The Nawasib have for centuries sought to prove a nexus between Abdullah Ibn Saba and the Shi’a of Ali (as), but in vain. Their propaganda continues unabated whenever these filthy Nawasib find a few Shi’a traditions mentioning Abdullah Ibn Saba, they rejoice in the same way that the mother of their Imam Mu’awiya would when she added another conquest to her filthy bed. Before we examine the texts, we would pose a simple question, did the Shia faith originate from Abdullah Ibn Saba or did the Shia faith already exist? According to ibn Khaldun al-Ḥaḍrami:
The jurists and theologians of the past, used the word Shia to apply to the followers of Ali and his descendants.
Muqaddimah page 192
Muhammad al-Shahrastānī, the renowned Sunni Islamic scholar in his most famed book, "Kitab al–Milal wa al-Nihal" wrote
"Shiites are the ones who specifically supported Hadrath Ali (as) and ascribe to a belief in his Imamate and Khilafah, whether that be via textual evidence, a will whether the be explicit or implicit, they only believe in the imamate and khilafat in Ali and his descendants"
Kitab al–Milal wa al-Nihal" page 217
Alhamdolillah the Shia are the those that ascribe to a belief that the Imamate and Khilafah of Ali immediately succeeded the Messenger of Allah (swt), this can be evidenced via strong and reliable textual proofs. Hence, relying on a view about Abdullah Ibn Saba that is, based on a sole text that we shall analyse is something shrouded in ignorance, bias and disingenuity. What better example of this baseless methodology can there be than the comments of their leader Maulana Azam Tariq (la) who wrote:
Talking of Abdullah Ibn Saba, let me inform that the present day Shi’a Mujtahids and writers severely reject that their leader was Abdullah Ibn Saba in fact they while denying the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba say that this is just a fictional name but the reality is that the amount of introduction and discussion of Ibn Saba present in Shi’a with succession and detail, the books of Ahle Sunnah may not have that much. The correct thing is to cite some introduction and beliefs of Ibn Saba from authentic and reliable books of Shi’a so that the truth could be elucidated…
Renowned Shi’a Mujtahid Allamah Maqani in ‘Tanqeh al-Maqal’ and an esteemed Shi’a Mujtahid and author Allamah Baqir Majlisi in his lengthy book ‘Bihar al Anwar’ Volume 25 page 287 quote from Rijal al-Kashi:
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then became Muslim and became believer of the Wilayah of Ali (ra). He during his Jewish days used to say while doing Ghulu about Hadhrat Yusha bin Nun (as) that he was Wasi of Hadhrat Musa (as). Then after becoming Muslim, he started saying same sort of things for Hadhrat Ali (ra) i.e. he was Wasi after the death Prophet (s)”.Read some more qualities of Ibn Saba in detail here.“He was the first person who propagated that it is obligatory to be a believer of the Imamate of Ali (ra) and he did Tabbarrah on the enemies (that accursed was referring to Khulfa Rashideen) of Ali (ra) and he exposed the opponents of Ali (ra) and called them Kaafir. From this, those who are opponents of the Shi’a say that Tashayee and Rafidism is replica of Jewism (Bihar al Anwar, Volume 25 page 287).”
Later on the idiot author produces this heading ‘glimpses of Ibn Saba’s teachings in the Shi’a madhab’:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
- Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi of Prophet.
- He used to do open Tabbarrah against the enemies of Ali.
