Category Archives: Lies of Answering-Ansar

Misrepresentation of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlwi’s view regarding Amir Muawiyah

Answering-Ansar says:

The admission by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi that Mu’awiya cursed Ali (as)

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz was a leading Sunni scholar and was a lead name in his fight against the spread of Shi’aism in the Indian Subcontinent. Despite his opposition to the Shi’a he also made the acknowledgement in his Fatawa Azizi on page 214: “…The act of cursing Ali was introduced by Mu’awiya, this is not worse than fighting, for we learn from hadith that cursing a Muslim is Fisq, fighting him is kufr. It is established that Mu’awiya fought ‘Ali and in doing so he committed a great sin, to explain this away in terms of ijtihad is wrong”.

In another article it says:

In Fatwa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that:: “Mu’awiya would curse Ali (as)”. Fatwa Azizi by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, page 123 Hence Marwan and Mu’awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nawasib. Their hatred takes numerous guises. In their lectures and writings their Nasibi thought becomes evident as does their hatred for the Shi’a of Ali. This party who pass fatwas of Kufr upon the Shi’a are in fact the spiritual descendants of Marwan and Mu’awiya and thus they adhere to an illegitimate belief formulated in the minds of the enemies of Ali (as).

We don’t find any such statement in Fatawa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz. Rather what we read in Fatawa Azizi regarding the hadith of Sahih Muslim in which Muawiyah said to Saad “What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab” is clearly different from what Answering-Ansar said. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlwi answered in reply to this hadith two times. At one place he said :

In Muslim and Tirmidhi, it is mentioned that Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan said to Saad ibn Abi Waqas: “What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab” Some advocates of Muawiyah make its tawil and say that “Muawiyah meant that why don’t you talk strictly to Ali and tell him that part away from the killers of Uthman, and gave them to us so we can implement the qisas.” But there are two problems in this explanation. The first problem is that this shows that this incident happened in the life of Ali. While we learn from the history that Muawiyah didn’t meet Saad, for Saad went to a place outside Madina when the fitna began, and resided there. And during those days, Muawiyah didn’t come to Madinah. Rather after the peace agreement between Muawiyah and Hassan, Muawiyah came for Hajj and at that time, he met only the people of Madinah . And the second problem is that the answer of Saad ” It is because of three things” is against this explanation, because the excess of virtues of a person doesn’t stop from giving an advice and saying a good word to him. At the very most (غاية الامر) it would mean that Muawiyah did this ugly act. And this would not be the first ugly act that happened in Islam, for cursing is a lesser crime than killing. Hence it is mentioned in a Sahih hadith that cursing a Muslim is fisq, and killing him is kufr. And when it is clear that killings happened, so it is better that we consider it that they committed major sins, but we should keep silent regarding such issues. Similarly we should say as the sahaba said about those who committed adultery and drinkinng, may Allah be pleased with all of them. And the interference at every ijtihadi mistake is a vile act (i.e to blame people for their error in ijtihad is blameworthy).

Shah Abdul Aziz answered this question again in more detail.

Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat ‘Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camel. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about ‘Ali as he left behind him in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). ‘All said to him: Allah’s Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call ‘Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed: “Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fitima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.

Imam Nawawi says in its Sharh

Mu’awiyah’s saying does not declare that he ordered Sa’ad to insult Ali, but asked him for the reason that prevented him from insulting. As if Mu’awiyah was saying to him: “Have you refrained from insulting Ali as a result of piety, fear or anything like that? If it was as a result of piety and veneration to refrain from insulting, then you are rightful and if it were other than that, then there would be another answer.” Or it might be that Sa’ad was in a group of people who insults Ali and he did not insult Ali with them, and could not prevent them and controverted them so Mu’awiyah asked him this question. They said: “And it may have another explanation, that what prevented you from making Ali wrong in his thought and opinion, and to show to people our good opinion and thought and that Ali was wrong?” [Quote from Sharh Muslim ends]

Perhaps Saad was in some group and he didn’t mentioned bad words about Ali and he couldn’t stop other people as well, and due to this reason Muawiyah asked him this question. Ulemas say that aside from these, there are possibilities of other tawil as well, that is ‘it can mean that what has stopped you from saying that the ijtihad and opinion of Ali is wrong and my ijtihad and opinion is correct. And a shorter version of this narration is also present in Tirmidhi.

