A Source-by-Source Refutation of the “Jewish Founder” Myth
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/30/ibn-saba-the-jew-the-spiritual-father-of-the-rafidha-an-unquestionable-truth/
Here is a simple challenge for anyone who claims that Abdullah ibn Saba founded Shiism:
Produce one authentic Shia narration in which:
The Imams acknowledge Ibn Saba as their teacher;
a Shia Imam receives the doctrine of Imamah from him;
a Shia narrator transmits religious knowledge from him;
a Shia book treats him as an authority;
or any recognised Shia doctrine is narrated through him.
No such narration exists.
Not one Shia Imam praised him.
Not one Shia jurist relied upon him.
Not one Shia chain of hadith passes through him as an authority.
Not one Shia book derives Imamah, jurisprudence, theology or Qur’anic interpretation from him.
The strongest Shia reports concerning Abdullah ibn Saba do exactly the opposite: they curse him, condemn him as a liar and extremist, and declare Imam Ali a.s to be a righteous servant of Allah—not a deity.
Therefore, even if a historical extremist named Abdullah ibn Saba existed, his existence does not make him the founder, teacher or “spiritual father” of Shiism.
That conclusion must be proven independently. It cannot simply be assumed.
1. We do not need to deny that an extremist named Ibn Saba existed
Some Shia researchers have argued that the entire personality was created or greatly expanded by Sayf ibn Umar. Other Shia researchers accept that a marginal extremist named Abdullah ibn Saba probably existed but maintain that his alleged empire-wide political role was fabricated or massively exaggerated.
Our refutation does not depend upon denying his existence.
Let us grant, for argument’s sake, that there was a man named Abdullah ibn Saba.
What do the strongest Shia reports actually say about him?
They say that he falsely attributed divinity to Imam Ali a.s and that the Imams cursed and rejected him.
They do not say that he invented Imamah.
They do not say that he founded the Shia school.
They do not say that the Shia Imams took anything from him.
They do not say that he created the doctrine of twelve Imams.
They do not say that he formulated Shia jurisprudence.
They do not say that he caused the revolt against Uthman.
They do not say that he secretly controlled the companions of Imam Ali a.s.
The distinction is fundamental:
The existence of a condemned extremist does not prove that an entire Islamic school originated from him.
2. The three strongest Shia reports condemn Ibn Saba—they do not make him a founder
Shaykh Ali Al Muhsin examined the Shia reports concerning Ibn Saba and concluded that the authentic material is restricted to three narrations in Rijal al-Kashshi. These reports prove that a person named Ibn Saba made an extreme claim about Imam Ali a.s. They prove nothing beyond that.
First authentic report
The chain is:
Muhammad ibn Qulawayh → Sa‘d ibn Abdullah → Ya‘qub ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn Isa → Ibn Abi Umayr → Hisham ibn Salim → Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq a.s.
Arabic:
إِنَّهُ لَمَّا ادَّعَى ذَلِكَ فِيهِ اسْتَتَابَهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، فَأَبَى أَنْ يَتُوبَ
Translation:
“When he made that claim concerning Amir al-Mu’minin, Amir al-Mu’minin asked him to repent, but he refused to repent.”
Reference:
Al-Kashshi, Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat al-Rijal, report concerning Abdullah ibn Saba.
What was “that claim”?
The report explicitly says:
وَمَا ادَّعَى مِنَ الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ
“What he claimed of lordship concerning Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
This report concerns ghuluww—the claim that Imam Ali a.s possessed divinity or lordship.
It does not concern the ordinary Shia doctrine that Imam Ali a.s was the rightful Imam after the Prophet ﷺ.
Second authentic report
The chain is:
Muhammad ibn Qulawayh → Sa‘d ibn Abdullah → Ya‘qub ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn Isa → Ali ibn Mahziyar → Fadalah ibn Ayyub → Aban ibn Uthman → Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq a.s.
Arabic:
لَعَنَ اللَّهُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَأٍ، إِنَّهُ ادَّعَى الرُّبُوبِيَّةَ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَكَانَ وَاللَّهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ طَائِعًا
Translation:
“May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba. He claimed lordship concerning Amir al-Mu’minin, whereas, by Allah, Amir al-Mu’minin was an obedient servant of Allah.”
The report continues:
الْوَيْلُ لِمَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيْنَا، وَإِنَّ قَوْمًا يَقُولُونَ فِينَا مَا لَا نَقُولُهُ فِي أَنْفُسِنَا، نَبْرَأُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ
Translation:
“Woe to whoever lies about us. Some people say concerning us what we do not say concerning ourselves. We dissociate ourselves from them before Allah.”
Reference:
Al-Kashshi, Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat al-Rijal, report 172 in one numbering system.
This narration is devastating to the anti-Shia argument.