- He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to be Kaafir
[Khutbaat e Jail, pages 23-26]
Since the author tampered with the Shia text he quoted by shuffling the text around, let us present the proper text:
وبهذا الاسناد عن محمد بن خالد الطيالسي عن ابن ابي نجران عن عبد الله قال قال ابو عبدالله عليه السلام أنا أهل البيت صديقون لا نخلو من كذاب يكذب علينا ويسقط صدقنا بكذبه علينا عند الناس ، كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أصدق الناس لهجة وأصدق البرية وكان مسيلمة يكذب عليه ، وكان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أصدق من برأ لله بعد رسول الله وكان يكذب عليه ويعمل في تكذيب صدقه ويفتري على الله الكذب عبد الله بن سبأ
"Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalsi narrated from Ibn Abi Najran from Abdullah from Abu Abdullah (as) who said: ‘We Ahlulbayt are truthful but there is always a liar who attributes lies to us and confuses the people. Allah’s messenger (s) was the most truthful man but Musaylema used to attribute lies to him. The commander of the believers (as) is the most truthful man after Allah’s messenger, but many lies were attributed to him and to Allah by Abdullah bin Saba’ "
Immediately after this tradition, we have the following comments by al-Kashi which the Nasibi author relied upon:
وذكر (2) بعض أهل العلم أن عبد الله بن سبا كان يهوديا فأسلم ووالى عليا عليه السلام وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون وصي موسى بالغلو فقال في إسلامه بعد وفاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في علي عليه السلام مثل ذلك. وكان أول (3) من أشهر بالقول بفرض إمامة علي عليه السلام وأظهر البراءة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وأكفرهم (4)، فمن ههنا قال من خالف الشيعة: أصل التشيع والرفض مأخوذ من اليهودية.
“Some of the people of knowledge have stated that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew and then became Muslim and followed Ali (as). During his Jewish days, he would say that Yusha bin Nun (as) was the Wasi of Musa (as) and some extremist statements. After becoming Muslim, he started saying similar things about Ali (as). He was the first person who announced in public that it is obligatory to believe in the Imamate of Ali (as) and he did Tabbarrah on his (Ali’s) enemies and exposed his (Ali’s) opponents and called them Kaafir. It is due to this, that the opponents of the Shi’a say that Shiaism and Rafidism originates from Judaism”
The double standards of the people as brutally exposed their double standards. When it comes to their own literature, they will insist on the production of authentic chains to substantiate a point, but when it comes to Shia works such an approach is thrown out of the window. We should remind them what their celebrated Hadith scholar opined as recorded in the Muqaddimah of Sahih Muslim page 36:
وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ قُهْزَاذَ مِنْ أَهْلِ مَرْوَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَانَ بْنَ عُثْمَانَ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ، يَقُولُ: «الْإِسْنَادُ مِنَ الدِّينِ، وَلَوْلَا الْإِسْنَادُ لَقَالَ مَنْ شَاءَ مَا شَاءَ
“it is written that Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Qazadh says he heard Abdullah bin Urh-man day he heard Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak say:
“The isnad (chain of narration) is from the religion; were it not for the isnad anyone could say anything they wanted.”
Muqaddima Sahih Muslim (Urdu) page 36
Now, as for the tradition, Shaykh Baqir Majlesi has quoted it in his book Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 25 page 287 from Rijal al-Kashi, page 103 and one of its narrators namely Muhammad bin Khalid al-Teyalesi has been declared ‘unknown’ by Majlesi himself in his book Rijal al-Majlesi, page 301 as well as by Shaykh Jawaheri in his book Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam Rijal al-Hadith, page 524 while Rohani in his book Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 14 page 100 said that Muhammad bin Khalid is ‘unauthenticated’.
Sheikh Muhammad Hasim Al-Majidi has dismissed him in Ikhtiar Ma'rifat al-Rijal, page 322 as follows:
ھذا الکلام غیر سدیدا حتماً لان اول تبراء من مخالفی علی ؑ ھو سلیمان والمقداد فی حیات النبی ﷺ و بعدہ وفاتہ مباشرة و کذلک ابو ذر و تبعھم و عمار و قیس بن سعد اور قیس بن سعد قائل رہے
"This statement is untrue, because the first ones that distanced themselves from the opponents of Ali (as) were Sulayman and Miqdad during the life of the Prophet (s), and Ammar believed in following him (Ali) after his death and Qais bin Sa'd ascribed to this".