As you can see very well, Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned the various possibilities in which these words could have meant. Answering-Ansar not only did tahreef in the wordings of Shah Abdul Aziz by adding the words “The act of cursing Ali was introduced by Mu’awiya”  and “to explain this away in terms of ijtihad is wrong” but also didn’t mention the context, and the complete answer, clearly misleading the readers, and took only the extreme single possibility that Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned that at the very most, it can mean that Muawiyah did curse Ali. This doesn’t mean that this is the only possible meaning of the words of Muawiyah according to Shah Abdul Aziz.

In brief, Shah Abdul Aziz never said that Muawiyah introduced the act of cursing Ali, not did he say that Muawiyah cursed Ali.

 رضي الله عنهم اجمعين

The beliefs of Shias about the Prophets and AA deceptions

Answering-Ansar says:

Other sects (not including the Shi’a school) consider prophets to be the necessary pivots of Guidance, but deem such individuals to be sinners.

They believe that:

  • Hadhrath Adam (as) was punished via for expulsion on account of disobedience to Allah (swt).
  • Hadhrath Ibrahim (as) told three lies.
  • …and Hadhrath Yunus (Jonah) was punished that’s why he was kept in the fish belly
  • Hadhrath Sulayman (as) pride on himself and he was punished and ALLAH took government from Hadhrath Sulayman (God forbid)

Lets read what Shias believe. Shias believe that Yunus was kept in fish belly because he disobeye

Majlisi records the following traditions in his book

از امام محمد باقر عليه السلام پرسيدند از تفسير قول حق تعالى فلما آتيهما صالحا جعلا له شركاء فيما آتيهما، فرمود: ايشان آدم و حوا بودند و شرك ايشان شرك طاعت بود كه اطاعت شيطان كردند

Imam Baqir (as) was asked about the tafsir of the verse  But when He gives them a good one, they set up with Him associates in what He has given them [007:190] He said “This refers to Adam and Eve for they committed Shirk by obeying Satan the Cursed.

Hayat ul Qulub, Vol. 1, p. 74

We read in Al Kafi,

عن أبي بصير قال: قال أبوعبدالله عليه السلام: اصول الكفر ثلاثة: الحرص، والاستكبار، والحسد، فأما الحرص فان آدم عليه السلام حين نهي عن الشجرة، حمله الحرص على أن أكل منها

Abu Basir narrates that the usool of Kufr are three : Greed , arrogance and jealousy. As far as (the kufr of) greed is concerned, it was present in Adam (as). When he was prohibited from eating the fruit of the tree, it was greed which persuaded him to eat it.

Al Kafi, Vol. 2, p. 249

Again we read in Hayat ul Quloob

به سند معتبر از حضرت اميرالمؤ منين عليه السلام منقول است كه : حق تعالى عرض كرد ولايت مرا به بر اهل آسمانها و زمين پس قبول كرد هر كه قبول كرد و انكار كرد هر كه انكار كرد و چنانچه بايد قبول نكرد يونس تا آنكه خدا او را در شكم ماهى حبس كرد تا قبول كرد چنانچه شرط قبول بود

It has been narrated through a reliable sanad that Amir ul Momineen (i.e Ali) said : Allah presented my wilayah to the people of the earth and the heavens, so those who accepted it, accepted it and those who rejected it, rejected. When Yunus rejected it, Allah imprisoned him in the belly of the fish till he accpeted it (i.e my wilayah).

Hayat ul Quloob, Vol. 1, p. 459

Similarly we read in Tafsir Nur al thaqalayn

Abdullah bin Umar came to Ali bin Hussain (Zainul Abideen) and asked:

O son of Hussain! Do you say that Junah (Yunus) was put in the belly of the fish because the wilayah of my grandfather was presented to him, than he didn’t accept it? He said : Yes, may your mother weep over you. He (i.e Ibn Umar) said : If you are truthful, than show me a sign. He told us to close our eyes. When he ordered us to open our eyes, we saw that we were standing near a huge sea.