It does not present Ibn Saba as a Shia authority.
It presents him as a liar whose beliefs are rejected by the Shia Imam.
The central Shia statement is:
وَكَانَ وَاللَّهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ طَائِعًا
“By Allah, Amir al-Mu’minin was an obedient servant of Allah.”
That is the direct opposite of Ibn Saba’s alleged doctrine.
Third authentic report
The chain passes through Ibn Abi Umayr, Hisham ibn Salim and Abu Hamzah al-Thumali to Imam Ali ibn al-Husayn a.s.
Arabic:
لَعَنَ اللَّهُ مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيْنَا، إِنِّي ذَكَرْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَأٍ فَقَامَتْ كُلُّ شَعْرَةٍ فِي جَسَدِي
Translation:
“May Allah curse whoever lies about us. I mentioned Abdullah ibn Saba and every hair on my body stood up.”
The Imam then says:
كَانَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ وَاللَّهِ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ صَالِحًا
Translation:
“By Allah, Ali was a righteous servant of Allah.”
Reference:
Al-Kashshi, Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat al-Rijal, report 173 in one numbering system.
These are the strongest Shia narrations.
Their message is:
Ibn Saba lied about Imam Ali.
Ibn Saba exaggerated Imam Ali’s status.
The Imams cursed him.
The Imams dissociated themselves from him.
Imam Ali was Allah’s servant, not Allah.
How can a man whom the Shia Imams curse, reject and identify as a liar be the founder of the same Imams’ school?
3. Later Shia scholars also condemn him rather than follow him
Shaykh al-Tusi wrote:
عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَبَأٍ الَّذِي رَجَعَ إِلَى الْكُفْرِ وَأَظْهَرَ الْغُلُوَّ
“Abdullah ibn Saba, who returned to disbelief and manifested extremism.”
Reference:
Rijal al-Tusi, entry no. 718 in some editions.
Al-Allamah al-Hilli described him as a cursed extremist who claimed divinity for Imam Ali.
Later rijal scholars repeated the same judgement.
This proves only that Shia scholars recognised and condemned a ghali named Ibn Saba.
It does not prove that they derived anything from him.
Listing a heretic in a book of rejected individuals does not make that heretic the founder of the author’s religion.
Sunni rijal books mention Musaylimah, the Khawarij, the Qadariyyah, Jahm ibn Safwan and numerous liars. Their mention does not make those people the founders of Sunni Islam.
Likewise, Shia books mentioning and cursing Ibn Saba do not make him the founder of Shiism.
4. The “Jew who invented Imamah” paragraph has no chain of transmission
The anti-Shia article relies heavily upon a paragraph appearing after the musnad reports in al-Kashshi:
ذَكَرَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَأٍ كَانَ يَهُودِيًّا فَأَسْلَمَ
Translation:
“Some people of knowledge mentioned that Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jew who accepted Islam.”
It then alleges that he was the first to publicise the obligatory Imamah of Imam Ali and to declare his opponents unbelievers.
But where is the chain?
There is none.
The passage does not say:
“Imam al-Sadiq narrated…”
It does not say:
“Hisham ibn Salim narrated…”
It does not name a companion of Imam Ali.
It does not identify the alleged “people of knowledge.”
It merely says:
ذَكَرَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
“Some people of knowledge mentioned…”
That is an anonymous historical notice, not a sahih hadith.
Its transmitters are unnamed.
Its original source is unidentified.
Its date is unidentified.
Its connection to eyewitnesses is unidentified.
Its reliability cannot be tested.
A report without a chain cannot override the authentic reports that define Ibn Saba’s crime specifically as ghuluww and the attribution of lordship to Imam Ali a.s.
The article repeatedly calls this paragraph an “admission,” but anonymous historical information is not transformed into authenticated revelation simply because it appears in a Shia book.
Shia hadith methodology does not teach that every sentence appearing in a Shia book is automatically authentic.
5. The paragraph itself says the Jewish-origin accusation came from opponents of the Shia
The same passage concludes:
فَمِنْ هَاهُنَا قَالَ مَنْ خَالَفَ الشِّيعَةَ إِنَّ أَصْلَ التَّشَيُّعِ وَالرَّفْضِ مَأْخُوذٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ
Translation:
“From here, those who opposed the Shia said that the origin of tashayyu and rafd was taken from Judaism.”
Notice the words:
قَالَ مَنْ خَالَفَ الشِّيعَةَ
“Those who opposed the Shia said…”
The passage does not say:
“The Shia scholars concluded…”
It says that the Shia’s opponents made this allegation.
The article quotes a Shia source recording what opponents said and then presents the opponents’ accusation as if it were the Shia author’s own conclusion.
That is not an honest reading of the text.
