Part 1: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope

Exposing the deception of religious deceivers regarding Hadeeth Khalifatayn.

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Praise is to Allah, who promised his faithful slaves victory and support by saying, “and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us” (Ar-Room 47 verse), who honors and humiliates whomsoever He pleases. Peace be on the Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of Mercy to the world, a Light unto all creation and a Savior of the faithful servants of God. It is all because of the prayers of our Muslim brothers and sisters and ofcourse because of the help of Almighty Allah(swt) that our previous articles and rebuttals turned out to be extremely successful which have enlightened a lot of truth seekers and have helped them as a lamp in their quest for the straight path. But as for the fitna mongers these articles and rebuttals have become a sort of torment for them which has given them sleepless nights. Now after the success of our refutations for the dajjali arguments and deceptions regarding Hadeeth Thaqalayn , We decided to enlighten our esteemed readers the deceptions of Shiatu dajjal in their explanations for Hadeeth Khalifatayn. In this series of articles we will be bring before you all the deceptive tactics used by shiatu dajjal using Hadeeth Khalifatayn inorder to deceive people, and again by the help of Allah we will be exposing them before you as sun in cloudless day.

What kind of people are we going to expose?

Before, we start our refutation part we would like to make our readers aware of the fact that what kind of people are we going to refute and expose in these articles. The people to whom we are going to expose here have a lot of characteristics many of which are stated by their own Imams in their own books(eg: Hypocrites, etc), But some important characteristics which can’t be ignored before reading any argument raised by such people are : They are religious liars,  they consider deceiving and lying people to be the teachings of their religion, They are religious deceivers, they consider deceiving and lying people to be the teachings of their religion, and often they behave in a stupid manner like donkeys.

Here are the proofs on which we base our views that:

1. shiatu dajjal are religious liars and religious deceivers:

Shia infallible Imam in shia hadeeth states:

إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .

Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation – other than shias or new shia – then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …
[tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152]

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ

“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’”

Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4

& Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77

(Shia scholars) al-Ansari and al-Roohani commented on the Hadith (Above) of Imam Abu Abdullah: “The words “Bahitouhum Kay La Yatma’ou” in the Hadith mean accusing them of things and thinking that they have ill intentions which is Haram in the case of dealing with a believer, so one cannot say about the believer things like: “He might be a Kaffir or a Zani”… And it could be left to its apparent form thus it would permissible to LIE to them for a certain benefit.” Shia sources (Kitab al-Makasib by al-Ansari 2/118), (Minhaj al-Fuqahaa 2/228).

Intrestingly Giant shia scholars give fatawas(verdicts) based on these narrations for example Grand Ayatullah Al Khoei’i

سؤال 1245: هل يجوز الكذب على المبدع أو مروج الضلال في مقام الاحتجاج عليه إذا كان الكذب يدحض حجته ويبطل دعاويه الباطلة؟ الخوئي: إذا توقف رد باطله عليه جاز.

Question”1245″: Is it Possible to Lie or produce Arguments which contain Lies when Debating with a person who Is a Follower of Bida’a (Innovation/ they probably mean Sunnis) and a spreader or Dala’la (Ignorance/ us as well) If this Lie would Destroy my Opponent’s Arguments?

Imam Khoei’i Answers: If it will stop his Falsehood then it is Permissible to do So. (Imam Khoei’i, Sirat el Najat, Volume 1, Page 447) (online source)

A similar fatwa was issue by Grand Ayatullah sistani:

السؤال: هل يعاقب الله الشخص اذا اجبر على الكذب في مواضع محرجة اذا سئل عنها خاصة اذا كان المقابل يسال كثيرا عن اشياء لاتخصه ؟

الجواب: لايجوز الكذب الا اذا كان لدفع ضرر.

2. Shiatu dajjal are donkeys:

Aboo ‘Abdillah bin Ahmad Muhammad bin Hanbal ash-Shaybaanee said in“as-Sunnah” (Volume 2/ 548 #1276): I was informed by Muhammad bin Yahyaa bin Abee Sameenah who was informed by Ibn Abee Zaaidha from Isma’eel meaning Aboo Khaalid and his father Zakariyaa bin Abee Zaaidha and Maalik ibn Mighwal from ash-Sha’bee: “If the Shee’ah were birds they would be vultures and if they were animals they would be donkeys”

Comment: So the one who stated this reality was ash-Sha’bee ‘Aamir bin Sharaaheel al-Hamdaanee who was born in the caliphate of ‘Umar(ra)  and he is from the trustworthy of the Taabi’een and from the Fuqahaa who died in the year 103 AH.((Taqreeb))

Thus, in this series of articles we will be exposing their lies and deceptions where they made in order to deceive innocent and lay muslims and we will be revealing before you that how they start behaving like donkeys and make some foolish arguments, just inorder to name it a refutation to Ahlesunah. So please don’t be surprised by seeing that how can people be so stupid and deceptive at the same time, because the fact is that such things are present in their blood. That is why you will find them least bothered even if their lies are exposed and they are caught red handed while trying to deceive people.


Deception (1)

Shia of dajjal stated in the beginning of their article:

[Quote] principle we are teaching him is that a weak chain does not automatically make a weak Hadith. A Hadith with a weak chain, but which has other chains or Hadith testifying for its authenticity as its witnesses, becomes authentic on account of the corroboration. These two crucial principles are important to this discussion. Al-Hindi al-Nasibi (لعنه الله) and his friends (لعنهم الله) have displayed a TOTAL ignorance of them. [Quote]

Shia of dajjal starts their list of deceptions by misrepresenting the rules of Hadeeth Science.

Firstly we would like to teach these religious deceivers that numerous reports which has extreme weakness can’t be upgraded to level of being considered as reliable. So let us quote before you the great scholars of hadeeth science and their explanation on the issue of the rule which these religious deceivers are referring, so that it clears before the readers that who is ignoring the principles of Hadeeth Sceince.


