Moreover, all the narrators are completely reliable without question.

Moreover, all the narrators are completely reliable without question. Al-Hafiz states about the first narrator: الفضل بن دكين الكوفي واسم دكين عمرو بن حماد بن زهير التيمي مولاهم الأحول أبو نعيم الملائي بضم الميم مشهور بكنيته ثقة ثبت Al-Fadhl b. Dukayn al-Kufi - and the name of Dukayn was ‘Amr b. Hammad b.

Zuhayr - al-Tamimi, their freed slave, al-Ahwal, Abu Na’im al-Mulai, well-known with his kunya: Thiqah (trustworthy), accurate.[^3] Concerning the second narrator, he further declares: فطر بن خليفة المخزومي مولاهم أبو بكر الحناط بالمهملة . والنون صدوق رمي بالتشيع Fitr b. Khalifah al-Makhzumi, their freed slave, Abu Bakr al-Hanat: Saduq (very truthful), accused of Shi’ism.[^4] What of the third narrator?

Al-Hafiz says: حبيب بن أبي ثابت قيس ويقال هند بن دينار الأسدي مولاهم أبو يحيى الكوفي ثقة فقيه جليل وكان كثير الإرسال والتدليس Habib b. Abi Thabit Qays – and it is said Hind – b. Dinar al-Asadi, their freed slave, al-Kufi: Thiqah (trustworthy), a meritorious jurist. He used to do a lot of irsal and tadlis.[^5] Meanwhile, he has narrated with explicit sima’ above. So, his irsal and tadlis are inapplicable and inconsequential here.

Finally, this is what al-Hafiz states about the last narrator: ثعلبة بن يزيد الحماني بكسر المهملة وتشديد الميم كوفي صدوق شيعي Tha’labah b. Yazid al-Himmani, a Kufan: Saduq (very truthful), a Shi’i.[^6] This chain, therefore, is absolutely hasan without a doubt! It is simply faultless and unassailable. As for al-Shahri’s rejection of the hadith on account of the Shi’ism of two of its narrators, we will let another Salafi hadith scientist, al-Mua’lami (d.

1386 H) reply him: وقد وثق أئمة الحديث جماعة من المبتدعة واحتجوا بأحاديثهم وأخرجوها في الصحاح، ومن تتبع رواياتهم وجد فيها كثيراً مما يوافق ظاهرة بدعهم، وأهل العلم يتأولون تلك الأحاديث غير طاعنين فيها ببدعة راويها ولا في راويها بروايته لها The Imams in the hadith sciences have declared as trustworthy a lot of the heretics, and have taken their (i.e. the heretics’) ahadith as hujjah, and have recorded them (i.e. those reports) in their Sahih books.

And whoever researches their (the heretics’) narrations finds that a lot of them apparently agree with their heresies. The scholars give alternative interpretations for those ahadith without attacking them (i.e. the ahadith) on account of the heresy of their narrators, nor do they attack the narrators for narrating them.[^7] ‘Allamah al-Albani (d.