Response to TwelverShia/SunniDefense: “Shīʿī Scholars and the Authenticity of their Texts”
Article being refuted:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2025/01/27/11-shii-scholars-and-the-authenticity-of-their-texts-2/
SunniDefense’s entire argument is built on a false equation.
They confuse three completely different things:
1. A Shia compiler collected narrations he personally trusted.
2. Some later Shia scholars, especially Akhbaris, considered certain collections highly reliable.
3. The whole Shia madhhab accepts every narration in those books as 100% authentic, binding, and flawless like the Qur’an.
Only the first two points can sometimes be proven. The third point is false.
The Shia position is simple:
No hadith book after the Qur’an is flawless from beginning to end. Not al-Kafi, not Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, not Tahdhib, not al-Istibsar. Every narration must be examined through sanad, matn, Qur’an, established Sunnah, rijal, context, and scholarly principles.
And the most important point SunniDefense hides is this:
Al-Kafi itself teaches that any narration contradicting the Qur’an must be rejected.
In al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, chapter: “Taking by the Sunnah and the witnesses of the Book,” it is narrated:
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: إن على كل حق حقيقة، وعلى كل صواب نورا، فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فدعوه.
Translation:
The Messenger of Allah said: “Upon every truth there is a reality, and upon every correctness there is light. So whatever agrees with the Book of Allah, take it, and whatever contradicts the Book of Allah, leave it.”
Reference:
al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab al-Akhdh bi al-Sunnah wa Shawahid al-Kitab.
Another narration says:
إذا ورد عليكم حديث فوجدتم له شاهداً من كتاب الله أو من قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله، وإلا فالذي جاءكم به أولى به.
Translation:
“If a hadith comes to you and you find a witness for it from the Book of Allah or from the statement of the Messenger of Allah, then accept it. Otherwise, the one who brought it is more deserving of it.”
Reference:
al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab al-Akhdh bi al-Sunnah wa Shawahid al-Kitab.
Another narration says:
كل شيء مردود إلى الكتاب والسنة، وكل حديث لا يوافق كتاب الله فهو زخرف.
Translation:
“Everything is referred back to the Book and the Sunnah, and every hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is worthless embellishment.”
Reference:
al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab al-Akhdh bi al-Sunnah wa Shawahid al-Kitab.
Another narration says:
ما لم يوافق من الحديث القرآن فهو زخرف.
Translation:
“Whatever hadith does not agree with the Qur’an is worthless embellishment.”
Reference:
al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab al-Akhdh bi al-Sunnah wa Shawahid al-Kitab.
Another narration says:
ما جاءكم عني يوافق كتاب الله فأنا قلته، وما جاءكم يخالف كتاب الله فلم أقله.
Translation:
“Whatever comes to you from me that agrees with the Book of Allah, then I said it; and whatever comes to you that contradicts the Book of Allah, then I did not say it.”
Reference:
al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab al-Akhdh bi al-Sunnah wa Shawahid al-Kitab.
Now tell us honestly:
If al-Kafi itself commands Shia to reject any narration that contradicts the Qur’an, how can SunniDefense pick a narration from al-Kafi and say, “This is Shia belief,” when Shia scholars reject it based on Qur’an, sanad, matn, and methodology?
This is not scholarship. This is double standard.
Point 1: al-Kulayni and al-Kafi
SunniDefense quotes the introduction of al-Kafi where al-Kulayni mentions:
بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام
Translation:
“By the authentic reports from the truthful ones.”
They then conclude that al-Kulayni believed every single narration in al-Kafi is authentic.
But even if we accept that al-Kulayni personally trusted what he compiled, this does not make his judgment binding on every Shia scholar. Al-Kulayni is respected, but he is not infallible.
Grand Ayatullah al-Khoei directly refuted the claim that all narrations in al-Kafi are automatically authentic. He said that even if al-Kulayni testified to the authenticity of all narrations in al-Kafi, such testimony is not binding because al-Kafi contains mursal reports, unknown narrators, and narrators accused of fabrication and lying.
Arabic:
لو سلم أن محمد بن يعقوب شهد بصحة جميع روايات الكافي فهذه الشهادة غير مسموعة
Translation:
“Even if we concede that Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub testified to the authenticity of all the narrations of al-Kafi, this testimony is not admissible.”
