Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Abdullah Ibn Saba Part 5

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

The Opinion Of The Historians

I have already provided the opinion of 15 famous Sunni scholars about the weakness of the reports of Sayf Ibn Umar in of this article.

Beside them, many Sunni historians have also denied the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba and and/or the forged stories attributed to him. Among them are Dr. Taha Husayn, who has analyzed these stories and rejected them.

He wrote in "al-Fitnah al-Kubra”that:

In my opinion, those who have tried to emphasize on the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba, have committed a crime in the history and hurt themselves too. The first thing that is observed is that in the important collections the name of Ibn Saba does not appear when they discuss the agitation against Uthman.

Ibn Sa’d does not mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba when he discusses the Caliphate of Uthman and the revolt against him. Also the book by al-Baladhuri, "Ansab al-Ashraf", which I think the most important and the most detailed book about the revolt against Uthman, the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba has never been mentioned. It appears that al-Tabari was the first who reported the story of Ibn Saba from Sayf, and then other historians quoted al-Tabari in this regard.

In his other book "‘Ali wa Banuh", he also mentioned:

The story of Ibn Saba is nothing but myth, and is the invention of some historians, since it contradicts other historical documents.

The fact is that the friction between Shi’a and Sunni have had many shapes, and each group was advocating itself and denouncing the other by any means possible. This requires a historian to be much more cautious when analyzing the controversial reports related to seditions and revolts.

In , we briefly mentioned the masterpiece of Allamah al-Askari which was released in 1955 AD. Before that time, no analytical research had been done on the character of Abdullah Ibn Saba to investigate if he really existed in physical world and/or if the stories around this man had any single truth in it.

Although Sayf’s heresy was well-known for a number of centuries, no research had been done about the origin of the tale of Abdullah Ibn Saba. In his research, al-Askari proved that Sayf’s narration attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba and many other things are sheer lie since they contradict all other Sunni documents in content, timing of the events, names of cities and companions, imaginary chain of narrators, and miraculous records by Sayf (like talking cows with humans and so on). If there was any Abdullah Ibn Saba at that time, his story was much different than what Sayf manipulated.

Here is the response of a Sunni learned man, Dr. Hamid Dawud, the professor of Cairo University, after reading al-Askari’s book (I just give only a part of his letter):

The 1300th birthday of Islam has been celebrated. During this time, some of our learned writers have accused Shi’a of having un-Islamic views. Those writers influenced public opinion against Shi’a and created big gaps between Muslims. In spite of wisdom and learning, the enemies of Shi’a followed their own chosen beliefs and partiality, covering the truth, and accusing the Shi’a of being superstitious etc.

Hence Islamic science suffered much, as Shi’a views were suppressed.

As a result of these accusations, the loss to Islamic science was greater than the loss suffered by Shi’a themselves, because the source of this jurisprudence, though rich and fruitful, was neglected, resulting in limited knowledge. Also, in the past, our learned men were prejudiced, otherwise we would have benefited from many Shi’a views. Anyone who wishes to do research in Islamic Jurisprudence must consider Shi’a sources as well as those of Sunni.

Was not the Shi’a leader, Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH), the teacher of two Sunni Imams? i.e., Abu Hanifa al-Nu’man (d. 150 AH), and Malik Ibn Anas (d. 179 AH). Imam Abu Hanifa said: "Except for the two years Nu’man would have starved,”referring to the two years he had benefited from the knowledge of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq. Imam Malik also confessed straightforwardly that he had not met anyone learned in Islamic Jurisprudence better than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq.

Yet, some of our so-called learned men, unfortunately disregard the rules for research to suit their own ends. Hence knowledge is not fully disclosed to them and thus they create a wider gap between

Muslims.

Ahmed Amin is one of those deprived of the light of knowledge, remaining in darkness. History has recorded this stain on the robe of Ahmed Amin and his friends, who blindly followed one special Madhab. Of many mistakes made by him, the biggest is told in the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba. This is one of the tales told in order to accuse Shi’a of heresy and foregoing events.

The great contemporary researcher, al-Askari, in his book, has proved with substantial evidence, that Abdullah Ibn Saba was fictitious, and it is therefore a greater lie to say that he was the founder of Shi’ism.

God has decreed that some learned men disclose the truth regardless of blame they may get. The pioneer in this subject is this man who has made the Sunni learned men of research revise the history book of Tabari (History of Nations and Kings), and to sift out the authentic stories from the false. The stories which have been preserved as God’s revelations.

The honorable writer, with much evidence, has stripped the veil or ambiguity from those historical events, and disclosed the truth, to some extent that some facts seem frightful. But we have to obey the truth no matter how difficult they appear. The truth is the best to be followed.

Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawud

Oct. 12, 1961

Cairo, Egypt.

