Are there Shia narrators of Bukhari and Muslims?

QUESTION

Assalamualaikum ustadz 🙏🙏
Afwan, permission to ask ustadz🙏🙏
Is it true that in the hadith narrated by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim there are Shiite narrators?

ANSWER

Wa’alaikumussalam warahmatullah wabarakatuh

Yes, there is.. but it is very different from the Shia Rafidhah known today..

Shia narrators at that time were only tasyayu’ (rada-rada Shia), that is, they simply prioritized Ali bin Abi Talib Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu over other friends. They did not curse Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. They still respect him. As for Rafidhah, who insulted his friends, this kind of narration was not accepted. Even Imam Ash Syafi’i said that Rafidhah was the one who lied the most.

Imam Ibn Hajar explained:

Shiism according to ancient customs is the belief that Ali takes precedence over Uthman, and that Ali was right in his war, and that his opponent was wrong, with both sheikhs being given priority and primacy. Maybe some of them believe that Ali is the best creature after Rasulullah SAW, may Allah SWT give him mercy and give him peace, and if his faith is pious, religious, honest and diligent, then his history will not be rejected out of hand, especially if he is not a preacher.
As for the Shiites, according to ulama custom, it is pure rejection, so that Rafidhi’s noble history is not accepted and is not dignified. End quote.

Shia in the terms of previous scholars is the belief in prioritizing (prioritizing) Ali over Uthman, and believing that Ali was right in his war and those who opposed him were wrong, but still prioritized and prioritized the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). Some of them even believe that Ali is the most important creature after the Prophet ﷺ.

If someone has such beliefs, and he is a person who is wara’, religious, honest, and sincere (in ijtihad), then his history will not be rejected because of it, especially if he is not the person who called out (to his bid’ah).

As for Shiites in the terms of recent scholars, they are pure rafidhah, so the history of an extreme rafidhi is not accepted, and there is no honor for him.”

(Tahdzib Tahdzib, 1/81)

Imam Adz Dzahabi explained:

Heresies are of two types: Minor heresies: like Shiite extremism, or like Shiites without extremism or distortion. This is common among his followers and disciples, as is religion, piety and honesty. If the hadith of these people were rejected, some of the prophetic impact would be lost, and this would clearly be a mistake.
Then there were great innovations, such as the total and excessive rejection of it, and denigrating Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, and calling for it. This type gives them no evidence or dignity.
Additionally, in this comparison I am not talking about honest or trustworthy people. On the contrary, lies are their watchwords, and piety and hypocrisy are their robes, how then can reports of these conditions be accepted! God forbid!
The beloved Shiites of the Salaf era and those who knew them were the people who spoke about Uthman, Al-Zubayr, Talha, Muawiyah, and a group of people who fought Ali radhiyallahu ‘anhu and became the target of their insults.
The most important thing in our time and knowledge is the one who declared these gentlemen infidels, and denied the two Shaykhs as well, because this is a deviant and stumbling barrier.

“Heresy is divided into two types:

First: small bid’ah, such as excessive attitude in tasyayyu’ (shiyah), or simply tasyayyu’ without exaggeration and without deviation. This is often found among tabi’in and tabi’ut tabi’in, along with the presence of religion (obedience), wara’, and honesty in them. If their hadith were rejected, a large amount of the Prophet’s atsar (history) would be lost, and this would be real damage.

Second: great innovations, such as perfect rafidah (refusal) and excessive attitudes in it, as well as demeaning Abu Bakr and Umar radhiyallahu ‘anhuma, and inviting them to do these things. So this type is not used as evidence (its history is not used) and there is no honor for it.”

Also, I don’t find—as far as I know—in this group anyone who is honest and trustworthy. In fact, lying is their شعار (characteristic), and taqiyyah and hypocrisy are their clothes. So how is it possible to accept the history of someone in a situation like this? Absolutely not, even impossible.

Extreme Shiites (ghuluw) during the Salaf era and according to their terms were those who spoke (badly) about Uthman bin Affan, Az-Zubair bin Al-Awwam, Talhah bin Ubaidillah, Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, as well as the group of friends who fought against Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and denounced them.

Those who are considered extreme in our time and according to our terms are people who disbelieve in these figures, and depart from the two sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). So people like this are misguided and derailed.”

(Mizanul I’tidal, 1/5-6

Wallahu A’lam

Farid Nu’man Hasan

Related