Recording an accusation is not endorsing it.
A Muslim historian may record that Christians called Jesus divine. That does not mean the Muslim historian accepts Christian theology.
Likewise, al-Kashshi or al-Nawbakhti recording that opponents connected rafd to Judaism does not mean they accepted the accusation.
6. The accusation that Sayyid al-Khoei falsified al-Kashshi is false
The article accuses Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei of replacing:
جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
“A group of the people of knowledge”
with:
ذَكَرَ بَعْضٌ
“Some mentioned.”
This accusation is based upon mixing two separate books.
Al-Kashshi’s text says:
ذَكَرَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
“Some people of knowledge mentioned…”
Al-Nawbakhti’s version says:
وَحَكَى جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
“A group of the people of knowledge related…”
Sayyid al-Khoei was quoting al-Kashshi, not al-Nawbakhti.
Therefore, his wording “ذكر بعض” corresponds to al-Kashshi’s wording.
The article takes wording from al-Nawbakhti, attributes it to al-Kashshi and then accuses al-Khoei of removing it.
The article’s own displayed scan of al-Kashshi contains:
ذَكَرَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
This destroys the accusation of textual dishonesty.
Sayyid al-Khoei then gives his actual judgement:
The authentic reports prove that Ibn Saba claimed divinity for Imam Ali; they do not prove that he originated the doctrine of Imam Ali’s obligatory Imamah.
He also distinguishes between the possible existence of a marginal extremist and the enormous conspiracy narrative attributed to Sayf ibn Umar.
7. Al-Nawbakhti’s book is heresiography, not a collection of authenticated hadith
The article quotes Firaq al-Shia, attributed to al-Nawbakhti.
Books of sects describe religious groups, their beliefs and accusations exchanged between them. They are not automatically hadith collections with complete chains.
The Ibn Saba passage begins with language such as:
وَحَكَى جَمَاعَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ
“A group of people of knowledge related…”
No names are supplied.
No uninterrupted chain is supplied.
No eyewitness is supplied.
No method is given for verifying the information.
Therefore, the report may be studied as early heresiographical material, but it cannot be called a sahih narration from Imam Ali a.s.
The same text distinguishes between:
the Saba’iyyah, who allegedly denied Imam Ali’s death or claimed divinity for him;
and the wider Shia community.
Conflating the Saba’iyyah with all followers of Imam Ali is precisely the historical mistake under discussion.
Most importantly, the text says:
فَمِنْ هَاهُنَا قَالَ مَنْ خَالَفَ الشِّيعَةَ
“From here, those who opposed the Shia said…”
Thus, the source itself identifies the “Judaism” conclusion as the polemic of the Shia’s opponents.
8. Sa‘d al-Qummi’s text exposes serious identity confusion
The article quotes Sa‘d ibn Abdullah al-Ash‘ari al-Qummi:
السَّبَئِيَّةُ أَصْحَابُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَبَأٍ، وَهُوَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ الرَّاسِبِيُّ الْهَمْدَانِيُّ
Translation:
“The Saba’iyyah are the followers of Abdullah ibn Saba, and he is Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi al-Hamdani.”
But Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi is famously identified in historical literature as the leader of the Khawarij at Nahrawan.
This produces an obvious problem.
Was “Abdullah ibn Saba” the alleged Jewish ghali?
Was he Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi, the Kharijite leader?
Was “al-Saba’i” merely a tribal or geographical nisbah?
Was “Ibn al-Sawda” the same person?
Was the unidentified “black man” the same person?
The sources are not stable concerning his identity.
The article solves every contradiction by simply declaring that all these names must refer to its chosen Jewish conspirator.
That is not historical verification. It is harmonisation by assumption.
9. Al-Mamaqani and al-Jaza’iri do not provide independent evidence
Later scholars such as al-Mamaqani repeat earlier reports describing Ibn Saba as a cursed ghali.
That adds no independent first-century evidence.
A later scholar repeating al-Kashshi is not a new chain.
Ten books copying one unsupported report do not produce ten independent witnesses.
Al-Jaza’iri’s wording itself says:
وَقِيلَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ يَهُودِيًّا
“It is said that he was Jewish.”
“Qila—it is said” is not authentication.
It is a formula indicating that a statement is being reported without firm attribution.
These later works prove that Shia scholars knew the allegation and condemned Ibn Saba’s ghuluww.
They do not prove that he founded Shiism.
10. The article’s six Sunni reports do not prove its conclusion
The article presents “six reports” and claims that they corroborate Sayf ibn Umar.
A report-by-report examination shows otherwise.
