Is there evidence of Abdullah Ibn saba in ( Shia'ism) rafidaah's books ?

Question

Is this right ---?

Some people of knowledge mentioned that Abdullah bin Saba' was a Jew, who embraced Islam and supported Ali. While he was still a Jew, he used to go to extremism in calling Yousha' bin Noon as the appointee (successor) of Moses, thus after embracing Islam - after the demise of the Messenger of Allah [pbuh&hf] - he said the like about Ali. It was him who first publicly announced the mandatory Imamah for Ali, rejected and disowned his enemies, debated his opponents and called them Kafirs. Hence, those who oppose the s**+'ites often say: The s**+'ites and Rejectors (Rafidah) have their roots in Judaism" [Rijaal al-Kash-s**+, p.101; Al-Mamaqaani, author of Tanqeeh al-Maqaal, who is an authoritative s**+'i biogrophist quoted the like in page 184 his said book]

Answer 1

uv already made up your mind. there is no point in arguing with  you about this again

Answer 2

The stories about Abdullah Ibn Saba  which  do

NOT have any source or any chain of transmitters

======================================...

There are some reports from both Shia and Sunni scholars, historians, and

story tellers of ancient cultures who wrote few lines about Abdullah Ibn

Saba but did not supply any evidence for their claims, nor did they provide

any chain of supportive authorities (isnad) for their reports to be

examined.

For instance, their reports start with: "some people say so and so ..." or

"some scholars say so and so ..." without mentioning who that scholar was,

and where they got it from. It was based on rumor which was propagated by

Umayads (AFTER Sayf's work) which had reached them, and some based on the

authors' own creativity. This is inferred when we see these authors have

reported some legends which are clearly false and rejected by logic. These

reports are provided by those who wrote books about "al-Milal wa Nihal"

(stories about civilizations and cultures) or "al-Firaq" (divisions/sects).

Among the Sunnis who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba in their

stories WITHOUT bringing any source for their claims, are:

(1) Ali Ibn Isma'il al-Ash'ari (d. 330) in his book "Maqalat al-

    Islamiyin" (Essays about the People of Islam).

(2) Abdul-Qahir Ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429) in his book "al-Farq Bain

    al-Firaq" (Differences of the Sects).

(3) Muhammad Ibn Abdil-Karim al-Shahrastani (d. 548) in his book "al-Milal

    wan Nihal" (Nations and Cultures).

The above mentioned Sunnis do not give any source or any chain of authority

for their story about Abdullah Ibn Saba. They have competed with each other

to increase the number of sects in Islam with strange names such as al-

Kawusiyyah, al-Tayyarah, al-Mamturah, al-Ghrabiyyah, al-Ma'lumiyyah !!,

al-Majhuliyyah !!! and so on WITHOUT giving any source or reference for

their claims. Living in medieval times, these authors presumed that writing

stranger stories and attributing unrealistic events to different Muslim

nations will make them more reputable than the other competitors in this

area. And by that, they caused a tragic damage to the history of Islam and

committed a great crime for what they have falsely attributed to the Muslim

nations.

Some of them have provided silly legends and fairy-tales whose falsehood

are easy to detect nowadays, though it would have been possible for them to

succeed in passing off such stories as history in those times. For

instance, al-Shahrastani in his book "al-Milal wan Nihal" has mentioned

that there was a group of semi-human creatures in the name of "al-Nas-Naas"

with only half face, one eye, one hand, and one leg. Muslims could talk to

these semi-human creatures and they even exchanged poetry!!! Some Muslims

even used to go hunting these semi-human creatures and they used to eat

them!!! These semi-humans could jump faster than a horse and were

ruminant/cud- chewers!!! al-Shahrastani further mentioned that al-

Mutawakkil, the Abbasid Caliph, ordered the scientists of his time to

investigate about these creatures!!! (See al-Milal wan Nihal, by al-

Sharastani)

People at that time did not have the modern tools that would enable them

to discover the falsehood these unrealistic stories and fairy-tales, and

perhaps they would have preferred more extensive and more strange

collections which may have seemed a guarantee of their accuracy, eventhough

they were provided with no reference.

