The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Kritik Matan Hadis Studi Komparatif Antara Al-A'Ẓamī Dan G.H.A Juynboll
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The traditional methods of criticism to the matn of ḥadîths (i.e. muqâranah and mu‘âraḍah) which are employed by the muḥaddithîn are claimed by M. M. Azami to be more accurate and comprehensive, in comparison to the common link method which is introduced by G. H. A. Juynboll. In principle, both muqâranah and mu‘âraḍah work by comparing a concept contained in a hadîth in question to the concept contained in Alqur’ân, Hadîth Mutawâtir, logic, and so on. Meanwhile, common link as a method only compares the wordings of simmilar ḥadîths in question. When the wordings are fitted, the ḥadîths are regarded as ṣaḥîḥ. In contrary, if the wordings are not compatible, the ḥadîths are then regarded weak.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Research has shown that following the death of the Prophet SAW, the companions employed specific techniques to evaluate the writings in hadith, such as the method of muʿāraḍah, which involves comparing a report to other Sharīʿah-based evidence.This approach was particularly used by ʿĀʾishah in evaluating the narrations of other Companions (al-Dumaynī, 1984;Muhsin, 2016).”
From Evolution of Hadith Textual Criticism: From Classical to Contemporary Approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Muhsin, 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evolution of Hadith Textual Criticism: From Classical to Contemporary Approaches
Razak, N. M. A. M., Nazri, M. A., Majid, L. A., Amran, N. N., & Ibrahim, N. S. (2025) · Global Journal Al-Thaqafah · doi:10.7187/gjatsi122025-2 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Muhsin, M.
- Corresponding author
- Masrukhin Muhsin
- Venue
- Zenodo
- Publisher
- Zenodo
- Published
- 2016-06-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-86
- OpenAlex
- W2955270062
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- zenodo.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Holistic al-Hadis
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Islamic Studies
- Keywords
- hadith criticism, matn criticism, hadith terminology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Kritik Matan Hadis Studi Komparatif Antara Al-A'Ẓamī Dan G.H.A Juynboll. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5281/zenodo.1341791
- The paper
- Muhsin, M. (2016). Kritik Matan Hadis Studi Komparatif Antara Al-A'Ẓamī Dan G.H.A Juynboll. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1341791