Report one: the long Tuq al-Hamamah story
The article quotes a long narration containing all of the following:
Ibn Saba criticised Abu Bakr and Umar;
Imam Ali called him “the wicked black man”;
Imam Ali exiled him to Mada’in;
Imam Ali praised Abu Bakr and Umar publicly;
and Imam Ali threatened to flog anyone who preferred him over them.
But the article does not provide the original complete chain for this long composite report.
It cites it second-hand through Ihsan Ilahi Zahir.
Even if separate authentic reports exist concerning Imam Ali’s view of Abu Bakr and Umar, that does not authenticate every detail of this long story or prove that Ibn Saba founded Shiism.
A report about the relative merits of companions is not evidence for the historical origin of an entire religious school.
Report two and report three are essentially the same report
The article counts them as separate evidence, but both arise from the same underlying statement attributed to Imam Ali:
مَا لِي وَلِهَذَا الْحُمَيْتِ الْأَسْوَدِ؟
“What have I to do with this black man?”
The stronger transmission through Ghundar from Shu‘bah, Salamah ibn Kuhayl and Zayd ibn Wahb contains only the unidentified phrase “this black man.”
It does not contain:
“Meaning Abdullah ibn Saba.”
It does not contain:
“He attacked Abu Bakr and Umar.”
Those identifying phrases appear in another route through Amr ibn Marzuq and function like explanatory additions.
Amr ibn Marzuq was considered truthful but was also criticised for mistakes. Ghundar was a particularly strong transmitter from Shu‘bah.
Therefore, the safest conclusion is that the core statement may be established, but the identification of the unnamed person as Abdullah ibn Saba is not equally secure.
Even if the identification were accepted, the report would prove only that Imam Ali condemned a particular person.
It would still not prove that the person founded Shiism.
Report four: “You are one of the thirty liars”
The article itself admits that some narrators were criticised.
Its chain contains unidentified or disputed individuals.
The text addresses:
عَبْدَ اللَّهِ السَّبَئِيَّ
“Abdullah al-Saba’i.”
A nisbah such as al-Saba’i does not automatically mean “Abdullah ibn Saba the Jewish founder.”
It could refer to tribal origin, regional affiliation or another individual bearing the nisbah.
Even if accepted, the report merely rejects a false claim that the Prophet ﷺ privately revealed secret information to Imam Ali.
It says nothing about:
founding Shiism;
inventing Imamah;
creating the twelve-Imam doctrine;
or organising the first civil war.
Report five: the report of Sammak
The article openly admits that Sammak did not hear directly from Imam Ali.
That means the report is disconnected or mursal.
It says:
بَلَغَ عَلِيًّا أَنَّ ابْنَ السَّوْدَاءِ...
“It reached Ali that Ibn al-Sawda…”
It does not provide the missing source between Sammak and the event.
It also says “Ibn al-Sawda,” not necessarily “Abdullah ibn Saba.”
The identification is assumed rather than demonstrated.
A disconnected report with an uncertain identity cannot establish the founder of a major Islamic school.
Report six: al-Ghatafi “from his men”
The chain contains:
أَخْبَرَنِي الْغَطَافِيُّ عَنْ رِجَالِهِ
“Al-Ghatafi informed me, from his men…”
The article says that only al-Ghatafi is unknown.
That is plainly incorrect.
The words:
عَنْ رِجَالِهِ
“From his men”
conceal multiple unnamed transmitters.
We do not know:
who they were;
how many they were;
whether they met one another;
whether they were reliable;
or whether the chain was connected.
The report is therefore severely weak.
Its text also contains obvious later sectarian language, claiming that from this event emerged “the Qarmatians and the Rafida.”
The Qarmatian movement belongs to a much later historical setting. Its insertion into a supposed first-century conversation is an obvious sign of retrospective sectarian storytelling.
This narration cannot carry any historical argument.
11. Weak reports do not become authentic merely by being collected together
The article argues that several reports “strengthen” one another.
But mutually different reports do not automatically corroborate each other.
One says Ibn Saba was nearly killed for insulting Abu Bakr and Umar.
Another says he was punished for claiming Imam Ali was divine.
Another says he claimed secret Prophetic knowledge.
Another says he was exiled.
Another says he was burned.
Another leaves the man unidentified.
Another calls him Ibn al-Sawda.
Another calls him al-Saba’i.
Another identifies him as Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.
These are not multiple identical eyewitness accounts.
They are unstable and contradictory traditions containing different names, offences, punishments and outcomes.
A collection of weak, disconnected, anonymous and conflicting reports does not become a sahih biography merely because all reports can be arranged around the same polemical character.
12. Sayf ibn Umar remains unusable for the enormous conspiracy story
Sunni rijal critics said concerning Sayf ibn Umar:
Abu Hatim:
مَتْرُوكُ الْحَدِيثِ
“Abandoned in hadith.”
Abu Dawud:
لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ
“He is nothing.”
