Al Shia refute the Nasibi allegation of narrating from talking animals.

Unfortunately this cheap tactic, used to divert debating the real issues has been utilised by the Nasibi apologists Abdur Rahman ad-Dimashqia (in London) and Uthman al-Khamees (the Kuwaiti Salafi). This clip is from when the classic Nasibi apologist Abu 3atik attempted to use it on Paltalk.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Dimashqia
• Balushi
• Shi'a
• Donkey
• Ya'fur
• Nasibi
• Uthman al-Khames
• Abu Muntasir
• Rafidhi
• Donkey in Isnad.

[isomalt60]

scottish rafidih, the hadith you quote is not found in any of the authentic books of hadith whether it be in Bukhari, Muslim or even a-Tirmidi or Abi-Dawood. + You fail to mention that Ibn Kathir says scholars reject this hadith in al bidayah wal nihayah! Plus al Bidayah wal Nihaya is not our source of Hadith as you try to make out! Donkey hadith is in your al-kaafi but is not in our Bukhari or Muslim etc! Nice try.

[ScottishRafidhi]

Sihah Sittah are not your only compilations of ahadith, you also know as well as i do that an authentic ahadith could be cited in a non canonical text. Kaafi is not Sahih al-Kaafi, rather you would like to imply it is... in any case, nice mashour tradition on the donkey.

[isovids]

Lol ya akhe ifham! Al-sitah ARE the ones we take hadith form! Al Bidayh wal Nihayah is not our source of hadith (and you know this :-) for muslims to learn hadith from! So this story is not in OUR PRIMARY SOURCES BUT THE DONKEY HADITH IS IN THE SHIA PRIMARY SOURCE! Simple!

[ScottishRafidhi]

ya akhi, whilst I make no claims to be a scholar, let me demonstrate the irrationality of this argument,

Premise A) sunnis accept no ahadith outside Sihah Sittah

B) If this were true, then any ahadith given in a book outside of Sihah Sittah would be considered dha'eef

Therefore as a logical consequence, we should discard all other works of ahadith in which the Ahlus Sunnah quote from, namely al-Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas, Mustadrak as-Sahihayn of al-Hakim an-Nayshaburi etc, etc.

[ScottishRafidhi]

Furthermore, this would mean that all those scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah who cite authentic ahadith from the compilations of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Malik ibn Anas and Mutaqqi al-Hindi are upon error, is this your position?

Finally, I have already made clear, being in a primary source has never meant it's true, otherwise you and I would have to accept everything in Tarikh al-tabari and Sirah Ibn Hisham as true.

[courseworkdue]

Salam brother, who is the brother speaking in this video. May Allah (swt) bless him

[Notgoingnowhere]

@ScottishRafidhi Nasibis, all those books have been approved by the inflabble imams? are you now saying that the hadiths that have been taken from the inflabble imams and authencited have mistakes in it, al kafi cannot have mistakes because according to shia beliefs this book has been taken and narrated from the inflabble imams

[isomalt60]

Moreover, you ignore the fact that this "hadith" isnt narrataed from the Prophet(saw). Why cant you find a donkey narrating hadith from ANY of our main hadith sources? Because we dont have them. + you even ignore Ibn Kathir's commentary on this story. Thats a pretty sad attempt to cover things up id say. And mashoor? So what? Superman is mashoor lol. Does it give it a good classification? Nope. Its a moot point anyways as its not in our hadith books while donkeys are in al-kaafi :)

[isomalt60]

Lol you like to repeat what you said already while ignoring the points I made. Al-Kaafi is your most improtant hadith book and it contains hadiths narrated by donkey while despite your best efforts you have failed to provide a similar hadith from ANY of our major hadith books! Not even the ones used apart from the sittah. Instead you get a story from al Bidayah wal Nihaya which is not a major source of Islam or even a hadith book in itself rather contains some hadiths. So you fail miserably.

[isovids]

You dont seem to understand what im saying. As you and I know the primary sources of hadith for us is al-sittah while yours is al-kaafi. Our scholars do cite hadith from other books yes, BUT u are quoting a story from a book which is not even from among those other books that the scholars cite from apart from al-sittah. This shows that your argument is flawed. + Ibn Kathir himself says many say the story is rubbish. So my argument still stands. Our authentic hadith books dont contain this story.