Ibn Umar said: My master! fear God regarding me. He said : Be comfortable, than he said : O fish! Than a huge fish’s head appeared in the sea, as if a huge mountain. It said: O wali of Allah, I am present. I am present. He (i.e Zainul Abideen) said : Who are you? It said ! My master! There was no such prophet from Adam till Muhammad, your grandfather, upon whom , the wilayah of you ahlelbayt was not presented. So those prophets who acceptd the wilayah, they remained safe. And those who didn’t , they were put in trouble. That is why Adam was put in trouble, and that is why Noah was put in flood, and that is why Abraham was put in fire, and that is why Joseph (Yusuf) was put in well, and that is why Ayyub was put in trouble, and that is why David made a mistake, than God sent Junah, and sent wahi upon him, that O Junah, accept the wilayah of Amir ul Momineen (i.e Ali)

Tafsir Nur al thaqalayn Vol. 3, p. 435

This was just a glimpse of what Shias believe regarding the Prophets. Such traditions are widespread in the Shia books.

Takfeer of Rafidha and Answering-Ansar’s lame excuses

Answering-Ansar says

The extremist Nasibies even didn’t hesitate to lie upon 4 Imams of Ahle-Sunnah, in order to spread their idealogies. For example, on every anti-shia site(like of Sapah Sahaba and Salafies), one is able to find these alleged fatwas:

Several Nasibi websites state:

On one occasion Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee said concerning the Shias, “I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidite Shias.”

[Ibn Taymeeyah, Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/39]

On another occasion he said, “Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidite Shias, because they invent Hadeeths and adopt them as part of their religion.” [Ibid, p. 38]

It was reported that often Abu Haneefah used to repeat the following statement about the Shias, “Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief.”

Once Imaam Maalik was asked about them and he replied, “Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely they are liars.”

[Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 1/37]

During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shias curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks.”

[Tafseeer al-Qurtubee, Soorah al-Fath; note: That is, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a disbeliever, because the verse says, “the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah).”]

Let us examine the deception and lying of Salafies upon the 4 Imams with Allah’s and his Prophet’s [saww] help.

Answering-Ansar further says

Objection 1- Where is the Fatwa of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal about Kufr/Shirk of Shias?

The absence of any such Fatwa by Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal clearly shows that he considered Shias as Muslims and Mohid.

Let’s read what Imam Ahmad says about people having the beliefs of Rawafidh

779 – أخبرنا أبو بكر المروذي قال سألت أبا عبدالله عن من يشتم أبا بكر وعمر وعائشة قال ما رآه على الإسلام قال وسمعت أبا عبدالله يقول قال مالك الذي يشتم أصحاب النبي ليس لهم سهم أو قال نصيب في الإسلام // إسناده صحيح

Abu bakar marodi said: I asked abu abdullah (Imam Ahmad) about those who insult Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha?
He said:- I dont see them on Islam.

780 – وأخبرني عبدالملك بن عبدالحميد قال سمعت أبا عبدالله قال من شتم أخاف عليه الكفر مثل الروافض ثم قال من شتم أصحاب النبي لا نأمن أن يكون قد مرق عن الدين // إسناده صحيح

Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Abd al-Hamid informed me saying: I heard abu abdullah saying: ‘Whosoever insults the Companions, then I fear disbelief for him like the Rawafid’. Then he said, ‘Whosoever insults the Companions of the Prophet, then we do not believe he is safe from having rejected the Religion’.”

782 – أخبرنا عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال سألت أبي عن رجل شتم رجلا من أصحاب النبي فقال ما أراه على الإسلام // إسناده صحيح

Abdullah bin ahmad bin hanbal said that i asked my father regarding man who insults anyone from companions of prophet; so he said; i dont see him on Islam

Al Sunnah by Khalal 3/493

Imam Shafi said :

حدثنا عبدالله بن محمج بن يعقوب ثنا أبو حاتم حدثني حرملة قالت سمعت الشافعي يقول لم أر أحدا من أصحاب الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة

Imam Malik said :

وقال مالك بن أنس وغيره: من أبغض الصحابة وسبهم فليس له في فئ المسلمين حق ونزع بآية الحشر (والذين جاؤا من بعدهم) الآية، وقال: من غاظه أصحاب محمد فهو كافر قال الله تعالى (ليغيظ بهم الكفار)

Whoever dislikes Sahaba and talk ill about them, he has no right from the fai of Muslims. He further said : Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks. “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.”