Ibn Hibban:
يَرْوِي الْمَوْضُوعَاتِ عَنِ الْأَثْبَاتِ
“He narrates fabricated reports from reliable narrators.”
Ibn Hajar:
ضَعِيفُ الْحَدِيثِ
“Weak in hadith.”
The article attempts to rescue Sayf by saying that historians may sometimes cite weak historical material when:
it has a sound foundation elsewhere;
it does not concern theology;
it does not attack the companions;
and it is not biased concerning major political disputes.
But Sayf’s Ibn Saba story violates every one of those conditions.
It concerns Imamah, raj‘ah and religious doctrine.
It concerns Uthman, Imam Ali and major companions.
It concerns the assassination of a caliph.
It concerns the first civil war.
It alleges a hidden political conspiracy.
It is exactly the type of report for which a severely criticised narrator cannot be trusted.
Moreover, proving that a ghali named Ibn Saba may have existed does not authenticate Sayf’s detailed stories about his travels, secret agents, letters, revolutionary network and control over the Muslim provinces.
Existence is one claim.
An empire-wide conspiracy is another claim.
Evidence for the first is not evidence for the second.
Shaykh Husayn al-Khishn’s balanced assessment is that the person probably existed but his historical role was exaggerated for political and sectarian purposes: “The legendary element concerns the role, not necessarily the person himself.” He also questions the conflicting burning narratives.
13. Al-Gharat merely mentions a name—it does not establish a founder
The article quotes al-Gharat:
دَخَلَ عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَمِقِ وَحُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ وَحَبَّةُ الْعُرَنِيُّ وَالْحَارِثُ الْأَعْوَرُ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَبَأٍ عَلَى أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
Translation:
“Amr ibn al-Hamiq, Hujr ibn Adi, Habbah al-Urani, al-Harith al-A‘war and Abdullah ibn Saba entered upon Amir al-Mu’minin.”
Let us accept the name for argument’s sake.
What does the report establish?
Only that a person bearing that name allegedly entered a gathering.
It does not say:
he was Jewish;
he invented Imamah;
he was Imam Ali’s teacher;
he founded a school;
he authored Shia doctrines;
or the men named with him became his disciples.
A person entering Imam Ali’s gathering does not make that person the founder of loyalty to Imam Ali.
Enemies, questioners, hypocrites, Khawarij and ordinary visitors also entered the gatherings of prophets and Imams.
Mere presence proves no doctrinal authority.
14. The poem mentioning “Saba’iyyah” proves nothing about Twelver origins
The article quotes poetry attributed to A‘sha Hamdan against Mukhtar’s supporters:
شَهِدْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَنَّكُمْ سَبَئِيَّةٌ
“I testify against you that you are Saba’iyyah.”
Poetry written in political conflict is not a hadith.
It does not provide a chain from Ibn Saba to Mukhtar.
It does not define the beliefs intended by the insult.
It does not prove that the poet used “Saba’iyyah” in the technical sense later polemicists assigned to it.
It certainly does not prove that Twelver Shiism was founded by Ibn Saba.
Calling political opponents names is not historical genealogy.
15. Similarity is not proof of historical dependence
The article’s main argument eventually becomes:
“Ibn Saba allegedly criticised some companions and believed in Imam Ali’s authority. Later Shias also criticised some companions and believed in Imam Ali’s authority. Therefore, Shia beliefs came from Ibn Saba.”
This is a logical fallacy.
Similarity does not prove transmission.
To prove historical dependence, one must establish:
a reliable chronology;
an authentic chain of teachers and students;
documented transmission;
acceptance of the alleged founder as an authority;
and evidence that the doctrine did not exist before him.
The article establishes none of these.
Suppose two people criticise the same ruler. That does not mean one founded the other’s political school.
Suppose two religions practise fasting. That does not prove the later religion was founded by the first person who fasted.
Suppose one condemned individual makes a claim that resembles part of a later doctrine. That does not demonstrate that the later community inherited the doctrine from him.
Especially when the later community curses that individual and rejects his central claim.
16. The authentic Ibn Saba reports concern divinity, whereas Twelver Shiism rejects divinity for Imam Ali
Ibn Saba’s authenticated offence was:
ادِّعَاءُ الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
“Claiming lordship concerning Amir al-Mu’minin.”
Twelver Shia belief is:
Imam Ali a.s was a servant of Allah;
he was not Allah;
he was not a prophet;
he did not independently create or sustain the universe;
and Muhammad ﷺ is the final Prophet.
The authentic narration itself states:
وَكَانَ وَاللَّهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ طَائِعًا
“By Allah, Amir al-Mu’minin was an obedient servant of Allah.”
Therefore, on the only doctrine reliably attributed to Ibn Saba, Twelver Shiism stands with the Imams against Ibn Saba.
