He replied:
What should be our reply?
Guy is a fraud meaning a true Rafidi. What he quoted from ibn hajar, simply means that Shabath found the time of Prophet(S).
The words "so he is a Sahaba" are his own words, Ibn hajar never said that, while on contrary ibn hajar believes that Shabath is NOT a sahabi. So this Rafidi fraud is attributing lies to Ibn hajar and making false claims since you dont know Arabic.
Copy this answer from me:
About Shabath I posted the opinion of Ibn Hajar for you regarding him stating that he has met the prophet so he is a Sahaba. Don't you count Ibn Hajar a scholar in the field of Rijal or maybe you haven't checked the link? His grading is another subject that you may want to find out why a person who is a Sahaba by the testimony of Ibn Hajar is graded weak.
No fraud Rafidi, Ibn Hajar didn't say so, rather he believed that Shabath isn't a Sahabi. The proof is right there from where you copy-pasted, but since you are a fraud you tried to conceal it.
Imam Ibn hajar has placed shabath in the third category. As can be seen in the link which you provided. For benefit of readers, here is the scan. [ Attachment ]
And in the beginning of his book ibn hajar clarified that the ones from third category aren't considered Sahaba. [ Attachment ]
So you lied that Ibn hajar considered him a Sahabi.
About Abu Mikhnaf he was a Shia historian and because of that he is accused of being a liar regarding the reports that Sunni scholars tend to turn a blind eye on them (i.e. the events that show there were serious conflicts between some of the Sahaba) as I quoted the words of al-Qazali about that at the bottom of my post. So even though you may count him a liar following the opinion of your scholars, he is neither weak nor a liar in the eyes of Shia.
Since you are a Jahil, you don't know that even Sahih Bukhari and Muslim have reports from Shia narrators, if you doubt make a research on it, to romove your ignorance. And these Shia narrators weren't called liars, why? Because they weren't liars. This evidence is sufficient to dismantle your silly theory that just because Abu mikhnaf was Shia he was called a liar. No, rather we call a person a liar, only when he is a liar, like you are a liar too who attributed lies to ibn hajar. So Im not surprised if you defend your liar ancestor Abu mikhnaf.
And yes we Sunnis will reject Abu Mikhnaf's reports because he was a liar, and if you act smart by saying he is a reliable person for Shias, then no problem, present the tawtheeq for the rest of narrators from whom Abu mikhaf narrated till the main narrator in chain, from Shia Scholars, you can't bring opinions of Sunnis Scholars for them, because for Sunnis Abu mikhnaf is liar, if you consider him reliable, then provide the tawtheeq for rest of narrators from Shia Scholars. After this condition you will realize that you are a loser either ways.