Does the existence of Ibn Saba mean we don’t need to authenticate such narrations?

Does the existence of Ibn Saba mean we don’t need to authenticate such narrations?

Knowing Ibn al Hashimi’s shameless approach to polemics we can envisage him seeking to rebut all we said by pointing to the fact that Sunni and Shia texts record the existence of Ibn Saba. Let us for arguments sake accept his existence, does that mean that we automatically accept every historical allegation attributed to him without ascertaining its accuracy? Ibn al Hashimi needs to understand that there is a difference between proving the existence of Ibn Saba and proving that the same Ibn Saba contributed to every act of Fitnah from the reign of Uthman until the martyrdom of Maula Ali (as). Let us expand on this with an example:

“There has been a large increase in crime in New York. A known prolific offender resides in that same York. Does that automatically mean that every criminal act committed in that City should be attributed to him? No fair minded person would deem process wherein a prolific offender is charged with every criminal offence, because he happens to live in that New York to be fair or legally sound. Justice would dictate that the police investigate every offence in an unbiased manner to identify the perpetrator. Police intelligence / suspicions about this prolific offender may indeed be justified, but they remain baseless if no evidence can be located placing this prolific offender at the crime scene. If no physical evidence, such as DNA can be located at the scene the police will need to seek eye witness testimony. If no eye witnesses can be located the police will seek out hearsay evidence, taking evidence from those that had heard eye witnesses disclose what they had seen. From a legal perspective hearsay evidence is the weakest form of evidence that the police can rely on, sometimes it is so weak that it is in effect rendered inadmissible. Judges are often loathed to accept secondary evidence as grounds to convict, particularly when the stakes are so high (a loss of liberty). If the prosecution are going to rely on hearsay evidence as part of their case, it is pivotal that the witness giving hearsay evidence is of good character, and has nothing that could undermine his reliability as a witness. If this witness is widely known amongst men of repute as a dishonest liar his evidence in effect becomes useless. If it emerges in court that the hearsay evidence of the same witness has been previously used by the prosecution to secure the successful conviction of the same offender on several occasions, this coincidence would be enough to cast serious doubts on his testimony in court.

Applying this example to the facts here, if Ibn al Hashimi is enjoying his cult status as Chief Prosecutor before his Sunni jury in a trial that is seeking to convict millions of twelver Shias for the crimes of their ‘ancestor’ Ibn Saba, he needs to be certain that the evidence that he submits proves Ibn Saba’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Justice dictates that Ibn al Hashimi successfully proves his case citing each and every narration, quoting the book and its accompanying chain of narration. What justice system entitles Ibn al Hashimi to present his case on the basis of one reference from Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (without citing the chain), one without any reference (the Sabaites killing Ayesha’s envoy) and all the remainder narrations from Tabari (all of which have been coincidentally by narrated by Sayf bin Umar, unanimously graded by the Sunni scholars as a liar). Since Ibn al Hashimi relied on Tabari to expose the wicked ancestry of the twelver Shia, namely the Sabaites we thought it only right to analyse all those chains wherein the term Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya are mentioned in the History of al Tabari. The Tabari narrations of Ibn Saba and the Sabayyite movement span from Uthman’s reign through to the Battle of Jamal and its immediate aftermath. During that time Tabari mentions the name Ibn Saba or his other title al Sawda on 14 occasions and Al Sabaiyya on nine occasions. Tabari makes no further mention of Ibn Saba or al Sabaiyya at Sifeen, Naharwan or at any other point during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as). Had Ibn al Hashimi bothered to look through these narrations, rather than simply quoting from the oxygen thieves of Najd he would have realised that every single narration in Tabari that makes reference to Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya has been narrated through Sayf bin Umar! Ibn al Hashimi don’t you find it odd that the only narrations that Tabari found about the powerful Ibn Saba and Sabayyites that successfully ousted Uthman and caused the battle of Jamal, were from a known liar? Did this reality pass every other witness who lived through that troublesome era? We are sure that any just man would cast doubts on the fact that something as significant as the Sabaites would have and should have been narrated by a plethora of witnesses, and not just a notorious liar! This being the case why has Ibn al Hashimi deemed it appropriate to take narrations about Ibn Saba and the Sabaites from Tabari? Ibn al Hashimi, is it not shameful that you have sought to rely on narrations that you know to be weak, with the hope that your Sunni readers will find the twelvers guilty of the sins of their Sabayyite ancestors?

We appeal to justice has Ibn al Hashimi proven his case against Ibn Saba through this methodology? By bringing such a pathetic case against the Shia as a mechanism to hide the sins of his Sahaba ancestors, Ibn al Hashimi has only succeeded in proving one thing, that he is a dishonest liar of the highest order, whose every word should be looked at with suspicion, after all Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book (49:6):

O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.