Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Shi'ite
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Shia has notting to do with Abdullahi bn Saba. Why can you not go to the begining of Islam and see where Shia come from?


  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Shafi'i
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Thank you khanbaba. May allah bless you.


  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    thankx very much zinc. may God bless u.


  4. #24
    Moderator Saad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    5,785

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Assalam o alaykum,

    Famous Shia mujtahid and favorite of Khomeni, Allamah Majlisi writes,

    وذكر (2) بعض أهل العلم أن عبد الله بن سبا كان يهوديا فأسلم ووالى عليا عليه السلام وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون وصي موسى بالغلو فقال في إسلامه بعد وفاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في علي عليه السلام مثل ذلك. وكان أول (3) من أشهر بالقول بفرض إمامة علي عليه السلام وأظهر البراءة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وأكفرهم (4)، فمن ههنا قال من خالف الشيعة: أصل التشيع والرفض مأخوذ من اليهودية.

    Some scholars have asserted that Ibn Saba was a Jew who accepted Islam and started voicing his opinion of the wilayah divine appointment of Sayyiduna 'Ali. While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerated notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Sayyiduna Musa, he thus adopted a similar stance with regard to Sayyiduna 'Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet. He was the first to subscribe to the belief of Imamah, and he openly abused his enemies [the first three Caliphs, etc.] and branded them as infidels. Thus our opponents say 'the origin of Shi'ahs and Rawafid is based on Judaism."

    (Bihar al-Anwar, 25:287)
    Haq Char Yaar

    Barelwiyyat

    Ahlel Bayt

    Free Books



    Chand say Tashbih daina, yeh bhi koi Insaf hai
    Us kay Munh pay Chayan, Madani ka Chahra Saf hai


  5. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Don't know
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saad View Post
    Assalam o alaykum,

    Famous Shia mujtahid and favorite of Khomeni, Allamah Majlisi writes,
    Hahaha.

    You like to beleive a lot of **** dont you.

    Seriously, people make up so much things about the shia its unbeleivable. But the shai dont seem to do the same about other sects. Why is this?

    I find it really odd. Why the need to attack the shia in the way of lies? They dont attack and make up false things about other sects.

    Its a shame that so many people have black hearts.


  6. #26
    Senior Member Talhah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    718

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saad View Post
    Assalam o alaykum,

    Famous Shia mujtahid and favorite of Khomeni, Allamah Majlisi writes,
    salaam

    masha-allah nice quotes! jazakallah hazrat!

    wassalaam


  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    192

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    Quote Originally Posted by brunlea View Post
    Hahaha.

    You like to beleive a lot of **** dont you.

    Seriously, people make up so much things about the shia its unbeleivable. But the shai dont seem to do the same about other sects. Why is this?

    I find it really odd. Why the need to attack the shia in the way of lies? They dont attack and make up false things about other sects.

    Its a shame that so many people have black hearts.
    I think shias already have done too much comic of the religion of Prophet Muhammad pbuh...You are saying they dont attack and make up false things about other sects,,,,this thing is really funny...Brother Saad gave good information about Abdullah ibn Saba from both shia and sunni references..very nice


  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    994

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?


    Quote Originally Posted by alaramma2004 View Post
    Shia has notting to do with Abdullahi bn Saba. Why can you not go to the begining of Islam and see where Shia come from?
    hahahahahaha!!! what world are u livin in man!!!!


  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: Who was Abdullah ibn Saba?

    begining... what begining... shiaism came AFTER the prophet AS went from the world.


  10. #30
    Senior Member kamals's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Maliki
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Anything that I say in here that is worthy of critique I welcome it, it is possible I am misunderstanding many things.

    You asked about Abdullah ibn Saba.

    I do not know if anyone mentioned this yet, but you may find yourself wanting to read al-'Awasim min al-Qawasim, by the great Maliki faqih and near-mujtahid Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi, translated into English as Defense Against Disaster by Madinah Press - a house I believe to be associated with the Murabitun, and who have out out some other rather useful books.

