What are the arguments of the Shia in questioning the authenticity of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and what is the refutation to them?

The author addressed the doubts surrounding the authenticity of the manuscript originals of Islamic books, specifically "Sahih (definition) al-Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim." He clarified that these doubts are based on illusions and that the condition of having the author's original manuscripts to prove a book's attribution to him is an unfounded claim, citing that it does not apply to any other book in history.

To demonstrate the reliability of these books, the author cited how "Sahih al-Bukhari" was transmitted through his trusted students, such as Al-Firabri and Al-Nasafi, who heard the book directly from Al-Bukhari. Their meticulously prepared copies were then transmitted through reliable narrators, noting the existence of thousands of manuscripts in the world today. He also affirmed that "Sahih Muslim" is no less famous or widespread, and specific works have been dedicated to its chains of transmission.

Regarding the claim of explaining some hadiths from "Sahih al-Bukhari" that are not actually in it, the author denied the existence of even one such example. He clarified that any differences, if they exist, are minor, whether in the chains of transmission (asanid) or in some wordings of the texts (mutun), and this does not undermine the original book or its reliability. He concluded that these doubts stem from a lack of experience and a misunderstanding of the nature of historical sciences and manuscripts, emphasizing that variation in narrations and manuscripts is natural given the ancient manual copying process.