Did any of the Sahabah partake in the Battle of Karbala?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Okay, I am not sure I am going to get a response from him, since he has been active but has not responded yet.

Are you aware of any confirmed Sahabah being in Umar ibn Saad's army yourself within a reliable report?

I'm not.

[Pea Ce]

I'm not.

Okay, just wanted to give you and MuslimK thanks for your help. If I ever get a reply to that question, I'll let you know, insha'Allah. Jazakallahu khair.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Okay, just wanted to give you and MuslimK thanks for your help. If I ever get a reply to that question, I'll let you know, insha'Allah. Jazakallahu khair.

Wa iyyakum.

[Pea Ce]

He told me this:

it's a time consuming process to verify the chains of narrators for each of those reports and I need to dedicate some time for that some day and I'll let you know if I could verify the reliability of any of the reports, however I doubt if it have any impact on your opinion because even if I prove some of those historical reports to be authentic you will say OK it is just one single not very well known Sahaba and it has nothing to do with the rest of the sahaba.

So I replied with this:

If you don't provide a reliable chain for the reports about all the men you claim are sahaba, that they fought Husain(ra), then your research is useless and bears no weight.

I could equally say that the reports being inauthentic will not have any impact on your opinion. But I'm not the one who posted the list and made claims about men. At least we would be able to check them. Next time you should think about this before posting, because you would also find it objectionable if a Sunni had done something similar.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

He told me this:

So I replied with this:

You may ask him to just post the chains, for all those reports.

And he should remove that Sahabi whom he included based on report of Abu mikhnaf.

[Pea Ce]

He sent me this:

Just FYI see what I found : Ibn Hajar says Shabath ibn Rib'i was a Sahaba "له إدراك" : https://al-maktaba.org/book/9767/1534 https://al-maktaba.org/book/9767/1535

I'm not sure what point he is making here, but I'll reiterate him to post the chains.

[Pea Ce]

You may ask him to just post the chains, for all those reports.

And he should remove that Sahabi whom he included based on report of Abu mikhnaf.

Are you talking about the 7th name (ibn Rib'i)? He removed that one already.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

He sent me this:

I'm not sure what point he is making here, but I'll reiterate him to post the chains.

What he posted doesn't prove that Shabath bin Rab'ee is a Sahabi. That guy lacks evidence, that's why clutching at straws. Moreover, as i said, scholars declaring him weak narrator, was a clear evidence that he wasn't a Sahabi.

Are you talking about the 7th name (ibn Rib'i)? He removed that one already.

No, the fourth one.

[Pea Ce]

He replied:

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.

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.

I will send the chains as soon as possible. Be a bit patient I am occupied these days.

What should be our reply?

[MuslimK]

He sent me this:

Just FYI see what I found : Ibn Hajar says Shabath ibn Rib'i was a Sahaba "له إدراك" : https://al-maktaba.org/book/9767/1534 https://al-maktaba.org/book/9767/1535

I'm not sure what point he is making here, but I'll reiterate him to post the chains.

He replied:

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.

What should be our reply?

'lahu idrak' doesn't prove someone to be a companion. This term means that such person was the contemporary of the Prophet (saw), lived during his time but did not meet him (saw).

Here is another example in which Ibn Hajr uses the same term about another personality:

In the biography of Bajala bin Abda Al-Tameemi he said:
أدرك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يره
“Adraka Al-Nabi (salalahu alaihi wa salam) but did not see him.”
He titles this chapter: The names of those that adraka Al-Nabi (saw) but did not meet him.”

Brother Noor's post proves he is considered to be a weak narrator - that alone is sufficient evidence that he wasn't a Sahabi since a Sahabi is never refereed to as weak but it seems this Shia propagandist is severely confused.

[Pea Ce]

That was good, MuslimK, thank you for that clarification. I'll await brother Noor's reply to the 2nd part of the paragraph about Abu Mikhnaf, since this guy says that Abu Mikhnaf is acceptable to them (Shia but not Sunnis) - I'm not sure that's true, but hopefully I'll be able to send something about that.

