نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه یزد، ایران؛ و دانشیار، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اهل بیت علیهم‌السّلام، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.
3 دانشیار، گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
4 دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم قرآن و حدیث، دانشکدۀ الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The reliability and credibility of historians have always served as a decisive factor in the accuracy and inaccuracy of historical reports. The central focus of this research is to examine how historians dealt with forged narrations and to analyze their methodology in validating sources. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study explores the various approaches adopted by historians in confronting fabricated hadiths. The research findings indicate that the process of validation in Islamic historiography was influenced by three main factors: First, religious biases led to selective transmission of narrations, as evidenced by figures such as ʿAwānah ibn al-Ḥakam al-Kalbī, who acted in favor of the Umayyads, and Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, who aligned his accounts with the perspective of the Caliphate—both engaging in the fabrication or omission of reports. Second, the widespread infiltration of Isrāʾīlīyāt mixed historical sources with forged narrations. Third, distortion of historical events is observable through methods such as omitting key parts of narrations and replacing them with vague expressions like "such-and-such" (kadhā wa kadhā). A case study of historians such as al-Ṭabarī, Abū Mikhnaf, and Sayf ibn ʿUmar demonstrates that even the most esteemed historians were not immune to sectarian biases. Consequently, it can be concluded that Islamic historiography in the early centuries was shaped more by religious partisanship and political considerations than by purely scientific criteria of historical criticism.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)