THE ISSUE OF TAFARRUD AND NAKARAH BETWEEN TRADITIONISTS AND HISTORIANS (ANALYTICAL STUDY)
قضية التفرد والنكارة بين المحدثين والمؤرخين دراسة تحليلية
If someone from narrators (رُوَاة) transmits a narrative which is not transmitted but only by him, it is called tafarrud(تفرد). Here is a huge argument on the issue of acceptance of this kind of narrarive between early traditionists (المحدثين المتقدمين) and Muslim historians. The early traditionists consider it unacceptable at all unless the narrator is one of most reliable and authentic one; otherwise they have no option to accept it. In contrary, the historians accept this kind of all narratives until there is a narrative which is not supported by internal and external evidences.The early traditionists see it apparently impossible for the narrator to be unique and unparalleled with a narrative, and usually it is uncommon, that is why if there is a number of tafarrud, they call for him (يروي مناكير) or (له أو عنده مناكير). But when the number of tafarrud increases they call for him (منكر الحديث). This is all about early traditionists, but the late comers consider it additions (زيادة الثقة) and accept it if the narrator is authentic and there is no contradiction between his narrative and other valid narratives.The historians look at these additions beneficial and helpful to understand and analyze the historical events, their reasons to occur and finally their aftereffects and consequences. They value these additions unless there is something which is refused by internal textual criticism or external historic circumstantial evidences.In this paper, I have tried to highlight this aspect and both points of view to reach to a conclusion.