According to the definitions of al-Tirmidhi and Ibn al-Salah, a number of similar weak ahadith on a particular issue can be raised to the degree of Hasan if the weakness found in their reporters is of a mild nature. Such a hadith is known as Hasan li ghairihi (Hasan due to others), to distinguish it from the type previously-discussed, which is Hasan li dhatihi (Hasan in itself). Similarly, several Hasan ahadith on the same subject may make the hadith Sahih li ghairihi, to be distinguished from the previously-discussed Sahih li dhatihi. However, in case the WEAKNESS IS SEVERE (e.g., the reporter is accused of LYING or the hadith is itself Shadhdh), such VERY WEAK ahadith will not support each other and will remain WEAK. For example, the well-known hadith, “He who preserves forty ahadith for my Ummah will be raised by Allah on the Day of Resurrection among the men of understanding”, has been declared to be Da`if by most of the traditionists, although it is reported through several routes. [al-Jaza’iri, p. 149] (source)


Imam Ibn Hajar states the following in an-Nukat ‘Ala Ibn asSalah:

وقد صرح أبو الحسن ابن القطان أحد الحفاظ النقاد من أهل المغرب في كتابه بيان الوهم و الإيهام بأن هذا القسم (أي الحسن بمجموع الطرق) لا يحتج به كله بل يعمل به في فضائل الأعمال و يتوقف عن العمل به في الأحكام إلا إذ كثرت طرقه أو عضده اتصال عمل أو موافقة شاهد صحيح أو ظاهر القرآن. وهذا حسن قوي رايق ما أظن منصفا يأباه و الله الموفق

“Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan, one of the verifying Huffaz from amongst the People of the West (al-Maghrib) has explicitly stated in his book, Bayan al-Wahm Wa al-Iham, that this category (i.e. Hasan Li Ghayrih) is not used as a proof always. Rather, it is acted upon in Fada’il al-A’mal, but one should refrain from acting on it in al-Ahkam, unless it has numerous routes, or it is supported by action (in accordance with what it states), an authentic witnessing report, or the apparent meaning of the Qur’an. This (view) is good, strong, and delightful. I do not think a fair person would refuse it. And Allah is the granter of success.”

An example of a hadith that the early muhaddithin rejected in spite of it having numerous routes is the hadith “There is no wudu’ for the one who does not mention Allah’s Name on it.” Ahmad said, “No hadith concerning it is authentic,” and others critiqued it as well. Amongst the later scholars, ibn Hajar concurred as did Shaykh ibn Baz.

In his commentary of this very same hadith, Shaykh ibn Baz had the following to say:

والرابع :الحسن لغير ذاته بل لغيره إذا تعددت الطرق فهي أربعة أقسام وهذا القسم الرابع محل نظر كثير ما تلتبس فيه الآراء لاختلاف الطرق التي تعددت فلهذا تجد بعضهم يحسنه وبعضهم يضعفه بحسب ما وصل إليه من العلم في ضبط الراوي وعدم ضبطه وفي اتصال السند وعدم اتصاله وفي جهالة الراوي وفي عدم جهالته فمن أجل ذلك تختلف آراؤهم رحمة الله عليهم في هذا القسم الرابع .

فهو مما يستشهد به ولكن لا يعتمد عليه في الأصول فهي من قبيل أحاديث الترغيب والترهيب ومن قبيل الإعتضاد والاستشهاد هذا هو أحسن ما قيل فيه … انتهى كلامه رحمه الله

“The fourth category (of maqbul, or acceptable, hadiths): is that which is not hasan  by itself (li dhatih), but rather is hasan due to other than it (li ghayrih) when its routes are multiple. So these are the four categories. This fourth category requires examination. Opinions concerning it are frequently confused due to contradiction of the various routes. For this reason you will find some deeming it hasan and some deeming it da’if depending on what knowledge reaches them concerning the narrator’s precision or lack thereof, the connectedness of the chain or the lack thereof, or the narrator being known or unknown. For that reason their (the scholars’) views, may Allah have mercy on them, will differ concerning this fourth category. Therefore, it is used as witnessing evidence, but it is not relied upon in the Usul (fundamental issues), so it is like the hadiths of Targhib wa at-Tarhib (Encouragement and Discouragement) and that which is used to support an argument or as witnessing evidence. This is the best of what has been said concerning it.”

Though the narrations we are going to discuss don’t have any other supportive chain but for sake of argument even if we agree that it can be upgraded, then too the MAIN POINT WHICH SHIATU DAJJAL IGNORED IS THAT these types of narrations cannot be used to rely upon fundamental issues. So is this the same thing which the shiatu dajjal wants to portray from it? No not at all, this shiatu dajjal is trying to proof from these narrations the issues which contradict established authentic narrations and the acts of companions. They wants us to believe in divine caliphate of Ahlebayt. But these weak narrations cannot be used for this purpose as scholars explained.

Deception (2)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] Ismail ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Uways al-Asbahi (إسماعيل بن عبد الله بن أبي أويس الأصبحي) is a narrator of BOTH Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Yet, according to al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal 1/240 and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 1/197, Yahya ibn Main said about him:

أبو أويس وابنه ضعيفان

Abu Uways and his son (Ismail) are both WEAK.

Both sources also quote Murrah saying about Ismail ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Uways:

مخلط يكذب ليس بشيء

He is confused. He LIES. He is NOTHING. [Quote]

Here shiatu dajjal used maqroon narration to back up their claims. Maqroon means that there were two chains that narrated the same hadith. So, this doesn’t imply a strengthening of a particular narrator. Because same hadeeth had another chain which didn’t have the weak narrator in it.

