Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Abdullah Bin Sabah.........Who?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Abdullah Bin Sabah.........Who?

    Abdullah bin Saba, a clever Jew or Yemen, played a leading role in this drama. During Othman's calpihate, he came to Medina, and made a show of becoming a devout Muslim, but he had his own plans. He stayed for some months in Medina and studied things. He saw that Banu Hashim regarded the Caliphate their natural right. They thought that Ali, and not Othman, should have been the Caliph. Abdullah bin Saba determined to make capital out of this.
    With great cunning, he set about his task. He made "love of the Holy Prophet and his relatives" his starting-point. Out of this, he spun a clever story. Every Prophet, he said, left behind a "Wasi." The Wasi must be a near relative of the Prophet. Aaron was the Wasi of Moses. In the same way, the Holy Prophet must also have a Wasi, to carry on his mission. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last of the Prophets. So, his Wasi, Ali, was the last of the Wasis. Being the Wasi, Ali was the only rightful man to be the Caliph. Othman, therefore had to be removed from the caliphate.

    Abdullah bin Saba began to preach his views secretly. He visited important cities in the Muslim empire. In each city, he set up a secret society. He picked up men who lent an easy ear to what he said. These were generally the men who had some real or imaginary complaint against the officers. It was easy to tell these men that the Caliph was the real cause of all trouble.

    When the network of secret societies was complete, Abdullah bin Saba set up his headquarters in Egypt. The secret societies rapidly increased their strength. For this they used the following method:


    Their members made a great show of piety. They posed as the real well wishers of the people.
    They invented complaints against Othman and his officers. Some of the complaints were no doubt real. Under cover of these, they also said things that did not exist.
    A regular campaign was started against all officers. They were described as irreligions and inefficient.
    Forged letters were sent from city to city. These letters talked of injustice and unrest in the city of origin. The Sabaites read out the letters to as many people as possible. Letters were also forged to show that Ali, Talha, Zubair and other noted Companions had full sympathy with the movement. This led people to think that there was widespread unrest and that the leading Companions wanted to remove the Caliph.



    #2
    Saba pretty much acted in a way Muawiya did.
    But atleast muawiya was less hypocritical.

    "And those who oppress shall see what kind of outcome overturns them." [26:227] Al-Quran

    Comment


      #3
      "Abdullah bin Saba" is a non-existent fairy tale character invented by the descedents of Amir Muawiya and their cronies as a desperate and pathetic attempt to hide their ugly doings.

      No "Abdullah bin Saba" ever existed.

      InshAllah I will prove this with the help of historical narratives from both Sunni and Shi'a sources.

      Keep reading this thread.

      Comment


        #4
        oh come on ,he did exist..abudllah bin sabah was in Cindrella.

        Comment


          #5
          Ha ha
          You must be joking.....

          First Abu HurairahRadi Allah an hu) didn't Exist

          Now Saba doesn't Exist...there we go now we will have to prove that first

          And Bro Paglu don't pull Hadra Amir Muawia(Radi Allah an hu ) in every post

          ......Sawal Gandum Jawab Chana........

          Comment


            #6
            Has anyone of you ever seen a copy of the birth certificate of Abu Huraira and Abdullah whatever it is? If no, these things didn't exist. Let's move on to alcohol or something else.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Mullah_DoPiazza:
              Has anyone of you ever seen a copy of the birth certificate of Abu Huraira and Abdullah whatever it is? If no, these things didn't exist. Let's move on to alcohol or something else.
              Bro, have you seen birth certificate of all your ancestors yet? I bet u didn't see birth certificate of your own grand father. and then you ask for birth certificate, who would issue that? Imam Khomenei?

              Please think before you answer.

              ------------------
              We oughta be Changez like, don't we?

              [This message has been edited by Changez_like (edited July 20, 2001).]

