The Followers of the Orientalists
February 24, 2026Beliefs of Ibn Sabaʼ and his Deviation
February 25, 2026BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Shia Who Deny the Existence of Ibn Sabaʼ
As far as the Shia in the present era are concerned, they completely deny the existence of Ibn Sabaʼ. The true reason for this denial is on account of the beliefs he propagated, which filtered down through the various sects of the Shia until the latter-day sects. We will mention the views and opinions of those who deny his existence and will then prove his existence from the most relied-upon Shia works.
Muhammad Jawad Mughniyyah
‘Abdullah ibn Sabaʼ in the opinion of Muhammad Jawad Mughniyyah is that it is a fabricated tale, relied upon by all those who attribute to the Shia what they have no knowledge about and which they fallaciously ascribe to them out of ignorance and hypocrisy.[1]
Murtada ‘Askari
Murtada ‘Askari was under the impression that he had studied all the sources regarding the existence of Ibn Sabaʼ from which he deduced that Ibn Sabaʼ is a fictional, imaginary character, conjured up by Saif ibn ‘Umar.[2] He wrote a book specifically about Ibn Sabaʼ entitled, ‘Abdullah ibn Sabaʼ wa Asatir Ukhra.
‘Ali al Wardi
As far as ‘Ali al Wardi is concerned, author of Wu’az al Salatin, he is of the opinion that Ibn Sabaʼ is in actual fact Sayyidina ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He cites the following as proof for his conclusion:
- Ibn Sabaʼ was commonly called Ibn al Sawdaʼ and so was ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
- ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu was of Yemeni descent, which would mean that he too is of the children of Sabaʼ (a city in Yemen); and it is correct to refer to anyone from Yemen as Ibn Sabaʼ.
- ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu had great affection for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, campaigning for him and encouraging others to pledge their allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
- ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu travelled to Egypt during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and incited the people to rebel against him. The governor of Egypt admonished him for this and even intended to arrest him.
- The following statement of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu has been attributed to Ibn Sabaʼ, “‘Uthman claimed the Caliphate without any right to it whereas the rightful successor to it, in light of the Shari’ah, was ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
- The stance of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Battle of Jamal.
- ‘Ammar ibn Yasir’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu attachment to Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
It is from this that al Wardi concluded that Ibn Sabaʼ is no one else but ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu and it was he who the Quraysh considered to be amongst the chief agitators against ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, except that ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not desire to use his name and thus adopted the nom de plume of Ibn Sabaʼ or Ibn al Sawdaʼ. Those narrators who reported these accounts later, did so using the nom de plume, unaware of who the actual person making these statements was.[3]
Al Wardi says:
ويبدو أن هذه الشخصية العجيبة اخترعت اختراعا وقد اخترعها أولئك الأغنياء الذين كانت الثورة موجهة ضدهم
It is apparent that this strange character was invented by the wealthy individuals who were the target of the revolution.[4]
Dr. Kamil Mustafa al Shaibi
Another author arrived on the scene shortly after al Wardi by the name Dr. Kamil Mustafa al Shaibi, who leaned towards the research of al Wardi and attempted to strengthen the findings inferred to in his works from nusus (reported texts). He also followed the view of Taha Hussein regarding the incident of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu burning the followers of Ibn Sabaʼ saying:
أما قضية إحراق علي المزعوم للسبئية فإنه خبر مختلق من أساسه ولم يرد على صورة فيها ثقة في كتاب معتبر من كتب التاريخ ولعل أصل هذا الحادث يتصل بإحراق خالد بن عبد الله القسري وخمسة عشر من أتباعه الغلاة ثم لما تقدم بها الزمن زحزحت الحادثة إلى الإمام قليلا حتى اتصلت بعلي
As for the alleged incident of ‘Ali burning the followers of Ibn Sabaʼ, it is a fabricated tale from its very inception. It has not been reported by any credible narrator in any of the reliable books of history. It is possible that the origin of this incident in reality refers to the burning by Khalid ibn ‘Abdullah al Qasri and his fifteen extremist disciples. As time passed, slowly it was reported to have occurred earlier than it actually did, until finally it was said to have transpired during the Caliphate of ‘Ali.[5]
Refutation of al Wardi and al Shaibi
As far as the opinions of al Wardi and al Shaibi are concerned that Ibn Sabaʼ is in actual fact Sayyidina ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the most relied upon sources of scrutiny amongst the Shia refute this claim entirely. The books of the Shia mention in the biography of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he was one of the companions of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and also of those who narrated from him. They regard ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu amongst the four faithful.[6] They then discuss the biography of Ibn Sabaʼ separately, reporting that he was cursed by the Imams, whereas ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu was praised by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. How then do they reconcile between these two contradictory biographies?[7]
As for the incident of burning the followers of Ibn Sabaʼ, we will soon mention the authentic reports in this regard and the stance of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu towards them.
