The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
At that time in history, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire; the Prophet had dispatched an ambassador to the Persian Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The haughty Persian leader scoffed at the Prophet’s call, rejecting to accept the “lowly” Arab “barbarians” as spiritual leaders over and above the “mighty” Persians. Soon thereafter, the Muslim Ummah would be propelled into an all-out war with the the Persian Empire; Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab blitzed across Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began for the Muslims. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that before the fall of Persia, the Muslim Ummah was united under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was expanding its borders. Right after the liberation of Iraq from Persian domination, the assassinations of Caliphs began.
The Muslims had indeed defeated the haughty and proud Persian Empire, but the Persians carefully planned their revenge. The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The conquered Persians plotted against the Muslims, and it was their conspiracy plans which no doubt the Prophet was referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was from the ashes of the Persian Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Persian nationalism.
The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement.
Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia faith. His intention in creating the Shia faith was to create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create disunity, and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is what the Prophet was referring to.
may find other details on this topic at
Ahlel Bayt Articles Hadith About Aisha’s House and Satan’s Horns [A Sunni Perspective]
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
Mirza Ghulam never said false Prophets die from cholera! Allah cuts them off easily! Do you really think false Prophets get the chance to flourish, lol!?
The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged At that time in history, Iraq was part of the Persian Empire; the Prophet had dispatched an ambassador to the Persian Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The haughty Persian leader scoffed at the Prophet’s call, rejecting to accept the “lowly” Arab “barbarians” as spiritual leaders over and above the “mighty” Persians. Soon thereafter, the Muslim Ummah would be propelled into an all-out war with the the Persian Empire; Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab blitzed across Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began for the Muslims. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that before the fall of Persia, the Muslim Ummah was united under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was expanding its borders. Right after the liberation of Iraq from Persian domination, the assassinations of Caliphs began. The Muslims had indeed defeated the haughty and proud Persian Empire, but the Persians carefully planned their revenge. The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The conquered Persians plotted against the Muslims, and it was their conspiracy plans which no doubt the Prophet was referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was from the ashes of the Persian Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Persian nationalism. The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement. Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia faith. His intention in creating the Shia faith was to create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create disunity, and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is what the Prophet was referring to.
Okay, so it was filthy, ahlay biddah, rafidha, Iranian majoos named Abu LuLu who killed Umar.
Who killed Uthman then? and Ayesha? and Ammar B Yasir? and Abuzar Ghaffari? and Mohammad b Abi Bakr? and Imam Ali, Hasan, Hussein, Ali Ibn Hussein.....? and who took the Prophets' family hostage? and who assembled army to lead the first internal war within the Muslims that resulted in death of 10,000 Muslims? and who led the seconed? and who persistently disobeyed the Khalifa of the time? who were all those hypocrites in the close company of the Prophet that the Quran talks about?.......hmmm, must be those majoosi, ahlay biddah, rafidha Iranians.
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
when persian nationislism overtook 12er shiaism then the public veneration of abu lulu as a national hero started … as safavids were fascists hiding under the guise of orthodox islam.So this part i agree that the persian nationalists who were amongst 12ers had a special hatred fro sayyidna umar under whose leadership the persian empire was destroyed.Thats why even now u will find this amongst the
secular iranians a veneration for abu lulu who killed the laeder of the arabs.And since the present 12er beliefs also blame sayydina umar from eveyhting that went wrong after Propehts death they also treat his killer as a hero
recently the islamic govt in iran has decided to close the tomb and ultimatetly to destroy it much to the dismay of the racist iranians
but rest of this post is a cock and bull story
Hurmuzan was murdered on mere suspicion and his murder was not supported by any of the major companions and this was LONG before the events of uthman’s reign and the alleged rise of ibn saba
this is blatant anti-iraqi propoganda perpetuated by the syrian school esp ibn taymiyya
may i ask who were these alleged followers of ibn saba ? these are the same people who had shattered the might of the persian empire…these soldiers/farmers of iraq and egypt stood in open revolt against uthman that precipetated the fall of his regime.
so the revolt against uthman and subsequently ummayyads is a seperate issue from the rise of sectarian shiaism and its various subgroups
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
I have also heard that Dajjal will get support from persia? is that true too?
