Response to: Nawasib have also Accused Prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen of Being the Adherents of Abdullah Ibn Saba

The following is a response to ShiaPen’s article entitled: Nawasib have also Accused Prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen of being the Adherents of Abdullah Ibn Saba, which can be found here.

In this article, ShiaPen lists the following men, then makes the claim that they were the followers of Abdullah bin Saba’a.

The list includes the following men:

1- Abdulrahman bin Udais Al-Balawi

2- Amr bin Al-Hamiq

3- Kinana bin Bishr

4- Hurqoos bin Zuhair

5- Hukaim bin Jabala

6- Ammar bin Yasser

7- Abu Dhar

8- Adi bin Hatim

9- Sudan bin Himran

10- Khalid bin Muljim

However, there is no weight to the claims made by ShiaPen unless they can prove that these men are:

1) From the Sahaba

AND

2) They were followers of Ibn Saba’a, with solid evidence.

For example, we find that ShiaPen’s list includes those who were agreed upon as Tabi`een, and not Sahaba, like Sudan bin Himran, Khalid bin Muljim (aka Abdulrahman), and Kinana bin Bishr.

Also, the opinion that Abu Dharr, `Adi bin Hatim, and `Ammar bin Yasser were followers or were influenced by `Abdullah bin Saba’a is based upon the weak narrations of Saif bin Omar. The fact that they were in the narrations of Saif bin Omar is pointed out by ShiaPen. The report by Ibn Khaldun itself is reliant upon the narration of Saif, so what he reports has no additional weight.

As for Abdulrahman bin Udais, Amr bin Al-Hamiq, Hurqoos bin Zuhair, and Hukaim bin Jabala, then we need to look at each of their cases individually.

1- Abdulrahman bin Udais Al-Balawi was not a companion of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam), nor did he pledge allegiance under the tree. All of the narrations that say such come through the path of Ibn Lahee’a, who is infamous for being a weak narrator. See his biography in Mizan Al-I’itidal and Al-Tahtheeb.

2- Amr bin Al-Hamiq is an actual companion of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam). There are several narrations indicating that he was one of the killers of `Uthman and that he took part in the siege. These narrations can be found in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, Tareekh Al-Tabari, and Tareekh Dimashq. However, each of these narrations contains Mohammad bin Omar Al-Waqidi, the infamous liar. One of the chains includes Ibn Al-Kalbi, who is also a known liar. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon ShiaPen to provide evidence that Amr bin Al-Hamiq participated in the killing of `Uthman.

3- Hurqoos bin Zuhair is referred to as a companion due to a narration in Tareekh Al-Tabari. See Al-Isaba 1/364 (Dar Al-Ma’rifa) However, the narration comes through the path of Saif bin Omar again, and is therefore weak.

4- Hukaim bin Jabala is not a Sahabi either. Ibn Abd Al-Barr says in Al-Istee’aab (p. 199) (Dar Al-Ma’rifa): I do not know of any narration or event that points to him hearing from him (the Prophet), and he did not see him.

Readers should be aware that Abdulrahman bin Udais, Hurqoos and Hukaim have all been described as companions of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) in the compendiums of the Sahaba, like Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba by Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Mandah, Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Ibn Al-Atheer, and Ibn Hajar. However, readers should know that the authors of those books recounted the names of whoever was described as a companion, even if the evidence falls short. This methodology is similar to general books of hadith. The fact that a hadithist includes a narration in their book doesn’t mean that they believe that it is authentically attributed to the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam). Perhaps the most clear about his methodology in this is Ibn Hajar, who said in the introduction of his book 1/6: “The first group who have been referred to as Sahaba through narrations or any other method, whether strong, good, or weak…” In other words, Ibn Hajar included weak narrations that imply the companionship of people, even if he didn’t believe that they were companions.

In the end of the article, ShiaPen ask the following:

Then who is the real follower of Abdullah Ibn Saba, these filthy Nawasib or the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as)?

Ahlulsunnah do not ever claim that Abdullah bin Saba’a was a Twelver Shia. The claim that Ibn Saba’a created Shiasm is due to the fact that he preached concepts that were later adopted by the Shia. These concepts include: The Raja’ah, The Imamate & Wasiyyah, and cursing the Shaikhain Abu Bakr and `Umar, finally his participation in the siege of `Uthman and his hatred for him. See Firaq Al-Shia by the Shi’ee historian Al-Nawbakhti (p. 32) and Sulaiman Al-Awda’s book Abdullah bin Saba’a for further reading.