The Followers of the Orientalists

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Followers of the Orientalists

 

The followers of the Orientalists are those who have been duped and fooled by their imaginary prowess in scholarship. They are enamoured with the deductions put forward by the Orientalists and their teachings, gravitating around their underlying assumptions in a bid to gain proximity to them. The leader of this group is Dr. Taha Hussein^[1], who has been nourished with the ideologies of the Orientalists such that he used to say, “I think in French and write in Arabic.”^[2]

It is sufficient as a disgrace for him that he was a servant of the Jews. In fact, at the beginning of this century, all proponents of communism in Egypt, such as Henri Curiel, Raoul Curiel, and Raymond Aron, were Jews. They and others like them were involved in providing financial and material support to communist movements. They aligned themselves with Dr. Taha Hussein to establish a publishing house in Egypt. Dr. Taha Hussein publicly announced his support for Jewish Talmudic beliefs early on when he denied the existence of Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam and Ismail ‘alayh al Salam, in addition to denying the Qur’an and Torah. At this early stage, it was impossible to fathom that this was the prelude to Zionism^[3] and other deviant ideologies unprecedented until the rise of Orientalism.^[4]

 

Dr. Taha Hussein

Dr. Taha Hussein’s father is known to have moved to al Minyah district in Upper Egypt from an unknown city in the west. His father was an employee of a Jewish sugar company. Taha Hussein is the very person who spearheaded the motion to appoint a Jewish rabbi, Chaim Nahum Effendi, when he was a member of the academy of Arabic Language in Cairo, so as to spy on the thinkers and linguists. He also imported and appointed a number of foreign professors at the Faculty of Arts. Some were Jews, but all were either antagonistic towards Islam or sowing scepticism around it. The first doctorate conferred by the Faculty of Arts under the supervision of Dr. Taha Hussein was entitled “Jewish tribes in Arabia”. It was submitted by Israel Wolfensohn, the current rector of Hadassah University in Tel Aviv.^[5]

In light of this brief overview of Dr. Taha Hussein, his denial of Ibn Saba’s existence is not surprising. He states:

 

إن أمر السبئية وصاحبهم ابن السوداء إنما كان متكلفا منحولا قد اخترع بأضرة فحين كان الجدال بين الشيعة وغيرهم من الفرق الإسلامية أراد خصوم الشيعة أن يدخلوا في أصول هذا المذهب عنصرا يهوديا إمعانا في الكيد لهم والنيل منهم … إلخ

The actions of the Saba’iyyah and their leader Ibn al Sawdaʼ are fabrications invented in the course of polemical strife between the Shia and other denominations. In an effort to conspire against the Shia and harm their cause, their opponents inserted a Jewish element into the foundation of this sect.^[6]

 

Proof of Dr. Taha Hussein

He cited as proof for his deduction the fact that the historian, al Baladhuri, did not mention anything about Ibn Sabaʼ or his companions, regarding what transpired with Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He finds it strange that the incident narrated by al Tabari on Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu burning those who deified him was neither mentioned nor dated by other historians; in fact, they completely omitted any reference to it.^[7]

 

Refutation of Dr. Taha Hussein

Al Baladhuri not mentioning anything about Ibn Sabaʼ does not mean that he did not exist. At times, some historians will report what others have not. Moreover, when did al Baladhuri take responsibility of reporting every single incident that transpired? Even if al Baladhuri had reported the incident of Ibn Sabaʼ, Taha Hussein would have said, “The reports of al Baladhuri are not relied upon, as his credibility is not a matter of consensus.”^[8]

Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu burning those who deified him will be discussed under the stance of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu towards Ibn Sabaʼ and his companions, as reported in sources second only to the Qur’an in authenticity, whose narrations obviate the need for historical reports. In addition, this has also been reported in the most relied upon works of the Shia.

 

Dr. Muhammad Kamil Hussain

Following Dr, Taha Hussein, Dr. Muhammad Kamil Hussain considers the incident of Ibn Sabaʼ more likely to be a myth than anything else.^[9] He fails to produce any evidence to that effect.

 

Dr. Hamid Hifni Dawood

A similar view is held by Dr. Hamid Hifni Dawood, Dean of the Faculty of Arabic Language at Ain Shams University. He believed that Ibn Sabaʼ was one of the greatest historical inaccuracies that slipped beyond the grasp of scholars. The resulting obfuscation led to a failure to understand and detect this fallacy. This is one of many fabrications invented against the Shia. The incident of Ibn Sabaʼ was one such incident that was fabricated and thereafter considered to be a blemish upon the Shia.^[10]

 

Refutation of Dr. Hamid Hifni Dawood

Dr. Hamid Hifni Dawood is amongst those who fell for the deception of the idea of Sunni-Shia rapprochement, and one of its promoters. Such claims from him are not strange considering that he seeks rapprochement with those who raise doubts regarding the authenticity of the Qur’an, criticise the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and cast slurs against the Mothers of the Believers radiya Llahu ‘anhunna, such as Murtada al ‘Askari—the author of Khamsun wa Miʼatah Sahabi Mukhtalaqun (A Hundred and Fifty Fabricated Sahabah) and Ahadith Umm al Mu’minin ‘Aishah.

 

NEXT⇒ Shia Who Deny the Existence of Ibn Sabaʼ

---

^[1]  Taha Hussein: ‘Ali wa Banuhu, pg. 98-100; al Fitnah al Kubra.

^[2]  Anwar Jundi: Taha Hussain, pg. 43, 44.

^[3]  See Anwar al Jundi: Al Mukhattatat al Talmudiyyah al Suhyuniyyah fi Ghazw al Fikr al Islami, pg. 80.

^[4]  Anwar al Jundi: Taha Hussain.

^[5]  See Murtada al ‘Askari: Ma’a Rijal al Fikr fi l-Qahirah, pg. 166.

^[6]  Taha Hussein: ‘Ali wa Banuhu, pg. 98-100.

^[7]  Ibid.

^[8]  Refer to the biography of Ahmed ibn Yahya ibn Jabir ibn Dawood al Baladhuri (d. 279 AH) in Mu’jam al Adibba’, 5/92, by Yaqut al Hamawi; Lisan al Mizan, 2/323-323; Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq, 2/109; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/65, 66; al Nujum al Zahirah, 3/83.

^[9]  Adab Misr al Fatimiyyah, pg. 7.

^[10]  Al Tashayyu’ Zahirah Tabi’iyyah fi Itar al Da’wah al Islamiyyah, pg. 18; Murtada al ‘Askari: Ma’a Rijal al Fikr fi l-Qahirah, pg. 93.