              Comment


                #8
                First: Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti:
                The well known Shi'ite "Who's Who" critic, al-Najashi in his al-Fihrist, wrote:

                "al-Hasan bin Musa: Abu Muhammad al-Nubakhti, the well versed in dialectism, who surpassed the peers of his time prior and after the 300 (hijra)"
                al-Fihrist: al-Najashi, p.47; From Ash-Shi'a was-Sunnah, p.22

                Another "Who's Who" critic, At-Tusi, in his al-Fihrist wrote:

                "Abu Muhammad, dialectist and philosopher, was an Imami (shi'ite), an upright in faith, trustworthy (thiqah)....and he is one of the scholars' landmarks"
                al-Fihrist: At-Tusi, p.98; From Ash-Shi'a Was-Sunnah, p.22

                Nurallah at-Tasturi, in his "Majaalis al-Mu'mineen" wrote:

                "al-Hasan bin Musa, one of the celebrity of this sect and its scholars. He was a dialectist, a philosopher, an Imami in faith"
                Majaalis al-Mu'mineen: Nurallah At-Tasturi, p.177; from Ash-Shi'a was-Sunnah, p.22

                Having established the authority of this historian from the Shi'ites own sources, let's read what Mr. al-Nubakhti had to say about Ibn Saba':

                "Abdullah bin Saba', was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and the Companions and disowned them. He claimed that it was Ali [as] who enjoined this on him. Ali arrested him, and upon interrogation, admitted to the charge, and (Ali) ordered him to be executed. The People cried 'O Chief of Believers ! Do you execute a man calling to your love, Ahlul-Bayt, to your allegiance, and disowning your enemies?' He (Ali) then exiled him to al-Mada'in (Capital of Iran back then). Some of the knowledgeable companions of Ali [as] narrated that Abdullah bin Saba' was a Jew who embraced Islam and sided with Ali [as]. That he was of the opinion, at the time when he was a Jew, claiming that Yousha' bin Noon is after Moses. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh&hf], he claimed the same for Ali [as]. He was the first to publicly mandate the Imamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opposers. From thence, those who oppose Shi'ism say: The origin of Shi'ism is rooted in Judaism. When Abdullah bin Saba' heard of the demise of Ali while in (his exile at) al-Mada'in, he said to the announcer of the news: 'You are a liar, if you are to bring his head in seventy bags, and brought seventy witnesses testifying to his death, we'll insist that he did not die nor murdered, and (he) shall not die till he rules the globe' ".

                Reference:
                Firaq al-Shi'a: Nubakhti, pp. 43,44

                So, according to reliable SHIA scholars Abdullah bin Saba did exist and he was the one who started this shia cult in Islam and we still see the results of it in Agha Khanism ignorancy.

                More Proofs:


                Second: Abu Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi: Another well known "Who's Who" critic who also mentioned Ibn Saba', and one of the earliest Shi'ite biographist. In the "Introduction" to his book, known as "Rijaal al-Kash-shi", we read:

                "He is trustworthy (thiqah), an adept, an expert in traditions and men, very knowledgeable, well founded in faith, on the upright path......The most important books on biographies of men are four, which are heavily depended on and (considered) the four basic pillars in this field, the most important and earliest of all is: Ma'rifat al-Naqileen anil-A'immah As-Sadiqeen (Knowing the Transmittors on The Authority of The Truthful Imams) known as Rijaal al-Kash-shi".
                Rijaal al-Kash-shi: al-Najaashi, Introduction.

                Having established the authority of this scholar, let's examine what he has to say about the Jew Ibn Saba':

                "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 Iamamah for Ali, rejected and disowned his enemies, debated his opponents and called them Kafirs. Hence, those who oppose the Shi'ites often say: The Shi'ites and Rejectors (Rafidah) have their roots in Judaism"

                Rijaal al-Kash-shi: Abu 'Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi, p.101 al-Mamaqaani, author of "Tanqeeh al-Maqaal", who is an authoritative Shi'i biogrophist quoted the like in his said book, p.184

                More to come.

                Now, shias have their reliable religious Imaams to deny since its proven that Abdullah bin Sabah did exist and was creator of Shia sect.

                ------------------
                "I am not playing with a full deck!"

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Changez_like:
                  Bro, have you seen birth certificate of all your ancestors yet? I bet u didn't see birth certificate of your own grand father. and then you ask for birth certificate, who would issue that? Imam Khomenei?

                  Please think before you answer.
                  Yes I have everything dating back all the way upto 1857, what about you?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Abdullah ibn Sabah was a Ghulat i.e. He first proclaimed himself as God. Later, he prescribed divinity of Imam Ali (as) and called him God.

                    It is funny how you wahabis try to change ibn Saba's views to try to match those of the shias. However, all your tactics will be of no use to you, since falsehood is destined to perish.