We just heard from a Sunni Muslim. Now let us see what a third party has to say about Sayf and his character, Abdullah Ibn Saba. The following is the comment of Dr. R. Stephen Humpherys, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who has translated the Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari into English. This comment is written in the foreword of Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari. (again, I just give some parts of it. Please refer to Vol. 15 for details):

For events in Iraq and Arabia (the real key to the crises of Uthman’s caliphate) Tabari relies chiefly on Muhammad Ibn Umar al- Waqidi (d. 823) and the mysterious Sayf ibn Umar. Both of these authorities raise real problems It is Sayf Ibn Umar who is most troubling, however.

Tabari shows a unique fondness for him, in two senses. First, Sayf is the source most heavily used by Tabari for the whole period from the Riddah wars to the battle of Siffin (11-37 AH). Second, no one beside Tabari appears to use Sayf at all. There is no obvious way to explain Tabari’s preference.

It is certainly not explained by the formal characteristics of Sayf’s narratives, for he relies on informants who are usually obscure and often very recent. likewise, he makes heavy use of the collective report, which blends together in unspecified ways the accounts of several transmitters.

I would suggest that Sayf appealed to Tabari for two reasons. First, Sayf presents a "Sunday school”interpretation of Uthman’s caliphate.

In his presentation, one sees a profound unity and harmony within the core community of Muslims, a unity and harmony founded on strict fidelity to the legacy of Muhammad. It is unthinkable that men such as those portrayed by Sayf could have been moved by worldly ambition and greed.

On the contrary, in Sayf’s presentation most conflicts are illusory, a reflection of malicious misinterpretations by later commentators. Where real conflicts did arise among sincere Muslims,

they were instigated by outsiders like the notorious Abdullah Ibn Saba, a converted Jew from Yemen.

On this level, at least, Sayf’s version of events is obviously a very naive one, and no doubt Tabari perceived that as clearly as we do.

Even so, it served a very useful function for Tabari: By making Sayf’s reports the visible frame work of his narrative, he could slip in the much less flattering interpretations of early Islamic history presented by his other sources. Ordinary readers would dismiss this dissident testimony as irrelevant, and only few critical readers would catch his hint and pursue the issues raised by such secondary accounts.

In this way, Tabari could say what needed to be said while avoiding accusations of sectarianism. Accusations of this kind were of course no small matter in view of the enormous social and religious tensions in Baghdad during the late 9th and early 10th centuries.

Reference: History of al-Tabari, v15, pp xv-xvii

Also in the foreword of Volume 11 of the English version of the History of al-Tabari, the translator writes:

Although Tabari scrupulously cited his sources and can be shown to have often quoted from them almost verbatim, these source themselves can be traced with certainty only to an earlier stage in the collection of Islamic history, represented by the writers Ibn Is’haq (d. 151/767), Ibn al-Kalbi (d. 204/819), al-Waqidi (d. 207/822), and Sayf Ibn Umar (d. ~170/786).

From the first three, all of whom are cited in this volume, there are works extant that enable us to assess their tendencies to some extent, as well as to verify their use of their own sources. For an assessment of the value of their transmission, the reader is referred to the relevant articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam and other secondary literature.

It is the fourth writer extensively quoted by al-Tabari, Sayf ibn Umar, with whom we are mainly concerned here. As his work survives principally in the transmission of al-Tabari and those who took from him and is found nowhere in independent form, he has unfortunately been rather ignored in modern criticism. Yet it is Sayf’s lengthy reports that fill most of the pages of this and several other volumes.

The historical evaluation of this volume therefore depends to a large extent on our assessment of the nature of Sayf’s reports and al- Tabari’s use of them, and it is to these problems that we must turn

our attention.

Abu Abdillah Sayf Ibn Umar al-Usayyidi al-Tamimi was a Kufan traditionist who died in the reign of Harun al-Rashid (170-93/786- 809). Other than the possibility that he was accused of MANICHAEISM (Zandaqah) in the inquisition (Mihnah) that began under al-Mahdi in 166/783 and continued into the time of al-Rashid, nothing is known of his life, except what can be determined from his tradition. (On Mihnah itself, see History of al-Tabari, v3, pp 517, 522, 548-551, 604, 645; and the book called "Zindiqs”by Vajda, pp 173-229. On accusations against Sayf, see Majruheen, by Ibn Hibban, v1, pp 345-346; Mizan, by al-Dhahabi, v2, pp 255-256; Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar, v4, p296).

As he is alleged to have transmitted from at least nine traditionists who died in 140-146/757-763, and even from two who died in 126-128/744- 746, he may have been elderly when he died. This is also suggested by the possibility that Abu Mikhnaf, who died considerably earlier than Sayf in 157/774, may have quoted from him. Sayf’s work was originally recorded in two books which are now lost but survived for a number of centuries after Sayf’s own lifetime.