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
^ Peace bitter_reality
Sort of ... He will emerge from Khurasan in an area where there Persian Jews. His mother will be buxom and he will have reddish hair.
^ Peace bitter_reality
Sort of ... He will emerge from Khurasan in an area where there Persian Jews. His mother will be buxom and he will have reddish hair.
Didnt think he would emerge from Khorasan, however an army will emerge from Khorasan that will support him.
Not sure please clarify.
thought the origin of Dajjal will be from the land of palestine (meaning Israel now)
I have also heard that Dajjal will get support from persia? is that true too?
dajjal's supporters will be from isfahan a city in central iran with safforn colored shawls
imam mahdi's support army will come from khurasan which is in eastern iran and afghanistan they will have black colored flags
Okay, so it was filthy, ahlay biddah, rafidha, Iranian majoos named Abu LuLu who killed Umar. Who killed Uthman then? and Ayesha? and Ammar B Yasir? and Abuzar Ghaffari? and Mohammad b Abi Bakr? and Imam Ali, Hasan, Hussein, Ali Ibn Hussein.....? and who took the Prophets' family hostage? and who assembled army to lead the first internal war within the Muslims that resulted in death of 10,000 Muslims? and who led the seconed? and who persistently disobeyed the Khalifa of the time? who were all those hypocrites in the close company of the Prophet that the Quran talks about?.......hmmm, must be those majoosi, ahlay biddah, rafidha Iranians.
you question is offtopic and correct answer from authentic history
these all killed by sabaties (followers of abdullah bin sabah they jew).
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
^yeah, and ur chaddi that went missing yesterday was work of Abdullah Ibn Sabah too. My source? i read it in the AUTHENTIC history.
you question is offtopic and correct answer from authentic history these all killed by sabaties (followers of abdullah bin sabah they jew).
That will make kharijis and ummayads as Sabaties? Mawiya was a shia of abdullah bin saba as accepted by Alijaan today.
it will start offtopic discussion again.
**24. **Famous Shia scholar Allamah Kashi narrates in his book from one of the Shia Imam Abu Abdullah [r.h]:
“May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba, he said that Hazrat Ali [r.a] is God. But Hazrat Ali [r.a] was a servant of Allah.”
لعن اللّه عبداللّه بن سبا انه ادعو الربوية فى امير المؤمنين عبدا طالباً
Rijaal-e-Kashi, page 100]
Qamoos al-Rijaal, vol 5 page 46]
**25. **Allamah Sharastani [r.h] writes:
“Abdullah ibn Saba…was the first person who said that Imamat of Hazrat Ali [r.a] is proven from nas.”
اصحاب عبداللّه بن سبا٠٠٠ وهو اول من اظهر القول بالنص بامامة على كرم اللّه وجهه
Al-Milal wa al-Nahal, vol 1 page 174]
26. Saad Bin Abdullah Al Ash’ari Alqummi said:
“Sabians are companions of Abdullah Ibn saba, …… Abdullah bin Saba’, was the first who slandered Abu Bakr [r.a], Omar [r.a], Othman [r.a] and the Companions and disowned them.”
Al-Maqalat wal-Firaq, 20]
**27. **Hazrat Shah Waliullah [r.h] has also written in details about ibn Saba in his book Izalat al-Khafa.
The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says:
ABDALLAH IBN SABA
By : Hartwig Hirschfeld
A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).
Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201);
Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.
Source: JewishEncyclopedia,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi…d=189&letter=A
Existence of Abdullah ibn Saba is both accepted by Sunnis, Shias and the Westener historians. Today some Shias try their best to even deny his existence, let alone the role he played in the foundation of Shiaism. He is to Shiaism, what Saint Paul is to Christianity.
1. It says in Anwaar-ul-Na’umania, a Shia book:
Abdullah Ibn-e-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Hazrat Ali [r.a] is the true God [Na’uzubillah].