Also by chronological study of the life time of these authors, we can

conclude that ALL of them were long after the era of Sayf Ibn Umar, and

even after al-Tabari. So it is quite possible that they all got the story

of Abdullah Ibn Saba from Sayf. This claim becomes more strong when one

observes that non of them mentioned the source of their reports which might

be due to the fact that Sayf Ibn Umar's scandal was known to every body by

that time and they did not want to discredit their books by mentioning its

source. Moreover there exists NO document available related to Abdullah Ibn

Saba BEFORE Sayf. The scholars or historians who lived before Sayf Ibn Umar

NEVER mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba in their books. This shows

that if Ibn Saba ever existed he was not anything important for the

historians before Sayf. This is also another reason to believe that what

was propagated around the personality of Abdullah Ibn Saba was initiated

by the mass propaganda of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi.

Among the Shia who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba but without any

information regarding to their source, are the following two historians:

(1) Sa'ad Ibn Abdillah al-Ash'ari al-Qummi (d. 301) in his book "al-Maqalat

    wal-Firaq" mentioned a report in which there exists the name of

    Abdullah Ibn Saba. But he did not mention any chain of authorities nor

    did he mention from whom (or which book) he got the story and what his

    source was. Moreover al-Ash'ari al-Qummi has narrated many traditions

    from Sunni authorities. al-Najjashi (d. 450) in his "al-Rijal" said

    that al-Ash'ari al-Qummi traveled to many places and was well-known

    for his relation with Sunni historians and heard many stories from

    them. He wrote many weak reports from what he heard, one of which is

    a short story about Abdullah Ibn Saba, with no reference.

(2) Hasan Ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti (d. 310) who was a Shia historian who

    provided in his book "al-Firaq" a report in which is the name of

    Abdullah Ibn Saba. However he never mentioned from whom he got the

    report and what his source was.

The above two were the Shia who originally provided some information about

the existence of an accursed man in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba at the

time of Imam Ali (AS). Notice that all of them reported these information

long after Sayf Ibn Umar and even after al-Tabari wrote his history. Thus

they might perhaps got the information from Sayf or those who quoted from

him such as al-Tabari. This becomes more probable when we see that they

wrote "Some people say so and so..." without giving any documented support

(isnad) or the name of those "some people"!

======================================...

Reports  about  Abdullah  Ibn  Saba  which

were NOT transmitted through Sayf Ibn Umar

======================================...

We should point out however that there are less than 14 reports available

in the collections of Shia and Sunni which mentions the name of Abdullah

Ibn Saba, and are supplied with the chain of authorities, but in their

chain of authorities the name of Sayf does not exist.

As for the Shia, he was al-Kushshi (or al-Keshshi; also abbreviated as

Kash) (d. 369) who wrote his book "Rijal" in 340 AH. In that book he

mentioned few traditions in which there exists the name of Abdullah Ibn

Saba, from the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt which were quoted below. As we will see,

these traditions give a very different picture than those mentioned by

Sayf. However, it has been proven for Shia scholars that the book of al-Kashshi

has some errors, especially in the names and also few errors in quotations.

His book also contains some weak traditions, and as a result, it is not a

fully reliable source for the Shia. Not to mention that the reports of al-Kushshi

(Kash) are not found in any of the major 4-books of tradition for Shia. (For

a critical evaluation of his errors, please see al-Rijal by al-Tusteri as

well as al-Askari.)

Other Shia scholars who mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba, have quoted al-Kushshi

or the two historians mentioned above (i.e., al-A'sh'ari al-Qummi and al-

Nawbakhti who did not provide any chain of transmitters or any source for

their report). Among those who quoted al-Kushshi (Kash) are: Shaikh al-Tusi

(d. 460), Ahmad Ibn Tawoos (d. 673), Allama al-Hilli (d. 726), etc.

As for the Sunnis, beside those who quoted from Sayf Ibn Umar whose names

were given earlier, there are few reports from Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani which

provide the very similar information of what al-Kushshi (Kash) provided

(see below).