Calling such a man the “spiritual father” of Shiism is like calling Musaylimah the spiritual father of Islam merely because he used Islamic vocabulary.
17. Belief in Imam Ali’s special religious status existed in the Prophet’s own lifetime
The claim that Ibn Saba introduced the religious authority of Imam Ali collapses before Sunni hadith literature itself.
Hadith al-Ghadir
Arabic:
مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ
Translation:
“For whomever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla.”
Reference:
Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, hadith 3713.
Al-Tirmidhi said:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ
“This hadith is Hasan Gharib.”
Sunnis and Shias debate the full implication of mawla, but no honest person can say that Ibn Saba invented the Prophet’s public declaration concerning Imam Ali.
Hadith al-Manzilah
Arabic:
أَمَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَا نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي
Translation:
“Are you not pleased that you are to me in the position of Aaron to Moses, except that there is no prophethood after me?”
References:
Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 4416.
Sahih Muslim, hadith 2404d.
This statement simultaneously establishes Imam Ali’s special position and closes the door to prophethood after Muhammad ﷺ.
Love of Imam Ali as a sign of faith
Arabic:
إِنَّهُ لَعَهْدُ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ إِلَيَّ أَنْ لَا يُحِبَّنِي إِلَّا مُؤْمِنٌ وَلَا يُبْغِضَنِي إِلَّا مُنَافِقٌ
Translation:
“The unlettered Prophet made a covenant with me that none would love me except a believer and none would hate me except a hypocrite.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, hadith 78.
Hadith al-Thaqalayn
In Sahih Muslim, the Prophet ﷺ publicly declared at Khumm:
وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ، أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ
“I am leaving among you two weighty things. The first is the Book of Allah…”
He then said:
وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي، أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي
“And my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you by Allah concerning my Ahl al-Bayt.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, hadith 2408.
Hadith al-Kisa and Mubahalah
Sahih Muslim records that the Prophet ﷺ gathered Imam Ali, Bibi Fatima s.a, Imam Hasan a.s and Imam Hussain a.s and identified them as his family.
In the report of Mubahalah, he called them and said:
اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلَاءِ أَهْلِي
“O Allah, these are my family.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, hadith 2404d.
These reports existed because the Prophet ﷺ said them—not because a later Jewish convert invented them.
A Sunni may interpret them differently from a Shia.
That disagreement is legitimate.
But interpreting them differently is not the same as proving that Shia attachment to Imam Ali came from Ibn Saba.
18. Even Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim preserve Imam Ali’s claim that Ahl al-Bayt possessed a right in the matter of government
Sahih Muslim records Imam Ali saying to Abu Bakr:
وَلَكِنَّكَ اسْتَبْدَدْتَ عَلَيْنَا بِالْأَمْرِ، وَكُنَّا نَحْنُ نَرَى لَنَا حَقًّا لِقَرَابَتِنَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ
Translation:
“But you acted independently of us in this matter, while we believed that we had a right because of our kinship with the Messenger of Allah.”
The report later states:
وَلَكِنَّا كُنَّا نَرَى لَنَا فِي الْأَمْرِ نَصِيبًا، فَاسْتُبِدَّ عَلَيْنَا بِهِ، فَوَجَدْنَا فِي أَنْفُسِنَا
Translation:
“We believed that we had a share in the matter, but it was decided without us, and we felt displeased about it.”
References:
Sahih Muslim, hadith 1759a.
Sahih al-Bukhari, hadiths 4240–4241.
The same reports state that Imam Ali delayed giving allegiance for those months.
Whatever interpretation one adopts concerning the later reconciliation, the narration proves that the claim of Ahl al-Bayt possessing a right in the matter did not originate with Ibn Saba.
It is placed by Sahih Sunni sources upon the tongue of Imam Ali himself.
19. Imamah is not the same as claiming that Imam Ali is Allah
The article constantly merges two entirely different beliefs:
First:
Imam Ali was divinely guided, specially appointed or the rightful leader after the Prophet.
Second:
Imam Ali was Allah, a creator or an independent lord.
The first is the Shia doctrine of Imamah.
The second is ghuluww and disbelief condemned by the Shia Imams.
One cannot refute Imamah by producing a report about someone who claimed divinity.
The Shia Imams themselves drew this line:
Imam Ali was a servant of Allah.
His status came through obedience to Allah and the Prophet.
Anyone who elevated him beyond servanthood was cursed.
Therefore, the authentic Ibn Saba narrations refute the ghulat—not the Shia doctrine of Imamah.
20. The article cannot decide what it is trying to prove
At the beginning, it promotes the impression that Ibn Saba founded Shiism.
Later, it admits:
“We need to be precise… slogans like ‘Shiism was created by a Jew’ are not accurate enough.”
