This is one of the tales told in order to accuse Shia of...

This is one of the tales told in order to accuse Shia of heresy and foregoing events. The great contemporary researcher, al-Askari, in his book, has proved with substantial evidence, that Abdullah Ibn Saba was fictitious, and it is therefore a greater lie to say that he was the founder of Shi'ism. God has decreed that some learned men disclose the truth regardless of blame they may get.

The pioneer in this subject is this man who has made the Sunni learned men of research revise the history book of Tabari (History of Nations and Kings), and to sift out the authentic stories from the false. The stories which have been preserved as God's revelations. The honorable writer, with much evidence, has stripped the veil or ambiguity from those historical events, and disclosed the truth, to some extent that some facts seem frightful.

But we have to obey the truth no matter how difficult they appear. The truth is the best to be followed. Dr. Hamid Hafni Dawud Oct. 12, 1961 Cairo, Egypt. We just heard from a Sunni Muslim. Now let us see what a third party has to say about Sayf and his character, Abdullah Ibn Saba. The following is the comment of Dr. R. Stephen Humpherys, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who has translated the Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari into English.

This comment is written in the foreword of Vol. 15 of the History of al-Tabari. (again, I just give some parts of it. Please refer to Vol. 15 for details): For events in Iraq and Arabia (the real key to the crises of Uthman's caliphate) Tabari relies chiefly on Muhammad Ibn Umar al- Waqidi (d. 823) and the MYSTERIOUS SAYF IBN UMAR. Both of these authorities raise real problems ... It is Sayf Ibn Umar who is most troubling, however. Tabari shows a unique fondness for him, in two senses.

First, SAYF IS THE SOURCE MOST HEAVILY USED BY TABARI for the whole period from the Riddah wars to the battle of Siffin (11-37 AH). Second, no one beside Tabari appears to use Sayf at all. There is no obvious way to explain Tabari's preference. It is certainly not explained by the formal characteristics of Sayf's narratives, for he relies on informants who are usually OBSCURE and often very recent.

likewise, he makes heavy use of the collective report, which blends together in unspecified ways the accounts of several transmitters. I would suggest that Sayf appealed to Tabari for two reasons. First, Sayf presents a "Sunday school" interpretation of Uthman's caliphate.