[Pea Ce]

Lol, it's funny because through Bing I searched: "Bajala bin Abda Al-Tameemi" and I came across another article on this website: https://www.twelvershia.net/2014/02/26/response-to-khalid-bin-walid-portrait-of-a-war-criminal/

We respond:
The term “idraak” does not mean met. It means that one was a contemporary of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam). This is better illustrated with Ibn Hajar’s biography of another Muslim, Bajala bin Abda Al-Tameemi, in which he said:
أدرك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يره
“Adraka Al-Nabi (salalahu alaihi wa salam) but did not see him.”

I'm very glad that we have this resource available to tackle the propaganda.

[Pea Ce]

I'm not sure what point he is making here, but I'll reiterate him to post the chains.



What should be our reply?


'lahu idrak' doesn't prove someone to be a companion. This term means that such person was the contemporary of the Prophet (saw), lived during his time but did not meet him (saw).

Here is another example in which Ibn Hajr uses the same term about another personality:

In the biography of Bajala bin Abda Al-Tameemi he said:
أدرك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يره
“Adraka Al-Nabi (salalahu alaihi wa salam) but did not see him.”
He titles this chapter: The names of those that adraka Al-Nabi (saw) but did not meet him.”

Brother Noor's post proves he is considered to be a weak narrator - that alone is sufficient evidence that he wasn't a Sahabi since a Sahabi is never refereed to as weak but it seems this Shia propagandist is severely confused.

He replied this:

Did Ibn Hajar classified Shabath in that particular chapter which is dedicated to those who was contemporary with the prophet but haven't seen/met him? If so your evidence is acceptable otherwise not.

It sounds like he's clutching at straws to be honest. What should I say?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

[Pea Ce]

Awesome, I have sent him it all with the images.

[Pea Ce]

His reply:

By the evidence you provided I understood that I was wrong regarding Shabath being a Sahaba. But what I cannot understand is that why this person that you've entered into our civil discussion to help you, uses filthy language and it is sad how easily he accuses me of being a liar and fraud while Allah is my witness that I wasn't aware of the classification that Ibn Hajar has mentioned in the beginning of his book and by no means I wasn't trying to deceive anybody. (sad face)

And I mention the fact that Abu-Mikhnaf is authentic in the eyes of Shia  to explain why I will not remove those reports that Abu-Mikhnaf is present in their chain of transmitters.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

His reply:

Again, he didn't get what i said, because my previous response refutes this point of his. I'll explain him again:

Abu minkhnaf is a liar as per Sunnis, but reliable as per Shias. So if he wants to accuse a Sahabi based on a report of narrator who Shias deem reliable, then he should prove that the rest of the chain up until the main narrator has reliable narrators as per Shias, NOT Sunnis. He can't use grading of Shia Scholars of Abu Mikhnaf and use grading of Sunni Scholars for other narrators instead of using gradings of Shia Scholars for all narrators in the chains. Otherwise, it would be a fraud.

And rest assured he won't do that, why? Because those chains will turn out to have majhool(anonymous) narrators if the grading of Shia Scholars are applied to rest of the chain. Meanings it will be unacceptable evidence as per Shia standard too.

[Pea Ce]

Again, he didn't get what i said, because my previous response refutes this point of his. I'll explain him again:

Abu minkhnaf is a liar as per Sunnis, but reliable as per Shias. So if he wants to accuse a Sahabi based on a report of narrator who Shias deem reliable, then he should prove that the rest of the chain up until the main narrator has reliable narrators as per Shias, NOT Sunnis. He can't use grading of Shia Scholars of Abu Mikhnaf and use grading of Sunni Scholars for other narrators instead of using gradings of Shia Scholars for all narrators in the chains. Otherwise, it would be a fraud.

And rest assured he won't do that, why? Because those chains will turn out to have majhool(anonymous) narrators if the grading of Shia Scholars are applied to rest of the chain. Meanings it will be unacceptable evidence as per Shia standard too.

Yeah, I understand what you have said here and I can't see him not understanding this point as you have made it quite clear. I've sent him this and bolded the second paragraph and told him to read it all. Thanks brother.

[Pea Ce]

Yeah, I understand what you have said here and I can't see him not understanding this point as you have made it quite clear. I've sent him this and bolded the second paragraph and told him to read it all. Thanks brother.

I have had no response from him yet but he has shown activity.

[Pea Ce]

If I don't get a reply from him maybe I should create my own post. I could call it: "Dissecting the claims of [his username] against some of the Sahaba," and link to this post. What do you think?