They made an enormous impact on the Islamic historical tradition, especially because al-Tabari chose to rely mainly on them for the events of 11-36/632-656, a period that spanned the reigns of the first three caliphs and included all the early conquests of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Iran.

Although al-Tabari also quoted other sources in this volume, as we have indicated, the overwhelming bulk of his material for this period is from Sayf. In deed, it is also probable, though not certain, that he has reproduced the vast majority of Sayf’s work. Sayf is only rarely cited by other writers independently of al-Tabari

Generally, Sayf’s description of the conquests transmitted in this and other volumes of al-Tabari emphasizes the heroism of the Muslim warriors, the hardships they endured, and the toughness of their opponents, features that seem plausible enough and are also found in other conquest narratives beside those of Sayf.

However, Sayf’s narratives differ in the extent to which he introduces traditions not found elsewhere, often reporting them from transmitters not otherwise known. These UNIQUE narratives frequently contain fantastic or legendary motifs to an extent far greater than is found in the versions of other historians. Although the fantastic and tendentious nature of Sayf’s reports has often been noted, for example, by Julius Wellhausen (see skizzen, pp 3-7), the exact value of his corpus as a primary source has never been assessed in detail.

...Although he hailed from Kufa, the crucible of early Shi’ism, Sayf belonged to a completely anti-Shi’i undercurrent, representing the Kufan faction that had earlier opposed the rebellions of al-Husayn Ibn ‘Ali and Zayd Ibn ‘Ali. (This is also indicated by his quotation from sources who were involved in the killing of al-Husayn. See for instance v11, pp 204, 206, 216, 222)...

The egregious tendentiousness of Sayf’s corpus comes out most plainly in other volumes of al-Tabari, in such episodes as Saqifah Bani Sa’idah (Tabari, v1, pp 1844-50), the burial of Uthman (3049-50), and the tale of ABDULLAH IBN SABA (2858-59,2922,2928,2942-44,2954,3027, 3163-65,3180). In each of these instances, other versions that do not confirm Sayf’s own are available for comparison and reveal the impudence of his daring constructions.

... Beside exaggerating the roles of certain Companions in the early conquests, Sayf also embellished his work with the exploits of other, IMAGINARY COMPANIONS and with heroes whom he invented, especially to represent his own tribal group. The most outstanding of these fabrications is al-Qa’qa Ibn Amr, a hero and alleged Companion of the Prophet, who is, not surprisingly, said to be a member of Sayf’s own subtribe, the Usayyidi (in this volume, pp 8,24,36,40,42-43,45,48,60- 63,65,90,95,166,168).

His being an Usayyidi suggests that his fabrication is owing to Sayf himself and not to any of Sayf’s alleged sources, as none of the latter is identified as an Usayyidi. In addition, many other persons supposedly belonging to the Tamim tribal group appear to be fabrication, some of them having stereotypical names that suggest almost playful invention, like "Wrap, the son of Skirt", "Spring Herbage, the son of Rain, the son of Snow", and "Sea, the son of Euphrates". The reader will find dozens of persons who are named only in Sayf’s traditions recorded in this volume.

Beside having fabricated many of the personages who appear in his transmissions, it also appear that Sayf fabricated the names of many, perhaps most, of his alleged authorities.

Frequently it seems that these invented "authorities”served as intermediate links between Sayf and earlier genuine traditionists whose authority Sayf wished to use to bolster his own inventions.

This assessment of Sayf in no way undermines the authority of other early Muslim writers whose works may have an entirely different character, just as the Late Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus is in no way affected by the fraud of the Historia Augusta.

On the contrary, it is greatly to the credit of the medieval Sunni Muslims who assessed the quality of traditions in the Rijal books that they unanimously rejected Sayf’s authority in the most absolute way possible. They did so despite the fact that his traditions could have been used to back their emerging Sunni consensus on early Islamic history.

This suggests that their condemnation of Sayf’s traditions was motivated by a concern for the truth, rather than by a wish to gain advantage in the partisan arena of the time. They realized that his transmissions were exaggerated and fraudulent, and they said so.

In fact, the condemnation of Sayf by the medieval Muslim Ulama ought to serve as a reminder to modern scholars that ancient and medieval texts were not always dictated by the prevailing political or religious climate and that the search for truth had its place in earlier times as well as in

our own.

In describing the conquests generally al-Tabari scarcely deviated from Sayf’s reports. This brings us to the second attraction that Sayf may have had for al-Tabari: DETAIL. Sayf’s transmissions are almost always far more verbose than parallel reports of more sober traditionists.

This characteristic probably not only made them preferable to al- Tabari but may have seemed a guarantee of their accuracy. Living in medieval times, al-Tabari did not, in the majority of instances, have available to him the modern tools that would have enabled him to discover Sayf’s tendentiousness. And, after all, Sayf’s reports have continued to receive the approbation of a minority of scholars even up to the present.