As for the commentary of al-Kashi which the Nasibi author had tried to portray as some Shia Hadiith/tradition, we would argue that this was a personal opinion of al-Kashi and that too, without any reference, as the source upon which al-Kashi sought reliance was from “Some of the people of knowledge have stated”. Can the filthy Nawasib like that of Sipah-e-Sahabah (kr-hcy.com) tell us which people are referred to as “Some of the people of knowledge” ? What are their names? Are they Sunni or Shi’a? Were they men of falsehood or truth? What was their level of educational attainment? What was their historical importance? Alhamdolillah we are confident enough to state that these are questions that the Nawasib can never answer, even if their hero Mu’awiya was resurrected from the wrath of his grave to assist them.
Even those with a limited knowledge of the science of Hadiths would know that such traditions can never be deemed reliable and authentic. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed work Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has established a chapter namely ‘al-Mubhamat’ in which he declared traditions that originate with the words “narrated from some normal ones” and “narrated from a man amongst the companions” as ‘Mubham’ and ‘Majhul’. (See Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, pages 463-469, published in Delhi).
The experts of the science of Hadith have unanimously stated that traditions transmitted from ‘unknown’ people are unreliable in the eyes of the Ulema. Thus, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in a famed book on the principles of Hadith whilst discussing the unreliability of ‘unknown’ traditions stated:
ولا يُقْبَلُ حديثُ المُبْهَم، ما لم يُسَمَّ، لأن شرط قبول الخبر عدالة رواته، ومَنْ أُبْهِمَ اسْمُه لا يُعرفُ عَيْنهُ؛ فكيف عدالته
“Mubham Hadith, those wherein the narrator is unknown is unacceptable because the criteria for accepting traditions is that its narrator be just, so how can this be deduced when the name of the narrator is unknown? How can his being ‘just’ be established?”
Nata'ij al-Afkar fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Adhkar page 36
Ibn Kathīr said:
فأما المبهم الذي لم يسم، أو من سمي ولا تعرف عينه فهذا ممن لا يقبل روايته احد علمناه
“The narrations from Mubham persons is unacceptable”
Ikhtisar 'Ulum al-Hadith page 92
Allamah Ibn Hazm Andlasi whilst discussing a tradition transmitted with the words “A man from amongst the companions of the Prophet” termed it ‘Majhul’.
1. Al-Muhallah, Volume 4 page 417 and Volume 7 page 338 (Cairo)
2. Maulam al-Sunan Imam Khatabi, Volume 1 page 119 (Halab)
We see that our opponents try their utmost to prove that each and every companion of our Holy Prophet (s) was just and worthy of being followed but here, when a tradition is transmitted from an unnamed companion it is unacceptable because we cannot determine his identity, this being the case how can someone rely on those traditions that are not transmitted from any companion of the Holy Prophet (s) rather they originate from an unknown person?
Moreover Muhaddith Sakhawi in ‘Fathul Mugheeth Sharah Fi al-Hadeeth’ page 132 (old edition, Lucknow), Hafiz Darqatni Baghdadi in ‘Sunan Darqatni’ Volume 2 page 361 (Delhi), Imam Ibn Salah in ‘Muqadmah Ibn Asah’ page 42 (Egypt), Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in ‘Tadreeb al Rawi’ page 499 (new edition, Madinah) and Allamah Abdul Hai Lucknawi in ‘Zafar al-Amani fi Mukhtasir al-Jarjani’ page 48 (old edition, Lucknow) have produced fruitful discussions and have stated that Majhul traditions cannot be deemed reliable. It is evident that utilising such unknown, unreliable and baseless traditions as evidence with which to deconstruct the doctrine of a school of thought constitutes clear deceit.