Al Shifa, 2/54

Ibn Hajr says regarding this verse

ومن هذه الآية أخذ الإمام مالك في رواية عنه بكفر الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة قال لأن الصحابة يغيظونهم ومن غاظه الصحابة فهو كافر
وهو مأخذ حسن يشهد له ظاهر الآية ومن ثم وافقه الشافعي رضي الله تعالى عنهما في قوله بكفرهم ووافقه أيضا جماعه من الأئمة

And from this verse, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), as reported from him, had deduced the verdict of kufr of Rawafid as they show hatred towards the Sahabah. He further states because the Sahabah causes them anger and every individual who is angered by the Sahabah is a kafir. This extraction is excellent as the verse in itself bears testimony to it. Therefore Imam Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has agreed with him (Imam Malik) on the verdict of declaring them [Rawafid] kafir and a large group of Imams agreed with him too.

Al sawaiq al Muharriqa 2/607



Imam Malik said

من شتم أحدا من أصحاب النبي أبا بكر أو عمر أو عثمان أو معاوية أو عمرو بن العاص فإن قال كانوا على ضلال أو كفر قتل و إن شتمهم بغير هذا من مشاتمة الناس نكل نكالا شديدا

The one who disparages any of the companions of Rasoolullah Sallallahu `alyhi wa Aalihi wa Sallam (whether it be) Abu bakr or Umar or Uthman or Muawiyah or `Amr bin al-`Aas (et el) Radhi Allahu `anhum, if he says that they were upon deviance or disbelief, he is to be killed, and if he disparages them in some other manner which the people employ to disparage one another, then he should be punished with a severe punishment.

Al Sawaiq al Muharriqa 1/140

Imam Shafi said

حدثنا إبراهيم بن زياد الابلي، سمعت البويطي يقول: سألت الشافعي: أصلي خلف الرافضي ؟ قال: لا تصل خلف الرافضي، ولا القدري، ولا المرجئ.
قلت: صفهم لنا.
قال: من قال: الايمان قول، فهو مرجئ، ومن قال: إن أبا بكر وعمر ليسا بإمامين، فهو رافضي، ومن جعل المشيئة إلى نفسه، فهو قدري

Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwayti said, ‘I asked al-Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘Can I pray behind a Rafidhi?’ He said, ‘Do not pray behind the Rafidhi, nor the Qadari, nor the Murjiyi’. I said, ‘describe them to me.’ He said, `The one who says that Iman is statement [only], then he is Murjiyi`. And whosoever says that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are not the two imams, then he is a Rafidhi. And whosoever places the Will for himself, he is Qadari.

Siyyar 10/31

Afterwards Answering-Ansar says:

Objection 2- Why did Ibne Taymiyyah (6th Century) only manage to locate the Abu Hanifa Fatwa of Takfeer against the Shi’a?

No hint of any such fatwa is found in the thousands of books written by thousands of students of Imam Abu Hanifa.

For example, Qadhi Abu Yusuf was the student of Abu Hanifa and became the Grand-Qadhi of Abbasid Caliphate. He was the main personality who collected Fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa. And this fiqh of Abu Hanifa was recognised as the official fiqh of Islamic Khilafah.

But did he mention any such fatwa by Abu Hanifa that Shias are kafir?
No, not a single hint.

Did he personally issue takfeer against the Shi’a?

No, during his time as jurist, Shias were officially considered as Muslims.

Actually we have a saying of Qadhi Abu Yusuf about the Rafidha.

عن أبي يوسف القاضي قال لا أصلي خلف جهمي ولا رافضي ولا قدري

Imam Abu Yusuf said : Don’t pray behind a Jahmi or Rafidhi or Qadari.

Aitqad Ahlussunnah 4/733

Imam Muhammad said

لا يجوز الصلاة خلف الرافضة

It is not allowed to pray behind Rafidha.