Reference: History of al-Tabari, v11, pp xv-xxix

Also Professor James Robinson, (D.Litt., D.D.Glasgow, U.K.) wrote:

I would like to make a remark about Tabari who had no hesitation in quoting from Sayf. His history is not a historical work in the manner of modern writing, for his main purpose seems to have been to record all the information in his possession without necessarily expressing an opinion on its value. One is, therefore, prepared to find that some of his material is less reliable than others. So, perhaps we can excuse him for using a method not approved nowadays. He has at least provided a mass of information. It remains for acute scholars to distinguish between the genuine and the false.

It is shown that Sayf often quotes men who are unknown. This raises the question why none of them should have been quoted by other transmitters, and leads one further to suggest that Sayf has invented them. This serious accusation is a reasonable assumption by comparing Sayf with others.

It is pointed out that Sayf has stories miraculous of happenings which are difficult to believe, such as desert sands becoming water for Muslim armies, seas becoming sand, cattle speaking and informing the Muslim army where they were hidden, etc. In Sayf’s time it was possible for him to succeed in passing off such stories as history, but nowadays the critical student naturally finds such stories quite impossible. Effective arguments are also used to show how Sayf’s information about Ibn Saba and the Saba’iyya is quite unreliable.

Sayf who lived in the first quarter of the second century belonged to Tamim, one of the Mudar tribes who live in Kufa. This helps one to study his tendencies and the influences leading to this legends. There is discussion of Zindeeq and of Manichaeism. Party spirit is said to have continued from the Prophet’s time, till that of the Abbasids.

Sayf upholds the northern tribes, inventing heroes, poets praising the tribe’s heroes, companions of the Prophet from Tamim, wars and battles which had no reality, millions killed and large numbers of prisoners with the purpose glorifying the heroes he invented, Poems attributed to imaginary heroes were in praise of Mudar, then Tamim, then Ibn Amr, the subtribe to which Sayf traced his origin. Sayf mentioned men of Mudar as leaders of battles which were led by men of other tribes, his fictitious leaders sometimes being real people, sometimes names produced by his imagination. It is argued that the falseness of his information was partly to upset the faith of many and partly to give non-Muslims a wrong conception. He was so skillful in his forgeries that they were accepted as genuine history.

There is a big difference between a Hadith work, such as Sahih al-Bukhari, and a history work such as the History al-Tabari. al-Bukhari was selective toward the traditions and might have recorded 1/10 of traditions that was conveyed to him, since he dropped all traditions which might have been weak in his point of view. However al-Tabari, though he was selective in his other works, but for his History he recorded 9/10 of what he had heard, and this is due to the nature of historical documentations which are not necessarily as accurate as the Hadith collections.

As a result, al-Bukhari did not transmit even one single tradition about Abdullah Ibn Saba in his nine-volume Sahih. But historians who favored heavy documentations more than the authenticity of narrators, recorded heavily about Abdullah Ibn Saba through Sayf.

The Shi’a historians are not exempt from the above reasoning. They have also recorded most of the things they have got. This includes those reports that they were not sure about. The final research by Shi’a related to Abdullah Ibn Saba was released only in 1955 AD, and it was not so clear before that time that the stories related to Abdullah Ibn Saba have been the total manipulation of Sayf with political motives.

The two Shi’a historian who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, lived 10 centuries before the publication extensive research about Abdullah Ibn Saba. A person is called expert in the history of Islam, if s/he has read all the early history books. As a matter of fact, many early history books were written by theSunni authors under the direct fund of Umayad and later Abbasid rulers.

A Shi’a historian does not ban Sunni sources, and consequently his work is affected, one way or another, by previous works. This is clear when one observes that the two Shi’a historians who mentioned the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba, did not give any chain of transmitters for their report meaning that they got it from rumor the mouth people which the result of Sayf’s mass propaganda.

As for those few traditions which have the chain of narrators (independent of Sayf), they provide a much different story which do not support any of the allegations of Sayf. These traditions picture an accursed man whom Ahlul-Bayt have declared their innocence from what he attributed to Imam ‘Ali (declaring ‘Ali as God). The Shi’a, their Imams and their scholars declare the curse of Allah to that man (if ever existed) he was lost, misguided and cursed. There is nothing in common between us and his name except our curse on him and all other extremists who believed in deity of Ahlul-Bayt.

The followers of Ahlul Bayt never claimed that ‘Ali is God, nor did they claim the rest of 12 Imams are God. This, in fact, shows that those who gave life to the stories attributed to Abdullah Ibn Saba had hatred toward Shi’a, and tried to misrepresent the Followers of the Members of the House of Prophet. If Shi’a were the followers of that mysterious Jew, they should have believed in deity of ‘Ali and should also respect their mentor Abdullah Ibn Saba, instead of cursing him!