Even a child can know that all parties, groups, and sects mention the founders or pioneer / personalities of their sects with immense zeal, respect and pride but if you analyze the Shi’a Rijal books then you will see that at no place has Abdulah Ibn Saba even been slightly praised rather the tamest tradition the Shi’a scholars have recorded of him contain these words:
“Abdullah Ibn Saba is more accursed than what can be said about him”
Asal aShi’a wa Usulaha, page 57 (Najaf)
Interestingly, the Shi’a traditions the Nasibi author cited also condemn Abdulah Ibn Saba. The Shi’a of Ali (as) have always condemned Abdullah Ibn Saba and his associates and according to some traditions Imam Ali (as) burnt Abdullah Ibn Saba alive and quashed his fitnah because he falsely attributed Prophethood and divinity to him (Ali (as)). Despite this, these Jews remained firm in their destructive cause, and continued their nefarious task through Abdullah bin Salam and Kaab al Ahbar. Alhamdolillah these deviants failed to triumph over the beliefs of the Shi’a of Ali (as).
When Musa passed away, the leadership of Bani Isra’il passed to Yusha bin Nun. Yusha bin Nun is not mentioned directly in the Qur’an but he is the servant (fata) of Musa who is referred to in the following verse of the Qur’an.
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِفَتَىٰهُ لَآ أَبْرَحُ حَتَّىٰٓ أَبْلُغَ مَجْمَعَ ٱلْبَحْرَيْنِ أَوْ أَمْضِىَ حُقُبًا
And (remember) when Musa said to his boy-servant: "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or a Huqub passes.''
Surah al-Kahf verse 60
Whilst Yusha is not mentioned by name in this verse Muslim exegetes claim that he is the "companion" [Ar. fata] of Moses
In Tafsir ibn Kathir it is discussed under the heading:
The Story of Musa and Al-Khidr
The reason for Musa's conversation with the boy-servant, Yusha` bin Nun
When the death of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was approaching, God commanded him have Joshua bin Nun to enter the Dome of the Rock, he (Moses) blessed him (supplicate for him) and placed his blessed hand over his body to acquire the benefit of blessings. He (Moses) bequeathed that they take charge of the children of Israel after them
Tarikh Yaqubi Volume 1 page 46 published Beirut
This proves that Joshua bin Nun was indeed the Wasi (successor) of Moses. Let us now turn to the traditions of Ahl as-Sunnah that Ibn Saba didn't concoct a view the Ali (as) was the Wasi of Rasulullah (s) in the same way that Yusha was the Wasi of Moses (as). Just like Yusha bin Nun, Ali is the Wasi (executor) of the Prophet (s). al-Haythami and at-Ṭabarāni have narrated this hadith in their respective works:
و عن سلیمان قال قلت یا رسول اللہ ﷺ ان لکل نبی وصیا فمن وصیک فسکت علی فلما کان رائ فقال یا سلیمان فاسرعت الیہ قلت لبیک قال و نعلم من وصی موسی ؑ قال نعم یوشع بن نون قال لم قلت لانہ کان اعلمھم یومئذ قال فان وصی و موضع سری و خیر من اترک بعدی و ینجز و یقضی دینی علی ابن ابی طالب ؑ
“Salman Farsi (ra) says: I asked the Messenger of Allah (s) O Messenger of Allah (s), there was a successor for every Prophet. Who is your successor? He (s) remained silent. Later when he saw me he summoned be 'O Salman!'”
Hearing this, I hurried towards him, he asked me 'Do you know who the Wasi of Musa was?' I replied 'Yes, he was Joshua son of Nun'. He asked 'why?' I replied 'because he was the most learned man at that time'. He said, "So my wasi is the wasi of my secrets, the best person after me, the one who fulfills my promises and pays my debts, Ali Ibn Abi Talib."