For these very few s**+'i and Sunni reports, we would like to mention the

following points:

1. The story that these few Sunni and Shia traditions provide, are totally

different than the heavy narrations propagated by Sayf Ibn Umar. These

tradition say that there was a poor man in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba

appeared AT THE TIME OF government of Imam Ali (AS). He claimed that he was

a Prophet and Ali was God, and as soon as Imam Ali heard the news, he

imprisoned him, and asked him to repent. He did not do so, and thus, Imam

Ali ordered to burn him. The traditions confirm that Imam Ali and his

descendants cursed this man and disassociated themselves from his claim of

deity for Imam Ali (AS). This is all there is about it, provided that

these few traditions are genuine in the first place.

2. These few (less than 14) traditions do NOT exist in any authentic book.

In fact, there is NO mention of Abdullah Ibn Saba in ANY of the six

authentic

Sunni collections (Sihah). Moreover, these few reports were NEVER rated

authentic

by Shia or Sunni scholars, and there is a great possibility that a person

in the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba never existed in the world, and was the

total invention of Sayf Ibn Umar, similar to his invention of 150 imaginary

companions for the Prophet (PBUH&HF) which do not exist in any other

independent report. Granted that Abdullah Ibn Saba ever existed, Sayf has

used his character and attributed many events to him for which there exists

NO SIMILAR REPORT by other Sunni narrators. Not only that, but also Sayf's

reports clearly contradict other rep

Answer 3

We are the SHIA of Ali (as) and your false accusation will not harm us.  

Answer 4

WTH IS RAFIDAAH? ................ you wahabis hide in your closet and only come out when you wanna bash................YOU MAKE ME SICK

GO BACK TO YOUR CLOSET.. YOU FITNA KING

Answer 5

V. interesting question. *stars* And it makes plenty of sense too, considering logic.

I guess there must be, as he was their founder. What this shia'a author says, makes sense. The info. of this shia'a author coincides with that of the trustworthy scholars. Here is a quote from one of the trustworthy scholars (who don't use Taqqiyah), Ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmoo' al Fataawa:

قيل للإمام أحمد‏:‏ من الرافضي‏؟‏ قال‏:‏ الذي يسب أبا بكر وعمر‏.‏ وبهذا سميت الرافضة، فإنهم رفضوا زيد بن علي لما تولى الخليفتين أبا بكر وعمر، لبغضهم لهما، فالمبغض لهما هو الرافضي، وقيل‏:‏ إنما سموا رافضة لرفضهم أبا بكر وعمر

((It was said to Imaam Ahmad: “Who is the Raafidhee?” He said: “Those who insult Abaa Bakr and ‘Umar.And by this they were named the Raafidah, for they rejected Zayd bin ‘Alee when he gave allegiance to the two Khaleefah’s Abaa Bakr and ‘Umar, because of their hatred for them. And the one who hates them is the Raafidhee.” And they were named as the Raafidhah because of their rejection of Abaa Bakr and ‘Umar.))

He then said:

وأصل الرفض من المنافقين الزنادقة، فإنه ابتدعه ابن سبأ الزنديق

((And the foundation of rejection is from the hypocrites and the herectics, for they followed the innovation of the heretic Ibn Saba’))

He also said in volume 28 on page 483:

وقد ذكر أهل العلم أن مبدأ الرفض إنما كان من الزنديق عبد الله بن سبأ؛ فإنه أظهر الإسلام وأبطن اليهودية، وطلب أن يفسد الإسلام، كما فعل بولص النصرانى، الذى كان يهوديا فى إفساد دين النصارى

((And the people of knowledge have mentioned that the beginning of the Rafdh (rejection) is from the Heretic (Zindeeq) ‘Abdullaah bin Saba’. For he manifested Islaam and he hid his Judaism and he sought to cause corruption in Islaam just like Paul the Christian, the Jewish one who caused corruption in the religion of the Christians.))

So the foundation of the Raafidhee belief is found in this mane, ‘Abdullaah bin Saba’.

May Allah aid u as u strive to expose the hollow beliefs of those who try to invent new religions under the shade of Islam. (Ameen)