                    Now, let's see who Saba really was:

                    The fabricated stories around the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba are the
                    malicious production of one of the disciples of the devil, namely Sayf Ibn
                    Umar al-Tamimi. He was a story teller, lived in the second century after
                    Hijrah, who shaped his stories by some primary facts he found in the
                    documented history of Islam available at that time. Sayf wrote a novel much
                    the same as what Salman Rushdi did in "Satanic Verses" with similar
                    motives, but with the difference that the role of Satan in this case was
                    given to poor Abdullah Ibn Saba.

                    The Origin of The Tale
                    ======================
                    The tale of Abdullah Ibn Saba is over twelve centuries old. Historians
                    and writers, one after the other recorded it, adding more and more to it.

                    With a glance at the chain of transmitters of this story, you will find the
                    name of Sayf sitting in there. The following historians recorded directly
                    from Sayf:

                    (1) Tabari.
                    (2) Dhahabi. He has also cited from Tabari(1).
                    (3) Ibn Abi Bakir. He has also recorded from Ibn Athir(15), who has
                    recorded from Tabari(1).
                    (4) Ibn Asakir.

                    Now, let's see what you sunnis yourself think about Sayf and all his stories which you so readily attribute to the Shias.

                    The following leading Sunni scholars confirm that Sayf Ibn Umar was a well-
                    known liar and untrustworthy:

                    (1) al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) wrote: "Sayf is accused of being a heretic. His
                    narrations are abandoned."

                    (2) al-Nisa'i (d. 303 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and they
                    should be disregarded because he was unreliable and untrustworthy."

                    (3) Yahya Ibn Mueen (d. 233 AH) wrote: "Sayf's narrations are weak and
                    useless."

                    (4) Abu Hatam (d. 277 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is rejected."

                    (5) Ibn Abi Hatam (d. 327 AH) wrote: "Scholars have abandoned Sayf's
                    narrations."

                    (6) Abu Dawud (d. 316 AH) wrote: "Sayf is nothing. He was a liar. Some of
                    his Hadiths were conveyed and the majority of them are denied."

                    (7) Ibn Habban (d. 354 AH) wrote: "Sayf attributed fabricated traditions
                    to the good reporters. He was accused of being a heretic and a liar."

                    (8) Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 462 AH) mentined in his writing abut al-Qa'qa:
                    "Sayf reported that al-Qa'qa Said: I attended the death of the Prophet
                    Muhammad." Ibn Adb al-Barr continued: "Ibn Abu Hatam said: Sayf is
                    weak. Thus, what was conveyed of the presence of al-Qa'qa at the death
                    of the Prophet is rejected. We mentioned the Sayf's traditions for
                    knowledge only."

                    (9) al-Darqutini (d. 385 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak".

                    (10) Firoozabadi (d. 817 AH) in "Towalif" mentioned Sayf and some others by
                    saying: "They are weak."

                    (11) Ibn al-Sakan (d. 353 AH) wrote: "Sayf is weak."

                    (12) Safi al-Din (d. 923 AH) wrote: "Sayf is considered weak."

                    (13) Ibn Udei (d. 365 AH) wrote about Sayf: "He is weak. Some of his
                    narrations are famous yet the majority of his narrations are
                    disgraceful and not followed."

                    (14) al-Suyuti (d. 900 AH) wrote: "Sayf's Hadith is weak."

                    (15) Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) wrote after mentioning a tradition:
                    "Many reporters of this tradition are weak, and the weakest among them
                    is Sayf."

                    ws

                    [This message has been edited by a1shah (edited July 22, 2001).]