- Majmau' al-Zawa'id wa Manba' al-Fawa'id by Nur al-Din al-Haythami, Volume 9 page 102 hadith number 14668
- Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir by at-Ṭabarāni hadith number 6063
This proves that the truth of Ibn Saba's statement also appears from the Hadith literature of our opponents
Ever since the ancestors of our opponents partook in the drama at Saqifa as a means of taking the reigns of religion at the expense of its rightful successors, their descendants have concocted all manner of excuse for the atrocoties committed by their ancestors in the religion of Islam and in this endeavor their key tool of propaganda was that:
Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has no legitimate right to succeed the Holy Prophet (s) and this concept was introduced and propogated by Abdullah Ibn Saba during the caliphate of Uthman and hence a campaign was launched by him against Uthman that ended in Uthman’s murder and the Shias are adherents of Adullah Ibn Saba in this regard.
This theory served two purposes for our opponents, namely:
Azam Tariq was no different in this regard when he said:
The beliefs of Ibn Saba that I have presented from reliable Shi’a books contain three things:
- Abdulah Ibn Saba believed that Ali was the Wasi of Prophet.
The lummox mullah and his like minded ilk should know that Abdullah Ibn Saba was not the first person to introduce the belief that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of Prophet (s) rather it was Holy Prophet (s) himself who declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his (s) Wasi. al-Haskani, in his commentary of Surah Baqarah verse 30 records this narration:
حدثنا محمد بن عبداللہ کذا قال حدثنا محمد بن حماد الاثرم بالبصرة و علی بن داود القنطری عن سفیان الثوری عن منصور عن مجاھد عن سیلمان الفارسی ؓ قال سمعت رسول اللہ ﷺ یقول إن وصي و خلیفتي خیر من اترک بعدی و ینجز موعدی و یقضی دینی علی ابن ابی طالب
"It is narrated on the authority of Salman Farsi (ra) that he heard the Rasulullah (s) say: After me, my wasi, khalifa and judge over my religion is Ali Ibn Abi Talib"
Shawāhid al-tanzīl li qawāʿīd al-tafḍīl by al-Hakim al-Haskani Volume 1 pages 76-77
Under the commentary of the verse pertaining to Ali (as) being the Wasi of Prophet (s) we read:
“And warn your tribe of near kindred…”
(The Qur’an 26: 214)
According to various Sunni historians and commentators of Holy Quran the Holy Prophet (as) declared Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as his caliph and Wasi. He (s) clearly stated:
“This is my brother, Wasi and caliph among you. Listen to him and obey him”.
1.Tafseer Khazin, Volume 5 page 106 (Egypt)
2.Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel Baghwi, Volume 5 page 105
3.Tarikh Kamil, Volume 2 page 122
4.History of Tabari, Volume 6 pages 90-91 by Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari
Tarikh Tabari (Arabic), Volume 1 pages 542-543
al-Haythami records:
حَدَّثَنَا أَسْوَدُ بْنُ عَامِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنِ الْمِنْهَالِ، عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَسَدِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ {وَأَنْذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الْأَقْرَبِينَ} قَالَ جَمَعَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ فَاجْتَمَعَ ثَلَاثُونَ فَأَكَلُوا وَشَرِبُوا قَالَ فَقَالَ لَهُمْ مَنْ يَضْمَنُ عَنِّي دَيْنِي وَمَوَاعِيدِي وَيَكُونُ مَعِي فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَيَكُونُ خَلِيفَتِي فِي أَهْلِي فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ لَمْ يُسَمِّهِ شَرِيكٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنْتَ كُنْتَ بَحْرًا مَنْ يَقُومُ بِهَذَا قَالَ ثُمَّ قَالَ الْآخَرُ قَالَ فَعَرَضَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَا
“When this verse was revealed - “And warn your tribe (O Muhammad (ﷺ)) of near kindred` [ash-Shu`ara` 26:214] - the Prophet (ﷺ) gathered his family together. Thirty people gathered and ate and drank. Then he said to them: `Who could take care of my debts and promises for me, and he will be with me in Paradise and will be my successor among my family?` A man-Shareek did not name him – said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), you are like an ocean; who could do that? Then he offered that to the members of his family and ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه) said: I will”
Haythami narrated this from Ibn Hanbal and commented the narration of Jayid (strong)
Majma al-Zawa'id volume 9 page 109
Moreover Ibn Asakir in Tareekh Damishq, Volume 42 page 392 records this Hadith:
Ibn Buraida narrated from his father that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Every prophet has an executor (Wasi) and inheritor (Waris), and Ali is my executor and inheritor’.