[Anwaar-ul-Na’umania, Vol 2, Pg 234 - Published Iran]
http://www.kr-hcy.com/references/shia/070.shtml
**2. **The name of Abdullah bin Saba figures in the most reliable book of Shias on Asma-ur-Rijal, entitled Rijal-e-Kashshi and it is related in it from Imam Jafar Sadiq [r.h] that Ibne Saba believed in the divinity of Hazrat Ali [r.h], and, ultimately, he was burnt alive at his command. About Abdullah bin Saba, Rijal-e-Kashshi says:-
“Many knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Hazrat Ali [r.a]. As a Jew, he used to exaggerated the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, and the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim he began to exalt the personality of Hazrat Ali much beyond the due limit, and he was the first person to declare that it was obligatory to believe in the Imamate of Hazrat Ali, and completely dissociated himself form his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels”.
Rijal-e-Kashshi, page 71].
3. The earliest historian Tabri has sketched out the details in these words:
“Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew and lived in Sana. His mother was called Sauda. He embraced Islam during the period of Hadhrat Uthman. he roamed through the Muslim cities and tried to seduce the Muslims from the straight path. He launched his diabolical campaign from Hijaz and then visited Basra, Kufa and Syria. None of the Syrians cooperated with him. On the contrary, they drove him out of Syria. Thus he moved over to Egypt and settled down there permanently. He started drumming into the minds of the Egyptians that it was strange they believed in the return of Christ and denied the return of Hadhrat Muhammad [peace be upon him]. God himself had declared. Therefore he has a better claim to return to the world in comparison with Christ. He fabricated the concept of the ‘return’ or resurrection and the Egyptians turned in into a hot debating issue.”
4. Ibn Kathir [r.h] and Ibn Athir [r.h] have commented on it on similar lines and Allama Ibn Khaldun [r.h] has also written about it :
“Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee - line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman[r.a] for first turning Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] out of Syria into Madina and then for pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar[r.a] , out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah[r.a] . Hadhrat Muawiyah [r.a] coaxed him a little and told him : I’ll also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah.”
5. Hafiz ibn Hajr [r.h] has related on the authority of Tarikh Abi Asakar:
“He belonged to Yemen. He was a Jew, but he had donned the guise of Islam and roamed through the Muslim cities to lead the Muslims astray and dissuade them from the obedience of their Imams and to sow dissension among them. He also visited Damascus with this end in view”.
Tarekkh Dimishq,vol 7 page 430]
**6. **Allama Isfraini [r.h] has also commented on it in a similar vein:
“Ibn Sauda was a Jew who had donned the gown of Islam to addle the faith of the Muslims”.
**7. **Abu Muhammad Hassan bin Musa has unraveled these secrets. He is the earliest Shia historian who has given an account of the Shia sects. He is one of the most famous Shias of the third century A.H. He writes:
“Sabais are the companions of Abdullah bin Saba. Abdullah bin Saba made faces at Hadhrat Abu Bakr[r.a] , Umar [r.a] , Uthman [r.a] and other companions of the Prophet [peace be upon him] and disaffiliated himself from them and he imputed his acts to the command of Hadhrat Ali [r.a]. When Hadhrat Ali [r.a] caught hold of him and asked him about it, he confessed to it. After his confession, he ordered him to be executed. On hearing the order, [quite a few people] made a humble submission to Hadhrat Ali[r.a] : O Amir-ul-Momineen ! You have ordered the execution of a person who professes your friendship and the love of your Ahl-i-Bait. Hadhrat Ali [r.a] complied with the submission and exiled him to Madain.”
8. The famous Shia biographer Istra-badi says:
“Abdullah bin Saba claimed that Hadhrat Ali [r.a] is Allah and he is his Prophet. When the news reached the Amir-ul-Momineen, he sent for him and asked him about it. He owned it and insisted that he is really the one [who is the referee of his claim]. The Amir-ul-Momineen said : The devil has seduced you. Therefore you should repent at once. But he refused to repent and he put him behind the bars for three days. When he did not repent even after three days, he burned him alive”.
**9. **Sheikh Abdul Qadir Baghdadi [r.h] says:
“The followers of Abdullah bin Saba are called Sabains. Ibn Saba relied on exaggeration about the status of Hadhrat Ali [r.a] and claimed that he was a prophet. Then, relying on further exaggeration he claimed that he [Hadhrat Ali [r.a]] was God and he invited a party of the Kufi rebels to adopt these beliefs. When the news reached Hadhrat Ali[r.a] , he had some of these people thrown into two pits of fire, as has been hinted at by a poet .”
