Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

2. TracingThe Fairytale: Explicit Athar Naming ‘Abd Allah Al-Sabai

There is only one report in the Sunni books mentioning a man named ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai. This is the riwayah as documented by Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (d. 287 H):

حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الأسدي حدثنا هارون بن صالح عن الحارث بن عبد الرحمن عن أبي الجلاس قال سمعت عليا يقول لعبدالله السبائي ويلك ما أفضي إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بشيء كتمه أحدا من الناس ولقد سمعته يقول إن بين يدي الساعة ثلاثين كذابا وإنك أحدهم

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah - Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Asadi - Harun b. Salih - al-Harith b. ‘Abd al-Rahman - Abu al-Jalas:

I heard ‘Ali saying to ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai: “Woe to you! The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, did not inform me of anything which he hid from anyone among mankind. I had heard him (i.e. the Prophet) saying, ‘Before the Hour, there will be thirty liars’. Verily, you are one of them.”1

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) has this verdict on it:

إسناده ضعيف، أبو الجلاس كوفي مجهول كما في " التقريب ". وهارون بن صالح مجهول أيضا، وفي " التقريب ": مستور

والحديث أخرجه أبو يعلى من طريقين آخرين عن الأسدي به

Its chain is dha’if. Abu al-Jalas Kufi is majhul (unknown), as stated in al-Taqrib. Harun b. Salih too is majhul. In al-Taqrib, he is called mastur (hidden).

And the hadith is recorded by Abu Ya’la through two other chains from al-Asadi with it.2

So, let us find out the other two chains recorded by Imam Abu Ya’la (d. 307 H). This is the first:

حدثنا أبو كريب محمد بن العلاء حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الأسدي حدثنا هارون بن صالح الهمداني عن الحارث بن عبد الرحمن عن أبي الجلاس قال سمعت عليا يقول لعبد الله السبائي : ويلك ! والله ما أفضى إلي بشيء كتمه أحدا من الناس ولقد سمعته يقول : إن بين يدي الساعة ثلاثين كذابا وإنك لأحدهم

Abu Kurayb Muhammad b. al-‘Ala - Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Asadi - Harun b. Salih al-Hamdani - al-Harith b. ‘Abd al-Rahman - Abu al-Jalas:

I heard ‘Ali saying to ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai: “Woe to you! I swear by Allah, he (i.e. the Prophet) did not inform me of anything which he hid from anyone among mankind. I had heard him (i.e. the Prophet) saying, ‘Before the Hour, there will be thirty liars’. Verily, you are one of them.”3

The annotator, Shaykh Dr. Asad comments:

إسناده ضعيف

Its chain is dha’if.4

What about the second? Abu Ya’la says:

حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بإسناده مثله

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah narrated to us - Muhammad b. al-Hasan narrated the like of it to us with his chain.5

Apparently, this is the same chain from Ibn Abi Asim. Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah narrated it, and has identified “his chain” simply as - Harun b. Salih al-Hamdani - al-Harith b. ‘Abd al-Rahman - Abu al-Jalas. It is indeed very strange that ‘Allamah al-Albani refers to the chains in Musnad Abu Ya’la as “two other chains”, even though the isnad of Ibn Abi Asim, and the two chains of Abu Ya’la, are all one and the same!

We know already that the report is unreliable. So, the alleged event never took place. Amir al-Muminin, ‘alaihi al-salam, never said those words to any ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai. But, there are still other issues we would like to address.

The athar does NOT mention “‘Abd Allah b. Saba”. It only says “‘Abd Allah al-Sabai”, which literally means “‘Abd Allah from the offspring of Saba”. Obviously, ‘Abd Allah b. Saba could rightly be also called ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai. But, there were other ‘Abd Allahs as well, from the same lineage of Saba, who were also known with that title. Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) tells us about one of them:

(وقعة النهروان)

وفيها سارت الخوارج لحرب علي، فكانت بينهم وقعة النهروان، وكان على الخوارج عبد الله بن وهب السبائي، فهزمهم علي وقتل أكثرهم، وقتل ابن وهب

The Incident of al-Nahrawan

In it, the Khawarij marched to fight a war against ‘Ali. So, the Incident of al-Nahrawan was between them. The head of the Khawarij was ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb al-Sabai. ‘Ali defeated them and killed most of them, and he killed Ibn Wahb.6

As such, “‘Abd Allah al-Sabai” could well have been a reference to thisKharijite, or to some other “‘Abd Allah” from the offspring of Saba!