If Abdullah Ibn Saba is such an influential and important figure for the Shi’a, how come they never quote him like they do with the Imams of Ahlul Bayt? Surely, if Abdullah Ibn Saba was their Master Teacher, they must quote him and be proud to do so?

A religious student always quotes his teacher, why then would the Shi’a be any different? Why should they curse him instead? If one answers that the reason that the Shi’a do not quote from him is that he was a Jew who converted to Islam, then I would ask him what was the religion of the companions before converting to Islam? Was not Abu Huraira a Jew who killed a Muslim before converting to Islam? Was not that he converted to Islam just 2 years before the death Prophet? Then why do the bulk of traditions in the Sunni collections come from him? While the traditions reported by Imam ‘Ali (who was the first male who embraced Islam) in the Sunni collections is less than 1% of what is reported by Abu Huraira? This is a sign for those who reflect.

Moreover, It is a custom of Shi’a that they celebrate the birthday of Prophet and 12 Imams and Lady Fatimah, peace be upon them all. They also mourn in the memory of their martyrdom. Why then they do not hold the same practice for Abdullah Ibn Saba if he was their master?

Besides, are the Shi’a so stupid and ignorant that after 1400 years, they have never figured out that their belief and faith are based on fabricated traditions and tales going back to Abdullah Ibn Saba? I doubt, then, how the Shi’a, if they were indeed so stupid as to believe a so-called hypocrite Jew in their theology, philosophy, jurisprudence, history, and interpretations of the Qur’an, have survived to this day?

Surely if the knowledge of the Shi’a was based on such a shaky foundation as Abdullah Ibn Saba, they would have perished a long time ago. It is more interesting when we see the Imams of the majority of the Sunnis were the students of the Imams of Shi’a (Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja’far Sadiq, peace be upon them). Then one would say the Sunni schools got the basics of their Fiqh from Shi’a, which means the Sunnis along with Shi’a were the followers of the very same person, the mysterious Abdullah Ibn Saba! Who is left then? Perhaps the followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab!

Moreover, if Abdullah Ibn Saba did in fact exist with such stories that Sayf attributed to him, then there is 150 years between his birth and the publication of the story of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi. During those 150 years, there lived an innumerous number of scholars, scribes, historians, and philosophers who contributed many books. Why didn’t any of them EVER mention the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba? Surely, if he was such an influential figure for the Shi’a, you can bet that the Sunnis would have known him before Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi! The fact that he was NEVER mentioned in ANY book before the book of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi is enough to cast doubt on the entire story attributed to him and even his existence.

Can you believe that in the 150 years or so between the so-called birth of Abdullah Ibn Saba and the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi, no book ever mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba? Yet some people still claim he with such stories existed!

More strange thing is that even in the next 160 years after the publication of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Tamimi not too many people knew the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba. It wasn’t wide-spread until the story of Ibn Saba extensively showed up in the History of al-Tabari (160 years after Sayf’s publication), and it was at that time when some mercenaries started giving it weight as a means of defense against Shi’a.

Now, what do these mercenaries have to offer? Nothing!!! They still cling to their own-made version of history, thereby contradicting themselves and the above proofs as well as the documented Sunni history, simply to defend their ignorant statements about the Shi’a.

Wassalam.

The Companions and the Jewish Influence Part 1

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Introduction

Putting the fictitious Abdullah Ibn Saba aside, there have been some non-fictitious Jews who influenced the companions in a great deal. The attitude of Imam ‘Ali (as) towards new converts from the people of the Scriptures was very alert, as he (as) preserved the purity of the Islamic Teachings. They didn’t listen to allegations from those who adopted Islam and claimed to have knowledge in religion through the Old Testament and wanted to pass it on to Islam.

This sober attitude was taken by Imam ‘Ali (as), while the prominent companions (in the eyes of the the Sunnis), were decieved by these scriptural scholars. I shall mention some of them in my discussion.

Kaab Al-Ahbar

A man named from Yemen named Kaab Ibn Mati al-Humyari also nicknamed as Abu Ishaq, from the Clan of Thee Ra-een (or the Clan of Thee al-Kila a) came to Medina during the time of Umar. He was a prominent Rabbi and came to be known as Kaab al-Ahbar. He declared his Islam and resided in Medina until the days of Usman. In this first part (Part I) I shall examine some of the claims that he made, his deceiving Caliph Umar, his participation in the plot of Caliph’s assination and Imam ‘Ali’s (as) attitude towards him.

This new Muslim was not an imaginary person as the Jew Abdullah Ibn Saba, indeed Kaab was a real person, since he resided in Medina and was looked upon with hight prestige by the second and the third Caliphs. He narrated many stories claiming that they were from the Old testemant. Many famous companions such as

- Abu Huraira

- Abdullah Ibn Umar

- Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-Aas

- Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan

reported his stories. This international Rabbi had reported many strange tales, the contents of which testify for their own lack of authenticity.