Imam Ibn hajar believes that his(Ismail) narrations were maqroon:

و أما الشيخان فلا أظن بهما أنهما أخرجا عنه إلا الصحيح من حديثه الذى شارك فيه الثقات ، و قد أوضحت ذلك فى مقدمة شرحى على البخارى ، و الله أعلم . اهـ .

It says that his(Ismail) hadiths that were chosen in the saheehain are only the authentic hadiths that also thiqaat narrated.(tahtheeb)

This is more clear in saheeh muslim, because muslim quotes the other chains in the same hadith.

So now if the shiatu dajjal are trying to use maqroon narrations as a proof to defend the munkar narration of Khalifatayn then WE CHALLENGE shiatu dajjal to provide us the authentic chain if they consider hadeeth khalifatayn narrated by Qasim was a maqroon narration, which should be free of the narrators whose criticism have been discussed in our previous article. But we know that there isn’t any such chain had it been so then shias wouldn’t have used the weak chain in which unknown(majhool) narrator is present in the first instance.

Thus hadeeth Khallifatayn doesn’t comes under maqroon narrations in anyway, So why did they use this example , if they didn’t intend to deceive lay people?


Deception (3)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote]Furthermore, the evidence in FAVOUR of both al-Qasim and Sharik far OUTWEIGH the evidence against them. In situations like that, the condemnation is disregarded, and the narrator is accepted as reliable…

No wonder, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has stated concerning al-Qasim in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib, Number 5454:

5454- القاسم ابن حسان العامري الكوفي مقبول من الثالثة د س

One can see Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani describing him as “maqbul”, meaning “accepted”. He is an accepted narrator. Technically, this means that when his Hadiths are corroborated, they are to be accepted.

He states that the following people have declared him trustworthy:

1. Ibn Hibban

2. Ibn Shahin

3. Ahmad ibn Salih

He also indicates by stating د س that both Abu Dawud and al-Nisai relied upon him.

Ibn Hibban, as indicated above, has mentioned him in his book al-Thuqat, vol. 5, p. 305. By including him in this book, Ibn Hibban grades him “Thiqah”, meaning “Trustworthy”. [Quote]

Now the shiatu dajjal started playing with Hadeeth Science in order to deceive people , let us expose them in a clean and clear manner.

Lets see that what sort of Tawtheeq(worthiness ,to strengthen the status of a narrator) the narrator Qasim was granted by scholars and what was the reality of Tawtheeq granted by scholars who were quoted by Shiatu dajjal.

1. Ibn hajar:

Ibn hajar said Qasim was maqbool in his book “Taqrib”.

In the begining of his taqrib, Ibn hajar made crystal clear what does the term maqbool means in his view:
من ليس له من الحديث إلا القليل ، ولم يثبت فيه ما يترك حديثه من أجله ، وإليه الإشارة بلفظ : مقبول ، حيث يتابع ، وإلا فلين الحديث
The one who has no hadiths except for a few, and that it is not proven that anyone left his hadiths during his time and the term “Maqbul” is applied to him when backed by other narrations. If not, then he is weak in hadiths.

Moreover, This rank(Maqbool) is not a crediting because it indicate that this narrator is weak that his weakness can be overcome when there is a supportive route to it, this is the view and the analysis of Sh. Dr. Mahir al-Fahil.

So in the view of Ibn hajar this narrator is weak unless what he narrates is supported by another hadeeth with different narrator. Secondly ibn hajar is one the mutaakhir(later) scholar thus his views cannot overcome the views of scholars of hadeeth who were flag bearers of hadeeth science of their time like Imam Bukhari, and Imam Yahya qatan.

2. Ibn Hibban:

Ibn Hibbaan’s tawtheeq is not much value due to the fact that he believed in the concept of aSl al-`adaalah, and that is rejected by basically all the scholars. The concept of asl al-`adaalah is purely “wishful thinking”. When we study the hadeeth and the narrators and amount of fabricated hadeeth, it would make no sense to believe “all muslims are innocent until proven guilty”. Because it maybe that they were trustworthy, but they had bad memory, or got confused in hadeeth, or they didn’t remember the narrators they got the hadeeth from. It is a slippery slope.

Example: Reported by Ad-Dawlabi in “Al-Kuna wa Al-Asma”:
“Rawh bin Al-Farj à Yahya bin Sulaiman Abu Sa’eed Al-Ju’fi à Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi à Aslam Al-Makki à Abu Tufayl ‘Amir bin Wathilah à Prophet (SAW)…..alhadith.”

In the chain above, both Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi and Aslam Al-Makki are Majhool(unknown). Regarding Abdul Karim bin Hilal Dhahabi said: I am not aware who he is. [Al-Meezan (2/647)]. Aslam Al-Makki was also unknown. No one mention him besides Ibn Hibban who listed him among “Ath-Thiqat” (4/46). No one narrates from Aslam Al-Makki except Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi (who himself was unknown), and these type of narrators are considered Majhool(unknown) in correct view, but Ibn Hibban would consider them Thiqah and he was famous for making Tawtheeq(strengthening i.e. to strengthen the status of a narrator) of Majhool(unknown) narrators.

Moreover Ibn Hibban includes Qasim in the section of Tabi’een AND Atba’a Tabi’een . Ibn hibban in al-thiqaat, mentions the names of the companions / tabi’een / and atbaa’ and when he is in doubt, he puts the narrator in TWO positions, this is what he did for Qasim and if Qasim was from taba tabi’een then this narration is disconnected because Qasim never saw the sahabi who narrated this narration.

3. Ahmad ibn Salih (Al-Ajli):

Al-mu’allami, holds the opinion that al-ajli does what ibn hibban does often, which is that he believes that they strengthen majhool(unknown) narrators. Talee’at Al-Tankeel 1/69 by Al-Mu’allami.