Reference:
al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 1, discussion on the authenticity of the Four Books.
So SunniDefense’s argument fails. A compiler’s personal confidence is not the same as madhhab-level proof.
Point 2: SunniDefense’s own article admits the key distinction
The article itself admits that the early use of the word “sahih” is not the same as the later technical meaning of sahih used by later Shia scholars.
So what are they proving?
At most, they prove that early scholars used “sahih” in the sense of relied upon, supported by indicators, or accepted according to their own methodology. They do not prove that every report in these books is sahih by later rijal standards, nor that every report is binding creed upon all Shia.
This admission weakens the entire article.
Point 3: Their own article quotes the answer and then ignores it
SunniDefense itself quotes Grand Ayatullah Montazeri saying:
واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا
Translation:
“Kulayni’s belief in the correctness of a narration is not a legal proof, because he is not infallible according to us.”
Reference:
Husayn Ali Montazeri, Dirasat fi al-Makasib al-Muharrama, vol. 3, p. 123.
This single quote destroys their whole polemic.
If al-Kulayni’s personal belief is not legal proof for Shia, then how can SunniDefense pick a narration from al-Kafi and say, “This is Shia belief”?
Point 4: Shia scholars graded al-Kafi
If al-Kafi was accepted as 100% sahih by the Shia madhhab, why did Shia scholars classify its narrations into categories?
The famous classification of al-Kafi is:
Sahih: 5072 narrations
Hasan: 144 narrations
Muwaththaq: 1118 narrations
Qawi: 302 narrations
Da‘if: 9485 narrations
This proves that al-Kafi is not treated like Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. Shia scholars did not say, “Everything is automatically accepted.” They examined the narrations.
Point 5: al-Saduq and Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih
SunniDefense’s strongest point is about Shaykh al-Saduq. Yes, al-Saduq wrote in the introduction of Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih:
بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي
Translation:
“Rather, I intended to include what I give fatwa by, what I judge to be authentic, and what I believe to be proof between me and my Lord.”
Reference:
al-Saduq, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, vol. 1, p. 3.
But this proves only one thing: al-Saduq included what he personally judged to be hujjah between him and Allah.
It does not prove that every later Shia scholar must accept every report in his book. Al-Saduq was a great scholar, but he was not infallible. His ijtihad is respected, not worshipped.
Point 6: al-Tusi, Tahdhib, and al-Istibsar
SunniDefense claims that al-Tusi authenticated everything in Tahdhib and al-Istibsar.
But their evidence mainly comes from later scholars, not a clear direct statement from al-Tusi saying, “Every narration in Tahdhib and al-Istibsar is sahih and binding.”
In fact, al-Istibsar is literally a book about conflicting narrations. Its full title is:
الاستبصار فيما اختلف من الأخبار
Meaning:
“Insight into what differed among the reports.”
So how can a book that gathers conflicting reports be used as proof that every narration inside it is equally binding?
A book of ikhtilaf reports is a book of analysis, reconciliation, preference, and fiqh. It is not a claim that every conflicting narration is equally valid at the same time.
Point 7: Akhbari scholars do not represent the whole Shia madhhab
SunniDefense heavily relies on Akhbari scholars like al-Hurr al-‘Amili and others who believed the Four Books were fully reliable.
Fine. We admit Akhbaris held this view.
But Akhbari opinion is not the final mainstream Shia position. The Usuli school rejected blanket authentication of the Four Books.
Al-Khoei said:
ذهب جماعة من المحدّثين إلى أنّ روايات الكتب الأربعة قطعيّة الصدور، وهذا القول باطل من أصله
Translation:
“A group of hadith scholars held that the narrations of the Four Books are definitely issued. This view is false from its foundation.”
Reference:
al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 1.
So SunniDefense is taking a disputed Akhbari view and presenting it as if it is the official Shia doctrine. That is dishonest.
Point 8: al-Hurr al-‘Amili and Wasail al-Shia
SunniDefense quotes al-Hurr al-‘Amili because he argued for the reliability of the reports he collected.
But al-Hurr al-‘Amili was an Akhbari scholar. His position is known, respected historically, but not binding on Usuli Shia scholarship.
If SunniDefense wants to use al-Hurr as “the Shia position,” then they are intentionally confusing a disputed Akhbari methodology with the mainstream Usuli method followed by most Shia jurists.
