Rafidi Abdulhussain wrote:
Consider his statement peace be upon him and his progeny “I bequeath to whoever believes and trusts in me to be mindful of the wilayat of `Ali ibn Abu Talib for whoever accepts him as the wali accepts me as such and whoever accepts me as the wali has indeed accepted Allah as such; and whoever loves him loves me and whoever loves me loves Allah; and whoever hates him hates me too and whoever hates me hates Allah the Almighty the Omniscient”. (letter #48, hadith #23)
Hadith is extremely weak (“Silsila ad-daeefa” #4882).
It was narrated via several ways.
Ibn Adi narrated it in “Kamil fi duafa” (6/113/#1624), and by ibn Asakir from his way in history (42/239) via chain: Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Fudayl, which said: narrated to me: Abdulwahab ibn ad-Dahhak, which said: narrated to me ibn Ayash from Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafe from Abu Ubeyda ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar from father, from grandfather.
There are several serious defects in this chain:
1) Abdulwahab ibn ad-Dahhak – abandoned. He was accused in lie by Abu Hatim. Nasai and others said: Abandoned. Daraqutni said: Munkar al-hadith. Bukhari said he had amazing (strange) ahadeth.
2) Ismail ibn Ayash. Fasawe and Ibn Maeed said he was thiqat. It was narrated from ibn Maeen, that he also said: There is no big problem in him in his ahadeth from people of Sham. Bukhari said: If he narrated from people of his country he’s saheeh, and if he narrated from other, he under question. Abu Hatim noticed that he was soft. Nasai said he was weak. Ibn Hibban said: Erred a lot in ahadeth, and left from limits of being relied on (“Mizanul itidal” 1/240/#923).
3)Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafe – weak. Bukhari and Abu Hatim said: “Munkar al-hadith (Abu Hatim added that extremely)”. Ibn Maeen said his ahadeth are nothing. Ibn Adi added him between shias of Koofa (“Mizanul itidal” 3/634/#7904).
4) Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar is unknown. Ibn Abu Hatim gave his bio in his book, without mentioning of any praise or criticism. Interesting thing that he was killed by al-Mukhtar Dajal Saqafe, he asked him to narrate lie from his father, and he refused, after that Mukhtar killed him (“Jarh wa tadil” 8/#196, shamela). Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Thiqat”, but his praise isn’t enough at all, because he was known for authentication of unknown narrators.
Ibn Asakir narrated it (52/7) with slightly different chain, via: Ali ibn Hashim from Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafe from Abu Ubeydat ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar from his fathers from Ammar. Ali ibn Hashim known rafidi narrator.
Shaykh Albani noticed (“Silsila ad-daeefa” #4882) that ibn Asakir also narrated it with slight difference in wording from Ali, in the chain Mukhtar ibn Nafe at-Tammar at-Tayme al-Koofe. Nasai and others said he’s not thiqat. Ibn Hibban said his ahadeth were extremely rejected. Bukhari said: Munkar al-hadith (“Mizanul itidal” 4/80/#8381). Also in the chain Ahmad ibn Khammad al-Hamadane. He was weak in accordance to Daraqutni (“Mizanul itidal” 1/94/#357). Other narrator Yaqoob ibn Yusuf as it seems was weakened by Daraqutni, as it is in “Lisan”.
And ibn Asakir narrated it also (in 42/240) via chain: Ali ibn al-Qasem abul Hasan al-Kindi – Muhammad ibn Ubeydullah ibn Abu Rafe – Abu Ubeydat ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar from his fathers from Ammar.
He also narrated it (“Tareeh madinatul dimashk” 42/239) from the way of Tabarani: Sulaiman ibn Ahmad at-Tabarani – Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shayba – Ahmad ibn Tarraq al-Washaa – Amr ibn Thabit – Muhammad ibn Abu Ubeydat ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar from his father Abu Ubeyda from Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yasar from his father.
There are several problems in this chain:
1) Ahmad ibn Tarraq isn’t known.
2) Muhammad ibn Abu Shayba, there is weakness in him. Ibn Khirash and Abdullah ibn Ahmad accused him in lie (“Mizanul itidal” 3/642/#7934).
3) Amr ibn Thabit abandoned. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Nasai said his ahadeth abandoned. Ibn Hibban said he narrated fabrications. Abu Dawud said he was rafidi. Bukhari said he wasn’t strong in their view (“Mizanul itidal” 3/249/#6340).