Moreover we read in All-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 4 page 171:
حدثنا محمد بن عبد الله الحضرمي ثنا محمد بن مرزوق ثنا حسين الأشقر ثنا قيس عن الأعمش عن عباية بن ربعي عن أبي أيوب الأنصاري أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لفاطمة رضي الله عنها : أما علمت أن الله تعالى اطلع إلى أهل الأرض فاختار منهم أباك فبعثه نبيا ثم اطلع الثانية فاختار بعلك فأوحى إلي فأنكحته واتخذته وصيا
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami from Muhammad bin Marzooq from Hussain al-Ashqar from Qays from Amash from Abaya bin Rubay from Abi Ayub al-Ansari who said: ‘Allah’s apostle said to Fatima: ‘Don’t you know that Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth and chose your father and sent him as prophet, then (Allah) looked once again and chose your husband and inspired me to marry him to you and I chose him to be Wasi’.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Dhahabi said: ‘Truthful’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41)
Darqutni said: ‘Thiqa’ (Syar alam alnubala, v14, p41). Muhammad bin Marzooq: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban included him in his book al-Thuqat, v9, p125. Hussain al-Ashqar: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdib). Ibn Haban mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v8, p185. Qays bin al-Rabee: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Tayalesi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tahdeeb al-Kamal, v24, p30). Amash: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb). Ibn Haban mentioned him in al-Thuqat, v4, p302. Abaya bin Rabay: Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not comment about him (al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v7, p29). Ibn Haban included him in al-Thuqat, v5, p281.
If people that share the same stubbornness as Azam Tariq, and reject our stance then what do they say about the coronation of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm? We had previously cited this event from the pen of Dr Tahir ul Qadri al Hanafi as follows:
It is narrated by ‘Ali (as) himself. He said: on the day of Ghadir Khum, the Messenger of Allah (saww) had a turban tied round my head (as a symbol of honour) and let the loose end hang down at the back. Then he said: The angels whom Allah (swt) had sent to help me at Badr and Hunayn were wearing turbans of the same kind. He then added: surely the turban differentiates between belief and disbelief.” ‘
[Tayalisi related it in al-Musnad (p.23#154); and Bayhaqi in as-Sunan-ul-kubra (10:14).
Hindi says in Kanz-ul-'ummal (15:306,482#41141,41909) that, besides Tayalisi, this tradition has also been narrated by Bayhaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Abi Shaybah and Ibn Muni'. Hindi has added the following words:
"Surely the turban differentiates between Muslims and polytheists."
'Abd-ul-A'la bin 'Adi has also narrated that the Prophet (saww) called 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as) on the day of Ghadir Khum, tied a turban round his head (as a sign of honour) and let the loose end hang down at the back.
This tradition is recorded in the following books:
i. Ibn Athir, Asad-ul-ghabah fi ma'rifat-is-sahabah (3:170)
ii. Muhib Tabari, ar-Riyad-un-nadrah fi manaqib-il-'ashrah (3:194).
iii. Zurqani, Sharh-ul-mawahib-il-laduniyyah (6:272).
The Ghadir Declaration, Page 80
This cornonation followed the declaration of the Wilayah of Maula Ali (as) at Ghadhir Khumm with the words ‘Of whomsoever I am Maula, Ali is his Maula’.
The majority Sunni stance is that the sermon had no significance and was merely a reaffirmation of the friendship of Ali (as) before the companions, Maula meant friend, not Master. We appeal to justice, what do you say of Rasulullah (s) tying the turban around the head of Imam ‘Ali (as)? Is this a standard practice that one does to a specific friend in a large gathering, or is it tied around the head of one that you deem your Wasi, Waris and successor?
