muhammadjavad najafi

Najjāshī is one of the prominent Shiʽa Rijālist. He has rejected the authenticity of ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim Ḥaḍramī for three reasons of being a transgressor (ghālī), narrator of transgressors and a liar which, from Najjāshī’s point of view, leave no room for reliance on the narrations of ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim Ḥaḍramī. However, in this study, through examining twenty-one people from whom ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim Ḥaḍramī has narrated the traditions, based on the Rijāli data mostly provided by Najjāshī’s, it is clarified that fifteen of them are among the trustworthy people. Regarding the accusation of being a ghālī, given his narrations contained in the Shiite hadith collections, in accordance with prevalent reading of ghuluw, it has no correspondence with this meaning of ghuluw. Although there are many traditions from ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim on the status of the Imams, divinity of the Imams is not understood from any of them. As for being a liar, given the fact that ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim has narrated hadith from those who were mostly the owners of the book of hadith, he is also acquitted of this charge. In the end, it is concluded that what Najjāshī has stated about ʽbdullāh bin Qāsim refers to the period after the martyrdom of Imam Kāẓim, and what Shiite hadith scholars have reported on him dates back to a time before the martyrdom of Imam Kāẓim

The first part of the paper offers briefly the translation of the very entry. The second part deals with the content and structure of the entry. However, the writers initiated the topic with a neat etymology of the Quranic vocabularies but their work is undermined of the following structural lapses: a prelude lengthier than the real body of the discussion, showing tendency toward particular religious groups, lacking scientific objectivity in numerous cases, taking relative pluralism for guaranteed and criticizing the Quranic teachings with these concepts. From the content voice, this article suffers the following points: having less profundity in cognition of the Quranic vocabularies, introducing the Quran as a vague text, having no precise comprehension of the Quranic account on pluralism and neglecting the pluralistic aspects in its accurate Quranic sense. The writer touches all these points and remarks in his paper.