However, there is some evidence that the“ ‘Abd Allah al-Sabai” in the report of Abu Ya’la was actually ‘Abd Allah b. Saba, and none else. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) copies:

وقال الحافظ أبو يعلى : حدثنا أبو كريب، حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الأسدي، حدثنا هارون بن صالح الهمداني ، عن الحرص بن عبد الرحمن، عن أبي الجلاس قال : سمعت علياً يقول لعبد الله بن سبأ ، ويلك والله ما أفضي إليَّ بشيء كتمه أحداً من الناس ، ولقد سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : إن بين يدي الساعة ثلاثين كذاباً وإنك لأحدهم

Al-Hafiz Abu Ya’la said: Abu Kurayb - Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Asadi - Harun b. Salih al-Hamdani - al-Hars b. ‘Abd al-Rahman - Abu al-Jalas:

I heard ‘Ali saying to ‘Abd Allah b. Saba: “Woe to you! I swear by Allah, he did not inform me of anything which he hid from anyone among mankind. I had heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, saying, ‘Before the Hour, there will be thirty liars’. Verily, you are one of them.”7

Al-Hafiz too submits:

وقال أبو يعلي الموصلي في مسنده ثنا أبو كريب ثنا محمد بن الحسن الأسدي ثنا هارون بن صالح عن الحارث بن عبد الرحمن عن أبي الجلاس سمعت عليا يقول لعبد الله بن سبا والله ما أفضى إلي بشئ كتمه أحدا من الناس ولقد سمعت يقول إن بين يدي الساعة ثلاثين كذابا وانك لأحدهم

Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili said in his Musnad: Abu Kurayb - Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Asadi - Harun b. Salih - al-Harith b. ‘Abd al-Rahman - Abu al-Jalas:

I heard ‘Ali saying to ‘Abd Allah b. Saba: “I swear by Allah, he did not inform me of anything which he hid from anyone among mankind. I had heard (him), saying, ‘Before the Hour, there will be thirty liars’. Verily, you are one of them.”8

Yet, even these facts do not help the Sunni claims, as all these reports have the same dha’if chain.

Notes

1. Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Ahmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Dhahhak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 1, p. 462, # 982

2. Ibid

3. Abu Ya’la Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muthanna al-Mawsili al-Tamimi, Musnad (Damascus: Dar al-Mamun li al-Turath; 1st edition, 1404 H) [annotator: Dr. Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 1, p. 349, # 449

4. Ibid

5. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 350, # 450

6. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islamwa Wafiyat al-Mashahir wa al-A’lam (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [Dr. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmiri], vol. 3, p. 588

7. Abu al-Fida Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi, al-Nihayah fi al-Fitanwa al-Malahim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1408 H) [annotator: Prof. ‘Abduh al-Shafi’i], vol. 1, p. 50. We had earlier very strongly criticized this rendition of the hadith by Ibn Kathir. However, upon further researches, we accept the possibility that he had only used a now extinct version of the book of Abu Ya’la. He has been corroborated by al-Hafiz.

8. Shihab al-Din Abu al-Fadhl Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan (Beirut: Manshurat Muasassat al-A’lami li al-Matbu’at; 2nd edition, 1390 H), vol. 3, p. 289-290, # 1225

3. TracingThe Fairytale: Explicit Athar Naming Ibn Al-Sawda

According to Sunni ‘ulama, ‘Abd Allah b. Saba was “well-known” as Ibn al-Sawda - the son of the black woman. Imam Ibn al-Athir (d. 630 H), for instance, submits:

وكان عبد الله بن سبأ المعروف بابن السوداء

He was ‘Abd Allah b. Saba, well-known as Ibn al-Sawda.1

The only existing testimony concerning the colour of his mother, however, is the mawdu’ (fabricated) report of Yazid al-Faq’asi. Therefore, there really is absolutely NO evidence that ‘Abd Allah b. Saba had a black mother. As a result, there is no basis for naming him Ibn al-Sawda or for suggesting that he could be called that.

Secondly, there is equally no reliable proof that the contemporaries of ‘Abd Allah b. Saba ever called him Ibn al-Sawda. Rather, his own existence at all is not even established through any authentic chain in the Sunni books! Logic demands that whichever Sunni wants to claim that ‘Abd Allah b. Saba was Ibn al-Sawda, or that he was well-known as that, must do the following:

1. Provide at least a single authentic, explicit Sunni report proving the existence of a man called ‘Abd Allah b. Saba.

2. Provide at least a single authentic, explicit Sunni riwayah showing that the man named ‘Abd Allah b. Saba was addressed as Ibn al-Sawda by his contemporaries.