Al Sawaiq al Muharriqa 1/138

Ibn Hajr says

و مر أن أئمة الحنفية كفروا من أنكر خلافة أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما والمسألة في الغاية وغيرها من كتبهم كما مر وفي الأصل لمحمد بن الحسن رحمه الله والظاهر أنهم أخذوا ذلك عن إمامهم أبي حنيفة رضي الله عنه وهو أعلم بالروافض لأنه كوفي والكوفة منبع الرفض والروافض طوائف منهم من يجب تكفيره ومنهم من لا يجب تكفيره فإذا قال أبو حنيفة بتكفير من ينكر إمامة الصديق رضي الله عنه فتكفير لا عنه عنده أولى أي إلا أن يفرق إذ الظاهر أن سبب تكفير منكر إمامته مخالفته للإجماع بناء على أن جاحد الحكم المجمع عليه كافر وهو المشهور عند الأصوليين وإمامته رضي الله عنه مجمع عليها من حين بايعه عمر رضي الله عنه ولا يمنع من ذلك تأخر بيعة بعض الصحابة فإن الذين تأخرت بيعتهم لم يكونوا مخالفين في صحة إمامته ولهذا كانوا يأخذون عطاءه ويتحاكمون إليه فالبيعة شيء والإجماع شيء ولا يلزم من أحدهما الآخر ولا من عدم أحدهما عدم الآخر فافهم ذلك فإنه قد يغلط فيه
فإن قلت شرط الكفر بإنكار المجمع عليه أن يعلم من الدين بالضرورة قلت وخلافة الصديق رضي الله عنه كذلك لأن بيعة الصحابة له ثبتت بالتواتر المنتهي إلى حد الضرورة فصارت كالمجمع عليه المعلوم من الدين بالضرورة وهذا لا شك فيه ولم يكن أحد من الروافض في أيام الصديق رضي الله عنه ولا في أيام عمر وعثمان وإنما حدثوا بعده

It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufr while some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafir is his opposition to the ijma’ (consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his ba’yah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in ba’yah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, ba’yah is something and ijma’ is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone with kafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar nor Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on.

Al sawaiq al Muharriqa 1/145

Imam Samaani (562 H.) said:

واجتمعت الامة على تكفير الامامية

 The Ummah has consensus about the takfir of Imamiya.

Ansab 3/188





Objection 3- Did the 4 Imams or Qadhi Abu Yusuf issue a Fatwa prohibiting the Shi’a from performing Hajj, as they were the worst form of Kafirs?

In the times of 4 Imams of Ahle-Sunnah, hundered thausands of Shias performed Hajj annually. Why didn’t even a single one of them issue a fatwa that Shias should be banned to perform Hajj?

If not the 4 Imams, then did any of their Student not ever issue a fatwa that shias should be banned from performing Hajj?

Why is it that whole Salaf of present day self-alleged Salafies remain silence on Kafirs/Mushriks performing of Hajj?? Were they practisng taqiyya?

Same is the case with Qurtabi, who was a Mufassir of 6-7th Century. Thousands of Shias existed in time of Imam Malik, why not he wrote this fatwa in his books?

Why was the Fatwa not propogated by Malik’s students? Why did it just appear in the 6th Century?….. etc.

(Very briefly, the absense of any such Fatawa, directly by these 4 Imams or their students shows clearly that Ibne Taymiyyah and Qurtabi attributed flase fatwas in their names and these Imams had no association with these edicts)

I don’t think it requires answer when we have already mentioned the saying of Imams regarding Rafidha.


Instead of declaring Shias Kafir and banning them to perform Hajj, Ahle-Sunnah Salaf narrated Ahadith from them

All the Ahle-Sunnah Muhaditheen (including all authors of “Sahah Satta” and Masnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanb) collected Ahadith from Shia narrators. One can find thousands of such Shia authorities in works of Ahle-Sunnah Muhaditheen.

Listed below are a few of the Shi’ah scholars that al-Bukhari has relied upon in his Sahih. If we add to these the rest of them including those narrators in the Sahih of Muslim and the other four Sihah Sittah who followed the Shi’ah faith, then the number would increase significantly. To save space, reference is given to the section title (kitab) in each book for only one hadith by each person – the rest can be found using indices or hadith software.

The reader will notice the term Rafidi every now and then in the following biographies. The Sunni scholars generally define a Rafidi as a Shi’ah who openly criticizes or rejects the legitimacy of the Caliphs before ‘Ali (a).


According to Rafidha, one who doesn’t accept the Imamah of any of their Imam is kafir. Now there are alot of such narrators present in their books, who didn’t accept the Imamate of many of their Imams.

Aban bin Uthman al Ahmar – was a Nawussi (see Rijal Kashi) and still a Sahib ul Ijma according to Rafidha , Sahib ul Ijma, according to Rafidha, is something like a super narrator, much more than simply thiqah. His presence in a sanad makes the sanad perfect even if it contains weak narrators.


Similarly Hasan bin Ali bin Fadhal is Thiqah but he is Fathi.

And there are alot of other such narrators in Shia books which can’t be mentioned in just one article.