and there are many references to splits within them. He has dedicated one and half pages to this info.
You know Zulifikar Bhutto was hung just as Saddaam was. The followers always escape to live for another day hoping to progress and spread. Same applies to Ibn Saba and his followers.
If I get time I will type out the info for you - now I got to hit the bed!!!!!
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
bro I have read momen's book i think he is a bahai [unfortunately i dont have a copy with me] ...history of ghulat sects is a whole another discussion which i think u are refering to
his book revolves mostly around medevial shiaism gives little about the origins of shias or shiaism depending on how you see it
what I was interested in are names of ibn saba's followers in the time of Ali b abitalib[as] and what happened to them.
I will appreciate if u could post their names
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
The main defence of Shia 'reseachers' in denying the exixtence of Ibn Saba is to 'prove' the source of this 'imaginery' fellow is figment of imagination of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi
And by 'proving' that Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi as a confirmed forger and liar the Shia ‘researchers’ think that they have managed to pull wool over peoples eyes.
Not so fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are other researchers too who have proved that there are other very reliable sources which confirm existence of Ibn Saba.
Read the following: I managed to get it from the Web.
Abdullah ibn Saba
Let us discuss, first of all, the historical existence, and thereafter, the role of Ibn Saba, in order to ascertain whether the Sunni position that he was the founder of conventional Shi‘ism is based on scientific research, or unfounded accusations.
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)
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?
Brother Ibn Sadique, your posts are informative and mind boggling...I am not going to act like 'I told you so' to the Shias, but I did tell you though...
But seriously, this whole article throws Shiaism into a quandary and from their own sources and publications to boot...
But I am confused about one thing: The second portion of your post hints at the fact that Shiasim emerged from the Sabayites...Did it? Are the Shias a production of a Jewish hypocrite's ploys and distortions?
Very interested to know brother...Waiting...
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
very exceelent post by Ibne Sadiq....as usual.....
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Ibn Sadique
Regarding Hunayn, I was simply referring to the incident wherein sahabas had (once again) betrayed the Prophet [s] and ran away leaving him in danger.
[Yusufali 9:25] Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat].
Now coming back to the topic of Ibn Saba, mainly there are two groups having two different views about Ibn Saba,
- A very small group that denies the existence of Ibn Saba (for some reasons you already know).
- Ibn Saba appeared during the claiphate of Ali [as], he attributed divinity to Him [as], (considering him God) and subsiquently he was killed by Ali [as].
Now keeping the long story short, what is your argument regarding the no. 2 ??
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Your continued reference to the jewish encyclopaedia really proves your desperation to try and prove the "reality" of this myth
Abdullah ibn Saba was Jewish, why won't Jews mention their man in their Encyclopaedia?
After all he was their hero to split Islam into two sects; one those who followed Muhammad and the other who attributed themselves to Ali.
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Abdullah ibn Saba was Jewish, why won't Jews mention their man in their Encyclopaedia? After all he was their hero to split Islam into two sects; one those who followed Muhammad and the other who attributed themselves to Ali.
Just to make one big correction in your sentence:
After all he was their hero to split Islam into two sects; one those who followed Muhammad and the other who attributed Divinity to Ali.
As merely attributing to Ali [as] or being his follower (Shia) is not a sin rather fact of pride (according to Quran and Sunnah).
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Just to make one big correction in your sentence:
After all he was their hero to split Islam into two sects; one those who followed Muhammad and the other who attributed Divinity to Ali.
As mainly attributing to Ali [as] or being his follower (Shia) is not a sin rather fact of pride (according to Quran and Sunnah).
Quran is infallible, and Quran doesn't mention any man named Ali, not to speak of his so called Divinity.
All we know of an Infallible Imam is from the Fallible source of Hadith from Fallible transmitters of shias and according to shia faith, Taqiyyah (lying) is their deen so who knows if they spoke of an Infallible 'Ali they were not doing Taqiyyah.
Kindly show me a shia hadith about Infallibles which has been recorded or compiled by an Infallible (like Jafar Sadiq) himself.
And if you fail to provide me a single Infallible Hadith from any Infallible then forget about following Infallibles, you can't even show me where your last Infallible is, so I can see him personally to confirm your faith.
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Quran is infallible, and Quran doesn't mention any man named Ali, not to speak of his so called Divinity. All we know of an Infallible Imam is from the Fallible source of Hadith from Fallible transmitters of shias and according to shia faith, Taqiyyah (lying) is their deen so who knows if they spoke of an Infallible 'Ali they were not doing Taqiyyah. Kindly show me a shia hadith about Infallibles which has been recorded or compiled by an Infallible (like Jafar Sadiq) himself. And if you fail to provide me a single Infallible Hadith from any Infallible then forget about following Infallibles, you can't even show me where your last Infallible is, so I can see him personally to confirm your faith.