10. All the Shia scholars have given an account of Ibn Saba, his views and beliefs and his party ; Syed Qummi [who died in 301 A.H.], Sheikh Taifah Tusi, Tastri in Qamus-ur-Rijal, Abbas Qummi in Tohfat-ul-Ahbab, Khu Ansari in Raudhat-ul-Jannat, Sabhani in *Nasikh-ut-Tawarikh *and the author of Raudhat-us-Safa, have all mentioned him and his party".
**11. **Allamah Shahrastani [r.h] writes under the heading of Sabaism:
“Sabais are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba who had told Hadhrat Ali [r.a]: you are you i.e., you are God, but he had extradited him to Madain The historians suggest that he was actually a Jew, but he had tacked on to himself the label of Islam. During the Jewish phase, he used to claim that Hadhrat Y’osha bin Nun was the executor of Moses [a.h].”
12. Ibn Asakar [r.h] has cited a tradition of Hadhrat Jabir in his history:
"When the oath of allegiance was taken at the hand of Hadhrat Ali [r.a] and he delivered his address, Abdullah bin Saba stood up and said: you are “Dabat-ul-Ardh”
Tareekh Dimishq]
13. Allamah Baghdadi [r.h] has touched the issue in his book Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq. Similarly, Isfraini in his book *Kitab-ut-Tabsir *and Ibn Hazn in *Al-Fasl *have also mentioned ibn Saba.
**14. **Famous Shia scholar Nau Bakhti writes:
"It is known as the Sabai sect because Abdullah bin Saba was its ring leader. "
Khandaan-e-Nau-Bakhti, page 275]
**15. **Historian Professor P.K Hitti writes:
“The enigmatic Abdullah ibn Saba who was convertered into Islam…embarrased Ali [r.a] with his excessive venertion…”
History of the Arabs, page 248. London]
**16. **Famous historian Dweight M. Donaldon writes:
"Abdullah ibn Saba had travelled widely throughout the Empire, as Tabari says, “seeking to lead the Moslems into error…Another of his teachings that was more immediately, influential was that every Prophet has a wasi and that Ali [r.a] was the wasi of Muhammed [s.a.w]…”
The Sheit Religion of Islam, part 6 page 41]
17. Historian Dr. J. N. Hollister writes:
“[Abdullah ibn Saba] He was the native of San’s in Yemen…He opened a campaign of behalf of Ali [r.a] suggesting that Abu Bakar [r.a], Umer [r.a], and Usman [r.a] were usurpers…”
Shias of Hind page 15]
18. Famous historian Dr. Walter C. Klein writes:
"Abdullah ibn Saba had hailed Ali [r.a] with the words, “Thou art Thou.”…
Al-Ibanah An Usul Ad-Diyanah, pages 7-8]
19 Historian Professor Nicholson writes:
**“Now the Shi’ite theory of Divine Right certainly harmonised with Persian ideas, **…Abdullah ibn Saba…went from place to place, seeking to lead Moslems into error…”
The History of the Arabs, page 215]
20. Famous historian and former governer of U.P, India, William Moore writes:
“…ibn Saba, a Jew from the South of Arabia…he became the setter forth of strange and startling doctrines…Ali [r.a] was his legate, Usmsn [r.a] was a usurper…”
Al-Khilafat, Us ka Urooj, Inhetaat aur Zawaal, page 217]
**21. **The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says:
ABDALLAH IBN SABA
By : *Hartwig Hirschfeld *
Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s [r.a] administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali[r.a] . On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s [s.a.w] vizier was Ali[r.a] , who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman [r.a] had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali [r.a]had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali [r.a] banished him to Madain. After Ali’s [r.a]assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali [r.a] was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali [r.a] was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali [r.a] was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” [The Most High].
Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201); Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/images/smilies/bismillah.gif
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/images/smilies/salam.gif
**Indeed interesting. How reliable are the narrations though?
And as you probably know, orientalists don’t examine narrations in a way acceptable according to Islamic standards.
Do you have an reference for that which you quote Ibn Khaldun?**
“Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee - line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman[r.a] for first turning Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] out of Syria into Madina and then for pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat Uthman [r.a] was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar[r.a] , out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar [r.a] started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah[r.a] . Hadhrat Muawiyah [r.a] coaxed him a little and told him : I’ll also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah.”
