Confirming & Denying Ibn Saba’ is based on the author’s mood


In this topic we will see something related to the methodology of Shia scholars in their writings.

We begin with the popular and controversial anti-Shia book “Lillah thumma Liltareekh” which is attributed to Sayyid Husayn al-Musawi, we read:

[What is popular among us Shia is that `Abdullah ibn Saba‘ is an illusional character that isn’t real, a character invented by Ahlul-Sunnah to attack Shia beliefs, and they attributed to him that he created Tashayyu` so that people may turn away from the Madhab of Ahlul-Bayt.]

What happened next was that the Shia scholar `Ali Aal-Muhsin refuted the above book and wrote his own book calling it “Lillah wa Lilhaqiqah”. Aal-Muhsin in his book tried to expose the ignorance of the author of “Lillah thumma Liltareekh”, he wrote in refutation:

[It is truly weird how a man who claims to be a Faqih and a Mujtahid is ignorant of such a simple Rijali matter, as it is well known and by consensus of Imami scholars and jurists, both the classical and contemporary ones, that `Abdullah ibn Saba’ is a real character who is documented in Shia books of Rijal.]

After this the author of “Lillah thumma Liltareekh” writes:

[I have asked Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Aal-Kashif al-Ghata’ about Ibn Saba’, he answered: “Ibn Saba’ is a myth fabricated by Umayyads and `Abbasids who hated Ahlul-Bayt, the intelligent man must not waste his time with this personality.”]

But `Ali Aal-Muhsin rejects this completely saying:

[What is popular among Shia scholars -including Kashif al-Ghata’- is that they believe in the existence of Ibn Saba’, who claimed divinity for Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen (as) so he burned him with fire along with his followers. This is known to anyone who searches in the books of Rijal and checks their condition.]

As the reader can see, Shia scholar `Ali Aal-Muhsin goes out of his way to prove that those who deny Ibn Saba’ are ignorant, and that he is a real character and he was cursed by the Imams, he even says:

[We said previously: What is popular among Shia scholars, if not by consensus, is that `Abdullah ibn Saba’ is a real person, not one of the great scholars denied him and their books are testimony to this. Based on this, everything that comes later is no more than a gross error, a great mistake, and this is the claim of that author who said that Shia scholars deny the existence of Ibn Saba’, this is not true as we clarified.]

When Shia scholars accept a matter or deny it, this is solely based on the benefit of their Madhab, this is why you will see them contradict themselves in their different books or sometimes even in the same book.

We take their scholar `Ali Aal-Muhsin himself, who as you all saw above accepted Ibn Saba’ as a real character so he can reach certain benefits (such as proving the ignorance of the opponent in Shi`ee literature). In another one of his books we will see that he shall deny the existence of Ibn Saba’ for other benefits, he writes in his book “Kashf-ul-Haqa’iq Radd `ala  Hadhihi Nasihati” pg.230-233:

[The fact that those historians ignored this man(Ibn Saba’) and the big role he played during the Fitnah and in changing Islamic history, is proof that he is a fabricated non-existent character.]

Then after showing four points to establish that Ibn Saba’ is no more than a myth, he says in the same book:

[We conclude from these points, that Ibn Saba’ is an illusionary character invented by Sayf ibn `Umar to defend `Uthman and to criticize `Ali and his Shia.]

So ponder O reader about the ability of Shia scholars to write honestly and ponder on their motivations for writing whatever it is that they write.

On the other hand, some of their scholars view Ibn Saba’ as a blessing, such as Shaykh Muhammad `Ali al-Mu`allim , student of Ayatullah Muhammad al-Muraghi, he says in his book “`Abdullah ibn Saba’ al-Haqiqah al-Majhoulah” pg.62:

[Everything Ibn Saba’ preached is truth, and it is the belief of Imami Shia, except his saying: “There were a thousand prophets and every prophet had a Wasi” because the narrations coming from the path of Ahlul-Bayt declare that prophets were more than a thousand.
Nothing from which Ibn Saba’ mentioned shows signs of Ghulu or extremism, rather it appears that he was a Shia who belonged to Ahlul-Bayt and was loyal to Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen and disowned his enemies.]

As far as lying is concerned, it is no secret that Shia scholars are some of the biggest liars, the likes of Milani and Kourani and Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi. If this article were written to collect their lies it wouldn’t be an article rather a hundred volume book. Just as a benefit and although it is off topic, we list an obvious lie from one of the most renowned contemporary Shia scholars Ja`far al-Subhani, the purpose is to back up our previous words that Shia confirm and deny things solely based on benefit.

Ja`far al-Subhani writes in his book “Adwa’ `ala `Aqa’id al-Shi`ah al-Imamiyyah” pg.528:

[As for other matters, such as cursing and insulting the Companions, or that they became apostates after the Prophet (saw) passed away, or that their narrations are unreliable, then these are nothing more than Umayyad Nasibi accusations. They accused the Shia of Aal-Muhammad (as) of these lies but they are innocent of them and Allah is surely the best judge.]

Yet we all know he’s a liar because another renowned Shia scholar writes the exact opposite. Shaykh `Ali al-Namazi al-Shahroudi says in his book “Mustadrakat `Ilm-ul-Rijal” 1/67:

[We conclude from the big quantity of narrations declaring that all companions are apostates except three or four, that the general rule for every companion who remained alive after the Prophet (saw) and did not become a martyr in his time, is that they are apostates for placing the non-chosen leader (means Abu Bakr) in authority over the chosen leader (means `Ali), or impious sinners for their short comings when it came to supporting him (`Ali), thus it is not possible to assume the reliability of any of them except through a specific divine text.]

Muhammad Hasan bin Baqir al-Najafi was the leader of the Shia in his time and sole Marji` of Taqleed they had, he wrote in his book “Jawahir-ul-Kalam” vol.6 pg.66:

[What appears from the books of biographies and history is that many from the Companions, both during the time of the Prophet (saw) and after it, in addition to the people of Jamal and Siffeen, as well as all the people of Sham and the majority of the people of Madinah and Makkah, that they (all those mentioned) had extreme enmity towards Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen and his progeny (as). Although mixing with them and living among them was not rejected by the Shia even secretly, and so was the case when it came to Banu Umayyah and Banu al-`Abbas and their followers.]

Which means they’re Nawasib and we all know what the ruling of the Nasibi is according to the Twelver sect.

Another renowned Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Waheed al-Bahbahani writes while talking about the beliefs of the Shia of the past, he writes in “Sharh Mafateeh-ul-Shara’i`” 2/36-38:

[It is apparent to us just as it was also apparent to Ahlul-Sunnah that they (past Shia) used to do Mut`ah with women and Mut`ah of Hajj and wipe on their feet during ablution, and curse the Shaykhayn(Abu Bakr & `Umar) and the others (…until he said…) And they (past Shia) used to do this openly and not in private, so it wasn’t hidden from the `Aamah(Sunnies) let alone the Khaasah(Shia), even sending curses (on the Companions) which we previously mentioned, the little kids and the women from among the `Aamah(Sunnies) know with certainty that they (the past Shia) used to curse.]

Then we have al-Majlisi, who says in his book “Jala’-ul-`Uyoun” pg.45:

[There is no way for any sane man to doubt the disbelief of `Umar, so the curse of Allah and his Messenger be upon him and on anyone who considers him Muslim and anyone who doesn’t curse him.]

As for Ayatullah al-Khu’i, he said in “Misbah al-Fuqaha'” 1/504-505:

[We established from the narrations, the supplications and the Ziyaraat the permissibly of cursing those who oppose us(Sunnies), and the necessity of disowning them and to accuse them and curse them a lot and to backbite them since they are from the people of innovations and doubts. There is also no doubt about their disbelief, because denying the Wilayah (of `Ali) and even one of the Imams and believing in the Caliphate of others (etc…)]

Yet after all this, Ja`far al-Subhani still insists in his book “Hiwar ma` al-Shaykh Salih bin `Abdullah al-Darwish” pg.105, that:

[We the Shia do not accuse any Companion of disbelief, nor any of the Followers, nor any of the sects who testify to the three fundamentals: (Oneness of God, Final Message and Day of Judgment) This is the scale of faith and disbelief]

This topic of Takfeer is a huge one but what little we showed is sufficient to prove our point, that the people deny and confirm various matters based on the benefit of their sect and not out of honesty and truth. Do you see now dear reader, why many people are attracted to this sect and why many convert to Shiasm? Because they lie to them and those unsuspecting folks never imagine in their wildest imagination that bearded men of God, wearing turbans and traditional clothing, who claim to be followers of Muhammad (saw) and his household (as) could be compulsive liars!


  1. you are mixing 3 personalities with 1 fabricated on. your own scholars have weakened Sayf and said he is a liar, but yet you take weak hadith to prove your claim. lol what a joke

    • Sayf is accepted as historian and rejected as narrator of prophetic-Hadith. Also we can prove Ibn Saba’ and his gang existed without need of Sayf’s narrations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.