Dr. Abdullah Fayyad
Similarly, Dr. Abdullah Fayyad has denied his existence in his book, Tarikh al Imamiyyah wa Aslafahum min al Shia, which in itself is a book based entirely upon the research of the Orientalists. His chief supervisor is Dr. Constantin Zureiq, professor of history at the American University of Beirut. Dr. Fayyad says:
يبدو أن ابن سبأ كان شخصية إلى الخيال أقرب منها إلى الحقيقة وأن دوره إن كان له دور قد بولغ فيه إلى درجة كبيرة لأسباب دينية وسياسية والأدلة على ضعف قصة ابن السوداء كثيرة
It is apparent that Ibn Sabaʼ was more of a fictional person than a true historical personality. His role, if he had any whatsoever, has been greatly exaggerated for religious and political motives. The proofs for the weakness of the tale of Ibn al Sawdaʼ are numerous.[8]
He then quotes the same proofs as Murtada ‘Askari, namely that these narrations have been reported by only Saif ibn ‘Umar, who has been criticised by the scholars for fabricating narrations. He therefore rules this to be contradictory and an exaggeration. He also fortifies his stance with the opinion of al Wardi and al Shaibi’s corroboration of him.
Talib al Rifa’i
After these theorists, Talib al Hussaini al Rifa’i emerged, who said in the footnotes of Muhammad Baqir’s introduction to the book, Tarikh al Imamiyyah, which was published by al Kutub al Khanji in Cairo (1397 AH/1977 CE) under the title, al Tashayyu’ Zahirah Tabi’iyyah fi Itar al Da’wah al Islamiyyah, that if Ibn Sabaʼ was indeed a true historical personality then there is no link between what he propagated and the ‘Aqidah of the Shia regarding leadership being bequeathed to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as this belief is established by narration, reported in the authentic books of Hadith of the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah, as well as in their books of Tafsir, Tarikh, and ‘Aqidah. Therefore, the opinion that Shi’ism is a product of the ideologies expounded by Ibn Sabaʼ, as is claimed, is baseless.[9]
This statement is not astonishing from such a person, who assumes that the first person to proclaim the belief of al Raj’ah (the Return) was Sayyidina ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu because of his statement, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not die and will not die,” in addition to his fabrications, deviation, and open denial of clear historical facts.
[1] Al Tashayyu’, pg. 18.
[2] Al Tashayyu’, pg. 18, 19.
[3] ‘Ali al Wardi: Wu’’az al Salatin, pg. 274-278.
[4] Ibid., pg. 151.
[5] Kamil Mustafa al Shaibi: Al Silah bayn al Tasawwuf wa al Tashayyu’, pg. 41-45.
[6] The four faithful are ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Salman al Farisi radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and Jundub ibn Junadah (Abu Dharr) al Ghifari radiya Llahu ‘anhu. (Firaq al Shia, pg. 36, 37.)
[7] Refer to a few of their books on narrators such as Rijal al Tusi, pg. 46 and 51; Rijal al Hilli, pg. 255 and 469; al Kashshi: Ahwal al Rijal; al Tustari: Qamus al Rijal; al Mamaqani: Tanqih al Maqal; etc.
[8] Tarikh al Imamiyyah wa Aslafuhum min al Shia, pg. 92-100.
[9] Al Tashayyu’, pg. 20.