Point 9: Some Usulis making strong statements does not prove consensus
SunniDefense quotes figures like Abd al-Husayn al-Musawi, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, and statements attributed to al-Na’ini.
Even if some Usuli scholars made very strong statements about al-Kafi or the Four Books, this still does not prove consensus.
In Sunni Islam too, one scholar’s strong statement does not become binding on the entire madhhab.
So why apply that standard only to Shia?
The real Shia method is clear: narrations are examined, weighed, and compared with Qur’an, Sunnah, intellect, rijal, and established doctrine.
Point 10: Tafsir al-Qummi
SunniDefense says Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi authenticated the reports in his tafsir.
Even if accepted, the same rule applies:
A compiler’s confidence is not infallibility.
A statement about relying on trustworthy transmitters does not mean every later transmitted copy, every interpolation, and every report in the book is automatically binding Shia creed.
Shia scholars still examine the chains, text, manuscript history, and contradiction with Qur’an.
Point 11: al-Hilli and Hasan al-‘Amili
SunniDefense says al-Hilli compiled works containing sahih and hasan narrations, and Hasan al-‘Amili compiled Muntaqa al-Juman.
This is irrelevant to their main accusation.
A scholar compiling a book of selected authentic reports does not prove that Shia consider all major hadith books 100% sahih. In fact, it proves the opposite: Shia scholars selected and filtered narrations.
If everything in the Four Books was already automatically sahih, why would scholars compile selected works of sahih and hasan narrations?
Point 12: al-Kaf‘ami and dua books
SunniDefense also brings al-Kaf‘ami’s Misbah and claims he used relied upon books.
But dua books are not the same as legal hadith books, and devotional transmission often has broader standards than fiqh and aqidah.
Even if a scholar says he collected from reliable books, that does not mean every phrase becomes binding doctrine upon all Shia.
Point 13: “Sahih al-Kafi” proves the opposite of what they claim
SunniDefense says Muhammad Baqir al-Bahbudi compiled a book called Sahih al-Kafi, so Shia also have a “Sahih” book.
This argument backfires.
Sahih al-Kafi is a selection from al-Kafi. Al-Bahbudi selected the narrations he considered authentic and left thousands of narrations out.
So the existence of Sahih al-Kafi proves that al-Kafi itself is not considered wholly sahih. If al-Kafi was already 100% authentic, why would anyone need to extract a Sahih al-Kafi from it?
Point 14: Their attack on spelling mistakes is a distraction
At the end, SunniDefense mocks Answering-Ansar for writing “Muhammad Jawwad Ma‘tiya” instead of Muhammad Jawad Mughniyya, and for using “Mawthiq” instead of “Muwaththaq.”
Fine, spelling corrections can be made.
But spelling mistakes do not refute the actual principle:
Shia hadith books contain sahih and weak reports.
Shia scholars grade narrations.
No Shia hadith compiler is infallible.
No book besides the Qur’an is flawless.
Point 15: The Qur’an is the only book free from contradiction
Allah says in the Qur’an:
أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ ٱلْقُرْءَانَ ۚ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ ٱللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا۟ فِيهِ ٱخْتِلَـٰفًۭا كَثِيرًۭا
Translation:
“Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
Reference:
Qur’an 4:82, Sahih International translation.
This verse is important.
Allah made the absence of contradiction a sign of the Qur’an’s divine perfection. That means no human hadith compilation can be treated like the Qur’an. Every non-Qur’anic book can contain variant reports, apparent contradictions, weak chains, mistakes of narrators, or reports needing interpretation.
So when Shia say only the Qur’an is flawless, this is not an excuse. It is a Qur’anic principle.
Point 16: SunniDefense’s double standard with Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Here is the real test.
Sunni scholars made extremely strong claims about Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Imam al-Nawawi wrote:
اتفق العلماء رحمهم الله على أن أصح الكتب بعد القرآن العزيز الصحيحان البخاري ومسلم وتلقتهما الأمة بالقبول
Translation:
“The scholars agreed that the most authentic books after the Mighty Qur’an are the two Sahihs: Bukhari and Muslim, and the Ummah received them with acceptance.”
Reference:
al-Nawawi, Introduction to Sharh Sahih Muslim.