                    Comment


                      #11
                      They very few shia sources that do mention ibn Saba, show clearly who Saba was and how he died a miserable death:

                      It is attributed to Abu Ja'far (AS) (5th imam) saying:

                      Abdullah Ibn Saba used to claim being a prophet and claimed that The
                      Commander of Believers, Ali (AS) is God. Allah is Higher than such
                      (claim). This news reached to The Commander of Believers (AS), so he
                      called him and questioned him. But he repeated his claims and said:
                      "You are Him (i.e., God), and it has been revealed to me that you are
                      God and I am a prophet." So The Commander of Believers (AS) said: "How
                      dare you! Satan has made a mockery of you. Repent for what you
                      said. May your mother weep at your death! Quit (your claim)." But he
                      refused, so (Imam Ali) imprisoned him and asked him three times to
                      repent, but he didn't. Thus he burnt him with fire and said: "Satan
                      had taken him into his whim, he used to come to him and to induce
                      these (thoughts) in him." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)


                      Moreover it is reported that Imam Ali Ibn Husain (AS) (4th imam) said:

                      "May the curse of Allah be upon those who tell lies about us. I
                      mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba and each hair in my body stood up, Allah
                      cursed him. Ali (AS) was, by Allah, a proper servant of Allah, the
                      brother of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF). He did not earn the
                      graciousness/honor from Allah except with the obedience to Allah and
                      His Messenger. And (similarly) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) did
                      not earn the honor from Allah except with his obedience to Allah."
                      (Rijal, by al-KuShshi)


                      It is reported that Abu Abdillah (AS) (6th imam) said:

                      "We are a family of truthfulness. But we are not safe from a liar
                      telling lies about us to undermine our truth with his lies in front of
                      people. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) was the most truthful among
                      people in what he said (Lahjatan) and the most truthful among all
                      humanity; and Musaylima used to lie on him. The Commander of Believers
                      (AS) was the most truthful one among the creation of Allah after the
                      Messenger of Allah; and the one who used to lie on him, and tried to
                      undermine his truthfulness and claimed lies about Allah, was Abdullah
                      Ibn Saba." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)

                      Also:

                      "As he (Aba Abdillah - Ja'far al-Sadiq) was telling his companions in
                      the subject of Abdullah Ibn Saba and that he claimed in Godness of The
                      Commander of Believers, Ali Ibn Abi Talib. He said: When he claimed
                      that in Ali, he asked him to repent and he refused, so he burnt him
                      with fire." (Rijal, by al-Kushshi)


                      So once again, I advise you to stop spreading false stories and stick with facts.

                      Your stories of Abdulla bin Saba are not new - your wahabi forefathers brought forth such fiction years before you were born, and each of their fantasies were proven to be just that - fantasies.

                      But, thanks for the laugh. Saturday night can get pretty dull around here.

                      ws


                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Abdul Basit:
                        First: Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti:
                        The well known Shi'ite "Who's Who" critic, al-Najashi in his al-Fihrist, wrote:

                        "al-Hasan bin Musa: Abu Muhammad al-Nubakhti, the well versed in dialectism, who surpassed the peers of his time prior and after the 300 (hijra)"
                        al-Fihrist: al-Najashi, p.47; From Ash-Shi'a was-Sunnah, p.22

                        Another "Who's Who" critic, At-Tusi, in his al-Fihrist wrote:

                        "Abu Muhammad, dialectist and philosopher, was an Imami (shi'ite), an upright in faith, trustworthy (thiqah)....and he is one of the scholars' landmarks"
                        al-Fihrist: At-Tusi, p.98; From Ash-Shi'a Was-Sunnah, p.22

                        Having established the authority of this historian from the Shi'ites own sources, let's read what Mr. al-Nubakhti had to say about Ibn Saba':

                        Now, shias have their reliable religious Imaams to deny since its proven that Abdullah bin Sabah did exist and was creator of Shia sect.

                        It is nice to know how you have praised this shia scholar, who had surpassed the peers of his time - most definitely including any sunni scholars, who cannot match shia alims in knowledge anyways.

                        Hasan Ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti 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.

                        This Shia scholar 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 he 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"!

                        So as you can see, this shia scholar never mentioned any sources for stories related to ibn Saba.

                        Moreover, he probably got it from sunni sources such as Tabari and company. And isn't it funny how you sunnis yourselves have discredited Sayf, the source of Saba.

                        Oh no, don't worry. Try harder next time.
                        Try looking at other wahabi sites for inspiration.

                        ws

                        [This message has been edited by a1shah (edited July 22, 2001).]

                        Comment


                          #13
                          A1shah, first you say that I did a good job praising this shia scholar. And then you deny his writing? If he was so great and honored why question his writing? Other "great" shia scholars have said that this particular writer is very reliable. Now, we are not making any comparison between who were the better writers shia or sunni. Look at what it represents not whether it makes them better than others.