In Majma' al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 146 we read:
عن أبي الطفيل قال خطبنا الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وذكر أمير المؤمنين عليا رضي الله عنه خاتم الأوصياء ووصي الأنبياء وأمين الصديقين والشهداء
Narrated Abu al-Tufayl: 'Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib delivered a sermon to us. He thanked Allah, and then mentioned Amir al-Muminin Ali (ra), the best of the Awsiya [plural of Wasi], and the Wasi of all the prophets, and the amnesty for the truthful ones and the martyrs…’.
al-Haythami states about the authenticity of the tradition:
ورواه أحمد باختصار كثير وإسناد أحمد وبعض طرق البزار والطبراني في الكبير حسان
Ahmad has narrated it in a very summarized form, and the chain of Ahmad, and many of the chains of al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir are ‘Hasan’.
We cannot afford to waste time, energy and space in highlighting the exalted status of Hassan bin Ali (as) as that is known to everyone. As for Abu Tufayl, we read in Sahih Muslim Book 30, Number 5777:
Jurairi reported: I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? He said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra was the last of the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).
Do the Nawasib want us to believe that Imam Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl were also adherents of Ibn Saba for believing that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s)? Moreover we all know that as per the belief coined by our opponents, anyone who adheres to a Sahabi will attain salvation, so what is wrong if the Shia adhere to prominent Sahaba such as Imam Hassan (as) and Abu Tufayl?.
Ali (as) being the Wasi of the Prophet (s) was not some secret, the companions also raised this before Ayesha, a fact recorded in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s most authentic book Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his successor [WASI]. ‘Aisha said, “When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?”
The Yemeni Sunni scholar Muḥammad al-Shawkani in fact relied on this narration so support the viewpoint that a body of the Sahaba deemed Ali (as) the Wali over the Ummah.
“Know that many of the haters of the Shia oppose their opinion by saying their opinion Imam Ali (as) the successor of the Prophet (saw) is a myth; this is stubbornness and ignorance far from being neutral. As how can the situation be so (i.e. a myth), since many of the companions said so too, as Narrated in the two Sahih that some companions mentioned to Aisha (regarding the will) that Ali was the successor....”
Al-Iqd Al Thamin Fi Ithbat Wasaya Amir Al -Moumineen (Proving the succession of Amir al Moumineen) page 45
In light of this tradition allow us to present some questions to Azam Tariq’s spiritual successors:
It is quite stupid of the Nawasib to draw a nexus between the Shia and Abdullah Ibn Saba due to the belief that Ali (as) is the Wasi of Prophet (as), had they cantered through their own books they would have realized that prominent Sunni scholars likewise believed Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to be the Wasi of Prophet (s). For example, Allamah Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi in his authority work Tafsir Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volumw 29 page 158 whilst commenting on the revelation of Surah Insaan in praise of the Ahlulbayt (as), stated:
بعدم النزول فيهما لا يتطامن مقامهما ولا ينقص قدرهما إذ دخولهما في الأبرار أمر جلي بل هو دخول أولي فهماهما وماذا عسى يقول أمرؤ فيهما سوى أن عليا مولى المؤمنين ووصى النبي وفاطمة البضعة الأحمدية والجزء المحمدي وأما الحسنان فالروح والريحان وسيد شباب الجنان وليس هذا من الرفض ما سواه عندي هو الغي
Even if this Surah was not revealed for these personalities, it does not affect their status as their inclusion in the great status is not only evident, rather foremost; they are what they are. What can one say about them except that Ali is Moula of believers and Prophet’s Wasi, and Fatima is a part of the Prophet and her beloved, and Hasan and Hussain are the spirit and flowers (of the Prophet) and the Chiefs of the Youth of Paradise; and there is no part of Rafdh in this, rather what is said other than this is misguidance.