Lol, all stories on Abdullah Ibn Saba showing that he claimed Imamate of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] has been narrated by Sayf Ibn Umar whose has been rejected by the Ulema. And if the progeny of najis Nawasib such as ALIJAN1001 are adamant to accept Sayf's reports then by abanoning their ancestral habit of hypcrisy they will also have to accept other stories narrated by Sayf Ibn Umar such as Khalid bin Waleed's murder of Sahabi Malik bin Nuwerah [ra] and raping his wife on the same night.
you question is offtopic and correct answer from authentic history these all killed by sabaties (followers of abdullah bin sabah they jew).
Cut the crap, this is not your Nasibi madrassa where you will say and we will accept without using our Aql. The truth is that known Sahaba were invovled in the murder of Uthman** and its an open challenge** to any Nasibi to prove the role of Abdullah Ibn Saba in the murder of Uthman via authentic sources.
RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY OF IRAN
Embassy Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran
In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
In the last issue of “Al-Rasheed” an article entitled Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi’aism was published in which unfortunately some accusations were made against Shi’aism.
The article, the author of which is not known, tries to, through some false accusations made against SHI’IA Ulamahs, establish that the Jew Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shi’aism, and that Shi’aism is based on Judaism.
While the truth is that the quoted phrase is tampered with in a way which reflects an understanding completely opposite to what the source reads.
Shi’aism, with millions of followers throughout the world, and having a historical background of over 1400 years is based on Qur’ân and Holy Ahaadeeths by our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him). For example to prove the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shi’ites have had recourse to some Qur’ânic verses and Ahaadeeths of the Holy Prophet. Of course these Ahaadeeths, most of which are also accepted by Sunnis, have not been understood by the two denominations in the same way.
It is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out; not giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.
Below I have enlisted a number of books as sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates for their reference:
-
ABDULLAH IBN SABA AND OTHER MYTHS by Allamah Askari
-
THE ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SHI’AH ISLAM by S.H.M Jafri)
-
SHl’A by Allamah Tabatabai
-
Computeric software including BIHAR AL-ANWAR RIJAL AL-KASHI.
A copy of these books is available in the Embassy’s library. I do not know however of the existence of other copies elsewhere in the country.
Those interested are hereby invited to make use of our library to find out for themselves the scientific and logical way in which the said unscientific accusations have been responded.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the following number to arrange for such facilities.
OFFICE TEL: (012) 342 8880/1
FAX NO: (012) 342 4790
M.H. BORJIAN YAZDI
CULTURAL ATTACHE
I 6 AUG 1999
RESPONSE
Mr. M.H. Borjian Yazdi
Cultural Attaché
Iranian Embassy
Pretoria
Sir,
Receipt has been taken of your letter dated 15 August 1999, in which you voiced dissatisfaction with the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi’aism.
Your concern as the diplomatic representatives of Iran over an article of this nature is understood. Understood too, are the sentiments you express where you say that “it is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever united against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out not giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.”
Sunnism & Shi’aism
However, as much as one would want to gloss over the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah, the fact of the matter is that the differences do exist, and that by their very nature they make each group’s claim to the Truth an exclusive one.
It is precisely for this reason that the propagation of Shi’aism has continued unabatedly in Sunni societies, more often than not with funding from, and the sanction of, Iran. To the best of our knowledge your government has never expressed the least reservation over the huge amount of Shi’ite propagationist literature flowing to Sunni communities out of Iran, nor about the activities of missionaries actively engaged in the propagation of Shi’aism amongst Sunnis, with financial backing from Iranian foundations.
This has given rise to a situation where the Ahl as-Sunnah have become so alarmed by the rate of proselytising in their communities that calls of people like yourself for “Muslim unity in the face of the fierce enemies of Islam” have come to be seen as a smoke screening device intended to create the diversion under cover of which Shi’ite missionaries will penetrate into Sunni societies. If this assertion could once upon a time be dismissed as an unfounded assumption, it has now found a basis for itself in two decades of bitter experience, in South Africa and elsewhere.
