I saw on a Nasibi website that they tried to respond to an article present on my blog, which can be found HERE

And in this article, they tried to deceive their followers, as it their habit.

First, they tried to portray as if this article was written by Me. They wrote

The following is a response to SlaveOfAhlubait’s article entitled: Mola Ali – The Creator.

I had criticized This approach on their part long ago, on more than One occasion; Then they should clarify to their readers as to who is the Author of Article. Let me give You one LINK , for example.

This is because If I am taking someone else research, and mention that; it is actually His article, not mine.

I feel as if they love to portray to their readers that they are responding to me, which is actually not the case.

I had written in this article

[original research by brother guided]

And then, When I shared This article on Shiaforums; even there, I clarified that it is not my research. I had written

[research of brother toyib]

And research of brother Toyib can be read on wilayat.net

So please do not try to deceive by saying that it is my Article

Secondly, they tried to weaken the chain, and say

The narration is weak for Abu Ishaaq Al-Sabee’ee is an infamous mudalis and his narrations are rejected if he did not declare that he heard the hadith.

First of all, it is not Brother Toyib, who said Chain is Hasan, rather it is researcher of the book, as was clarified by Brother when He wrote

The annotator of the book, Hasan ibn Abdullah al-Subayt says:

إسناده حسن

Its chain is hasan.

And the reason for this is, that Sama’at/hearing of Ibn Ishaq is proven from Hubairah. For example, We find two Narrations in Musnad Abu Daood Tayalsi, 1/112, Narration 120 & 121; where we find

120 – حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ هُبَيْرَةَ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ،

And since it is proven here, Scholars of Ahlu Sunnah accepted other narrations from Ibn Ishaq in Mu’anan form from Hubairah

For example, as mentioned by Brother Toyib, researcher of the book termed the Chain Hasan

al-Moqaddasi mentioned TWO narrations of Ibn Ishaq in Mu’anan form in His al-Ahadeeth al-Mukhtara, 2/401-402, Narrations 789 & 791

Researcher of al-Ahadeeth al-Mukhtara, Dr Abdul Mulk Dhaheesh, termed theses Chains Saheeh/Authentic

Coming to their second point about weakening of Chain, Nasibis write

As for Hubairah bin Yaryam, he has been weakened or called anonymous by a group of Hadith scholars

Question is: Does This effect His trustworthiness in view of Researchers? (of course, I am not talking about these Nasibis)

We have seen  Hasan ibn Abdullah al-Subayt,  al-Moqaddasi and  Abdul Mulk Dhaheesh who did not pay any attention to this criticism

Apart from them, researcher of Musnad Abu Daood Tayalsi, Dr Mohammad bin Abdul Mohsin Turkey, says on 1/112, that Hubairah is Trustworthy/Thiqa

And to Shut the mouth of These Nasibis, let me share a Narration from Musnad Ahmad, 2/156

Chain of Narration is

762 – حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، وَشُعْبَةُ، وَإِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ هُبَيْرَةَ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ،

Of course, This Narration is Mu’anan too. And  Sheikh Shoaib al-Arnawut writes

(1) إسناده حسن، رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير هبيرة- وهو ابن يَريم- فقد روى له أصحاب السنن، وهو حسن الحديث.

Its Chain is Hasan/Good. Narrators are all Trustworthy and that of Sheikhain except for Hubairah, and He is Hasan-ul-Hadeeth

Keep in mind that Sheikh Ahmad Shakir termed This Chain Saheeh

So, objections of these Nasibis on Brother Toyib’s article, have not been accepted by more than 5 Scholars of AhluSunnah

 

 

shiaf3shiaf2shiaf

Advertisements