| Author(s) | Abdurrahman H. al-Ekrish |
| