Jew Abdullah ibn Saba sets up Shi’aism to divide and destroy the gullible, low IQ Muslims in the Levant

September 19th, 2014

Peter Nolan

Jew Abdullah ibn Saba sets up Shi’aism to divide and destroy the gullible, low IQ Muslims in the Levant

Did you know that the reprobate Jews have been dividing their gullible Gentile enemies into opposing racial, ethnic, and religious factions, to facilitate their ultimate enslavement and destruction by the Jews? Something particularly apparent in the whole history of the Jews’ invention of the pagan moon idol worship of Islam, which has been marvelously used to not only weaken and destroy Christianity, but also, in more recent times, to divide the Gentile neighbors of the rogue Talmudic state of Israel against each other and thus undo any real possibility of an overthrow of the Jewish settlers in Palestine.

Check out this article that elaborates on the Jewish founder of the Muslim sect of Shi’aism that’s one of the two most prominent Muslim sects in the Middle East today…

Abd Allah ibn Sabaʾ al-Ḥimyarī was a 7th-century figure in Islamic history and often associated with a group of followers called the Sabaʾiyya. Some believe that Abdullah Ibn Saba may have been actually several figures, semi-legendary, or legendary and fictional; but the Jewish rabbi and biblical scholar Israel Friedlander and Sabatino Moscati affirm his existence.

His Jewish origin has been contested but also widely accepted. Some modern historians assert that Sayf ibn Umar fabricated the episode about the killing of Uthman to “exonerate the people of Medina from participation in the caliph’s murder” and the movement to support Ali as a successor to Muhammad did not exist in the time of Uthman. With the exception of Taha Hussein, most modern Sunni writers affirm the existence of Ibn Saba’. In a similar vein, Shia writers deny Ibn Saba’s historical existence to rid Shi’aism of the accusation by Sunni writers that Shia’ism is originally based on Judaic doctrines.

According to Sunni sources, Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Yamanite Jewish convert to Islam, although M.G.S. Hodgson doubts he was a Jew and actually may have been several figures. He also suggests that Ibn Saba’ and Ibn al-Sawada’ should be considered as two separate individuals. According to Leone Caetani, Ibn Saba in origin was a purely political supporter of Ali, “around whom later generations imagined a religious conspiracy like that of the Abbasids.”

Modern Muslim writers tend to discredit Tabari’s account of Ibn Saba as “sheer fiction”. Taha Hussein and Ali al-Wardi maintain that Ibn Saba’ was the creation of Umayyad propaganda. According to Bernard Lewis modern critical scholarship has successfully cast doubt on his historical existence. Ibn Saba is called a semi-legendary figure by Moojan[9] and a legendary figure by MariaMassi Dakake. Israel Friedlander concludes that Ibn Saba’ and the Sabi’iyya did, in fact, exist. The episode about his role in killing of Uthman has been fabricated, however. His work has also been attested to by Sabatino Moscati.

Ali Al-Wardi suggests that Ammar Yaser may actually be the historical figure lay behind Ibn Saba figure. He noted the similarities of Ammar Yaser’s life to Ibn Saba’s. Ammar was also from Yemen. He was called Ibn Sawda (son of a black woman). He was zealous supporter of Ali’s right for caliphate, and went to Egypt to rouse Muslims against Uthman. He also obstructed the peace effort between Ali and Aisha.

W. F. Tucker suggests that it was possible that the attribution of Jewish ancestry to Ibn Saba’ on his parental side and imputation of black descent on his mother’s side was fabricated to discredit his credentials as a Muslim Arab and “thus stigmatize all ideas associated with him”. Bernard Lewis states that modern critical scholarship casts doubt on his Jewishness. Bernard Lewis, citing the example of Ibn Saba’, states that there is tendency in Islamic sources to attribute subversive and extremist doctrines to Jewish origins, conspiracy or instigation. G. Levi Della Vida also rejects his Jewish origin and maintains that Ibn Saba’ was an Arab.

However, according to Hartwig Hirschfeld, Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Jew from Yemen who embraced Islam. Israel Friedlander suggested that he may have been a son of an Ethiopian Falasha woman, which explains why he was called “ibn al-Sawdāʾ”. W. F. Tucker, after examining the different arguments, concludes that “Whatever is the case regarding his ethnic identity, it is quite probable that Ibn Saba’ was a Yemenite, and that he came from a Jewish milieu“.

Traditionally, Abd Allah ibn Sabaʾ is considered as the first of the ghulāt. He may have been the first to deny that Ali had died and predicting his return (rajʿa), which was considered one form of ghulū. Also, the notion of the absence (ghayba) of an imam seem to have appeared first among the ghulāt.

Concerning Ibn Saba’ religious beliefs, particularly that of the Sabaʾiyya, Tucker noted that they are more complete and better recorded in sources devoted to heresiography. Heinz Halm records him as a representative of a Ghulat group from the city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (al-Madā’in) who came to see ‘Alī in Kūfah. When Ibn Saba’ proclaimed ‘Alī’s divinity, ‘Alī denied this angrily and exiled him back to Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Heinz Halm adds that Islamic Islamic writers such as Ašʿari in Maqālāt, Baḡdādi in Feraq have said that Ibn Saba’ was the first person who idolized Ali ibn Abi Talib. He preached that ʿAli was God (al-elāh). After ʿAli’s death, he is said to maintain this idea that “a devil in ʿAli’s appearance had been murdered” and ʿAli had ascended to heaven and that his occultation (rajʿa) was imminent.

Wilferd Madelung after reviewing the accounts of Sayf ibn Umar on the alleged role of Abdullah ibn Saba’ in the rebellion against Uthman and emergence of Shi’a asserts “few if any modern historians would accept Sayf’s legend of Ibn Saba”.