It is not intended here to deny you the right to propagate your beliefs, since the constitution of our country upholds freedom of belief. Our intention is to bring it to your notice that when the Shi‘ah have opted to exercise their right to propagate their faith, they should not be surprised or express regret at the inevitable consequences.
When Iran declared Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism the state religion, it set itself up as the champion of Shi‘ism. (Incidentally this is also the reason why you, as the cultural attaché of your country, took exception to the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.) Therefore it is fully comprehensible to us why Iran will not permit Sunni missionary groups to operate on Iranian soil. But we become completely mystified when we see the double standards of Iran itself sending missionaries, or acquiescing to the funding and sending of missionaries to communities such as ours who are not in a position to defend its faith through political or legal power.
Crux of the issue
This issue does not revolve simply around Ibn Saba. It goes much further than that. It has to do in the first instance with each group’s claim to being the true form of Islam, and by logical extension, with the way in which each group accounts for the existence of the other.
The Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah both claim that their form of Islam is the true one. This assertion is probably beyond contention from either side. The real problem lies in the implication of these respective claims. If “A” lays claim to the truth, it is simultaneously claiming that the claim of “B” is false, and vice versa. We know that this perspective of the relationship between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah is an extremely sensitive one, but it is a question that must be addressed if we are to have an appreciation of all the various dimensions to this issue.
Shi’aism makes no secret of the fact that it regards the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah as the corruption of Islam by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) primarily, and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties secondarily. References to support this contention abound in the books of the Shi‘ah, some of which are now quoted here:
God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil ‘ulama! Abu Hurairah was one of the fuqaha, but God knows what judgements he falsified for Mu‘awiyah and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam. (Ayatullah Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, p. 114, translated and annotated by Hamid Algar)
We conclude here that the Shi‘ah are the true followers of the Prophetic Sunnah… Whereas the Ahl as-Sunnah have expressly contradicted the Prophetic Sunnah. (Muhammad Tijani Samawi, The Shi‘ah: The Real Followers of the Sunnah p. 314, Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995)
It is self evident that the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (except Imam ‘Ali) have practised ijtihad with their opinions against the Prophetic Sunnah. (ibid. p. 315)
The religion was exploited for the political needs. Both the Omayyids and the Abbasids deepened and strengthened sectarian and religious prejudices among the Muslims in order to use them for their own purposes. They exaggerated and amplified the idea of seniority of persons other than Ali in the matter of the Caliphate. In these efforts of theirs, they were helped by those Ulema (scholars) who cared much for the worldly positions. The rulers spent money on such scholars who in turn reported fabricated Traditions suitable to the rulers, especially during the Omayyid period, as we have already said. People follow the religion of their kings. They also said what their rulers did. Then came those who were not aware of the real situation. saw these fabricated traditions and made-to-order injunctions and took them for true ones. They further passed them on in their books. Those who came later found these Traditions in the books attributed to great personalities which made them accept them as true. Thus these traditions got disseminated between the people. Everyone read them, talked about them in their gatherings and discussed them in their classes and schools. In this time passed on and such ideas got currency amongst the common masses so much so that those who knew the truth were swept away by the pressure of public opinion and these false ideas, which it is proper to discuss, took the form of a regular creed. (Hasan ul-Amine, Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia, pp. 78-79, Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 1997)
(For further reference, see the books an-Nass wal-Ijtihad by ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ad-Deen, and Ma‘alim al-Madrasatayn by Murtada al-‘Askari.)
We hope that notice will have been taken here of the fact that the quoted sources were published in Iran within the last five years. If the Shi‘ah thus have a freedom of using the printed word for disseminating their own opinion about the origin of Sunni faith and practice, we are baffled as to why umbrage should be taken when the Ahl as-Sunnah express their honest opinion about the origins of Shi‘ism. If Iranian sensors find nothing objectionable in literature such as the quoted sources, why should Sunnis be expected to practice reservation? And, if such inflammatory statements do not give you, the Shi‘ah, reason to regret that “in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out”, why are we, the Ahl as-Sunnah, being told that making accusations like this spells disaster for Muslim unity? Surely the authors of the quoted sources were also not “giving enough time and means to Sunnis and their beliefs”.
