Connexion Rencontres Yabiladies Islam INVESTIR Vidéos Forum News
Le chiite Kamal Al Haydari et son ignorance manifeste
al qurtubi [ MP ]
27 avril 2012 22:29
Assalam alaikoum

Mensonges contre Ibn Taymiyyah

En fait, Kamal al haydari ne fait que suivre ce hadith

Imam al sajjad (as) a dit: si vous voyez les innovateurs, autres que les chiites ou nouveaux chiites, alors reniez-les et trompez-les beaucoup, médisez sur eux, lancez de fausses accusations sur eux...

tanbiah al khawatir v2.p162
wasail al shia v.11 p 508
nahj al intisaar p152

Voici ce que ce pseudo savant lance sur Ibn Taymiyyah (vidéo en anglais):

al qurtubi [ MP ]
27 avril 2012 22:49
Assalam alaikoum

Kamal Al haydari se piège tout seul en osant dire que les chiens ne hurlent pas mais ne font qu' ose dire que les savants disant cela sont stupides et ignoranys
Cette vidéo prouve non seulement que dans la langue arabe, ils hurlent, mais surtout que c'est explicitement ce que Ali Ibn Abi Talib ra dit dans Nahl ul balagha dans cette source chiite...ainsi que d'autres livres chiites comme Bihar al Anwar

al qurtubi [ MP ]
27 avril 2012 23:17
Ignorance manifeste de la science du hadith de la part de kamal al haydari


Voici la réponse montrant les faibles connaissance de ce clown en science du hadith, comme la plupart des chiites de nos jours, se basant sur l'émotion pour juger de l'authenticité d'un hadith

Ce savant chiite accuse Al Boukhari d'avoir délibérement caché le fait que aisha ra ne voulait pas mentionner le nom de Ali ra.
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

selon aisha ra, Lors de la maladie du Prophète saws, ce dernier demanda la permission à ses femmes de rester dans ma maison. Deux hommes accompagnaient le Prophète: l'un était al abbas accompagné d'un autre homme. Ubaydallah, le narrateur du hadith demanda à Abdullah Ibn Abbas ra de lui révéler l'identité de cet homme. Il répondit que c'était Ali ra

Boukhari rapporte ce hadith de cette manière:
Abu Al-Yaman Shu’aib Al-Zuhri Ubaidullah the narrator

Il existe d'autres chaines de transmission à ce récit:
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 quand à lui, utilise ces chaines:
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.”

However, when we go back to the 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 learning ilmul 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?

Je continuerai à résumer cet article plus tard in sha Allah

al qurtubi [ MP ]
27 avril 2012 23:23
L'ignorance de la science du hadith chiite

كمال الحيدري يكذب على اهل البيت ويستغبي الشيعة


Here we can see al-Haydari citing 5 ahadeth from book of his salaf as-Saduq. Book is Kitab at-Tawhid.

Let us examine them.

All ahadeth here: []

Narration #1, that was cited by al-Haydari.
قال أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن موسى بن بابويه القمي رضي الله عنه : حدثنا أبي ـ رضي الله عنه ـ قال : حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله ، عن أحمد ابن أبي عبد الله البرقي ، قال : حدثني أبو عمران العجلي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن سنان قال : حدثنا أبو العلاء الخفاف ، قال : حدثنا عطية العوفي ، عن أبي سعيد الخدري ، قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم : ما قلت ولا قال القائلون قبلي مثل لا إله إلا الله

From Abu Saeed al-Khudri, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Nor I, neither those who before me ever said anything (equal) to words: No one deserve to worship except Allah.

Now let us see problems of chain:

1) Abi Imran al-Ijli. He wasn’t mention as said allama Shahrudi in “Musradrakat ilmul rijal al-hadith” (8/428/17155)

2) Abul Ala al-Haffaf. Ibn Dawud al-Hilli said in “Rijal” (244/#172):

خالد بن طهمان أبو العلاء السلولي (جش) عامي

Khalid ibn Tahman Abul Ala as-Saluse. Amee (which mean he was sunni).

