The Attitude of a Critic Accused of Being Nāsibī Towards Shī‘ite-Inclined Narrators: al-Jūzjānī and His Ahwāl al-rijāl

Ayşe Nur Aslan

Article Details

The Attitude of a Critic Accused of Being Nāsibī Towards Shī‘ite-Inclined Narrators: al-Jūzjānī and His Ahwāl al-rijāl

Authors:

Ayşe Nur Aslan

Publisher:

Kütahya Dumlupinar University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

İslam Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.192-216

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340791

pISSN:

2149-0872

Keywords:

Abstract:

 In his Ahwāl al-rijāl, al-Jūzjānī determined the reliabity of the narrators based on their theological views. This attitude distinguished him from other critics who wrote works in the duafā literature. It has been frequently repeated in both classical and modern works that al-Jūzjānī had a prejudice against the Kūfan narrators. In this article, al-Jūzjānīs criticisms about the Kūfan narrators compared with the opinions of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Maīn and Ibn Adī. In addition, these narrators were also researched from Shīite sources. Thus, an attempt was made to determine whether al-Jūzjānī harbored any prejudice against the Kūfan Shīite -inclined narrators. It has been observed that al-Jūzjānīs evaluations differed significantly from the three Sunnī critics. On the other hand, it has been determined that 91 of the narrators criticised by him are found in Shīī sources and 66 of them are considered reliable or Imāmī. This demonstrates that al-Jūzjānī was successful in determining whether a narrator had adopted Shīite views and whether he had connections with the early Shīite circles.

 In his Ahwāl al-rijāl, al-Jūzjānī determined the reliabity of the narrators based on their theological views. This attitude distinguished him from other critics who wrote works in the duafā literature. It has been frequently repeated in both classical and modern works that al-Jūzjānī had a prejudice against the Kūfan narrators. In this article, al-Jūzjānīs criticisms about the Kūfan narrators compared with the opinions of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Maīn and Ibn Adī. In addition, these narrators were also researched from Shīite sources. Thus, an attempt was made to determine whether al-Jūzjānī harbored any prejudice against the Kūfan Shīite -inclined narrators. It has been observed that al-Jūzjānīs evaluations differed significantly from the three Sunnī critics. On the other hand, it has been determined that 91 of the narrators criticised by him are found in Shīī sources and 66 of them are considered reliable or Imāmī. This demonstrates that al-Jūzjānī was successful in determining whether a narrator had adopted Shīite views and whether he had connections with the early Shīite circles.

 In his Ahwāl al-rijāl, al-Jūzjānī determined the reliabity of the narrators based on their theological views. This attitude distinguished him from other critics who wrote works in the duafā literature. It has been frequently repeated in both classical and modern works that al-Jūzjānī had a prejudice against the Kūfan narrators. In this article, al-Jūzjānīs criticisms about the Kūfan narrators compared with the opinions of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Maīn and Ibn Adī. In addition, these narrators were also researched from Shīite sources. Thus, an attempt was made to determine whether al-Jūzjānī harbored any prejudice against the Kūfan Shīite -inclined narrators. It has been observed that al-Jūzjānīs evaluations differed significantly from the three Sunnī critics. On the other hand, it has been determined that 91 of the narrators criticised by him are found in Shīī sources and 66 of them are considered reliable or Imāmī. This demonstrates that al-Jūzjānī was successful in determining whether a narrator had adopted Shīite views and whether he had connections with the early Shīite circles.

 In his Ahwāl al-rijāl, al-Jūzjānī determined the reliabity of the narrators based on their theological views. This attitude distinguished him from other critics who wrote works in the duafā literature. It has been frequently repeated in both classical and modern works that al-Jūzjānī had a prejudice against the Kūfan narrators. In this article, al-Jūzjānīs criticisms about the Kūfan narrators compared with the opinions of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Maīn and Ibn Adī. In addition, these narrators were also researched from Shīite sources. Thus, an attempt was made to determine whether al-Jūzjānī harbored any prejudice against the Kūfan Shīite -inclined narrators. It has been observed that al-Jūzjānīs evaluations differed significantly from the three Sunnī critics. On the other hand, it has been determined that 91 of the narrators criticised by him are found in Shīī sources and 66 of them are considered reliable or Imāmī. This demonstrates that al-Jūzjānī was successful in determining whether a narrator had adopted Shīite views and whether he had connections with the early Shīite circles.

Article Details

The Attitude of a Critic Accused of Being Nāsibī Towards Shī‘ite-Inclined Narrators: al-Jūzjānī and His Ahwāl al-rijāl

Authors:

Ayşe Nur Aslan

Publisher:

Kütahya Dumlupinar University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

İslam Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.192-216

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340791

pISSN:

2149-0872

Hadīth

Jarh-Ta‘dīl

Transmitter Critism

al-Jūzjānī

Ahwāl al-rijāl.Hadīth

Jarh-Ta‘dīl

Transmitter Critism

al-Jūzjānī

Ahwāl al-rijāl.

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Ayşe Nur Aslan

Publisher: Kütahya Dumlupinar University

Main Topics: Hadis

Journal: İslam Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.192-216

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 4/2025

Document Language: English

Document ID (Org No.): 2001340791

pISSN: 2149-0872

Issues

Authors:

Ayşe Nur Aslan

Publisher:

Kütahya Dumlupinar University

Main Topics:

Hadis

Journal:

İslam Medeniyeti Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.10 Issue 1, pp.192-216

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

4/2025

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340791

pISSN:

2149-0872