    They have made this book available for free in pdf form, it is easily found, but those unable to find it are welcome to message me for a copy, I also advise simply buying the hardbound copy because frankly, e-books have a permanence kinda resembling the little tracks moths leave, when they graze along a snowbank.

    It is a comprehensive history of the civil wars and political instability in the fitan al-kubra, that which engulfed the early Sahaba and two generations after them. It absolves the Sahabah from blame and shows how they were simply manipulated by well funded and organized clandestine figures from among the second generation, chief amongst these is the Abdullah Ibn Saba of which we discuss.

    The book has more than the ring of truth to it, it has been accepted by many a Sunni scholars, and I consider it necessary reading for a modern Muslim student.

    Because, and this is a critical point to understand, and I implore you to consider it well. The very mechanisms and machinations outlined in this book can be seen throughout the history of the Ummah up until the present day.

    So, you wanna know how easy it is to organize political conspiracies so byzantine in their complexity as to befuddle the best generation of this Ummah?

    Then read this book.

    The same dajjalic (and I use this word deliberately) patterns can be found in multiple incidents throughout history beyond this book. Recognizing the general outlines of how an entire generation of the best of the Ummah, the most spiritually enlightened, and understanding, of people who saw the blessed Prophet in the flesh and learned directly from him.

    This book show how this group were confused by the most murky of dark organizations is important. Frankly similar things have happened throughout history amongst the nations of the kufar as well as in Prophetic communities but none so clearly historically documented, before the present day, as this one. It frankly reads much like the 19th century “Proofs of a Conspiracy” dealing with the clandestine forces behind the french revolution – except Qadi Ibn Arabi documents things in a far more rigorous way.

    One yearns for a similar treatment of the fitnahs of this Ummah in the late 19th and early 20th century, for no one has treated this topic with the rigor it deserves.

    Read it, and weep. It moved my heart. Maybe it will move yours too.

    Look, those shia brothers you speak of bark up a dangerous tree. A rather large percentage of their historiography is demonstrably weak, their scholars often quote from narrators of the most dubious reputation, knowingly. So, they should look into their own affairs first.

    History works differently from Hadith. In matters of Tarikh – general matters of history and historiography – our scholars deal with narrations having a lower probability of veracity than sacred scripture. And yet, realize that demonstrative rules still apply, and have been applied by the scholars pursuing sciences of history.

    These rules concern the weighing of witness accounts, chains of their narration and transmission of specific narrations and texts, gauging the probability of fraud and memory failure, the likelihood of the occurrence of an incident as judged on the broader context as already known, and so on, and so forth.

    The fact that a narration is quoted does not mean we believe it uncritically, it is a probability. Some people have a problem with probabilities and like things to be black and white, well it doesn't work that way. A good deal of history is redacted, corrupted in a dajjalic fashion, consists of truths partially quoted by sincere honest error or malice of intent as to give a misleading impression, and more.

    We weigh probabilities.

    It is highly probable that Abdullah Ibn Saba existed. The shia debating this are really making themselves look silly.

    This is sad, they should just acknowledge the probable fact that he lived, and that he played a pivotal and organizing role in this fitnah, and later attached himself as a subversive element to the wings of the partisans of Amir al-Mumineen and Bab ul-Ilm Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

    In so doing Abdullah ibn Saba corrupted the hearts of many, and formed the seed of corruption that would reemerge through the history of the Shiatul Ali in the form of Ghulat extremism.

    The fitnah is not understandable without looking at his role, he fits like a perfect key into the events. There are things about the matter that can only make sense if Abdullah ibn Saba is looked at as an element.

    History writers obeyed specific rules. Many writers in the genre of history were not sloppy, they knew well what they were doing, to a far greater degree than their critics today. And Qadi Abu Bakr was a faqih, a Qadi, one who knew these usuls and furu' and rules of transmission of knowledge and how to weigh such knowledge inside and out, the man's greatness as a scholar is without question and he was all but a mutahid.

