morteza naderi
Abstract
Weakness of the narrators of ‘hadith’, ways of identifying such a weakness, and its relationship to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of attributing hadiths to the Infallible Ones are all among major concerns of the science of hadith and the science of biographical evaluation. In this paper, ...
Read More
Weakness of the narrators of ‘hadith’, ways of identifying such a weakness, and its relationship to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of attributing hadiths to the Infallible Ones are all among major concerns of the science of hadith and the science of biographical evaluation. In this paper, Behboudi’s views on how to identify weaknesses of narrators of hadith are examined. The examination is organized through exploring his views on the causes of emergence of the science of hadith, on the principle of biographical evaluation for Shi‘as, and the methodology employed by their authors, as well as on the terms ‘jarh’ (discrediting) and ‘zu‘afā’ (weak narrators). An analysis of his views on biographical evaluation and his ‘history of hadith’ reveals that in Behboudi’s view, the efforts of Shi‘a scholars did not successfully prevent penetration of exaggerated and pagan ideas into Shi‘a hadith heritage, resulting in much fabrications being recorded in Shi‘a hadith books and many weak narrators being included in Shi‘a hadith documents.
morteza naderi
Abstract
Al-Akhbābār al-Dakhilat, written by ‘Allāmeh Mohammad Taqi Shūshtarī, aims at proving the fact that a number of Shiite traditions are altered (muharraf) and faked. After an analysis of the views of Shūshtarī concerning certain traditions, this paper argues that the evidence Shūshtarī offers ...
Read More
Al-Akhbābār al-Dakhilat, written by ‘Allāmeh Mohammad Taqi Shūshtarī, aims at proving the fact that a number of Shiite traditions are altered (muharraf) and faked. After an analysis of the views of Shūshtarī concerning certain traditions, this paper argues that the evidence Shūshtarī offers is not adequate enough to substantiate his claim about the non-authenticity of these traditions. The present paper addresses this mismatch in four sections: “the mismatch between the title and the content of the book”, “inattention to lexical meaning and literary subtleties”, “incomplete understanding of the intention of the tradition” and “reliance on personal judgment”.