3) Atiyah al-Awfi. In “Mufid min al-mojam rijal al-hadith” (#7710, load it here) of Jawhari written that this person was majhool .

So 3 unknown persons in the chain, and one of them sunni. (I am talking about shia books, Atiyah is well known in our books)

Narration #2, which was cited by al-Haydari.

It’s narration #8 from link that we provided to on-line version of book.
ـ حدثنا أبي رحمه الله ، قال : حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، عن الحسين بن سيف ، عن أخيه علي ، عن أبيه سيف بن عميرة ، قال : حدثني الحجاج بن أرطاة ، قال : حدثني أبو الزبير ، عن جابر بن عبد الله ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أنه قال : الموجبتان من مات يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله ( وحده لا شريك له ) دخل الجنة ، ومن مات يشرك بالله دخل النار.

It’s hadith from Jabir from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) regarding person who died and and testified testimony of faith, he would enter heaven, and who died and he did shirk would enter the hell.

Let us see the problems in chain:

1) al-Husayn ibn Sayf ibn Umeyrat, Abu Abdullah an-Nakhai. He was mentioned by Najashi in “Rijal” (p 56) without any praise or critic. In “Mufid” of al-Jawhari it’s noticed that he was unknown. See 3424, 3425.

Narration #3, used by Kamal.

That’s narration #11 from link:
حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رضي الله عنه ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الصفار ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، عن الحسن بن محبوب ، عن أبي جميلة ، عن جابر ، عن أبي عبد الله جعفر عليه السلام قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم : أتاني جبرئيل بين الصفا والمروة ، فقال : يا محمد طوبى لمن قال من أمتك : لا إله إلا الله وحده مخلصا.

From Abu Abdullah, that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: “Jibrail came to me between Safa and Marwa and said: O Muhammad, glad tidings to those from your nation, which would say sincere: There is no god except Allah alone.

Guess what? This hadith is also not authentic per chain in accordance to shia norms.

1) In the chain Abu Jamilah. Allama al-Hilli at page 407 in his “Khulasat” said:
مفضل بن صالح، أبو جميلة الاسدي النخاس، مولاهم، ضعيف كذاب، يضع الحديث

Mufaddal ibn Salih, Abu Jamilah al-Asade an-Nukhas, their mawla, WEAK, LIAR, FABRICATED AHADETH.

Liar in the chain, and al-Haydari using this hadith.

Hadith #4, which was used by al-Haydari.

It’s hadith #18, which has a similar chain as a 17. And it’s about those who said testimony of faith sincerely and who lied.

Here the chain:
حدثنا أبو منصور أحمد بن إبراهيم بن بكر الخوري بنيسابور ، قال :
حدثنا أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن محمد بن هارون الخوري ، قال : حدثنا جعفر بن محمد ابن زياد الفقيه الخوري ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الله الجويباري ، ويقال له :
الهروي والنهرواني والشيباني ، عن الرضا علي بن موسى ، عن أبيه ، عن آبائه ، عن علي عليهم السلام

Chain is nothing but bunch of unknown people.

1) Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Bakkar. Sheikh of Saduq. Al-Jawhari in “al-Mufid” (#390) noticed that he was majhool.

2) Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Haroon also unknown. Same source #277.

3) Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyad was not mentioned as stated Shahrudi in “Mustadrakat” (2/200)

4) Ahmad ibn Abdullah al-Juwaybare wasn’t mentioned. Same source as above, 1/356.

4 unknown persons, and al-Haydari still using this hadith.

Hadith #5, cited by al-Haydari.

That’s hadith #22 from the link. It says that Allah said: Verily I am Allah, there is no god except Me, so worship me, who would came from you with sincere testimony - there is no god worthy to worship except Allah- he would enter to My fortress, and who would enter to my fortress would be safe from My punishment.