Thats quite ignorant of you. The statements of infallible imams are of course transmitted through their devoted followers (though fallible) and thats the reason we have science of hadith through which one can examine the authenticity of the narrator.
And if you still persist with the same pathetic logic of relying only on infallible ones (in terms of compilation) then you should remain aloof from your books since they were compiled and they contain some people who's faith have always been under scrutiny, forget about callimg them "Sahih" books.
[QUOTE]
Quran is infallible, and Quran doesn't mention any man named Ali, not to speak of his so called Divinity.
[/QUOTE]
Thats true! Who claimed otherwise? !!
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
Thats quite ignorant of you. The statements of infallible imams are of course transmitted through their devoted followers (though fallible) and thats the reason we have science of hadith through which one can examine the authenticity of the narrator.
And if you still persist with the same pathetic logic of relying only on infallible ones (in terms of compilation) then you should remain aloof from your books since they were compiled and they contain some people who's faith have always been under scrutiny, forget about callimg them "Sahih" books.
Thats true! Who claimed otherwise? !!
lol, all our fundamental articles of beliefs are mentioned in detail in the Book of Allah which is infallible, we don't in fact need to rely on Sahih Books to be a Muslim or Ahlus Sunnah, on the other hand your fundamental belief of Imamat has no foundation in Quran, if there is mentioned the Imamat of Ibrahim then it is of Ibrahim not your Infallibles, so go and wash your face..
Even if I for the sake of argument accept that your Fallible narrators of hadith were so nice that they never did Taqiyyah in their lives, they were STILL FALLIBLES, or not?
Where were your so called Infallibles then?
Why didn't they write Infallible Books from their Infallible Hands for their LOYAL shias?
If they didn't do anything for you, then why do you stick to them? Stick to something useful then?
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
lol, all our fundamental articles of beliefs are mentioned in detail in the Book of Allah which is infallible, we don't in fact need to rely on Sahih Books to be a Muslim or Ahlus Sunnah, on the other hand your fundamental belief of Imamat has no foundation in Quran, if there is mentioned the Imamat of Ibrahim then it is of Ibrahim not your Infallibles, so go and wash your face..?
First of all, even if there were some explicit proofs of the Imamate of Ahlulbayt [as] in Quran, even then there was no guarantee of you accepting it, since currently there are some instructions in Quran which you simply reject, taking two witnesses at the time of divorce is one such example.
Secondly, prophet left Quran and Ahlulbayt [as] behind him, and when we learn things from Ahlulbayt [as] we come to know about the verses in Quran that were revealed in their merits.
Thirdly, the funamental Sunni belief of Khilafat e Rashidah (i.e a bunch of people choosing guide for the mankind lol ) is also not mentioned in Quran, on the other hand we do find verses that talked about the divine appointment of Imams/guides.
[quote]
Even if I for the sake of argument accept that your Fallible narrators of hadith were so nice that they never did Taqiyyah in their lives, they were STILL FALLIBLES, or not?
[/quote]
The point is that you dont know the meaning of Taqqiyah, when to do it, and when not to. Its just some Nasibi websites and authors that telll you its partial meanings and then you people argue foolishly. The narrators or even Imam can do Taqqiyah, it all depends on the situation.
[quote]
Where were your so called Infallibles then?
Why didn't they write Infallible Books from their Infallible Hands for their LOYAL shias?
[/quote]
Because all of them had been thorn in the eyes of the rulers from the predominanlty Nasibi Bani Ummayah and hence the imams were always been under some kind of presure or suveillance that they were not allowed to preach their teachings openly. Still we see traces of a few books in history that we no longer find today, Tafsir wrriten by Imam Hasan Askari [as] is oe such example.
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
^^ O bhai...1400 saal mai tuum logo nai itni jhooti kahania bana lee hai kai aab tum apnai jhoot par parda dalnai kai liyai kuch bhi farzi batai or hawalai bata saktai ho .....
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
LOl....:D :D :D... ali(ra)...hassan(ra)....hussain(ra) ....zainul abideen etc did 3
prayers....gave sajda on karbala sand.....did matam...rona dhona...mar kutai wo
bhi apnai saath...:D hatha pai...cheekho pukar...sarko par """ dhorna bhagna""" and some sort of these jokes......
did ahle baitdid this....LOL LOL ....hahahahaha
:D :D :D .........hanstai hanastai pait mai bal par gai.....doctor plz.. ....:D
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
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)
yes .... and they have quoted in previous pages and that Kashi is the one of the greatest scholar of shiaism.....and its book is consider as authority on Isma Rijal ....
[quote]
Ibne saba was the first person who said ali(ra) is the wasi and wali of muhammad(pbuh) just as yushaw bin noon was a wasi of moosa(as).....