One such tale is as follows:-

A companions named Qais Ibn Kharshah al-Qaisi reported that Kaab Al

- Ahbar said:

Every event that has taken place or will take place on any foot of the earth, is written in the Tourat (Old Testament), which Allah revelaed to his Prophet Moses (as).

Sunni Reference:

Ibn Abdul Barr - al-Istiab, v3, p1287

Printed in Cairo 1380 A.H

Such a report should arouse the attention of the readers, because it states that which is in-conceivable. The earth contains billions of square miles, each mile contains millions of cubic feet (for lack of proper arithmetic), and each part of the earth may become a place of thousands of events from the time of Prophet Moses (as) untill the Day of Judgement. Yet, Kaab claimed that all these events are recorded in the Old Testament.

The parts of the Old Testament which were dictated or written by Prophet Moses (as), don’t come to 400 pages. Recording all the events of the World bewteen the time of Moses (as) till the day of Judgement, may take millions of pages.

Furthermore, the pages of the Old Testament do not record future events. All they contains are some past events which took place during or before the time of the biblical Prophets. Considering these aspects, the claim that Kaab made belies itself.

Ka’b Al-Ahbar Counts The Days Of The Caliph Umar

This rabbi was able to deceive many companions through his trickery. Ka’b’s influence had grown during the days of Umar’s caliphate to such a degree that he was able to say to Umar:

Ka’b: Amir al-Mu’minin, you ought to write your will because you will die in three days.

Umar: How do you know that ?

Ka’b: I found it in the Book of God, the Taurat (Old Testament).

Umar: By God do you find Umar Ibn al-Khattab in the Old Testament ?

Ka’b: By God, no. But I found your description in the Old Testament and your time is coming to an end.

Umar: But I do not feel any pain or sickness

On the following day Ka’b came to Umar and said: Amir al-Mu’minin, one day has passed and you have only two more days.

The following day Ka’b came to him and said: Amir al-Mu’minin, two days have gone and you have only one day and one night remaining.

The following morning Abu Lulu appeared carrying a dagger with two heads and a handle in the middle. He hit Umar six times, one of them hit the Caliph in the navel, killing him.

Sunni reference:

Tabari - History of al-Tabari, v4, p191

Printed by Dar al-Maarif - Cairo

Looking at the Old Testament, one does not find any names or predictions of Umar. Also no Rabbi other than Ka’b claimed that the Old Testament predicted the existence of Umar, his murder, or defined the time of his death. Had information of this kind been contained in the Tourat, the Jews would have been proud of it and would have used it in an attempt to prove that the Jewish religion is the right religion.

If the above Sunni account were true, it would imply that Umar’s assassination was a conspiracy of Ka’b and his associates. Announcing the event before it took place would make the companions believe in what Ka’b predicted and what he claimed to be recorded in the Old Testament, therefore making him a reliable source for future information. Such confidence would enable him to interfere in major events and suggest the name of the future Caliph. A number of prominent companions believed the information that Ka’b used to fabricate pertaining to the past and the future.

On the other hand, if the above prediction of event, documented in the Sunni history, is false and a pure fabrication, then it shows how much Ka’b and his supporters among the Sunnis were able to fabricate historical documents to elevate Ka’b’s position, and to manipulate the history of Islam.

Kaab did not speak only about the events that happened on the earth, but he also gave information concerning the heavens and the Divine throne. Al Qurtubi in his Commentary on the Qur’anic Chapter of Ghafir reported that Kaab said:

When God created his throne, the throne said: ‘ God didn’t create any creature greater than me. ‘ The throne then shook itself to show it’s glory. God roped the throne with a snake which had 70 thousand wings; each wing had 70 thousand feathers; each feather had 70 thousand faces; each face had 70 thousand mouths, and each mouth had 70 thousand tounges.

Out of these mouths words glorifying Allah with a quantity equal to the number of drops of rain that have fallen, and the leaves on the trees, and the number of pieces of gravel and soil and the number of the days of the world, and the number of angels. The snake coiled around the throne, for the throne was much smaller than the snake. The throne was covered by only half the snake.

Imam ‘Ali’s (as) Attitude Towards Kaab

Umar and a number of prominent companions had a very positive attitude towards Kaab. However the most knowledgable and the most farsighted among them, namely, Imam ‘Ali (as) discredited Kaab. Kaab did not dare to come close to Imam ‘Ali (as), despite the fact that the Imam was in Medina for the duration of Kaab’s stay. It is reported that Imam ‘Ali (as) said about Kaab: Certainly he is a professional liar!

Ibn Abbas’s Attitude Towards Kaab

Tabari notes in his chronicles that Ibn Abbas (as) was told:

Kaab says that on the day of the judgement the sun and the moon will be brought forth like two (2) stupefide bulls and thrown to hell!