It eventually concedes:
“If one is going to argue that Ibn Saba literally created Shiism with all its foundations including Imamah and whatnot, then no.”
This concession destroys the sensational title.
After failing to prove that Ibn Saba founded Shiism, the article retreats to calling him its “spiritual father.”
But “spiritual father” is not a historical category.
It is a polemical label designed to survive after the founder claim fails.
What does “spiritual father” mean scientifically?
Did he teach the Imams?
No.
Did the Imams praise him?
No.
Did Shia narrators transmit from him?
No.
Did Shia scholars regard him as reliable?
No.
Did Shia jurisprudence come from him?
No.
Did the doctrine of twelve Imams come from him?
No.
Did the authentic reports attribute Imamah to him?
No.
Was his authenticated belief accepted by Shias?
No. His authenticated belief—divinity for Imam Ali—was cursed and rejected.
Calling him a “spiritual father” adds emotion where evidence is absent.
21. The comparison with Paul and Christianity fails
Paul’s writings form a major part of the Christian New Testament.
Christians quote Paul as an authority.
Christian theology relies heavily upon Pauline letters.
Paul is a recognised transmitter and teacher inside Christianity.
Nothing comparable exists concerning Ibn Saba and Shiism.
No Shia scripture contains an “Epistle of Ibn Saba.”
No Shia Imam narrates doctrine from him.
No Shia hadith chain treats him as trustworthy.
No Shia scholar cites him as a religious authority.
The Imams curse him.
Therefore, comparing Ibn Saba to Paul is historically incoherent.
22. Criticism of particular companions is not proof of Jewish origin
The article repeatedly argues:
Ibn Saba allegedly criticised Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.
Some Shias criticise them.
Therefore, Shia criticism came from Ibn Saba’s Judaism.
That reasoning is invalid.
Muslims disagreed with one another during the Prophet’s lifetime and after his death.
Companions criticised, opposed and fought other companions.
Imam Ali’s camp fought the opposing camp at Siffin.
Aisha, Talha and Zubayr fought Imam Ali at Jamal.
Muawiyah’s army fought Imam Ali.
The Khawarij declared Imam Ali wrong and later fought him.
Political and theological criticism existed because real disputes occurred—not because every criticism must be traced to Judaism.
Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim themselves preserve:
Bibi Fatima s.a’s anger over Fadak;
Imam Ali’s delayed allegiance;
his statement that the matter was decided without Ahl al-Bayt;
and his belief that they possessed a right in it.
One may interpret these events in a conciliatory Sunni manner.
But one cannot erase them and then claim that all criticism of early political decisions was invented by a Jew.
23. The article caricatures the Shia position concerning the companions
Twelver Shiism does not teach that everyone who saw the Prophet became an unbeliever.
Shia sources distinguish between:
loyal companions;
sincere but mistaken companions;
people who remained neutral;
hypocrites;
political opponents;
and individuals who wronged Ahl al-Bayt.
The Qur’an itself distinguishes among the people surrounding the Prophet.
It praises many believers.
It also speaks about hypocrites, those with disease in their hearts and people known only to Allah.
Therefore, examining individual companions is not a Jewish principle. It is a Qur’anic principle of judging people by faith and conduct rather than by mere physical companionship.
Even if one disagrees with particular Shia judgements, disagreement does not prove Jewish authorship.
24. The raj‘ah argument is unsupported
The article claims that Ibn Saba introduced raj‘ah and that Shia belief later developed from him.
Where is the authentic chain?
The three authenticated Shia reports do not mention raj‘ah.
The anonymous historical paragraphs and sectarian books attribute various beliefs to the Saba’iyyah, including denial of Imam Ali’s death.
But denial of Imam Ali’s death is not the same doctrine as the Twelver belief that certain people may return before the final resurrection by Allah’s command.
Even if one rejects the Shia doctrine of raj‘ah, historical dependence upon Ibn Saba still requires proof.
Similarity of vocabulary is insufficient.
25. The wilayah takwiniyyah argument depends upon the weakest report
The article connects Ibn Saba’s alleged statement:
“You created creation and distributed provision”
to later Shia ideas concerning miraculous authority.
But the report containing this language is the severely weak al-Ghatafi report with:
عَنْ رِجَالِهِ
“From his unnamed men.”
Furthermore, Twelver theology distinguishes between:
independent divine power, which belongs only to Allah;
and miracles or extraordinary acts occurring by Allah’s permission.
The Qur’an itself attributes acts to prophets while explicitly saying they occurred by Allah’s permission.
Therefore, equating an independent claim of lordship with every discussion of delegated miraculous authority is theological equivocation.