For as long as the Shi‘ah will persist to view Muslim unity as a one-way street in which they alone have the exclusive right to fling the stones and hurl the sticks, it will remain the mirage it presently is.
If, on the other hand, it is argued that these are things that are historically verifiable, we would submit that if the act of verifying the truth is supposed to have a preconceived result, it is a meaningless exercise. On the other hand, if it is going to be a completely objective process, it will inevitably threaten the Muslim unity whose destruction you fear. But let us, for the sake of demonstration, engage in just one such exercise.
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’aism 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?
The role of Ibn Saba
Now, having dealt with the problem of Ibn Saba’s existence, we may move on to discuss his role in the historical development of Shi‘ism.
Ibn Saba is held responsible for the introduction of many phenomena which later developed into hallmark aspects of Shi’aism. The Shi‘ah (or at least those of them who accept his existence, like Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili) admit that he exhibited extremist tendencies. In the Tarikh of Ibn ‘Asakir he is on record as having
vilified Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9)
believed the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted
to ‘Ali special knowledge which was not known to anyone but him.
(Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
believed ‘Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi’aism, while the third one with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat. We have already seen what Jaa’fri has written about Ibn Saba’s role in the origin of the Ghulat. That particular aspect of Ibn Saba’s role finds further corroboration in the Shi’ite biographical literature. 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)
Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba.
Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300), was the city of Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He writes:
There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi’ite collection of hadith, Al-KAAFI, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. 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. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)
This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shi’ite activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shi‘ah ascribe to the Imams, and which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-KAAFI, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that the entire edifice of Shi‘ism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams.
Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi‘ah are
Zurarah ibn A`yan
Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifi
Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi
al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju‘fi
All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men:
Zurarah ibn A‘yan
Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)
Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.
Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)
Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!
Muhammad ibn Muslim
Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by al-Kashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his great-grandfather!
Abu Basir al-Muradi
In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)
However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)
Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq just like Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali!
Al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy).
But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows:
‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja‘far said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:
Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”
[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)
This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which al-Mufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.
Conclusion
We have used the above three narrators merely as a specimen of the men upon whose narrations the edifice of Shi’aism rests. We consistently find disturbing points of resemblance between them and Ibn Saba. They are cursed by the Imams just as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali. Some of them held beliefs that are identical to Ibn Saba’s innovations. They hail from Kufa, which Jafri tells us was the stronghold of the Saba’iyyah.
Thus, after we have proven the historical existence of Ibn Saba, this investigation into the men responsible for the narration, or creation, of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah leads us to the unequivocal conclusion that what exists today as Shi’aism, and specifically Twelver Shi‘ism, contains a substantial chunk of the original heresy of Ibn Saba. We therefore feel that we have quite convincing reasons to look upon ‘Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.
If this conclusion fails to find favour in Shi’ite circles, that cannot be helped. Just as the concern of the Shi‘ah for Muslim unity in the face of the vicious enemies of Islam has never constituted an impediment for them to state exactly how and what they perceive the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah to be, similarly, we feel that it is only fair if the Ahl as-Sunnah too, can exercise the right to publish their viewpoint on the origin of Shi’aism, without anyone, and least of all the Shi‘ah, demanding from them to consider the danger that poses to Muslim unity.
If the state of Iran and its diplomatic representatives in South Africa are sincere in their concern for Muslim unity, we suggest that they take a very serious look at the extent to which Shi‘ism is being propagated in South Africa, as well as the provenance of the funding that supports those missions. Only when you have proven your sincerity for the cause of Islam by removing that essential stumbling block would we feel that your protest against the publication of an article like Abdullah ibn Saba: the Founder of deserves something more than a decisive dismissal.
Yours in the service of Islam
NOTE: We have copies of all the books you listed except Bihar al-Anwar. It would be greatly appreciated if the embassy could arrange for us to have a copy of Bihar since it is such an invaluable source of reference.
e-mail: [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
yeah guess what i heard, the dajjal will come from Saudi Arabia. In fact, i heard a sermon he will be from mecca.
Re: The Persian Empire: Wherefrom Satan’s Horns Emerged
@ ALIJAAN
stop copy pasting from shia haters website like HaqCharYaar and AllahuAkber.net.
They misquote text and use it out of context to justify their hatred for shias.