Ibn al-Salah went further and said about what Bukhari and Muslim authenticated:
جميع ما حكم مسلم رحمه الله بصحته في هذا الكتاب فهو مقطوع بصحته ... وهكذا ما حكم البخاري بصحته في كتابه
Translation:
“All that Muslim ruled to be authentic in this book is definitively authentic... and the same applies to what Bukhari ruled authentic in his book.”
Reference:
Ibn al-Salah, Muqaddimah / ‘Ulum al-Hadith.
Now apply SunniDefense’s own logic.
If a Shia scholar calling a book reliable means every narration in it becomes binding on Shia, then Sunni scholars calling Bukhari and Muslim “the most authentic books after the Qur’an” should mean every wording inside them is 100% beyond discussion.
But is that how Sunnis actually behave?
No.
They explain, reconcile, contextualize, prefer one report over another, and discuss apparent contradictions.
For example:
Example 1: Prophet Sulayman عليه السلام and the number of wives
The same story appears with different numbers:
Sahih al-Bukhari:
100 women
Sahih al-Bukhari:
90 women
Sahih al-Bukhari:
70 women
Sahih al-Bukhari:
60 wives
Same story. Same general narration. Different numbers.
If this appeared in a Shia book, SunniDefense would write an entire article mocking it. But because it is in Bukhari, they explain it as narrator variation, rounding, or acceptable difference.
Fine. Then use the same fairness with Shia books.
Example 2: How long did the Prophet ﷺ stay in Makkah after revelation?
Sahih Bukhari has reports saying:
10 years in Makkah
Sahih Bukhari has reports saying:
13 years in Makkah
Sahih Muslim has reports saying:
15 years in Makkah
So we have 10, 13, and 15.
Sunni scholars try to reconcile these numbers by saying some narrators rounded, some counted from different stages, and some included early visionary experiences.
Fine. But that proves our point: hadith texts need analysis. You cannot just grab one narration from a Shia book and scream, “This is your belief.”
Example 3: What was the last verse revealed?
One report says the last verse was about riba.
Another says the last verse was Kalalah, Qur’an 4:176.
Other scholars mention Qur’an 2:281.
So even in Sunni sources, the issue of “last verse revealed” has multiple reports. Sunni scholars explain that these are Companion-level understandings, not one definitive Prophetic statement.
Fine. Apply the same principle to Shia reports.
Example 4: Dajjal’s defective eye
Sahih Muslim has a narration saying Dajjal is defective/blind in the right eye:
أعور عين اليمنى
Sahih Muslim also has a narration saying Dajjal is defective/blind in the left eye:
أعور العين اليسرى
Sunni scholars reconcile this by saying both eyes are defective in different ways, or one wording means blindness while the other means defect.
Fine. But again, that proves hadith wording requires analysis.
Example 5: Two rak‘at after Asr
Sahih Bukhari narrates from Aisha that the Prophet ﷺ never missed two rak‘at after Asr.
But Sahih Bukhari also narrates from Mu‘awiya that the Prophet ﷺ forbade those two rak‘at after Asr, and Abu Hurayrah narrates the prohibition of prayer after Asr until sunset.
Sunni scholars reconcile this by saying the Prophet ﷺ may have prayed them as qada of missed Sunnah, not as general nafl.
Fine. But again, that is exactly our point: context matters.
Conclusion:
We are not saying Bukhari and Muslim should be thrown away.
We are saying SunniDefense must stop using double standards.
If Sunni books require hadith science, reconciliation, context, narrator analysis, and scholarly grading, then Shia books require the same.
If Bukhari and Muslim can contain apparent contradictions and still Sunnis say, “Do not judge the entire Sunni madhhab by isolated narrations,” then Sunnis have no right to judge the entire Shia madhhab by isolated narrations in al-Kafi or other Shia books.
The honest principle is this:
A narration existing in a book is not automatically the belief of the madhhab.
A scholar trusting his compilation does not make him infallible.
A respected book is not the Qur’an.
Only the Qur’an is flawless.
And al-Kafi itself tells us to reject whatever contradicts the Qur’an.
So the Shia position stands:
No book besides the Qur’an is flawless.
Not al-Kafi.
Not Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih.
Not Tahdhib.
Not al-Istibsar.
And not even Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or Siha-Sitta.
SunniDefense’s Double Standard on Shia Hadith Authenticity
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...