(Rigal-Kashi ... pg.101 printed in karbala,iraq. )
[/quote]
[quote]
"""""""""' May Allah curse all who blame us for nothing.....when i heard of Ibne Saba...i start trmbling with fear ...he attributed many wrong things towards ali(ra)....howver ..ali(ra) was just the great companion of prophet(pbuh) and ...and whatever his sattus is due to obedience of allah and hhis Rasool(pbuh) ........""""
Imam Zain-ul-Abideen (son of hussain(ra)
Rigal Kashi (Shiek-us-Sadooq)
pg. 100
""""Many false things are dedicated towards our family....Musailma Kazzab raised the flag of prophethood after muhammad(pbuh) death...similarly Ibne Saba attributed many holy things to ali(ra) and which ali(ra) never claimed...."""""
Imam Jaffar Sadiq(6 Imam)
Rigal Kashi
pg.101
[/quote]
now here see ...3 Infallibles imams have made deceived for "Imaginary" personality....
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
dawa-e-dil sahab agar aap quan aur apni books perhtay to shayed pait mein bal na perta...kiun keh umar ne nauman ki wafat per matam kiya,ayesha ne Rasool ki wafat per matam kiya,Nabion ne matam kiya...usman ke qatal per uss ki biwi aur betion ne matam kiya...aur bhi bohat se waqiyat hain tumhari books mein....aik mulla ke mernay per 400 students ne masjid ka mimber toar diya,pen toar diye aur 1 saal tak uss ke gham mein matam kiya...ab yeh ja ker aap perho phir batana keh pair mein bal para ya nhi.
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
interesting stuff posted by Contra,
Dear Bro,
i have some material , saying that whatever happend in kerbala was narrated only by one person and Scholar of Science of MEN, says that person was a Liar.
what u have to say about it., should i post the whole thing.
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
^^ Abu Makhnaf...a biggest guppy of the world........
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
^^ O bhai...1400 saal mai tuum logo nai itni jhooti kahania bana lee hai kai aab tum apnai jhoot par parda dalnai kai liyai kuch bhi farzi batai or hawalai bata saktai ho .....
Tumahray chaheetay khalifa nay quran say mutasadam aik hadith kia banai li tum to sab hi ko jhoota samajhnay lagay :S
Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed
First of all, even if there were some explicit proofs of the Imamate of Ahlulbayt [as] in Quran, even then there was no guarantee of you accepting it, since currently there are some instructions in Quran which you simply reject, taking two witnesses at the time of divorce is one such example.
lol, even if I accept your argument the two witnesses come from Ahkaam and not 'Aqeedah as your so called 'Aqeedah of Imamat is, so get a life, find your Imams in the real world.
[quote]
Secondly, prophet left Quran and Ahlulbayt [as] behind him, and when we learn things from Ahlulbayt [as] we come to know about the verses in Quran that were revealed in their merits.
[/quote]
What is Ahlul Bayt in Quran?
Does Quran say anywhere that 'Ali is Ahlul Bayt or his wife and children are Ahlul Bayt of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam?
Your so called Imams are Ahlul Bayt of 'Ali not of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam?
By the way who are Ahlul Bayt of Ali in your Treasury of Shi'ism? Zakirs and Maatamis who beat themselves up for crimes their forefathers have done?
[quote]
Thirdly, the funamental Sunni belief of Khilafat e Rashidah (i.e a bunch of people choosing guide for the mankind lol ) is also not mentioned in Quran, on the other hand we do find verses that talked about the divine appointment of Imams/guides.
[/quote]
lol, once again pathetic response. 'Umar was a Believer though he didn't believe in Khulafa Rashideen. Their being Khulafa is a fact, since all Muslims accepted them as their Khulafa, we also accept them, we are not Kharijites like Shi'ites to build Masjid Zaraar against Believers. We don't get cut off from the Ijma' of Ummah. Khulafa of Rashideen don't make up our 'Aqeedah, get another life, lol.
[quote]
The point is that you dont know the meaning of Taqqiyah, when to do it, and when not to. Its just some Nasibi websites and authors that telll you its partial meanings and then you people argue foolishly. The narrators or even Imam can do Taqqiyah, it all depends on the situation.
[/quote]
Why would I take your definition of Taqiyyah while you believe in Taqiyyah, lol?
[quote]
Because all of them had been thorn in the eyes of the rulers from the predominanlty Nasibi Bani Ummayah and hence the imams were always been under some kind of presure or suveillance that they were not allowed to preach their teachings openly. Still we see traces of a few books in history that we no longer find today, Tafsir wrriten by Imam Hasan Askari [as] is oe such example.
[/quote]
Was there any man among your so called Infallibles to challenge those Nasibis?
Or all of them lived their lives in cowardice?