Taha Hussein asserts that the “fabrication” of ibn Saba’ was done by the enemies of the Shī‘a; that the insertion of a “Jewish element” would discredit the Shī‘a. He noted that the absence of any record of ibn Saba’ being present at the Battle of Siffin suggests that ibn Saba’ is a fictitious person.

Israel Friedlander, Julius Wellhausen, and most particularly, Leone Caetani, assert that Sayf fabricated the episode about killing of Uthman to “exonerate the people of Medina from participation in the caliph’s murder” and as Friedlander adds finding a “scapegoat for the troubles surrounding Uthman” and any complicity in the strife resulting in the death of third caliph. Tucker asserts that although it may have been the case, there is no concrete evidence supporting this theory.

They note that sources older than al-Tabari are silent on Ibn Saba’ and his role in the agitation against Uthman. “They aver that the movement for supporting Ali as heir and testamentary trustee of the prophet did not exist in the time of Uthman as Ibn Saba’ had alleged. Therefore they refuse to accept the authenticity of Ibn Saba’s claim that Ali was the heir of prophet”. Caetani noted that a religious conspiracy may have been created around the person of Ibn Sabaʾ even though he may have been just a political supporter of Ali.

However, W. F. Tucker notes that the suggestion that Sayf is not reliable is no longer sustainable. Tucker and Landau-Tasseron point out that although Sayf may have been an unscrupulous hadith collector, this should not detract from his general reliability as a transmitter of historical information (akhbārī). Tucker also states that even if Sayf’s accounts of Ibn Saba’ was a fabrication, he appears to be only the transmitter of the story and not the ultimate source. He adds that accusations of bias could equally be leveled at other akhbārīs contemporary to Sayf, including the Shi’a historian Abu Mikhnaf.

Linda D. Lau accepts Sayf’s accounts and the role of the Saba’iyya at the Battle of the Camel. She points out that traditionalists other than Sayf did not give an explanation to why the hostilities broke out after the near-settlement. Not only Sayf’s account is the sole exiting account with an explanation of what happened, it is also logically consistent.

According to Tabari, based on traditions collected by Sayf ibn Umar, Ibn Saba’ was a Yemenite Jew who embraced Islam. During the time of Ali ibn Abi Taleb, he introduced a number of concepts that later were ascribed to more extreme factions of Shia Islam, or ghulat. According to these traditions, the exaltation of Ali, his divine appointment by the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a successor, the concept of ghayba and return (rajʿa) were first formulated and expressed by Ibn Sabaʾ and his followers (the Sabaʾiyya). He and his followers are sometimes said to be the ones who enticed the Egyptians against Uthman on the ground of Ali’s special right of succession, and participated in further instigation at later conflicts. Historically, Sunni theologians have not only upheld Ibn Saba’s existence, but used evidence from the historical works of the Shi’a in order to support their claims.

In Shia’ views, the claim that Ibn Saba’ as a convert Jew and the founder of Shia Islam is considered propaganda. Although the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba’ is seriously under question, even if such a person existed, the stories propagated about this person are legendary, false, fabricated, and fictitious. In traditional Shi’a sources, he is sometimes viewed as an extremist Shia (ghulat), himself cursed by Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Nevertheless, Ibn Sabaʾ became the subject of a tradition used by different Shia factions to both attack and defend extreme Shia groups. According to this tradition, and depending on the different interpretations, Ali either burned or exiled him and his followers for declaring Ali as God.

It is true that in Shia’ traditions Ali ordered Abdullah Ibn Saba’ and his followers burned because they assumed Ali God. But Shī‘a views believe that fabricated stories around the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba’ are the malicious production of Sayf ibn Umar. He was a story teller who shaped his fictional stories based on primary facts he found in the documented history of Islam available at that time.[20]

In traditional Shi’a sources, Ibn Saba’ sometimes figured as an extremist (ghali)). It is said that Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Shia’ Imam and the founder of Shi’a Islamic fiqh, cursed him. Shī‘a scholars such as Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti, Abu Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi, Al-Hasan bin Ali al-Hilly, al-Astra Abadi, Al-Sadooq, and Al-Nawbakhty gave the stories and narrations of Ibn Saba.

The Shia believe that the fabricated stories around the character of Abdullah ibn Saba’ are the malicious production of Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi.

Multiple Sunni scholars state that Sayf ibn Umar, who wrote extensively about ibn Saba, was unreliable on matters of Prophetic Hadith. For example, al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) has quoted from the book of Sayf in his History. In “al-Mughni fi al-Dhu’afa’” al-Dhahabi wrote:”Sayf has two books which have been unanimously abandoned by the scholars.” However, some modern historians have pointed out that this view of Sayf should be limited to his Hadith scholarship, and thus it does not detract from his general reliablitiy as a transmitter of historical information.

Tabari narration on Ibn Saba’ goes back to Sayf ibn Umar. There are two other historians mentioned Ibn Saba’ accounts which is said to have independente sources. However, it can be shown that their chains of isnad go back to Sayf Ibn Umar.

The Shī‘a believe that both works are fabricated and a number of prominent Sunni scholars concur, including al-Hakim, Abu Dawud, al-Suyuti and al-Nisa’i. The Shī‘a point out that although al-Dhahabi mentions Sayf ibn Umar as a weak narrator, stating “Sayf has two books which have been unanimously abandoned by the scholars”, he also accepts the story of Abdullah ibn Saba’ relayed from Sayf ibn Umar in his book. However, these are not the only scholars of Baghdad citing that Sayf’s sources are not reliable.

Some early Jewish literature also exists on Ibn Saba. He was largely regarded as an apostate from Judaism.