I am citing chain till aimma:
حدثنا أبو سعيد محمد بن الفضل بن محمد بن إسحاق المذكر النيسابوري بنيسابور ، قال : حدثني أبو علي الحسن بن علي الخزرجي الأنصاري السعدي قال : حدثنا عبد السلام بن صالح أبو الصلت الهروي ، قال : كنت مع علي بن موسى الرضا عليهما السلام ، حين رحل من نيسابور وهو راكب بغلة شهباء ، فإذا محمد بن رافع و أحمد بن حرب ويحيى بن يحيى وإسحاق بن راهويه وعدة من أهل العلم قد تعلقوا بلجام بغلته في المربعة فقالوا : بحق آبائك المطهرين حدثنا بحديث قد سمعته من أبيك ، فأخرج رأسه من العمارية وعليه مطرف خز ذو وجهين وقال : حدثني أبي العبد الصالح موسى بن جعفر

Chain is weak.

1) Muhammad ibn al-Fadl ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq was unknow. See “Mufid” (#11556)

2) al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Hazraji wasn’t mentioned as said Shahrudi in “Mustadrakat” (2/446).

Little conclusion.

What do we have here?

Kamal al-Haydari is:

1) Ignorant in shia ahadeth, and there is no any matter for him is it weak or not.

2) He is aware, and he cited deliberately weak shia ahadeth, and didn’t mentioned their weakness to delude people.

3) ??????????????

I don’t see third version.

Original resource article taken from here: []

al qurtubi [ MP ]
27 avril 2012 23:25
الحيدري - رواية ضعيفة أن الله ما خلق العباد إلا ليعرفوه

Here you can see al-Haydari citing hadith from book by sheikh as-Saduq “Ilal ash-Sharae”.

Let us examine this narration.

Hadith – al-Hasan ibn Ali went out to his companions and said: “Allah didn’t created mankind, except for they know Him, and if they would know Him, they worship Him”.

Here hadith that was mentioned by al-Haydari from on-line version of “Ilal ash-Sharae” (1/9):
1 – حدثنا أبى رضى الله عنه قال: حدثنا أحمد بن إدريس عن الحسين بن عبيدالله عن الحسن بن علي بن أبي عثمان عن عبد الكريم بن عبد الله عن سلمة ابن عطا عن أبى عبد الله ” ع ” قال: خرج الحسين بن علي عليهما السلام على أصحابه فقال: أيها الناس ان الله جل ذكره ما خلق العباد إلا ليعرفوه فإذا عرفوه عبدوه
Chain is weak in accordance to shia standards.

1) Abulkarim ibn Abdullah wasn’t mentioned as said Shahrudi in “Mustadrakat” (4/457), and Jawhari in “Mufid min mojam rijal ahadeth” (#6618) said he was majhool.

Kamal al-Haydari is:

1) Ignorant in shia ahadeth, and there is no any matter for him is it weak or not.

2) He is aware, and he cited deliberately weak shia ahadeth, and didn’t mentioned their weakness to delude people.

3) ??????????????

I don’t see third version.

Original resource article taken from here: []

bouloulou4 [ MP ]
28 avril 2012 14:02
on s'en fiche , il y a des sujets plus important que ça et qui nous élèvent.
al qurtubi [ MP ]
28 avril 2012 23:56
bouloulou4 a écrit:
on s'en fiche , il y a des sujets plus important que ça et qui nous élèvent.

Assalam alaikoum,

la défense de ta religion n'est pas ta tasse de thé: ce post est pour les sunnites.
Si cela te dérange, ne viens pas: je ne t'ai rien demandé, pas besoin de ton avis quelle que soit la question...
Retourne apprendre ta religion chez les orientalistes que tu sembles apprécier quand il s'agit de critiquer la Sunna
loskely [ MP ]
29 avril 2012 13:15
bouloulou4 a écrit:
on s'en fiche , il y a des sujets plus important que ça et qui nous élèvent.

Les ignorant aveugles n'est pas notre problème, tu aurais aimer nous voir la fermer. n'est ce pas. Nous dénonçons tout les groupe sectaire qui vont a l’encontre de la révélation, en particulier la croyance erronée des imamites les maux et le mensonge a lequel ils jouent avec les gens
Rafidi démasque,
bande d'ignorant qui ne recule devant rien; le mensonge, le sentiment , la falsification, quoi encore

Modifié 1 fois. Dernière modification le 29/04/12 22:00 par rosiles.
Emission spécial MRE
2m Radio +