“The tawtheeq of Al-Ajli(Ahmad ibn Salih) is in the same status of the tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban” [Tamam Al-Mina (p. 400)]

And in (Tamam Al-Mina p. 231) sheikh Albani states: “And it appears as though he followed Al-Ajli who mentioned him in the thiqaat, and so did Ibn Hibban, and their tawtheeq isn’t reassuring, since they are known for being lenient”.

4. Ibn shahin :

ibn shahin is directly quoting Al-Ajli, ibn shaheen mainly quotes opinions of tawtheeq and it isn’t necessarily his own and here he said:

1094 = القاسم بن حسان: الذي روى عن زيد بن ثابت، ثقة. قاله أحمد بن صالح

Al-Qasim bin Hasaan: Who narrated from Zaid bin Thabit, is a thiqa. This is said by Ahmad bin Salih. [thiqaat ibn shaheen p 267]

5.  Shiatu dajjal also indicates by stating د س that both Abu Dawud and al-Nisai relied upon him.

But the fact is that there is no tawtheeq that can be found in these books.

د = Means that narrations from that particular narrator were included in Sunan Abi dawud

س = Means that narrations from that particular narrator were included  in Sunan Nasai

But this was never seen as tawtheeq this is a made up rule by shiatu dajjal. Because both sunan Abi dawood and Sunan Nasai contains weak as well as fabricated narrations, So just because a particular narrators narrations were included in these books then this doesn’t makes that narrator Thiqa(trustworthy)

Qasim is a majhool narrator with munkar narrations.

Example of munkar narrations of narrator Qasim:

This is from Sunan Abi Dawud:

حدثنا مسدد حدثنا المعتمر قال سمعت الركين بن الربيع يحدث عن القاسم بن حسان عن عبد الرحمن بن حرملة أن ابن مسعود كان يقول

كان نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يكره عشر خلال الصفرة يعني الخلوق وتغيير الشيب وجر الإزار والتختم بالذهب والتبرج بالزينة لغير محلها والضرب بالكعاب والرقى إلا بالمعوذات وعقد التمائم وعزل الماء لغير أو غير محله أو عن محله وفساد الصبي غير محرمه

Sheikh Albani said it’s munkar in Daif Abu Dawud


Important points to ponder:

There are a few good reasons to hold the opinion that Qasim is unknown(Majhool):

1- Ibn Hibban includes unknowns in his book

2- Ibn Hibban includes Qasim in the section of Tabi’een AND Atba’a Tabi’een . Ibn hibban in al-thiqaat, mentions the names of the companions / tabi’een / and atbaa’ when he is in doubt, he puts the narrator in TWO positions like he did for Qasim.

3- there are only two people that narrate Qasim’s hadiths,

4- Imam Ibn Al-Qattan says that he is an unknown.


Misconception (1)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] We must remember to mention what Imam al-Haythami says in his Majma al-Zawaid, vol. 1, p. 413, Number 784 while commenting upon the chain of Hadith al-Khalifatayn – which contains both al-Qasim and Sharik:

رجاله ثقات[Quote]

Haythami is mutasahil(easy going), and relies on the tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban and ended up making errors, thus this doesn’t carries any weight.

[قال أبو الحسن في (إتحاف النبيل) (ج1 ص189): (الهيثمي متساهل على كل حال)

Abul-Hassan said in his “Inhaaf Al-Nabeel:”He [al haithami] is mutasaahil under every circumstance”.

Same is the case of  Ahmed shakir. He too was mutasahil according to sheikh  al-Albani, If we refer  Shakir’s tahqeeq of Musnad Ahmad, we will find that he says that Al-Qasim is thiqa because of Ibn Hibban and Al-Ijli. That is why we have dealt in detail the tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban and Al ijli above, So that this confusion gets cleared from the minds of our readers.

Moreover what does the term rijal thiqat actually means? Let us quote before you what the renowned Hadeeth Scholar, Shiekh Albani said:

Deception (4)

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote] In the final analyses, both camps of Sunni Hadith masters – those who praise and those who condemn al-Qasim and Sharik – have accepted the authenticity of Hadith al-Khalifatayn. . One camp have authenticated it on account of its narrators, all of whom they consider trustworthy.[Quote]

Upto this part we have thoroughly dealt the issue that on what basis did “some” of mutasahil(easy going) scholars considered the narrators of chain of hadeeth Khalifatayn trustworthy. Let us summarize it again for the convenience of our readers. All those scholars actually relied on the tawtheeq of Ibn hibban and Al ijli, but we have proved in detail that how there tawtheeq doesn’t carry any weight. Thus this seriously effects the grading of some mutasahil(easy going) scholars who RELIED on the tawtheeq of ibn hibban and Al ijli. These are the ones to whom the shiatu dajjal calls as one camp of hadeeth scholars who authenticated the Hadeeth Khalifatayn on its own.

But this is not the actual deception we are talking about in deception no (4) , the actual deception of the shiatu dajjal is that they interpreted the statements of scholars like rijal thiqat etc, in a way that scholars accepted the authenticity of the Hadeeth Khalifatayn as a whole. This is pure deception because whoever is student of knowledge knows very well that when the scholars says Rijal thiqat or Isnad hasan THIS DOESN’T MEAN THEY AUTHENTICATED THE NARRATION.  But what esle can we expect from those who considers it to be a teaching of their cult to deceive innocent people.