                          If you look closely, the references are strictly SHIA, so no wahabi involved. Don't point fingers at someone else just because you are having trouble digesting the truth.

                          Those "praising" statements from other shia scholars about shia scholars was put there to establish an authority that those scholars who wrote about Abdullah bin Saba are reliable and did not lie.
                          Now, if these Shi'ites authorities lied about the identity of Ibn Saba', then the possibility of them lying about other matters, like the events of Siffien, the murder of al-Hussain [ra] and other shia dogmas, stands greater. Consequently, if this is the case, doubt will overshadow any and all events and narrations recorded by them.

                          Some more dough for you:

                          "Abdullah bin Saba' returned to disbelief and showed extremism. He claimed prophethood, and that Ali [as] was Allah (in the flesh). Ali [as], for three (consecutive) days asked him to repent but he failed, thereupon, he [as] burned him (alive) with seventy other men who attributed divinship to him"

                          Kitaab al-Rijaal: al-Hilly, p.469, printed in Tehran, Iran 1383 h. From Ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', p.56

                          "When Abdullah bin Saba' learned that the opposition to Othman in Egypt was greater, he went there and pretended the knowledge and righteouseness until the people trusted him. After he established himself there, he started to propagate his ideas and theory, that for each Prophet was an appointed successor, and the appointee (wasi) of the Apostle of Allah and his successor is no other than Ali, who is blessed with knowledge and Fatwa, ornamented with generousity and courage, and known for his honesty and righteouseness. He further said: The Ummah has wronged Ali, usurped his right, the right of Khilafah (succession) and Walayah (allegiance). It is encumbant upon you all to aid and support him. He (immediately) revoked his obedience and allegiance to Othman, and touched many Egyptians with his sayings and deeds, and they revolted against Othman"

                          Tareekh Shi'i: Rawdat As-Safa, vol.2, p.292, Tehran Ed., From: Ashi'a wat-Tashayyu' , p.56

                          ------------------
                          "I am not playing with a full deck!"

                          [This message has been edited by Abdul Basit (edited July 22, 2001).]

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Follower of Hanafi(sunni) respects Imam Abu Hanifa
                            Follower of Maliki respects Imam Malik
                            Follower of Shafiee respects Imam Shafiee
                            Follower of Hambali respects Imam Hambali
                            Follower of Wahabbi's respects Abdul Wahab
                            Follower of Qadiani/Ahmadiyyah respects Mirza Ghulam.(what is his full name?) ....
                            Follower of Rashad Khalifian respects Rashad Khalifa

                            Christians respects Jesus

                            And Shia respects Hazrrat Ali and doesn't even acknowledge their own (claimed by few) founder - Abdullah Ibn Saba.

                            Isn't this a lil' bit odd not to mention suspicious?

                            Why are Shia calling themselves Follower of Ali when Abdullah Ibn Saba is the main scholar of this sect?

                            And why do we think we know better who is the founder of Shiaisme. Can anyone answer this question for me?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Basit,

                              I can feel yr wahabi blood itching when truth is revealed.

                              Now, since you always have trouble comprehending the posts, I will attempt to make it clearer to you.

                              The shia scholar in his writing mentions Abdullah bin Saba, but he does not give any chain of narrators. He just said " It was heard from someone who ... ". This form of narration is the weakest form and is to be totally rejected.

                              In addition, it seems like you do not respect yr own sunni scholars, most of whom have rejected the works of Sayf, the one who came up with the story of this cursed character Saba.

                              Be it shia or sunni, all scholars are fallible. The only infallibles are Allah (swt), his prophet (pbuh) and his ahl bait (as).

                              Also, let it be known that the Shia scholar does not mention the accursed Saba as anything to do with Islam. He describes the beliefs of this character.

                              What were his beliefs - that he was God and later that Ali was God.

                              Are these shia beliefs ? No, then why do you waste everyone's time, especially mine ?

                              And if you even bothered to read the Shia hadiths that I posted, very few of them that there are, refer to Abdullah bin Saba, they clearly tell you that the man was cursed and was dealt a painful punishment.

                              Now Basit boy, how much of the above don't you still understand ?

                              Basit, Basit. Where are you ? Oh I'm sorry. You must be back at your wahabi web sites again.

                              Give yourself, and all of us a break.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X