Upon hearing this Ibn Abbas (as) was enraged and retorted three (3) times:

Kaab is a liar!

Kaab is a liar!

Kaab is a liar!

This is a Jewish notion, and Kaab wants to introduce it into Islam. Allah is free from the things they attribute to Him. He never punishes those who obey. Have you not heard that Allah says in the Qur’an:

And He has made subject you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their course (Ibrahim 33)

Ibn Abbas further said:

The word ‘Daibain’ used in this Verse denotes constant obedience to Allah.

Then he continued:

How can He punish these two (2) heavenly bodies whom He Himself praises for obedience. God curse the Jewish Scholar and his learning! What a shameless audacity to attribute Lies to Allah, and to impute guilt to the two (2) obedient creatures!

Having said this, Ibn Abbas said this three (3) times:

To Allah we belong and unto Him shall we return!

To Allah we belong and unto Him shall we return!

To Allah we belong and unto Him shall we return!

Then Ibn Abbas went on to narrate what the Prophet (Peace and Salutations to his cleansed and Pure Progeny) had actually said about the sun and the moon:

Allah created two sources of light! That which He named the Sun was like the Earth, between the points of rising and setting. And that which He ordained to be lustreless at times, He called the moon and made it smaller than the Sun. And both of them appear to be small because of their height in the sky and their distance from the earth.

Sunni reference:

Tabari - History of al-Tabari, v1, p62 - 63

European Edition

This concludes my first part of the discussion, Insha Allah in the future portions I shall further pursue these topics:

- Kaab’s interference in the Caliphate

- Kaab’s during the reign of the Third Caliph

The Companions and the Jewish Influence Part 2

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Kaab Interfered In The Caliphate

Ka’b used all his shrewdness to make Umar keep Imam ‘Ali (as) away from the Caliphate. Kaab was motivated by his resentment towards Islam and his hatred of Imam ‘Ali (as). After all it was Imam ‘Ali (as) who had brought the Jewish Influence in Hijaz to an end in the battle of Khaibar.

It is amazing that the Caliph had so much confidence in Kaab, he even sought his advice about the future of the caliphate. Ibn Abbas reported that Umar said to Kaab, in the very presence of Ibn Abbas, the following

Umar asked: I would like to name my successor because my death is near. What do you say about ‘Ali ? Give me your opinion and inform me of what you find in “your books”, because you allege that we are mentioned in “them”?

Kaab answered: As to the wisdom of your opinion, it would be “unwise”to appoint ‘Ali as a successor because he is “very religious”. He notices every deviation and does not tolerate crookedness. He follows only his opinion in Islamic rules and this is not a good policy. As far as “our”scriptures, we find that neither he nor his children will come to power. And if he does, there will be confusion.

Umar asked: Why will he not to come to power ?

Kaab answered: Because he has shed blood and Allah has deprived him of authority.

When David wanted to erect Walls of the temple in Jerusalem, Allah said to him: ‘ You shall not build the Temple because you have shed blood. Only Solomon shall erect it. ‘

Umar asked: Did not ‘Ali shed blood rightly and for the truth ?

Kaab answered: Ameer al-Mumineen, David also shed blood for the truth

Umar asked: Who will come to power according to “your scripture”?

Kaab answered: We find that after the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Cleansed and Pure Progeny) and his two (2) companions (Abu Bakr and Umar) power will be transfered to his enemies (the Omayyads) whom he fought for religion.

When Umar heard this, he “sadly”said: ‘ We belong to God and to Him we shall return ‘. Then he said to Ibn Abbas: ‘ Ibn Abbas, did you hear what Kaab said ? By God, I heard the Messenger of God say something very similiar. I heard him (Peace be upon him and his Cleansed Progeny) say:

The Children of Omayyad shall ascend to my pulpit. I have seen them in my dreams jumping on my puplit like monkeys.

Then the Prophet said that the following verse was revealed about the Omayyads:

And We made that dream, which We have shown you, only as a test to the people and the cursed tree in the Qur’an

Sunni reference:

- Ibn Abi al-Hadid in his Sharh, v3, p81

Printed by Muhammad ‘Ali Subaih in Egypt

- Imam Fakhr ad Din al-Razi in his commentaries of the Holy Qur’an

Chapter 17, v5, pp 413 - 414

Second Printing by al-Matbaah al-Sarafeyah 1304 H

This dialogue should alert us to the deceptive and succesful attempt on the part of Kaab to influence future events by Satanic suggestions. It contains a great deal of decepetion which produced many harmful results to Islam and the Muslims. It is very easy to read the following into this dialogue: -

1. Kaab was very indictive towards Imam ‘Ali (as) because he was the one who had smashed the Jewish strong hold in the Arabic Peninsula. Kaab thought, and rightly so, he would remove all the Jewish influence from the Arab Society. Therefore, Kaab was very anxious to have the leadership in the hands of the Omayyad who were un-concerned with the future of Islam. They only concerned themselves with the materialistic aspect of the World. In addition they were as hostile to Imam ‘Ali (as) as Kaab. The Omayyads and Kaab considered ‘Ali their common enemy. He had destroyed their

leaders in the defense of Islam.