The truth is - no Sunni has ever been able to do either of the above, and no Sunni will be able to do so till the Day of al-Qiyamah. Therefore, as things stand, there is no valid Sunni evidence that a man named ‘Abd Allah b. Saba ever existed, or that such a man was ever called Ibn al-Sawda by those who knew him. With this background fact, we are good to proceed to some Sunni reports on the unknown son of the black woman!

Narration One

Imam Ibn Asakir (d. 571 H) helps us with the first of them:

قال ونا سيف عن أبي حارثة وأبي عثمان قالا لما قدم ابن السوداء مصر عجمهم واستخلاهم واستخلوه وعرض لهم بالكفر فأبعدوه وعرض لهم بالشقاق فأطمعوه فبدأ فطعن على عمرو بن العاص وقال ما باله أكثركم عطاء ورزقا ألا ننصب رجلا من قريش يسوي بيننا فاستحلوا ذلك منه وقالوا كيف نطيق ذلك مع عمرو وهو رجل العرب قال تستعفون منه ثم يعمل عملنا ويظهر الائتمار بالمعروف والطعن فلا يرده علينا أحد

Sayf - Abu Harithah and Abu ‘Uthman:

When Ibn al-Sawda arrived in Egypt, he tested them. He was delighted with them and they were delighted with him. He presented kufr (disbelief) to them, and they distanced themselves from it. He then suggested sedition to them and they gave him hope. Then he began and slandered ‘Amr b. al-As, saying, “Why is his pension and salary the largest among you?” Will a man from Quraysh not be put forward to settle the matter between us?” They were pleased with that from him, and said, “How can we achieve this with ‘Amr when he is the man of the Arabs?” He said, “Seek his dismissal! Then we will play our role and begin to publicly command the good and to defame. At that time, no one will hold us back.”2

In this chain again is Sayf b. ‘Umar. We will only remind ourselves of the words of ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) concerning him:

قلت: وفي هذا نظر، فإن أكثر الطرق المشار إليها مدارها على سيف بن عمر والواقدي وهما كذابان

I say: There is an error in this, for most of the indicatedchains, their pivot is Sayf b. ‘Umar and al-Waqidi, and they both were LIARS.3

As such, the sanad is mawdu’ and the riwayah is thereby a fabrication.

Ibn Asakir apparently assumes that the “Ibn al-Sawda” in the report was ‘Abd Allah b. Saba - which is why he has placed the riwayah under his biography of the latter. However, there is no valid proof that ‘Abd Allah b. Saba had a black mother, to begin with! Even Ibn Asakir makes no attempt to provide any, either! Meanwhile, decency and common sense dictate that whosoever seeks to rely upon the above report to prove the existence of ‘Abd Allah b. Saba - as Ibn Asakir did - must first do the following:

1. Bring convincing, solid proof that there was a man - at that period in time - named ‘Abd Allah b. Saba who had a black mother.

2. Supply reliable evidence that the black mother of this man was well-known among the people, and was widely recognized as “the black woman”.

3. Provide an authentically transmitted eye-witness testimony which establishes that the man - ‘Abd Allah b. Saba - was also known as Ibn al-Sawda.

We are absolutely certain that no creature can fulfil any of the above conditions till the Hour! As such, we believe that anyone who claims that Ibn al-Sawda in the fabricated riwayah was ‘Abd Allah b. Saba (whoever that was) - apparently with no valid evidence at all - is a bigot who only plays dirty games with the truth. Undoubtedly, there is zero evidence to establish that ‘Abd Allah b. Saba was ever referred to or known as Ibn al-Sawda by any of his contemporaries. Therefore, it is clearly impossible to connect the above tale of Sayf to him. So, the report is completely useless and irrelevant, since it is strictly about a hopelessly unidentifiable character.

Narration Two

With the collapse of the first riwayah, Imam Ibn Asakir takes us to another:

قرأنا على أبي عبد الله يحيى بن الحسن عن أبي الحسين بن الآبنوسي أنا أحمد بن عبيد بن الفضل وعن أبي نعيم محمد بن عبد الواحد بن عبد العزيز أنا علي بن محمد بن خزفة قالا نا محمد بن الحسن نا ابن أبي خيثمة نا محمد بن عباد نا سفيان عن عمار الدهني قال سمعت أبا الطفيل يقول رأيت المسيب بن نجبة أتى به ملببة يعني ابن السوداء وعلي على المنبر فقال علي ما شأنه فقال يكذب على الله وعلى رسوله

Abu ‘Abd Allah Yahya b. al-Hasan - Abu al-Husayn b. al-Abnusi - Ahmad b. ‘Ubayd b. al-Fadhl and Abu Na’im Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahid b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz - ‘Ali b. Muhammad b. Khazafah and Muhammad b. al-Hasan - Ibn Abi Khaythamah - Muhammad b. ‘Abbad - Sufyan - Ammar al-Duhni - Abu al-Tufayl:

I saw al-Musayyab b. Najabah, bringing him - that was Ibn al-Sawda - while ‘Ali was on the pulpit. So, ‘Ali said, “What is his problem?” He replied, “He lies upon Allah and upon His Messenger.”4

This report suffers from the same fatal defect as the first. We do not know who this Ibn al-Sawda was, and there is no reliable Sunni riwayah to connect him to ‘Abd Allah b. Saba. Meanwhile, even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that he was Ibn Saba, the athar still does not prove any of the primary Sunni claims about him. For instance, it does not prove that he was negative towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, or that he believed in the succession or ‘isma (sinlessness) of Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam. It also says nothing about ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’s alleged belief in al-raj’ah or his claimed participation in the bloody overthrow of ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan. It is therefore basically an utterly valueless report, as long as Ibn Saba is concerned.

Narration Three

Imam Ibn Abi Khaythamah (d. 279 H) reports:

حدثنا محمد بن عباد المكي قال نا سفيان قال نا عبد الجبار بن عباس الهمداني عن سلمة عن حجية بن عدي الكندي :رأيت عليا على المنبر وهو يقول من يعذرني من هذا الحميت الأسود الذي يكذب على الله يعني ابن السوداء

Muhammad b. ‘Abbad - Sufyan - ‘Abd al-Jabbar b. ‘Abbas al-Hamdani - Salamah - Hujayyah b. ‘Adi al-Kindi:

I saw ‘Ali upon the pulpit and he was saying, “Who will excuse me of this evil black container, who tells lies upon Allah?” He meant Ibn al-Sawda.5

Imam Ibn Asakir has also transmitted the same riwayah:

أنبأنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن أحمد بن إبراهيم بن الخطاب أنا أبو القاسم علي بن محمد بن علي الفارسي ح وأخبرنا أبو محمد عبد الرحمن بن أبي الحسن بن إبراهيم الداراني أنا سهل بن بشر أنا أبو الحسن علي بن منير بن أحمد بن منير الخلال قالا أنا القاضي أبو الطاهر محمد بن أحمد بن عبد الله الذهلي نا أبو أحمد بن عبدوس نا محمد بن عباد نا سفيان نا عبد الجبار بن العباس الهمداني عن سلمة بن كهيل عن حجية بن عدي الكندي قال رأيت عليا كرم الله وجهه وهو على المنبر وهو يقول من يعذرني من هذا الحميت الأسود الذي يكذب على الله ورسوله يعني ابن السوداء

Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Ibrahim b. al-Khattab - Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Farisi; AND Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi al-Hasan b. Ibrahim al-Darani - Sahl b. Bishr - Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali b. Munir b. Ahmad b. Munir al-Khalal - al-Qadhi Abu al-Tahir Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Dhuhli - Abu Ahmad b. ‘Abdus - Muhammad b. ‘Abbad - Sufyan - ‘Abd al-Jabbar b. al-‘Abbas al-Hamdani - Salamah b. Kuhayl - Hujayyah b. ‘Adi al-Kindi:

I saw ‘Ali, karamallah wajhah, while he was upon the pulpit and he was saying, “Who will excuse me of this evil black container, who tells lies upon Allah and His Messenger?” He meant Ibn al-Sawda.6

This riwayah is inconsequential as well. First, the phrase “He meant Ibn al-Sawda” is an interpolation (idraj) of one of the narrators. But, who was it? It could have been anyone from Muhammad b. ‘Abbad to Hujayyah. There is no explicit proof to establish that the interpolation came from Hujayyah, the eye-witness, and not from any of the sub-narrators. As such, there is no sufficient basis to rely upon it in identifying whoever ‘Ali allegedly called an “evil black container”. Moreover, even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that it was Hujayyah who made the identification, then the report would still be of zero value. The only thing it would have done in such a case is to show that Amir al-Muminin once called one Ibn al-Sawda a “black container” - nothing more, nothing less. Meanwhile, the exact identity of this Ibn al-Sawda remains unknown through any reliable Sunni report. Therefore, the report would still be redundant and unusable.