Most importantly, the authentic Shia report states that Imam Ali was Allah’s obedient servant and that the Imams dissociated themselves from anyone who claimed otherwise.
26. The tahrif argument is admitted speculation
The article ends by alleging that an early statement about only a fraction of the Qur’an being present “perhaps turned into” the Shia view of tahrif.
“Perhaps” is not evidence.
No chain of transmission is produced.
No historical mechanism is shown.
No Shia Imam is shown learning anything from Ibn Saba.
No doctrinal document is traced to him.
The argument merely notices an alleged resemblance and invents a causal story.
That is speculation, not source criticism.
27. The real historical distinction is between Shi‘at Ali and the Saba’iyyah
Shi‘at Ali means the supporters, followers and partisans of Imam Ali.
The Arabic word shia is Qur’anic vocabulary:
وَإِنَّ مِنْ شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ
“And indeed, among his followers was Abraham.”
Qur’an 37:83.
And:
هَذَا مِنْ شِيعَتِهِ وَهَذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ
“This one was from his followers, and this one was from his enemy.”
Qur’an 28:15.
The Saba’iyyah, in later heresiographical literature, were extremists associated with claims such as Imam Ali’s divinity or denial of his death.
These are not identical categories.
A supporter of Imam Ali is not automatically a Saba’i.
A person who believes Imam Ali was the rightful successor is not automatically someone who worships him.
A person who follows Ahl al-Bayt is not automatically a disciple of Ibn Saba.
The Shia Imams themselves condemned the ghulat and dissociated the Shia school from their fabrications.
28. What would actually be required to prove the founder claim?
Anyone who claims that Abdullah ibn Saba founded Shiism must provide:
An authentic first-century report identifying him as its founder.
A reliable chain from him to recognised Shia Imams or scholars.
Evidence that the Imams accepted his teachings.
Evidence that core Shia doctrines were unknown before him.
A documented teacher-student transmission.
Shia narrations relying upon him.
Shia scholars praising or authenticating him.
A coherent biography free from contradictory names and identities.
The anti-Shia article provides none of these.
Instead, it provides:
three authentic reports cursing his ghuluww;
anonymous historical notices;
books of sects without chains;
weak and disconnected Sunni reports;
duplicate reports counted separately;
uncertain identities;
a severely weak narration from “al-Ghatafi, from his men”;
poetry used as historical proof;
Sayf ibn Umar’s disputed conspiracy narrative;
and a logical argument based upon resemblance rather than transmission.
That does not prove a founder.
29. The decisive conclusion
The academically responsible conclusion is this:
A marginal extremist named Abdullah ibn Saba may have existed.
The strongest Shia reports identify him as a liar and ghali who attributed divinity or lordship to Imam Ali a.s.
The Shia Imams cursed him, condemned his claim and declared that Imam Ali was an obedient servant of Allah.
No authentic Shia narration says that Ibn Saba was Jewish and invented Imamah.
The “Jew who first proclaimed Imamah” passage is an anonymous historical notice without a chain.
The same passage explicitly attributes the “origin of rafd is Jewish” claim to opponents of the Shia.
The accusation that Sayyid al-Khoei altered al-Kashshi is false; the article confuses al-Kashshi’s wording with al-Nawbakhti’s wording.
The six Sunni reports are not six sound, independent and mutually confirming reports. They include duplication, disconnection, unknown narrators, uncertain identities and later sectarian additions.
Sayf ibn Umar’s vast conspiracy story is not authenticated merely because a separate extremist with a similar name may have existed.
No Shia Imam, narrator or scholar took religious knowledge from Ibn Saba.
The religious attachment to Imam Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is rooted in Qur’anic verses and Prophetic reports preserved even in Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad.
Therefore:
Abdullah ibn Saba was not the founder of Shiism.
He was not the teacher of the Shia Imams.
He was not the source of Shia hadith.
He was not the source of Shia jurisprudence.
He was not the source of the doctrine of Imamah.
He was not the spiritual father of the followers of Ahl al-Bayt.
At most, the sources describe him as a condemned ghali who lied about Imam Ali.
The authentic Shia position concerning him can be summarised in the words of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq a.s:
لَعَنَ اللَّهُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَأٍ
“May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba.”
And:
وَكَانَ وَاللَّهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَبْدًا لِلَّهِ طَائِعًا
“By Allah, Amir al-Mu’minin was an obedient servant of Allah.”
A cursed liar rejected by the Imams cannot be transformed into the founder of the Imams’ school merely through repetition, sectarian rhetoric and weak historical reports.
The Saba’iyyah belong to the history of ghuluww.
The Shia of Imam Ali belong to the Qur’an, the Prophet ﷺ and Ahl al-Bayt.
Confusing the two is not history.
It is propaganda.
Was Shiism Founded by Abdullah ibn Saba?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...