Not only this, but we read in Yanabi ul Mawadah, Volume 1 page 254 by Shaykh Suleman Andozi al-Hanafi that Imam Shafiyee affirmed:
علي حبه جنة قسيم النار والجنة
وصي المصطفى حقا امام الانس والجنة
Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah Hakim Nisaburi is also reported by Dhahabi to have believed that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s). We read in Mizan al-Etidal, by Volume 3 page 608:
وقوله إن عليا وصي
”His (Hakim) statement that Ali is Wasi”
Imam Abdulrazak Al-Sana’ani likewise also believed that Ali (as) was the Wasi of the Prophet (s). Kahlani has recorded Sana’ani’s statement in his book Thamarat al-Nazar, page 37:
فَإِن انْتهى نَصبه إِلَى إِطْلَاق لِسَانه بسب الْوَصِيّ رَضِي الله عَنهُ فقد انْتَهَت بِهِ بدعته إِلَى الْفسق الصَّرِيح
“If his Nasb led him to abuse the Wasi (may Allah be pleased with him) then his innovation led him to open Fisq”
Azam Tariq stated:
He used to do open Tabbarrah against the enemies of Ali.
The second accusation of the author and his ilk about performing Tabbarrah i.e. disassociating oneself or cursing the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) serves to only prove Nasibi ignorance. If performing Tabbarrah from the enemies of Ali bin Talib (as) is something condemnable, then are our opponents suggesting that maintaining intimacy with the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) is a noble deed? Remember, one that bares hatred to Imam Ali (as) is a Nasibi and a hypocrite which means that he is Kaafir. Why did the Holy Prophet (s) declare the following about Ali (as) on the day of Ghadeer:
“O God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.”
Sunan Ibn Maja, Volume 1, pages 12 & 43
Moreover, practicing disassociation (barat) from the enemies of Ali (as) and from those that bare hatred of him is evidenced in the books of Hadeeth.
The esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors, but not because they were friends with them or deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they used to take it because it was their own right which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir people. How could this happen on the basis of friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj via the sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Prior to them, people had the same attitude towards Muawiya when he became ruler after the murder of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to take stipends from Muawiya), they weren’t friendly towards him, in fact they used to do Tabbarra on him [Muawiya] in the same manner as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) until Allah (swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan“
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87 (Beirut)
This cursing of Muawiya was not clandestine in nature, it was so open that we have an admission that this was a practice that Ali (as) and his sons would partake in, meaning that it was a known fact, not hidden away within the confines of their homes. If the practice of openly cursing the enemies of Ali (as) was first propagated by Ibn Saba, are they going to suggest that Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) were all under the influence of Ibn Saba and he convinced them to curse their enemy Muawiya? If as we have previously pointed out, ifALLthe Sahaba are just and truthful and salvation can be acquired by adhering to any of them, then what is the objection if the Shia curse Muawiya in the same way that three Sahaba, Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) did?
Azam Tariq stated:
He would deem the opponents of Hadhrat Ali to be Kaafir
Thirdly, as for deeming the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) to be Kaafirs; this was again not the teaching of Abdullah Ibn Saba rather the clear-cut declaration of the Prophet of Islam (s). An individual that bares hatred twards Ali (as) is a a hypocrite. Now we ask these ignorant Nawasib whether a hypocrite is a Kaafir or a Mumin? What do the following words of the Holy Prophet (s) mean to Nawasib?
“Whoever hates Ali, hates me and whoever hates me, hates Allah (swt)”
We are the opponents of the Nawasib and since they themselves fall into the above category of the above mentioned Hadeeths, they have sought to protect themselves by attributing these Islamic beliefs and principles to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Ultimately the question is how long will these people be able to protect themselves via Saudi Petro Dollars? Their being extinguished out along with the Sufiyani and Dajjal is a reality that they will have to face one day.
 page 36-1647205624.jpg){kind=link}
 page 45-1647816604.jpg){kind=link}