Bismillah.

Al-Haydari quotes the narration from Al-Bukhari and Muslim that says that A’isha didn’t want to name Ali:

Here mentioned hadith from Bukhari:

حدثنا أبو اليمان قال أخبرنا شعيب عن الزهري قال أخبرني عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة أن عائشة قالت لما ثقل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم واشتد به وجعه استأذن أزواجه في أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بين رجلين تخط رجلاه في الأرض بين عباس ورجل آخر قال عبيد الله فأخبرت عبد الله بن عباس فقال أتدري من الرجل الآخر قلت لا قال هو علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه

Rough translation: “When the Prophet (pbuh) became heavy and his pain increase, he asked his wives so that he could be treated in my house. So the Prophet (pbuh) came out between two men, with his feet brushing against the floor. One was Al-Abbas, and the other was another man.” Ubaidullah (the narrator) said: I told Abdullah bin Abbas, and he asked me, “Do you know the other man?” I said, “No.” He said, “It is Ali bin Abi Talib (raa).”

The chain of this narration is through Abu Al-Yaman through Shu’aib through Al-Zuhri through Ubaidullah the narrator.

Al-Bukhari also narrates this through the following chains:

Abu Al-Yaman – Shu’aib – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah
Ibrahim bin Musa – Hisham bin Yusuf – Ma’amar – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah
Ahmad bin Yunus – Za’idah – Musa bin Abi A’isha – Ubaidullah
Sa’eed bin Ufair – Al-Laith – Aqeel – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah
Bishr bin Mohammad – Abdullah – Ma’amar and Yunus – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah

Muslim used the following chains:

Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Yunus – Zai’dah – Musa bin Abi A’isha – Ubaidullah
Mohammed bin Rafi’ and Abd bin Humaid – Abdulrazaq – Ma’amar – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidulllah
Abdulmalik bin Shu’aib bin Al-Laith – Shu’aib – Al-Laith – Aqeel bin Khalid – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah

Keep this in mind, as it will be useful soon.

Now, Al-Haydari attempts to show the “deception” of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. So, he quotes Musnad Imam Ahmad, that has a specific addition.

It adds, “But A’isha cannot stand him.”

Al-Haydari, in minute 7:13, shows that this chain, according to the editor Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut is upon the conditions of the Saheehain. Then he makes a huge mistake. He says that this means, “The chain is the same chains from Saheehain, and not something else.”

Most likely he lied here, because as it is obvious in his other videos he perfectly knows what this definition mean.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AtHwcZ0up1U

Min: 16:40

Al-Haydari quotes the hadith and the statement of Al-Hakim, “This is an authentic chain and is upon the conditions of the Shaikhain, and they didn’t mention it.”
Announcer: Which means that all the conditions of the Shaikhain are found in it (the chain).
Al-Haydari: …the conditions are there, but they didn’t mention it.

I ask: Why didn’t Al-Haydari say? No, you are wrong! It means that this is the same chain that can be found in Al-Bukhari and Muslim? Why did he change his definition?

And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y7pVr7eiFUA

Start watching from the sixth minute. He quotes Al-Hakim’s own definition of the term and explains the meanings of the conditions of the shaikhain.

This is amazing. How he reads the definition, and knows the definition, then, in another video comes up with a new definition to suit his point.

However, when we go back to the first video, we find that this is the hadith of Abdul A’ala from Ma’amar from Al-Zuhri from Ubaidullah. I ask, where in the Saheehain, does Al-Bukhari or Muslim quote from Abdul A’ala?

So, I ask, what does Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut mean when he says that this is upon the conditions of Al-Saheehain? It means that this is a set of narrators used by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. It does not mean that this is the same chain for this specific hadith. This piece of information is known to anyone that has spent a few weeks learningilmul hadith, and Al-Haydari’s “mistake” here is either due to his ignorance, or because he flat out lied to prove a point. However, the best excuse I can make for him is that he is an ignorant figure head, and that he has others doing all his writing for him. Surely, that is better than accusing the man of lying.

It should also be noted then upon pausing the video, you will notice that Shu’aib Al-Arnaut mentions other difference in this hadith. Are we to assume that every addition or subtraction in a hadith is a fabrication? The answer, simply enough, is that narrators often differ when they narrate narrations. They forget, they include words by accident, and copyist errors do occur.

Now, let allow me to provide evidence that Al-Bukhari and Muslim only narrated what they received, and that it has nothing to do with their intentions. Notice how Al-Haydari says to them, “Why do you hide the facts?!”

I response, I quote the chains from Musnad Imam Ahmad, in order to see what exactly occurred here:

Abdulrahman bin Mahdi – Zai’dah – Musa bin Abi A’isha – Ubaidullah

Sufyan – Al-Zuhri – Ubaidullah

Notice these two chains. Notice that they are free from Abdul A’ala. More interestingly is that they do not add the addition that Al-Haydari is accusing the shaikhain of removing.

However, Imam Ahmad himself adds another chain, through Abdulrazaq, from Ma’amar, from Al-Zuhri, from Ubaidullah, that includes the addition.