Narration Four

This is the fourth “evidence” of Imam Ibn Asakir, allegedly about ‘Abd Allah b. Saba:

أخبرنا أبو بكر أحمد بن المظفر بن الحسين بن سوسن التمار في كتابه وأخبرني أبو طاهر محمد بن محمد بن عبد الله السنجي بمرو عنه أنا أبو علي بن شاذان نا أبو بكر محمد بن جعفر بن محمد الآدمي نا أحمد بن موسى الشطوي نا أحمد بن عبد الله بن يونس نا أبو الأحوص عن مغيرة عن سباط قال بلغ عليا أن ابن السوداء ينتقص أبا بكر وعمر فدعا به ودعا بالسيف أو قال فهم بقتله فكلم فيه فقال لا يساكني ببلد أنا فيه قال فسيره إلى المدائن

Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Muzaffar b. al-Husayn b. Susan al-Tamar - Abu Tahir Muhammad b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Sinji - Abu ‘Ali b. Shadhan - Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Adami - Ahmad b. Musa al-Shatawi - Ahmad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Yunus - Abu al-Ahwas - Mughirah - Sabat:

It reached ‘Ali that Ibn al-Sawda was reviling Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So, he sent for him and called for the sword, or he decided to kill him. But, he was persuaded against it. Then he said, “He cannot live with me in the same town”. So, he banished him to al-Madain.7

This report is very dha’if.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 H) has done a tarjamah for Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Adami but has mentioned no tawthiq for him whatsoever concerning his narrations. None exists in any other Sunni book either. By contrast, al-Baghdadi has actually recorded this under the said tarjamah:

قال محمد بن أبي الفوارس سنة ثمان وأربعين وثلاثمائة فيها مات محمد بن جعفر الادمي وكان قد خلط فيما حدث

Muhammad b. Abi al-Fawaris said: “In the year 348 H, Muhammad b. Ja’far died, and he used to mix things up in what he narrated.”8

This makes him dha’if as a narrator.

Besides, the main narrator of the report too, Sabat, is completely unknown in the Sunni books of rijal. No mention of him whatsoever is made. So, he is perfectly majhul.

But, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) thinks it is not over yet:

فروى أبو الأحوص عن مغيرة عن شباك عن إبراهيم قال: بلغ علي بن أبي طالب أن عبد الله بن السوداء ينتقص أبا بكر وعمر فهم بقتله فقيل له: تقتل رجلا يدعو إلى حبكم أهل البيت؟ فقال: "لا يساكنني في دار أبدا ".

وفي رواية عن شباك قال: بلغ عليا أن ابن السوداء يبغض أبا بكر وعمر قال: فدعاه ودعا بالسيف أو قال: فهم بقتله فكلم فيه فقال: "لا يساكنني ببلد أنا فيه" فنفاه إلى المدائن وهذا محفوظ عن أبي الأحوص وقد رواه النجاد وابن بطة واللالكائي وغيرهم

ومراسيل إبراهيم جياد لا يظهر علي رضي الله عنه أنه يريد قتل رجل إلا وقتله حلال عنده ويشبه والله أعلم أن يكون إنما تركه خوف الفتنه بقتله

Abu al-Ahwas narrated from Mughirah from Shibak from Ibrahim that he said, “It reached ‘Ali b. Abi Talib that ‘Abd Allah b. al-Sawda was reviling Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then he decided to kill him. But it was said to him, ‘Will you kill a man who calls towards love of you, Ahl al-Bayt?’ Then he said, ‘He can never again stay with me in the same house.’”

In another report from Shibak, he said: “It reached ‘Ali that Ibn al-Sawda hated Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then he sent for him and called for the sword, or he decided to kill him. But he was dissuaded from it. As a result, he said, ‘He can not stay in the same town with me.’ So, he banished him to al-Madain.” This is accurately preserved (mahfuz) from Abu al-Ahwas, and al-Najad, Ibn Battah, al-Lalikai and others have recorded it.

And the marasil (i.e. disconnected narrations) of Ibrahim are good (jiyyad).9

The pretensions of Ibn Taymiyyah nonetheless, both reports are unreliable! Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) tells us why:

إبراهيم النخعي وهو إبراهيم بن يزيد بن عمرو بن الأسود أبو عمران كان مولده سنة خمسين ومات سنة خمس أو ست وتسعين

Ibrahim al-Nakha’i: he was Ibrahim b. Yazid b. ‘Amr b. al-Aswad, Abu ‘Imran. He was born in 50 H and died in 95 or 96 H.10

It is unanimously agreed upon within the Ummah that Amir al-Muminin ‘Ali b. Abi Talib was martyred in 40 H, some 10 years before this Ibrahim was born! That means he was narrating as an eye-witness what occurred long before his birth! Yet, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah - who apparently admits that the report of Ibrahim is mursal (disconnected) - wants us to believe it was a “good” testimony. What happened to his common sense?