2. Kaab comments that Imam ‘Ali is highly religious and he does not close his eyes on any crokkedness; nor does he tolerate any deviation from the Islamic path, when further examined reflects that either Kaab forgot or he deliberately deleted from his story that the Messenger (Peace be Upon him and his followers) was the most religious and the most successful head of the state in the history of the World.

3. Kaab also found in “his “scriptures that neither Imam ‘Ali (as) nor his children would come to power because he has shed blood. In addition, Kaab said that it is written that David did not build the Temple of Jerusalem becuase he shed blood and that his son, Solomon was destined to build it so. Kaab did not mention and he made the Caliph forget that David, in spite of his shedding blood and being prevented from constructing the Temple came to power and became the Ruling King!

The Holy Qur’an declares that Allah said to David:

Oh David, We certainly have made you Caliph on earth. You should judge between people rightfully ...(Quran: Chapter 28 Verse 26)

Kaab also forgot that the great Prophet (saw) shed the blood of enemies for truth. Infact he led several battles and this did not prevent him from ruling and administering the affairs of the Muslims, nor did it prevent him from building an Islamic State!

4. Furthermore, Kaab by saying that shedding blood prevents coming to power, makes those who endeavour in the name of God less valuable than those who do not endeavour. This contradicts the Holy Qur’an which declares: -

Those believers who sit still, other than those who have a disabling hurt, are not equal to those who endeavour in the way of Allah with their wealth and “lives “. Allah has conferred upon those who endeavour for religion with their lives and wealth a rank above those who sit (at home). And to each, Allah has promised good, but He has bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary; degrees of rank from Him, and forgiveness and Mercy. Allah is ever forgiving, merciful. (Qur’an: Chapter 4 Verse 95)

It would be illogical to think that Allah commands people to endeavour in His way, then punishes the endeavours by preventing them from coming to power.

5. It is indeed very curious that Kaab claimed that the Jewish scriptures mention that Islamic Leadership would pass from the Prophet (saw) and his 2 (two) companions to his enemies. There is no mention of anything to this in the Old Testament in spite of the fact that Kaab had said to Qais Ibn Kharsha:

There is no place on earth that is not mentioned in the Old Testament, along with the events which will happen at that place until the Day of Judgement.

Kaab actually did not find in his Jewish scriptures any of the events that he had fabricated. He only stole what he overheard from the Companions of the Prophet (saw). Companions including Umar, reported that the Messenger (saw) of Allah said:

Banu Omayyad shall climb on my pulpit and I have seen them in a dream jumping on the pulpit like monkeys.

Sunni reference:

- Jalal ud Din Suyuti, Tarikhul Khulafa

Translated by Major H. S. Barret, p12

Published by J. W. Thomas, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta

- Imam Fakhr ad Din al-Razi in his Commentaries of the Holy

Qur’an, Chapter 17, v5, pp 413 - 414

Second Printing by al-Matbaah al-Sarafeyah 1304 H

It is amazing that the Caliph heard these words from the Messenger of Allah and still did not suspect Ka’b had stolen them from the Jewish scriptures. It is more amazing that the Caliph heard all these false statements that Ka’b had attributed to the Old Testament and did not even command Ka’b to show him the Jewish book from which he received the information.

The second Caliph took the word of Ka’b as if it came from heaven and was inevitable. If he believed that the matter of successorship was of divine choice, then he should not have implemented the entire Caliphate system in the first place. On the other hand, if he believed that the matter of successorship was his right, then it was entirely up to him to choose Imam ‘Ali (as) or any other person. It was expected that the second caliph would please the Prophet (S) by preventing the Umayyad from coming to power after seeing the Prophet (S) disturbed over his dream in which the Umayyad were jumping on his pulpit like monkeys. One word from Umar could have had changed the course of History.

The second caliph could have appointed Imam ‘Ali (as) as his sucessor and prevented the Omayyads from coming to power. Unfortunately, he kept the Imam away from the Caliphate by forming a six member comittee, most of them who were very un-friendly to Imam ‘Ali (as) and friendly to Usman, the righteous Omayyad who was extremely attached to his clan. Contrary to what was expected, however, the second caliph did that which Kaab liked and the Prophet (saw) disliked.

Sunni reference:

- Ibn al-Atheer, al-Kamil, v3, p35

Published by Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnanai 1973 A.D

Thus a Jew, newly converted to Islam, claiming that he had knowledge of what was in the past and what will be in the future, was able to change the course of Islamic History through his influence on a prominent Caliph, Umar. What a historic catastrophe!

To be continued, Insha Allah