Let us quote before you statements of hadeeth Scholars regarding the meaning of the term “Rijal thiqat or Isnad Hasan”

Al-Haafiz ibn al-Salaah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

قولهم : ( هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد أو حسن الإسناد ) دون قولهم :  هذا حديث صحيح أو حديث حسن  لأنه قد يقال : هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولا يصح لكونه شاذا أو معللا “

When they say “This hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad or a hasan isnaad” instead of “this is a saheeh hadeeth or a hasan hadeeth”, that is because it may be said that this hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad but it is not saheeh per se because it is shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty) [Muqaddimah fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 23)]

Ibn Katheer says:

” الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً “

The fact that the isnaad is deemed to be saheeh or hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]

As for the term “Rijal Thiqat” then here is the explanation from Sheikh Albani .(click this)

So indeed as the scholars correctly understood that the text of this narration itself is faulty from various ways, which we have proved in our original article, this made them term the hadeeth in manner which was a sign of their belief in weakness of the text for that narration. Thus the camp which the shiatu dajjal is referring to didn’t authenticate the hadeeth Khalifatayn as the shia of dajjal is trying to portray inorder to deceive people.






Deception (5) – A shocker for deceptive shia of dajjal

Attention: This proof is self sufficient to throw the deceptive claims of shia of dajjal out of the court.

Shiatu dajjal stated:

[Quote]The other camp have authenticated it on account of its corroborating witnesses

. This is why the Salafi Hadith master, Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arnaut, in his annotation of Musnad Ahmad (Cairo: Muasassat al-Qurtuba), vol. 5, p. 181, Number 21618, who belongs to the second camp, comments about the Hadith in this manner:

حديث صحيح بشواهده


In his Zilal al-Jannah, vol. 2, p. 37, Number 754, Shaykh al-Albani after recording Hadith al-Khalifatayn says:

صحيح بشواهده


Yep! Shaykh al-Albani agrees that the chain is weak. But he is well aware that the Hadith does have strengthening witnesses, and it is on their strength that he has graded it Sahih.

Making the matter even clearer, both Adil ibn Yusuf al-‘Azazi and Ahmad ibn Farid al-Mazidi, also of the second camp,  in their annotation of Ibn Abi Shaybah’s Musnaf, vol. 1, p. 108 (Riyadh: Dar al-Watan lil Nashr; first edition, 1418 H) state about the Hadith:

إسناده ضعيف والحديث صحيح له شواهد

Its chain is weak, BUT THE HADITH IS SAHIH. It has witnesses.


Dr. Wasiullah ibn Muhammad Abbas, in his annotation of Imam Ahmad’s Fadail al-Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 747, Number 1032 (Dar Ibn Jawzi) states about the Hadith: إسناده حسن لغيره…والحديث صحيح Its chain is hasan by corroboration…. AND THE HADITH IS SAHIH.

Dr. Abbas has taken a middle path between both camps. He believes that the perceived weaknesses in al-Qasim and Sharik can be offset by other external supporting factors. It is on account of these external witnesses that he has graded the chain Hasan, and the Hadith Sahih.[Quote]

In our original article we had stated that “Al-Albani strengthens the hadith with shawahid that don’t include the term al-khaleefatain,” , So in reply to our view the deceptive shia of dajjal started their run arounds, and tried to ridicule our view, by the help of Allah we will be proving before our readers that shia of dajjal have made a mockery of their ownselves by doing so.

Shiatu dajjal stated that an other camp  have authenticated this narration of khalifatayn on account of its corroborating witnesses. But fact which the shia of dajjal have tried to hide from people is that the witnesses these scholars referred to were not some other routes of same hadeeth(i.e khalifatayn), BUT THE WITNESSES THESE SCHOLARS REFERRED TO WAS HADEETH THAQALAYN(which doesn’t have the wording of Khalifatayn). That is why we had said in our article that what Al-Albani meant when he authenticated the hadith was that he authenticated the asl which substitutes al-khaleefatain with al-thaqalain.

Let us prove before you what scholar had actually said, Lets start with Dr Wasiullah Abbas, though he is also mutasahil but lets see how he spreads water over the dreams of shia of dajjal:

Wasiullah Abbas in Fadha’il Ahmad (2/747 hadith #1032) says Isnadahu hasan li ghairih(the chain is hasan due to other chains) then says Shareek is weak, but there are shawahid(witnesses) then, in the end he says, “and the hadith is saheeh, See  (#170). He says the same thing under (hadith #1403 2/988) he says that there are many shawahid and “see (170)” .

BUT when we go back to( #170) which Wasiullah Abbas asked us to see, we find the following:

تركت فيكم ما أن تمسكتم به فلن تضلوا كتاب الله وأهل بيتي

This witness is WITHOUT the word Khaleefatain, Wasiullah Abbas actually quotes Hadeeth Thaqalayn which is not the hadeeth in question. Then, he in the footnotes, he also says that this hadith is weak due to the chain but then, he lists many versions of the hadith, and includes references for versions by Zaid bin Arqam, Abu Huraira, Huthaifa bin Usaid, and of course Zaid bin Thabit and says that due to excessive amount of chains, we can authenticate the hadith. However, respected readers please keep in mind, none of the shawahid(witness) he referred include the term khalifatayn.

But Shia of dajjal knew that this point is going to destroy their spiders web in which they tried to trap lions, that is why they purposefully left out the crucial point while quoting the scholars view:

والحديث صحيح ومضى برقم (170)ـ

“the hadith is authentic, see number 170”

It appears as though some of the other books the shia of dajjal quoted took what they found in Fadha’l Ahmad with annotation of Wasiullah Abbas. For example, Dimashqiyah says “Fadha’il Ahmad p.#/ v.#) then quotes the same thing as Wasiullah Abbas. So since we have dealt the view of Wasiullah Abbas, then it answers the argument raised on behalf of other scholars too.


Lets see what Sheikh Albani said:

Shiekh Albani says that one of the shawahid(witness) is hadith # 186 in al-mishkat. That hadith is the following:

186 – [ 47 ] ( حسن ) وعن مالك بن أنس مرسلا قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” تركت فيكم أمرين لن تضلوا ما تمسكتم بهما : كتاب الله وسنة رسوله ” . رواه في الموطأ ”

Then Albani says, then he says to check 6143:

6143 – [ 18 ] ( صحيح بالذي بعده ) عن جابر قال : رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في حجته يوم عرفة وهو على ناقته القصواء يخطب فسمعته يقول : ” يا أيها الناس إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا : كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي ” . رواه الترمذي

So we find that the witnesses being used by sheikh Albani are not hadeeth Khalifatayn but its Hadeeth Thaqalayn and hadeeth Thaqalayn doesn’t have the word “Khalifatayn” present in it.

Moreover in silsila sheikh Albani quotes many books and he quotes the khaleefatain hadith as well and he says that it is good only in shawahid, But we find that ALL of shawahid(witnesses) are hadeth thaqalayn. Here it is:

1761 – ” يا أيها الناس ! إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا ، كتاب الله و
عترتي أهل بيتي ” .

قال الألباني في ” السلسلة الصحيحة ” 4 / 355 :
أخرجه الترمذي ( 2 / 308 ) و الطبراني ( 2680 ) عن زيد بن الحسن الأنماطي عن
جعفر عن أبيه عن جابر بن عبد الله قال : ” رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم في حجته يوم عرفة ، و هو على ناقته القصواء يخطب ، فسمعته يقول : ” فذكره
، و قال : ” حديث حسن غريب من هذا الوجه ، و زيد بن الحسن قد روى عنه سعيد بن
سليمان و غير واحد من أهل العلم ” .
قلت : قال أبو حاتم ، منكر الحديث ، و ذكره ابن حبان في ” الثقات ” . و قال
الحافظ : ” ضعيف ” .
قلت : لكن الحديث صحيح ، فإن له شاهدا من حديث زيد بن أرقم قال : ” قام رسول
الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوما فينا خطيبا بماء يدعى ( خما ) بين مكة و المدينة
، فحمد الله ، و أثنى عليه ، و وعظ و ذكر ، ثم قال : أما بعد ، ألا أيها الناس
، فإنما أنا بشر ، يوشك أن يأتي رسول ربي فأجيب ، و أنا تارك فيكم ثقلين ،
أولهما كتاب الله ، فيه الهدى و النور ( من استمسك به و أخذ به كان على الهدى ،
و من أخطأه ضل ) ، فخذوا بكتاب الله ، و استمسكوا به – فحث على كتاب الله و رغب
فيه ، ثم قال : – و أهل بيتي ، أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي ، أذكركم الله في أهل
بيتي ، أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي ” . أخرجه مسلم ( 7 / 122 – 123 ) و الطحاوي في
” مشكل الآثار ” ( 4 / 368 ) و أحمد ( 4 / 366 – 367 ) و ابن أبي عاصم في ”
السنة ” ( 1550 و 1551 ) و الطبراني ( 5026 ) من طريق يزيد بن حيان التميمي عنه
. ثم أخرج أحمد ( 4 / 371 ) و الطبراني ( 5040 ) و الطحاوي من طريق علي بن
ربيعة قال : ” لقيت زيد بن أرقم و هو داخل على المختار أو خارج من عنده ، فقلت
له : أسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : إني تارك فيكم الثقلين ( كتاب
الله و عترتي ) ؟ قال : نعم ” . و إسناده صحيح ، رجاله رجال الصحيح . و له طرق
أخرى عند الطبراني ( 4969 – 4971 و 4980 – 4982 و 5040 ) و بعضها عند الحاكم (
3 / 109 و 148 و 533 ) . و صحح هو و الذهبي بعضها . و شاهد آخر من حديث عطية
العوفي عن أبي سعيد الخدري مرفوعا : ” ( إنى أوشك أن أدعى فأجيب ، و ) إني تركت
فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدي ، الثقلين ، أحدهما أكبر من الآخر ، كتاب
الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض ، و عترتي أهل بيتي ، ألا و إنهما لن
يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض ” . أخرجه أحمد ( 3 / 14 و 17 و 26 و 59 ) و ابن أبي
عاصم ( 1553 و 1555 ) و الطبراني ( 2678 – 2679 ) و الديلمي ( 2 / 1 / 45 ) .
و هو إسناد حسن في الشواهد . و له شواهد أخرى من حديث أبي هريرة عند الدارقطني
( ص 529 ) و الحاكم ( 1 / 93 ) و الخطيب في ” الفقيه و المتفقه ” ( 56 / 1 ) .
و ابن عباس عند الحاكم و صححه ، و وافقه الذهبي . و عمرو بن عوف عند ابن عبد
البر في ” جامع بيان العلم ” ( 2 / 24 ، 110 ) ، و هي و إن كانت مفرداتها لا
تخلو من ضعف ، فبعضها يقوي بعضا ، و خيرها حديث ابن عباس . ثم وجدت له شاهدا
قويا من حديث علي مرفوعا به . أخرجه الطحاوي في ” مشكل الآثار ( 2 / 307 ) من
طريق أبي عامر العقدي : حدثنا يزيد بن كثير عن محمد بن عمر بن علي عن أبيه عن
علي مرفوعا بلفظ : ” … كتاب الله بأيديكم ، و أهل بيتي ” . و رجاله ثقات غير
يزيد بن كثير فلم أعرفه ، و غالب الظن أنه محرف على الطابع أو الناسخ . و الله
أعلم . ثم خطر في البال أنه لعله انقلب على أحدهم ، و أن الصواب كثير بن زيد ،
ثم تأكدت من ذلك بعد أن رجعت إلى كتب الرجال ، فوجدتهم ذكروه في شيوخ عامر
العقدي ، و في الرواة عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، فالحمد لله على توفيقه . ثم
ازددت تأكدا حين رأيته على الصواب عند ابن أبي عاصم ( 1558 ) . و شاهد آخر
يرويه شريك عن الركين بن الربيع عن القاسم بن حسان عن زيد بن ثابت مرفوعا به .
أخرجه أحمد ( 5 / 181 – 189 ) و ابن أبي عاصم ( 1548 – 1549 ) و الطبراني في ”
الكبير ” ( 4921 – 4923 ) . و هذا إسناد حسن في الشواهد و المتابعات ، و قال
الهيثمي في ” المجمع ” ( 1 / 170 ) : ” رواه الطبراني في ” الكبير ” و رجاله
ثقات ” ! و قال في موضع آخر ( 9 / 163 ) : ” رواه أحمد ، و إسناده جيد ” ! بعد
تخريج هذا الحديث بزمن بعيد ، كتب علي أن أهاجر من دمشق إلى عمان ، ثم أن أسافر
منها إلى الإمارات العربية ، أوائل سنة ( 1402 ) هجرية ، فلقيت في ( قطر ) بعض
الأساتذة و الدكاترة الطيبين ، فأهدى إلي أحدهم رسالة له مطبوعة في تضعيف هذا
الحديث ، فلما قرأتها تبين لي أنه حديث عهد بهذه الصناعة ، و ذلك من ناحيتين
ذكرتهما له : الأولى : أنه اقتصر في تخريجه على بعض المصادر المطبوعة المتداولة
، و لذلك قصر تقصيرا فاحشا في تحقيق الكلام عليه ، و فاته كثير من الطرق
و الأسانيد التي هي بذاتها صحيحة أو حسنة فضلا عن الشواهد و المتابعات ، كما
يبدو لكل ناظر يقابل تخريجه بما خرجته هنا ..
الثانية : أنه لم يلتفت إلى أقوال المصححين للحديث من العلماء و لا إلى قاعدتهم
التي ذكروها في ” مصطلح الحديث ” : أن الحديث الضعيف يتقوى بكثرة الطرق ، فوقع
في هذا الخطأ الفادح من تضعيف الحديث الصحيح . و كان قد نمى إلى قبل الالتقاء
به و اطلاعي على رسالته أن أحد الدكاترة في ( الكويت ) يضعف هذا الحديث ،
و تأكدت من ذلك حين جاءني خطاب من أحد الإخوة هناك ، يستدرك علي إيرادي الحديث
في ” صحيح الجامع الصغير ” بالأرقام ( 2453 و 2454 و 2745 و 7754 ) لأن الدكتور
المشار إليه قد ضعفه ، و أن هذا استغرب مني تصحيحه ! و يرجو الأخ المشار إليه
أن أعيد النظر في تحقيق هذا الحديث ، و قد فعلت ذلك احتياطيا ، فلعله يجد فيه
ما يدله على خطأ الدكتور ، و خطئه هو في استرواحه و اعتماده عليه ، و عدم تنبهه
للفرق بين ناشئ في هذا العلم ، و متمكن فيه ، و هي غفلة أصابت كثيرا من الناس
اللذين يتبعون كل من كتب في هذا المجال ، و ليست له قدم راسخة فيه . و الله
المستعان . و اعلم أيها القارىء الكريم ، أن من المعروف أن الحديث مما يحتج به
الشيعة ، و يلهجون بذلك كثيرا ، حتى يتوهم أهل السنة أنهم مصيبون في ذلك ، و هم
جميعا واهمون في ذلك ، و بيانه من وجهين :
الأول : أن المراد من الحديث في قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” عترتي ” أكثر مما
يريده الشيعة ، و لا يرده أهل السنة بل هم مستمسكون به ، ألا و هو أن العترة
فيهم هم أهل بيته صلى الله عليه وسلم ، و قد جاء ذلك موضحا في بعض طرقه كحديث
الترجمة : ” عترتي أهل بيتي ” و أهل بيته في الأصل هم ” نساؤه صلى الله عليه
وسلم و فيهن الصديقة عائشة رضي الله عنهن جميعا كما هو صريح قوله تعالى في (
الأحزاب ) : *( إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت و يطهركم تطهيرا )*
بدليل الآية التي قبلها و التي بعدها : *( يا نساء النبي لستن كأحد من النساء
إن اتقيتن فلا تخضعن بالقول فيطمع الذي في قلبه مرض و قلن قولا معروفا . و قرن
في بيوتكن و لا تبرجن تبرج الجاهلية الأولى و أقمن الصلاة و آتين الزكاة و أطعن
الله و رسوله إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت و يطهركم تطهيرا . و
اذكرن ما يتلى في بيوتكن من آيات الله و الحكمة إن الله كان لطيفا خبيرا )* ،
و تخصيص الشيعة ( أهل البيت ) في الآية بعلي و فاطمة و الحسن و الحسين رضي
الله عنهم دون نسائه صلى الله عليه وسلم من تحريفهم لآيات الله تعالى انتصارا
لأهوائهم كما هو مشروح في موضعه ، و حديث الكساء و ما في معناه غاية ما فيه
توسيع دلالة الآية و دخول علي و أهله فيها كما بينه الحافظ ابن كثير و غيره ،
و كذلك حديث ” العترة ” قد بين النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن المقصود أهل بيته
صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمعنى الشامل لزوجاته و علي و أهله . و لذلك قال
التوربشتي – كما في ” المرقاة ” ( 5 / 600 ) : ” عترة الرجل : أهل بيته و رهطه
الأدنون ، و لاستعمالهم ” العترة ” على أنحاء كثيرة بينها رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم بقوله : ” أهل بيتي ” ليعلم أنه أراد بذلك نسله و عصابته الأدنين و
أزواجه ” . و الوجه الآخر : أن المقصود من ” أهل البيت ” إنما هم العلماء
الصالحون منهم و المتمسكون بالكتاب و السنة ، قال الإمام أبو جعفر الطحاوي رحمه
الله تعالى : ” ( العترة ) هم أهل بيته صلى الله عليه وسلم الذين هم على دينه و
على التمسك بأمره ” . و ذكر نحوه الشيخ علي القاريء في الموضع المشار إليه آنفا
. ثم استظهر أن الوجه في تخصيص أهل البيت بالذكر ما أفاده بقوله : ” إن أهل
البيت غالبا يكونون أعرف بصاحب البيت و أحواله ، فالمراد بهم أهل العلم منهم
المطلعون على سيرته الواقفون على طريقته العارفون بحكمه و حكمته . و بهذا يصلح
أن يكون مقابلا لكتاب الله سبحانه كما قال : *( و يعلمهم الكتاب و الحكمة )* ”
. قلت : و مثله قوله تعالى في خطاب أزواجه صلى الله عليه وسلم في آية التطهير
المتقدمة : *( و اذكرن ما يتلى في بيوتكن من آيات الله و الحكمة )* . فتبين أن
المراد بـ ( أهل البيت ) المتمسكين منهم بسنته صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فتكون هي
المقصود بالذات في الحديث ، و لذلك جعلها أحد ( الثقلين ) في حديث زيد بن أرقم
المقابل للثقل الأول و هو القرآن ، و هو ما يشير إليه قول ابن الأثير في ”
النهاية ” : ” سماهما ( ثقلين ) لأن الآخذ بهما ( يعني الكتاب و السنة )
و العمل بهما ثقيل ، و يقال لكل خطير نفيس ( ثقل ) ، فسماهما ( ثقلين ) إعظاما
لقدرهما و تفخيما لشأنهما ” .
قلت : و الحاصل أن ذكر أهل البيت في مقابل القرآن في هذا الحديث كذكر سنة
الخلفاء الراشدين مع سنته صلى الله عليه وسلم في قوله : ” فعليكم بسنتي و سنة
الخلفاء الراشدين … ” . قال الشيخ القاريء ( 1 / 199 ) : ” فإنهم لم يعملوا
إلا بسنتي ، فالإضافة إليهم ، إما لعملهم بها ، أو لاستنباطهم و اختيارهم إياها
” . إذا عرفت ما تقدم فالحديث شاهد قوي لحديث ” الموطأ ” بلفظ : ” تركت فيكم
أمرين لن تضلوا ما تمسكتم بهما ، كتاب الله و سنة رسوله ” . و هو في ” المشكاة
” ( 186 ) . و قد خفي وجه هذا الشاهد على بعض من سود صفحات من إخواننا الناشئين
اليوم في تضعيف حديث الموطأ . و الله المستعان .

So now we find that scholars said that the chain is weak but its authentic due to witnesses but Importantly we find that the witnesses they are talking about are not hadeeth khalifatayn, rather they are of hadeeth Thaqalayn which doesn’t have the word Khalifatayn in it. Thus this proves that what we had said in our original article was correct, while the shia of dajjal made deceptive run arounds just inorder to weaken our claim. So indeed hadeeth Khaliafatyn on its own is Munkar(disapproved).



One should realize that most of the tasheeh of the chains say that the hadith is authentic due to SHAWAHIDS(witnesses) even this implies that the chain is weak, if the chain was authentic in itself then why would scholars say that its authentic due to shawahids? And Unfortunately(for shias) the witnesses used by scholars to authenticate Hadeeth Khalifayatn WERE NOT other chains of Hadeeth Khalifatayn but they were different Chains of Hadeeth THAQALAYN.

Imam Al-bukhari doesn’t know Qasim, nor does Imam ibn al-qattan, same as Imam Dhahabi and Qasim(narrator) doesn’t have a single strong hadith, Meaning he didn’t ever narrate an authentic narration. These scholars were the giant scholars of hadeeth science of their time and their view over comes the view of the scholars who were lenient in their crediting the unknown narrators. (We have provided the view of these Giant scholars in our original article)

Secondly if we ask the shiatu dajjal that when did the Prophet (pbuh) stated hadith al-khaleefatain according to them? The obvious answer they will give is that at the time of Ghadeer, because the Prophet (pbuh) says, according to the shias, the following: إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي وأنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

Now point to note here is that we are aware that this is almost EXACTLY the same wording as Al-Thaqalayn. And they say hadeeth Thaqalayn was also said at ghadeer. So we find that both types contain Kitab Allah wa Itratu Ahl Baiti and both hadiths say that they will Not Separate until they Return to the Hawdh. So Prophet (pbuh) used the same hadith with different wordings in the Ghadeer, one was narrated by many people(thaqalayn), and the second was only narrated in a majhool chain which is khaliafatayn.  So obviously one of the narrators(who is majhool) made a mistake, or intentionally changed the wording from the authentic hadith.  Thus this narration of Khaliafatyn is Munkar(disapproved) narration from various angles as it even contradicts several authentic narrations.

Thus by help of Allah we have unconvered the deceptive tactics of the shia of dajjal and we have showed that how they play games with hadeeth science of Ahlesunnah, inorder to fool their own followers as well as lay sunnis. That is why we warned our readers in the initial part of the article that we are going to deal some religious liars and religious deceivers, So they shouldn’t be surprised after seeing such critical deception of the shia of dajjal because they are just following the teachings of their cult by deceiving people.

May Allah save innocent and lay muslims from the deceptive traps of shia of dajjal.

One thought on “Part 1: Interpretation of Hadeeth Khalifatayn by RELIGIOUS DECEIVERS under Microscope

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s