I ask, why does Imam Ahmad do this? Is he trying to get caught? Did he deliberately include two fabrications and two authentic narrations? No. It is neither. It is the simple fact that the narrators themselves have narrated the same narration differently. However, Al-Haydari does not wish to include the two narrations from Imam Ahmad that fit in with the narrations of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. This is because he does not want to create any doubt that there is a possibility that this is due to the narrators, but he would rather have you believe that it was the shaikhain that did this alone.

Now, before carrying on, I would like to bring the attention of the readers to another simple fact, which is that these actions are not due to nasb.

The proof of that is that Al-Nasa’ee, who is often seen by Shias as a Sunni scholar with tashayyu included the narrations that don’t mention anything about A’isha disliking Ali at all. More importantly, Al-Nasa’ee quoted these narrations from the sources of Imam Ahmad himself. He quoted a path that goes through Sufyan and another that goes through Za’idah. Of course, it is unthinkable for Shias to assume that even Al-Nasa’ee, who used to reject the authenticity of any hadith in praise of Mu’awiyah, to be a nasibi. Similarly, Al-Hakim Al-Nisapuri does the same. He quotes the hadith through the path of Al-Zuhri without the addition. It should be known that these two scholars are seen as Shias by some important Shia scholars, like Agha Buzrak Tahrani. So, when Al-Haydari, in the end of his video, states that those that are like Al-Bukhari, that fabricate collected material, have Ummawi desires and are on a methodology of a Ummawis, he is actually attributing this to Al-Nasa’ee and Al-Hakim, which is preposterous.

Carrying on, we look at the Al-Haydari’s next point. Now, he is going as far as to argue that Imam Ahmad has tampered with the text. First of all, he quotes the narration of Imam Ahmad, in which he narrates a hadith through Abdulrazzaq through Ma’amar through Al-Zuhri, which includes the addition. Then he points to Musannaf Abdulrazzaq itself, in which he claims that the same narration has been tampered with. The narration in Musanaf Abdulrazzaq includes the addition, “she cannot stand to say anything good about him.” This is supposedly the true narration, as opposed to the previous one that says, “she cannot stand him.”

Ironically, when we look closer, we find that the chain too is different. In this narration, Abdulrazzaq is quoting Al-Zuhri without mentioning his intermediary. Unlike what Al-Haydari is trying to imply, the narration is disconnected, and therefore weak.

Another point of interest is that Abu Awana has narrated this hadith through Abdulrazzaq through three different narrators. None of them included either addition. In other words, there is no reason to assume that this is a fabrication from Imam Ahmad or anyone else.

Inshallah this was sufficient for those that are looking for solid evidence. However, I would like to add another piece of evidence that suggest that there is no foul play on the part of Imam Ahmad.

You see, Imam Ahmad quoted from the chain of Abdulrazzaq the following:

A’isha said, “As soon as the Prophet (pbuh) started complaining about his pain in the house of Maymoona, he asked his wives if he could stay in her (Maymoona’s) house…”

However, the narration of Abdulrazzaq in Al-Musanaf says that it was A’isha’s house.

What does this mean? Does it mean that Imam Ahmad is a rafidhi for trying to attribute this to great merit to Maymoona? Of course not. You see, Ahmad himself quoted other narrations as well that state that it was in the house of A’isha. These, once again, are the mistakes of narrators, not the mistakes of hadith compilers.

Finally, one may ask, what is the correct narration? Are the additions correct? Did A’isha truly say this? The answer is not too easy to attain. We do know one thing though, which is that the narration by Ubaidullah has come to us through two paths, the first is through Al-Zuhri, and the second is through Musa bin Abi A’isha. The latter never contains these additions. The former does at times include these additions. However, most paths from Al-Zuhri, from countless sources, do not include the addition, and the same applies to Ma’amar. One of the likelier possibilities is that one of these previous three narrators narrated this narration once with the addition and another time without.

Even though the above deals with the accusation of alteration by Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad, I feel obligated to add something to remove the misconception that A’isha has always hated and will forever hate Ali. Like all relationships, there are high points and low points. You hate your parents when you are a child, and appreciate them when you grow up. This is life. A’isha, similarly, looked at Ali with admiration and that her issues with him did not prevent her from mentioning his merits. There is no Shi’ee that will doubt that helping the Prophet (pbuh) from one position to the next is less of a merit than the Prophet’s (pbuh) dua’a, “Allah these are my ahlulbayt, so cleanse them.”

Yes, this is narrated by A’isha, and if one is to assume that she hated him for not mentioning his name among those that helped the Prophet (pbuh) walk, then what caused her to mention the merit of hadithul Kisa?

In summary, the above accomplishes the following:

1- Al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s narrations come from different routes than Ahmad’s.

2- Ahmad’s narration comes from a different route than Abdulrazzaq.

3- Al-Haydari attempted to make all of these routes seem to be the same, and demonstrated little to no knowledge of hadith sciences.

4- The stronger narrations do not include these additions.

5- There is a possibility that these additions were by certain narrators from Al-Zuhri’s path since Musa bin Abi A’isha didn’t narrate them through Ubaidullah.

6- A’isha narrated hadith Al-Kisa, which implies her admiration for Ali.

7- Sunni scholars that are lenient to Shiasm, like Al-Hakim and Al-Nasa’ee, both narrated this hadith without additions, and this does not imply their nasb in any way.