It gets worse with the riwayah of Shibak - which our Shaykh has graded as “correctly preserved”. He too was not an eye-witness, and had only gotten his story - as he personally indicated - from Ibrahim! In fact, even though Imam ‘Ali belonged to the first tabaqah (i.e. generation of narrators), Shibak only fell in the sixth - a fact which throws him far, far away from the time of the alleged incident! Yet, al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) has some further damaging information about him:

شباك الضبي الكوفي الأعمى ثقة له ذكر في صحيح مسلم وكان يدلس من السادسة

Shibak al-Dhabi al-Kufi, the Blind: Thiqah (trustworthy). He is mentioned in Sahih Muslim. He used to do tadlis. He was from the sixth (tabaqat).11

The bottom-line of all this is obvious. Both Shibak and Ibrahim were completely cut off from the time of Amir al-Muminin. So, neither of them could have validly narrated about events which occurred during his khilafah. Secondly, in the chain of Ibrahim is Shibak, a mudalis, who has narrated from the former in an ‘an-‘an manner. This is another, independent evidence of the unreliability of the chain of Ibrahim! So, both reports quoted by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah are not just dha’if - they are very weak (dha’if jiddan) But, what have we got our Shaykh stating about them instead?! This is how some people behave when they become desperate about their fallacies.

Even then, these reports only show that one Ibn al-Sawda hated and reviled Abu Bakr and ‘Umar during the khilafah of Imam ‘Ali. It nowhere identifies him as Ibn Saba. Also, it does not confirm the Sunni claims that ‘Abd Allah b. Saba believed in al-raj’ah, or in the wisayah or ‘isma of ‘Ali, nor does it establish his guilty in the murder of ‘Uthman.

Notes

1. Ibn al-Athir, Abu al-Hasan ‘Izz al-Din ‘Ali b. Abi al-Karam Muhammad b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Karim b. ‘Abd al-Wahid, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (Beirut: Dar Sadir; 1385 H), vol. 3, pp. 144-145

2. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 29, p. 6

3. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihahwa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 3, pp. 101-102, # 1110

4. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 29, p. 7

5. Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Abi Khaythamah Zuhayr b. Harb, Tarikh Ibn Abi Khaythamah (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 1st edition, 1424 H), vol. 3, p. 177, # 4359

6. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 29, p. 8

7. Ibid, vol. 29, p. 9

8. Abu Bakr Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah), vol. 2, p. 149, # 565

9. Taqiy al-Din Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. ‘Abd al-Salam b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani al-Hanbali al-Dimashqi, al-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim al-Rasul (Saudi Arabia: al-Haras al-Watani al-Sa’udi) [annotator: Muhammad Muhy al-Din ‘Abd al-Hamid], p. 584

10. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Mashahir ‘Ulama al-Amsar (Dar al-Wafa li al-Taba’at wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Marzuq ‘Ali Ibrahim], p. 163, # 748

11. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, pp. 410-411, # 2742

4. TracingThe Fairytale: Explicit Athar Mentioning “The Black Container”

There are Sunni reports which allege that Imam ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, called someone - or perhaps each of a set of people - “the black container”. We have quoted one of such riwayat in the last chapter. We will here proceed to examine all the other existing Sunni riwayat on “the black container”.

Ibn Asakir (d. 571 H) records:

أخبرنا أبو القاسم يحيى بن بطريق بن بشرى وأبو محمد عبد الكريم بن حمزة قالا أنا أبو الحسن بن مكي أنا أبو القاسم المؤمل بن أحمد بن محمد الشيباني نا يحيى بن محمد بن صاعد نا بندار نا محمد بن جعفر نا شعبة عن سلمة عن زيد بن وهب عن علي قال ما لي ومال هذا الحميت الأسود قال ونا يحيى بن محمد نا بندار نا محمد بن جعفر نا شعبة عن سلمة قال قال سمعت أبا الزعراء يحدث عن علي عليه السلام قال ما لي ومال هذا الحميت الأسود

Abu al-Qasim Yahya b. Batriq b. Bushra and Abu Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Karim b. Hamzah - Abu al-Hasan b. Makki - Abu al-Qasim al-Muammal b. Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Shaybani - Yahya b. Muhammad b. Sa’id - Bundar - Muhammad b. Ja’far - Shu’bah - Salamah - Zayd b. Wahb:

‘Ali said, “What do I have to do with this black container?”

And Yahya b. Muhammad - Bundar - Muhammad b. Ja’far - Shu’bah - Salamah - Abu al-Za’ra:

‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam, said: “What do I have to do with this black container?”1

These ones are even more redundant than the previous one. No information whatsoever is given on the “black container”. Who was he? What did he do? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! If we connected them with the other report, then we would have the identity of the “black container” as simply Ibn al-Sawda and his crime as telling lies upon Allah and His Messenger, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. But, who was that even?!

The final Sunni riwayah on the “black container” is this one, reported by Imam Ibn Abi Khaythamah (d. 279 H):

حدثنا عمرو بن مرزوق قال أنا شعبة عن سلمة بن كهيل عن زيد بن وهب قال قال علي ] ما لي [ ولهذا الحميت الأسود يعني عبد الله بن سبأ وكان يقع في أبي بكر وعمر

كذا قال : عن سلمة عن زيد بن وهب

‘Amr b. Marzuq - Shu’bah - Salamah b. Kuhayl - Zayd b. Wahb:

‘Ali said, “[What do I have to do] with this black container?”. He meant ‘Abd Allah b. Saba and he used to attack Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

That was how he said: from Salamah from Zayd b. Wahb.2

Imam Ibn Asakir also reports:

أخبرنا أبو محمد بن طاوس وأبو يعلى حمزة بن الحسن بن المفرج قالا أنا أبو القاسم بن أبي العلاء أنا أبو محمد بن أبي نصر أنا خيثمة بن سليمان نا أحمد بن زهير بن حرب نا عمرو بن مرزوق أنا شعبة عن سلمة بن كهيل عن زيد قال قال علي بن أبي طالب ما لي ولهذا الحميت الأسود يعني عبد الله بن سبأ وكان يقع في أبي بكر وعمر

Abu Muhammad b. Tawus and Abu Ya’la Hamzah b. al-Hasan b. al-Mufarraj - Abu al-Qasim b. Abi al-‘Ala - Abu Muhammad b. Abi Nasr - Khaythamah b. Sulayman - Ahmad b. Zuhayr b. Harb - ‘Amr b. Marzuq - Shu’bah - Salamah b. Kuhayl - Zayd:

‘Ali b. Abi Talib said, “What do I have to do with this black container?”. He meant ‘Abd Allah b. Saba and he used to attack Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.3

This report has some serious problems. First and foremost, it is mudraj (interpolated). The sentence “He meant ‘Abd Allah b. Saba and he used to attack Abu Bakr and ‘Umar” was inserted by a narrator, and we have no explicit proof of who it was. It could have been any of the narrators from Amr b. Marzuq to Zayd b. Wahb. With no solid evidence to pinpoint a particular narrator as the source of the interpolation, it is impossible to rely upon it as an eye-witness testimony. So, that identification is dha’if.

Meanwhile, we have already seen the version of the athar transmitted by Muhammad b. Ja’far from Shu’bah from Salamah from Zayd. It does NOT contain the last phrase above, identifying the “black container” explicitly as ‘Abd Allah b. Saba, and explaining his lies upon Allah and His Messenger as his attacks on Abu Bakr and ‘Umar! Therefore, neither Shu’bah, nor Salamah, nor Zayd, was the source of that addition. Rather, the only possible origin of that interpolation was ‘Amr b. Marzuq. This then rightly leads to the conclusion that the idraj is NOT an eye-witness account. By contrast, it was made by someone who was disconnected from the reported incident by about one century! That confirms its invalidity.

Moreover, ‘Amr b. Marzuq in the chain is dha’if. Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) says about him:

عمرو بن مرزوق الباهلي أبو عثمان البصري أثنى عليه سليمان بن حرب وأحمد بن حنبل وقال يحيى بن معين ثقة مأمون ووثقه ابن سعد وأما علي بن المديني فكان يقول اتركوا حديثه وقال القواريري كان يحيى بن سعيد لا يرضى عمرو بن مرزوق وقال الساجي كان أبو الوليد يتكلم فيه وقال ابن عمار والعجلي ليس بشئ وقال الدارقطني كثير الوهم

قلت :لم يخرج عنه البخاري في الصحيح سوى حديثين أحدهما حديثه عن شعبة عن عمرو بن مرة عن عروة عن أبي موسى في فضل عائشة وهو عنده بمتابعة آدم بن أبي إياس وغندر وغيرهما عن شعبة والثاني حديثه عن شعبة عن ابن أبي بكر عن أنس في ذلك الكبائر مقرونا عنده بعبد الصمد عن شعبة فوضح أنه لم يخرج له احتجاجا والله أعلم

‘Amr b. Marzuq al-Bahili, Abu ‘Uthman al-Basri: Sulayman b. Harb and Ahmad b. Hanbal extolled him; and Yahya b. Ma’in said, “Thiqah (trustworthy), reliable” and IbnSa’d declared him thiqah (trustworthy). As for ‘Ali b. al-Madini, he used to say, “Reject his ahadith”! Al-Qawariri also said, “Yahya b. Sa’id was not pleased with ‘Amr b. Marzuq”. Al-Saji said, “Abu al-Walid used to criticize him”. Both Ibn ‘Ammar and al-‘Ijli said, “He is nothing”. And al-Daraqutni said, “He hallucinated A LOT”.

I say: al-Bukhari has not narrated from him in his Sahih except two hadiths only. One of them is his hadith from Shu’bah, from ‘Amr b. Marrah, from ‘Urwah, from Abu Musa concerning the merit of ‘Aishah, and with him, it is with him through the mutaba’at of Adam b. Abi Iyas, Ghandar and others from Shu’bah. In his second hadith from Shu’bah from Ibn Abi Bakr from Anas concerning that al-Kabair, he is conjoined (in the chain) with ‘Abd al-Samad from Shu’bah, with him (i.e. al-Bukhari). So, it becomes clear that he did NOT narrate from him as a hujjah (proof), and Allah knows best.4

If a narrator is thiqah (trustworthy), but hallucinates a lot, then his uncorroborated reports are dha’if. No wonder, al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) did not accept ‘Amr b. Marzuq as a hujjah, and only conjoined him with others from Shu’bah in the chains. Therefore, the above chain of ‘Amr b. Marzuq - in which he has stood alone without support - is dha’if.

However, some of our Sunni brothers attempt to defend ‘Amr by quoting these further submissions of al-Hafiz:

قال أبو زرعة سمعت أحمد بن حنبل وقلت له ان علي بن المديني يتكلم في عمرو ابن مرزوق فقال عمرو رجل صالح لا أدري ما يقول علي قال أبو زرعة وسمعت سليمان ابن حرب وذكر عمرو بن مرزوق فقال جاء بما ليس عندهم فحسدوه وقال الفضل بن زياد سأل عنه أبو عبيد الله الحداني عن أحمد بن حنبل فقال ثقة مأمون فتشنا على ما قيل فيه فلم نجد له أصلا

Abu Zur’ah said: I heard Ahmad b. Hanbal and I said to him that ‘Ali b. al-Madini criticized ‘Amr b. Marzuq. He said,“ ‘Amr is a righteous man. I do not know what ‘Ali says” Abu Zur’ah said: I also heard Sulayman b. Harb and he mentioned ‘Amr b. Marzuq and said, “He came with what they did not have. So, they envied him.” Al-Fadhl b. Ziyad said: Abu ‘Ubayd Allah al-Hadani asked about him from Ahmad b. Hanbal and he said, “Trustworthy, reliable. We investigated what whas said about him, and we did not find any basis for it.”5

Then, our opponents claim through these that all the criticisms against ‘Amr were due to envy! However, this line of argument does not offer much help to our Sunni brothers. Sulayman b. Harb (d. 224 H) and Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 H) were obviously referring to the contemporaries of ‘Amr in their objections. It is possible that some of those people were indeed influenced by envy in their castigation of him. It is equally possible that Sulayman and Ahmad were heavily biased in favour of him, or were both unable to conduct sufficient probes to determine the truth about him. In any case, what we primarily rely upon against him is from Imam al-Daraqutni (d. 385 H) and Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H), later scholars who apparently had investigated his reports and had then drawn their conclusions. Obviously, the charge of envy does not affect the duo. Al-Hafiz submits about ‘Amr:

وقال ابن عمار الموصلي ليس بشئ وقال العجلي عمرو ابن مرزوق بصري ضعيف يحدث عن شعبة ليس بشئ وقال الحاكم عن الدارقطني صدوق كثير الوهم وقال الحاكم سيئ الحفظ

Ibn ‘Ammar al-Mawsili said: “He is nothing.” Al-‘Ijli said,“ ‘Amr b. Marzuq Basri is dha’if. He narrated from Shu’bah. He was nothing. Al-Hakim narrated that al-Daraqutni said: “Very truthful. He hallucinated A LOT.” And al-Hakim said, “He had a defective memory.”6

Certainly, the reports of a narrator like this are dha’if, without doubt! Most importantly, the criticisms against him are “explained”. Therefore, they take precedence over any praise of him.

Notes

1. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 29, p. 7

2. Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Abi Khaythamah Zuhayr b. Harb, Tarikh Ibn Abi Khaythamah (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah li al-Taba’ahwa al-Nashr; 1st edition, 1424 H), vol. 3, p. 177, # 4358

3. Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Habat Allah b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Asakir al-Shafi’i, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 29, pp. 7-8

4. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani al-Shafi’i, Hadi al-Sari Muqaddimah Fath al-Bari (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1408 H), pp. 431-432

5. Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H), vol. 8, p. 88, # 160

6. Ibid, vol. 8, p. 89, # 160