    The mere fact that historical writings included weak narrations is not a criticism. Many critics frankly ignore the fact that weak narrations have an important role to play, they may be cited for the sake of clarity, to reinforce stronger arguments, to show the mere possibility of something having occurred, and so on.

    Weak, or da'if, does not mean inauthentic or false. A false narration is forged and thus mawdu' – a weak narration has some probability of truthfulness especially in conjunction with stronger supporting narrations.

    The over all allowable margins of error in historical writings and research are broader than those in matters pertaining to aqida and fiqh because these later two affect the future disposition of our souls in a post-mortem state and also affect the substantive integrity of our faith and practice.

    My understanding is this;

    -There is a considerable body of interrelated narrations that collectively point to the existence of the individual known as Abdullah ibn Saba.

    - These narrations outline a most pernicious conspiracy surrounding him and certain confederates, who collectively instigated events leading to the attempted assassination of Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr, thereby eventually leading to the blockade of the House of Amir al-Mumineen Uthman ibn Affan(ra), and from there leading to the most horrific and vile of acts, his assassination at the hands of confused discontents, of whom Ibn Abu Bakr (ra) was initially one before his honor and blood was saved by a timely admonition by Uthman(ra) prior to his tragic murder.

    - Thus many misunderstandings emerged between mutually sincere parties regarding how best to prosecute perpetrators of this horrific crime, which led to the splintering of parties which led to the Battle of the Camel, and the communal bloodshed that dominated the rest of that blessed generation.

    -Abdullah ibn Saba had a clear hand in all of these events as a subversive and covert influence, often working through hired agents, fomenting discontent in others and thus gaining their allegiance as sincere agents.

    -These narrations are treated in a comprehensive way in Qadi Abu Bakar Ibn al-Arabi's work, Defense Against Disaster, and his synthesis of events is highly likely.
    Even if some specific details can be questioned, the overall design he outlines is dire.

    -Abdullah Ibn Saba, to my mind, was most probably a historical figure, there will always be some element of uncertainty regarding him. But it is a mistake to discount his existence or role completely.

    Questions about the adab expected on this forum due to past rebukes from administrators over slips of my tongue that I though insignificant keeps me from stating some matters in stronger terms.

    I will say this - the shia who complain about Sunni historiography on this issue are mostly being partisan, doctrinaire, and following the leads of others instead of looking at the evidence for their own eyes and justly weighing the facts, and with all due respect to them as my sisters and brothers in Islam, mostly just being silly.

    As you read the book, Defense Against Disaster, you will find yourself wondering how some of these issues could have been hidden from our view for so long. How so many well meaning teachers in this Ummah could have suppressed such knowledge or been unaware of it. You may find yourself amazed and astonished and wanting to find out more. This is a good state.

    Also we need to be precise, if you condemn and curse the shia in general then you condemn and curse the rightous among the early shiatul Ali who simply followed the Ahl ul-Bayt as a political affiliation and held the aqida of the Ahl ul-Sunnah.

    Up until Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (ra) there was a clear substantive wing of thee Shia movement who were guided correctly - it is only after his death that the ghulat tendencies among them increased.

    Brother running around irresponsibly condemning the Shia as a group miss this fact and thus fall into the possibility of condemning men far better than they are.

    We should think well about our words.
    "The inability to perceive is perception" - Ibn Khaldun quoting one of the Siddiqeen

    "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky


Similar Threads

  1. Abdullah ibn Mubaraks letter to Fudayl ibn Iyadd
    By -Hussain- in forum Inspirational Stories and History
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 08:25 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-01-2011, 11:19 PM
  3. Abdullah ibn Zubayr
    By Quraatulain in forum Islamic Media Reviews
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-10-2008, 04:52 PM
  4. Funeral of Abdullah Ibn Ubaayy
    By mosa707 in forum General Islam
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 09:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •