Friday 20 October 2017
The legend of Abdullah bin Saba’
ID: 476 Publish Date: 07 December 2016 - 12:58 Count Views: 387
Speeches » SalamTV
The legend of Abdullah bin Saba’

salam tv - April 02, 2009

 

 

In The Name Of God

Date : April 02, 2009

Before starting our conversation, I say some points as preface:

Over the last several weeks many of viewers asked us questions whether via contacting us or message or email and etc. on Wahhabism satellite channels issues are said against Shia sect the bright sect of “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] under the name of defending Islam and Quran and make Shias to suffer and some contact that channel and may even say inappropriate words.

With their swearing and insulting towards our Imams [AS], religious resources, Shias and our holy shrines, they’re - in fact- serving Shia culture; because all our viewers- Shia and Sunni- are cultured and know that those who can’t prove what they say and can’t understand resort to disrespecting and insulting others, it shows that they have no reason for their sayings if they had something to say that makes sense, they would never swear and insult. If they swear thousand times we don’t care of that. I believe that we shall let our youth listening to what they say and see that how these guys who question Shias’ culture and use obscene swords towards Shia that show their civility, have been raised. If we want reciprocate, its loss returns to our sect.

What interesting is that someone on that obscene channel appears before camera on Sundays running a program in the name of defending Islam, a guy who can’t even understand Quran, I saw him finding fault with Shias over their resorting to “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] , he read this verse {Sura AL-MAEDA / verse 117} as his proof that Hadrat “Jesus” says:

مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلَّا مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَ كُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَ أَنْتَ عَلَي كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

 

 

I witnessed them whilst living in their midst and ever since you took me to You, You have been the Watcher over them. You are the Witness of everything. 

Sura AL-MAEDA / verse 117

While interpreting this verse, he said more than ten wrong sentences and anti-Quran interpretation. What he said about Hadrat “Jesus” is against “Quran”, god says in Quran” that Hadrat “Jesus” [AS] is not dead:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

and for their saying, 'We killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger (and Prophet) of Allah. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but to them, he (the crucified) had been given the look (of Prophet Jesus). Those who differ concerning him (Prophet Jesus) are surely in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of supposition, and (it is) a certainty they did not kill him.

Sra AL-NISA / verse 157

He’s alive and people think he’s dead. And this sentence “وَ كُنْتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا” is in the response of god almighty who says:

وَ إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَي إبن مَرْيَمَ أَأَنْتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَ أُمِّيَ إِلَهَيْنِ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ

Sura AL-MAEDA / verse 116

فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ

 

And when Allah said: '(Prophet) Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to the people: "Take me and my mother for two gods, other than Allah?" 'Exaltations to You, ' he said, 'how could I say that to which I have no right?

Ever since you took me to you, you have been the Watcher over them.

Anyway, rather than attacking Shias’ culture unfairly by their ignorance, they would better discuss about what they specialize in, history, geography, physic and political issues, when they don’t know Quran, they’d better say nothing about it.

I didn’t want to answer their baseless sayings, but since some of our viewers kept calling asking us responding some of these guys’ sayings, I had no choice unless saying such points to dear viewers.

Mr.”Yasini”:

As for Abdullah bin Saba’, Wahhabis discuss this doubt that Shia sect was founded by him. Please, explain about him and this doubt, is that true or legend?

Master “Qazvini”:

One of the doubts towards Shia bright culture is that the founder of this sect is a Jewish guy named Abdullah bin Saba’. “Ibn Taymiyyah” and after him “Dehlavi” and “Ehsan Elahi Zaheer” would discuss this matter and now some of the professors of “Saudi Arabia” universities such as “Dr. Ghifari” and others do so. And some experts of Wahhabism satellite networks, last three months in particular, have left no stone unturned connecting Shia sect to a Jewish guy named Abdulla bin Saba’.

I’ll read the opinion of the founders of Wahhabism sect, their big theorist so that dear viewers know that how much they effort and what groundless things they say to question “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS]’s sect, the Shia which originates from Quran and is comply with prophet [PBUH]’s true culture. Even some of their own sayings are paradoxical.”Ibn Taymiyya”- Wahhabism big theorist- says: 

أن أصل الرفض من المنافقين الزنادقة، فإنه ابتدعه إبن سبأ الزنديق و أظهر الغلو في علي بدعوي الإمامة و النص عليه و ادعي العصمة له

The root of Shia sect retunes to a hypocrite and infidel named Abdullah bin Saba’ who exaggerated about “Ali” and said: he’s Imam and prophet appointed him as caliph and he says that “Ali” is infallible.

“Ibn Taymiyyah” the great compilation of Fatwa, v 4, p 435

“Ibn Taymiyyah” says:

اول من ابتدع القول بالعصمة لعلي و بالنص عليه بالخلافة هو رأس هولاء المنافقين عبدالله بن سبأ، فأظهر الإسلام و أراد فساد دين الإسلام كما أفسد بُلس دين النصارا

The first person who created infallibility for  “Ali” and said that he was appointed as caliph by prophet and there is narrative in this regard, is the leader of hypocrites, Abdullah bin Saba’. He pretended that he’s Muslim and his target was to destroy Islam. as Mr.”Buls” who was Jewish converted to Christianity to destroy it,he became Christian and made many changes in Christianity.

He says:

Shias are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba’ and:

فلا يصلون جمعة و لا جماعة

Shias don’t say mass prayer and Friday prayer.

Dears who live in Shia countries and associate with Shias, look what “IbnTaymkiyyah” says about Shia.

He also says:

Shias don’t distinguish between mosques and shrines and rather going to the mosques worshiping god, they go to the tombs and worship dead guys.

“Ibn Taymiyyah” the great compilation of Fatwa, v 4, p 518

All narratives that Shias have quoted from “Ahl al-Bayt” are lie and all of them were faked by Abdullah bin Saba’.

“Ibn Taymiyyah” the great compilation of Fatwa, v 4, p 518

While they themselves believe that commander of the faithful [AS] killed Abdullah bin Saba’ or put him in the fire.

“Ibn Taymiyyah” the great compilation of Fatwa, v2, p 510 and  v 7, p 220

90% of “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS]’s narratives were published at the time of Imam “Sadiq” [AS] and Imam “Baqir” [AS].

Mr.”Ehsan Elahi Zaheer”-- whose sayings are sweat for Wahhabis like “Halva” and they quote and publish his sayings thinking that he says new things while he’s quoted the same groundless talks as “Ibn Taymiyyah” and “Dehlavi” and his books which re more similar to swearing book than Islamic books -- has a book called “Tashayyu’ and Shia”, in the page 267, he’s talked in this regard comprehensively.

Mr.”Abd al-Aziz Dehlavi” has also talked about this matter in the book “Tauhfa Ithna Ashari”, p 9 and 53.

As well as Dr. “Ghifari”- who is amongst Wahhabis’ leaders and Ideologists- says in his book “principles of Shia sect”, v 2, p 792, what “Ibn Taymiyyah”, “Dehlavi” and “Ehsan Elahi” say:

All issues that Shias discuss and their beliefs towards commander of the faithful [AS]’s and Shia Imams’ [AS] infallibility and matter of “returning”, get back to person named Abdullah Saba’ a Jewish person.

This misgiving is amongst the most fundamental and important misgivings that through which Wahhabis can draw attention and influence our youth. God willing we’ll talk about such issues and prove that the matter of Abdullah bin Saba’ that they keep talking about this way is nothing other than a legend and illusory and that Abdullah bin Saba’ is the founder of Shia and … is made by a guy named “Sayf bin Umar” that Sunnis believe that he is infidel and Hadith faker.

Mr.”Yasini”:

What is the main motive of Wahhabism for faking such issues about Abdullah bin Saba’?

“Master Qazvini”:

What I could get through comprehensive studies is that there are three main motives in faking the story of Abdullah bin Saba’:

First motive:

Some of Wahhabis and Sunnis see that Shia thoughts about Imamate, caliphate and infallibility of Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] are taken from “Quran” and prophet [PBUH]’s Sunna. In the books which have been written recently and formerly –particularly, the book “Al-Ghadir” from “Allamah Amini” [AS] and the book “‘Abaqat al’Anwar” from late “Mir Hamid Hussein Hassan” and the book “Administer Justice” from “Qazi Nurullah Shustari” – it’s been said in these books that Shia beliefs are written in Sunni books with authentic document and also quotations of Sunni interpreters and narrators were written in these books with authentic document.

After seeing such thing, Wahhabis found out that the best way that they can at the least stray their own youth or Shia youth is that to fake a story named Abdullah bin Saba’ saying that don’t pay attention to narratives and Quran verses that Shias quote because the root of Shia sect returns to a Jewish guy named Abdullah bin Saba’.

Second motive:

After prophet [PBUH] passed away, “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] were isolated and people didn’t pay attention to Prophet [PBUH], “Quran” and “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS]’s advices in particular, “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] whom prophet [PBUH] had put them beside Quran and said:

إن تمسكتم بهما، لن تضلوا بعدي

If you stick to “Quran” and “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS], you’ll definitely be protected from going to astray.

And from one side, Sunnis separated from “Ahl al-Bayt” [AS] and went to Sahaba {companions of prophet}, to say that Shahaba’s Sunna is like prophet [PBUH]’s Sunna and to put Sahaba’s sayings as Islamic resource, they said that companions are just or in another word, they said that companions are infallible and their sayings are god’s sayings and we’re obligated to look at their saying as what go has said.

From another side, after prophet [PBUH]’s demise, these companions had fierce dissentions with each other over Uthman’s assassination and made that much fuss about it. In the battle of “Jamal”, in one side, there were prominent guys such as: commander of the faithful [AS] , “Ibn Abbas”, Imam “Hassan” [AS] and Imam “Hussein” [AS] and prominent figures of prophet [PBUH]’s companions and in another side, they were guys, such as: “Ayesha”- prophet [PBUH]’s spouse- “Talhah” and “Zubayr”, in this battle 30 thousand guys were killed.

In the battle of “Seffin”, in one side, there were guys like: commander of the faithful Ali [AS] and prominent figures and in another side, there were guys like: “Muawiyyah” , “Amr bin al-‘As” and “Marwan” that they call them companions of prophet [PBUH].

Would they accept Hadrat “Ali” [AS]’s sayings or Talhah’s saying? Would they accept what “Ibn Abbas”, “Imam Hassan” and “Imam Hussein” [AS] and “Ammar” say or what “Zubayr”, “Muawiyyah” and “Amr bin al- ‘As” say? That’s why they found out that these battles and altercations amongst companions couldn’t be justified. Mr.”Taftazani”- who is amongst scientific pillars of Sunni- says in the book “ description of Maqasid“:

أن ما وقع بين الصحابة من المحاربات و المشاجرات علي الوجه المسطور في كتب التواريخ و المذكور علي ألسنة الثقاة، يدل بظاهره علي أن بعضهم قد حاد عن طريق الحق و بلغ حد الظلم و الفسق و كان الباعث له الحقد و العناد و الحسد و اللداد و طلب الملك و الرياسة

What have been quoted from altercations and battles amongst “Sahaba” have authentic document. It shows that some companions were strayed from direct path and reached to the level of oppression and vice because they held grudge against each other and were envious towards each other and would seek presidency.

“Taftazani”- description of Al-Maqasid- v 2, p 306

That’s why they bring up this matter to justify deep dissentions, altercations and battles amongst Sahaba, first:  they said all dissentions amongst Sahaba get back to a Jewish guy named Abdullah bin Saba’. 

Dr.”Ahmad Mahmoud Subhi”- philosophy professor at “Alexandria” university of “Egypt”- says explicitly:

One of facts that Historians have ignored were indifference towards it is that in Islam history bitter and painful incidents have happened, such as: the matter of killing Uthman and battle of “Jamal”

و قد شارك فيها كبار الصحابة و زوجة الرسول

In whch elders of companions and spouse of Prophet [PBUH] attended.

And would say to each other “infidel” and would believe that other side must be killed and historians saw that there’s no way to justify such massacres and … unless:

كان لا بد أن تلقي مسؤولية هذه الأحداث الجسام علي كاهل أحد و لم يكن من المعقول أن يحتمل وزر ذلك كله صحابة أجلاء أبلوا مع رسول الله (صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم) بلاء حسنا، فكان لا بد أن يقع عبء ذلك كله علي إبن سبأ فهو الذي أثار الفتنة التي أدت لقتل عثمان و هو الذي حرض الجيشين يوم الجمل علي الإلتحام علي حين غفلة من علي و طلحة و الزبير

We put the blame of these dissentions amongst Sahaba on someone and the best guy that they could find to ascribe these incidents to him was Abdullah bin Saba’. 

They made Abdullah Saba’ and said that all the altercations of the battle of “Jamal”, Uthman’s assassination and other dissensions amongst companions are all his fault.

Third motive:

They issued Fatwa and said:

about all things which have been recorded about Sahaba in the history,{such as:} issues which are opposite of Sunna and Quran and about calling each other infidel and this belief that killing other side is obligatory:

إلا أن العلماء لحسن ظنهم بأصحاب رسول الله ( ص ) ذكروا لها محامل و تأويلات

Our elders made some justifications for altercations amongst Sahaba and that they knew each other “Infidel” and battles amongst them.

“Taftazani”, description of al-Maqsid, v 2, p 306

When “Ayesha”, “Talhah” and “Zubayr” stand against commander of faithful [AS], “Ammar”, Imam “Hassan” [AS] and Imam “Hussein” [AS], it means that they believe that their murdering is obligatory. In the battle of “Seffin”, “Muawiyyah”, “Amr bin al ‘As”, “Mrwan” and others, believed that killing Hadrat “Ali” [AS] is obligatory otherwise they wouldn’t launch this battle and “Ali” [AS] believed that killing “Muawiyyah” is obligatory. In my debates with elders of Wahhabism, when I wanted discuss about these acts of Sahaba, they would say, let’s bygone be bygone and we shouldn’t bring it up:

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَ لَكُمْ مَا كَسَبْتُمْ وَ لَا تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

Sura AL-BAGHARA / verse 134

It’s not our concern that Hadrat “Ali” [AS] was right or “Talha”, “Zubayr” and “Muawiyyah”, we should solute on Muwuawiyyah and say that he’s in paradise, as well as Hadrat “Ali” [AS] is in paradise. one of religious resources would say:

When commander of faithful [AS] orders his troops to kill “Talhah”, “Zubayr”, “Muawiyyah” and “Amr bin al ‘As”, he believes that they go to the Hell. In the battle of “Jamal”, if “Ayesha” provokes people to kill “Ali” [AS] and his companions, she doesn’t want to kill them sending to the paradise, but she believes that they’ll go to the Hell and murdering them is obligatory. That’s why they began the battle.

When we bring up such things they say: don’t do that and it’s not in our interest.

“Ibn Hajar” @@@ says:

و مما يوجب الإمساك عما شجر بينهم من الإختلاف

It’s obligatory to ignore all dissentions amongst Sahaba {companions of prophet}.

“Ibn Hajar Al-haythami”, Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah”, v 2, p 622 

“Ahmad bin Hanbal” says in the book “History of the Hanballites”, v 1, p 30

It’s obligatory to justify improper acts of Sahaba and believe that they go to the paradise.

Mr.”Yasini”:

What is the opinion of Sunni elders about Abdullah bin Saba’? Where did he live? What was his religion?

Master “Qazvini”:

As for Abdullah bin Saba’, there is a well-known proverb which says:

A liar ought to have a good memory.

To stand against bright culture of Shia, they faked the story or the legend of Abdullah bin Saba’ and there is contradictory sayings about his life in Sunni books.

For instance Mr.“Tbari” – who is amongst Sunni famous historians and Mr.”Dhahabi” calls him the Imam in history and Tafsir-- says about Abdullah bin Saba’:

كان عبدالله بن سبأ يهوديا من أهل الصنعاء و أمه سوداء

Abdullah bin Saba’ was Jewish and was from “Sana’a”, and his mother was Negro. 

“The History of Tabari”, v 3, p 378

Mr.”Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi” says:

“Abdullah bin Saba’, is Jewish and is from “Al-Hirah” in “Iraq”.

“Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi”, differences between sects, p 143

One says he’s from “Iraq” another one says: he’s from “Yemen”.

And ”Muhammad Abu Zahra” -- who’s called Imam and is amongst Sunny famous figures in current age – says:

كان يهوديا من الحيرة أظهر الإسلام

“Abdullah bin Saba’, was Jewish and was from “Al-Hirah” in “Iraq”.

“The History of Islamic sects”, p 38

Some say he was from “Rome”. 

As for the time of his appearance, Mr.”Tabari” says:

He was “Jewish” and at the time of “Uthman”, he apparently converted to Islam and incited people against “Uthman” that led to killing Uthman.

“History of Tabari”-- v 3, p 378

Mr.”Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi”: 

Abd Allah bin Saba’ was “Jewish” and became Muslim at the time of “Ali bin Talib”.

“Abd al-Qahir Baghdai”-- differences between sects, p 15

As for addresses {name of books} that I give, if someone can find one mistake, I’ll reward him. Because some on Wahhabi channels have no response for our reasonable sayings that we quote with authentic document and say that what “Qazvini” said, we looked into them but we didn’t find anything. 

I ask people to inform us via website if they can’t find the address of the book that I gave and we’ll we send them the copy of that page if it’s necessary.

But as for the beliefs of Abdullah bin Saba’ from the perspective of Sunnis, Mr.”Isfarayini” says:

إنه كان يؤمن أن عليا نبي

Adullah bin Saba’ believed that “Ali bin Abi Talib” is prophet.

“Tafsir fi al-ddin”, p 123

Mr.”Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi” says:

ثم يؤمن بأنه إله

Abdullah bin Saba’ believed that “Ali bin Abi Talib” is god.

“Abd al-Qahir Baghdai”-- differences between sects, p 15

Mr.”Shahrastani”- amongst Sunni theologian– says:

كان يؤمن بأن عليا ليس إله كاملا، بل حلّ به جزء الألوهية

Abdullah bin Saba’ believed that “Ali bin Abi Talib wasn’t perfect guy but part of divinity has reincarnated in “Ali”.

“Shahrastani”, Al-Milal wa Al-Nihal, v 1, p 174 

 كان يؤمن بأن عليا وصي النبي

Abdullah bin Saba’ believed that “Ali bin Abi Talib” is the successor of prophet [PBUH].

“Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi”-- differences between sects, p 225

Mr.”Shahrastani” and “Iji” say:

Abdullah bin Saba’ believed that “Ali” is alive and is living in the cloud and sound of lightening that you hear is his voice and one day he’ll come and fill the world with justice.

“Shahrastani”, Al-Milal wa Al-nihal // “Al-Iji”- Al-Mawaqif- v 3, p 679

Mr.”Tabari”- the creator of the legend of Abdullah bin Saba’- says:

كان ينادي بأن النبي سيرجع لا عليا

The one who will get back {to the world} at the time of “Returning” is prophet [PBUH] not “Ali”.

“The History of Tabari” – v 3, p 378

Look at what they say! These are their contradictions about Abdullah bin Saba’. One says: he was the founder of Shia sect, another guy says: he believed that Hadrat “Ali” [AS] is god and another says: he believed that Hadrat “Ali” [AS] is prophet. They themselves couldn’t get  a common point about Abdullah bin Saba’.

Some say: he converted to Islam in the year 30 AH at the time of “Uthman”.

“The History of Tabari”, v 3, p 375 and 378 // “ibn Athir”, The complete History, v 3, p 114

In another book Mr.”Tabari” says: Abdullah bin Saba’ embraced Islam in the Year 33 AH. Mr.”Ibn Athir” says that he became Muslim in the year 27 AH.

It shows that this legend is not real, they add something to this legend each time, that’s why they forget what they said before. these paradoxical sayings show that this issue and legend are lie and fake and the same three mentioned motives are the reason of faking the legend of Abdullah bin Saba’.

Viewers’ questions:

1: what is the decree of swearing by any name other than Allah, for instance: by the name of Shia Imams [AS] or Hadrat “Abu al-Fadl” [AS] or by the shed blood of Imam “Hussein” [AS] I did so or not?

Response:

Those who say that swear by non-god is “Haram” and say that we invite to Quran in this regard. God swears by prophet [PBUH]’s life and says:

لَعَمْرُكَ إِنَّهُمْ لَفِي سَكْرَتِهِمْ يَعْمَهُونَ

By your life, they wandered blindly in their intoxication.

Sura AL-HAJR / verse 72

In above verse god swears by prophet [PBUH]’s life, Quran is example for us.

Quran swears by “Sun” and “Moon”:

وَ الشَّمْسِ وَ ضُحَاهَا * وَ الْقَمَرِ إِذَا تَلَاهَا

By the sun and its midmorning, by the moon, which follows it

Sura ASH-SHAMS/ verse 1-2

It shows that things which have sanctity, we can swear by them. Like the time that we say: swear by my son, mother, father. There isn’t any rejection in narratives in this regard. There is not even one narrative that prophet [PBUH] or Shia Imams [AS] say: don’t swear by non-god.

Question:

Is that true that someone “Nazr” {making spiritual vow} in the name of non-god, for instance: in the name Imams [AS], or in the name of Imam Hussein [AS] in month of “Muharam”?

Response:

Shia’s belief is that if someone wants to prform “Nazr”, his “Nazr” isn’t fulfilled unless he says the formula of “Nazr”. Even if he says one thousand times that I “Nazr” for Imam Hussein [AS] to sacrifice a sheep, It’ll neither be legitimate nor doing it is “Wajib” {obligatory}. He should say I perform “Nazr” for the sake of god almighty to sacrifice a sheep in Imam Hussein [AS]’s shrine or for Imam “Hussein” [AS].  So Arabic formula or it’s translation must be said otherwise “Nazr” isn’t fulfilled.

If you want perform “Nazr”, you should do so for the sake of god not Imam “Hussein” [AS] otherwise this act will be polytheism. He should sacrifice the sheep for the sake of god and distribute her meat amongst people and offers its spiritual reward for Imam Hussein [AS], this kind of “Nazr” is quite correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question:

Wasn’t Abud llah bin Saba’ the founder of Shia?

Response:

I’ll talk about this matter more in the next week. 

Question:

Does “Wahabism” have different branches or not?

Response:

All Wahhabis are the followers of “Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab” and “Ibn Taymiyyah” and don’t have different branches. But recently, whhabism, “Al Saud” in particular, has divided to branches in terms of policy: reformer and ultra.

“Malik Abdullah” and some of his brothers are the leaders of reformers who want to convert “Saudi Arabia” to a country that Europe and America like and give freedom to religious minorities and the leader of radicals is “Amir Sultan”.

Of course, dear viewers shall know that Wahhabis are afraid of the word “Wahhabi” and they don’t say we’re we Wahhabi and say we’re “Salafi”. However this matter isn’t public.

About two weeks ago, I received a fax from “Al-Mustakillah” channel based in London- Wahhabism channel—in which they asked me to send my opinion Wahhabism and “Muhammad bin Abdullah”. And several nights ago they had asked Grand Ayatollah “Makarem Shirazi”, one of religious resources, to debate with them and he had answered, I debate with Grand “Mufti” of “Saudi Arabia” not those with low rank, because scientific and social prestige of two debaters must be kept in the debate.

Question:

One of Shia historians name “Allamah….” Has accepted Abdullah bin Saba’

Response:

You watch our program next week as well, I’ll say Shia’s opinion about him in detail. Amongst Sunni elders such as: Dr. “Taha Hussein”, he has said:

Abdullah bin Saba’ is a legend. To prove their enmity with Shia, they’ve created such thing. 

Dr.”Ali Nashar”, Dr. “Hamid Haqi”, “Muhammad Kamel Hussein”, Dr.”Abd al-Aziz Salih”, Dr.”Suhayl Zakkar” say that story of Abdullah bin Saba’ is fake. Most of Sunni elders have the same opinion.. And we know him as outcast, cursed and evil. If he is the founder of Shia sect we should respect him and praise him. We have narratives from Shia Imams [AS] in which they dispraised him. 

Narratives that say that Abdullah bin Saba’ is the founder of Shia sect, all of them return to the book “The history of Tabari” and “Sayf bin Umar”. “Sayf bin Umar” is infidel and Hadith faker. All the elders of “Rejal” science such as: “Ibn Habban”,

“Yahya bin Ma’in”, “Al-Dhahabi” and Ibn Hajar” have restated to this matter.

Shias have accepted him but as a cursed guy, the one who has exaggerated about “Ali” [AS], not that legend that you’ve created. He ascribed exaggerations to commander of the faithful [AS] and it’s said that “Ali” [AS] burned or exiled him. If he really caused all this sedition and Uthman’s assassination and the battle of “Jamal”, Mr.”Mollazadeh”! Where did this guy go? Did he go under the ground or to the cloud? Where was he when the battle of “siffin” occurred? Where was he when some were selecting caliph? Or after commander of the faithful [AS]’s martyrdom, where did he go when Imam [AS] compromised? Show it to us. 

As some Sunni elders said, to justify sins and improper acts of Sahaba and to question Shia beliefs, they faked the story of Abdullah bin Saba’.

Question:

What’s the difference between Wahhabism and Sunni?

Response:

They’re quite different. Mr.”Zayni Dahlan” –Mufti Mecca, died in 1304 AH- says in the book “Durar al- Saniyyah”, v 1, p 64:

“Muhammad bin “Abd al-Wahhab” founded Wahhabism and said:

All the Muslims- Shafi’i- Maliki- Hanafi and Shia and Zeidi and …- are infidel and former scholars are infidel and anyone who wants become Muslim should bear witness five times:

1: should bear witness that god is one 

2: should bear witness that Muhammad [PBUH] is the prophet

3: should bear witness that I was Polytheist and after becoming Wahhabi I became Muslim.

4: should bear witness that my parents died as Polytheist if they weren’t Wahhabi

5: should bear witness that scholars who died and were not Wahhabi, died as polytheism and I shouldn’t ask forgiveness for them.

Brigadier “Ayyub Sadri” – amongst Sunny elders- says:

When they wanted to take “Mecca”, they killed thousands of Sunni scholars in charge of being infidel and polytheist and that they prevent Wahhabism culture to be spread. 

All Sunni scholars believe that resorting, intercession and pilgrimaging graves and prophets [PBUH] are legitimate. But Wahhabis believe that resorting, intercession and pilgrimaging graves are Haram.

Question:

I say my prayer without “Muhr” {something made of mud that Muslims put their head on it while prostrating in the prayers {Sajdah}, is my prayer accepted or not? My relatives tell me why you do so. 

Response:

Putting our head one the “Muhr” prostrating in prayer is not obligatory {Wajib}. It’s obligatory putting our head on the ground prostrating. If you put your head on soil, stone, wood, paper and mat prostrating, it’ll be fine. but according to our narratives said by prophet [PBUH] and Shia Imams [AS], putting our head on the carpet and fruit prostrating in prayer is not accepted. Because prophet [PBUH] said:

جعلت لي الأرض مسجدا و طهورا

 god has put the ground the place of prostration and cleanliness for me.

“Sahih Bukhari” v 1, p 86 and v 1, P 113

It means we should both put our head on the ground prostrating in prayer and put our hands on the ground to perform “Tayammum”. Those who say that putting our head on the carpet prostrating in prayer {Sajdah} is fine, can they say that performing “Tayammum” on clothing, carpet and hat is fine? when we can’t perform “Tayammum” on the carpet, we definitely can’t put our head on the carpet prostrating in prayer.

It’s written in narrative that prophet [PBUH] put his head on the stone prostrating in prayer. And “Hakim Nishapuri” says that narrative is authentic. 

عن إبن عباس: ان النبي صلي الله عليه و آله سجد علي الحجر * هذا حديث صحيح الاسناد و لم يخرجاه

“Hakim Nishapuri”, Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihayn, v 1, p 473

“Al-Dhahabi” says that narrative is valid.

It’s written in “Sahih Bukhari” that prophet [PBUH]:

يصلي علي حصير يسجد عليه

would say prayer on the mat and put his head on it prostrating in prayer {Sajdah}

يصلي علي الخمرة

{Prophet Muhammad} would say prayer on prayer mat.

“Sahih Bukhari”, v 1,p 100

Al these narratives are written in Sunni books.

“Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas – the grandchild of Abbas, prophet [PBUH]’s uncle—sends a letter to “Mecca”:

أرسل إلي بلوح من المروة أسجد عليه

Send me piece of stone from “Marwa” mountain to put my head on it prostrating in prayer.

“ibn Abi Shaybah”- al-Musnaf, v1, p 308 /// “ibn Asakir” , The History of Damascus, v 43, 50 // Mecca events, v 2, p 151

Mr.”Masruq”- Sunni big scholar- says:

إذا خرج يخرج بلبنة يسجد عليها في السفينة

When he would leave Medina, he carried something like “muhr” made of Medina soil with him and would put his head on that prostrating in prayer on the ship.

“Ibn Sa’d”, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra /// “Abd ar-Razzaq as-San’sni”- Musnaf, v 2, p 583

So, prostration on “Muhr” in prayer is not obligatory, putting our head on the ground while prostrating in prayer is obligatory and we can’t put our head on carpet, clothing, victual for prostration in prayer.

 



Share
* Name:
* Email:
* Comment :
* Security code:
  

Latest Articles
Most Comments
Most viewed
Index | Contact us | Archive | Search | Link | List Comments | About us | RSS | Mobile | urdu | فارسی | العربیة |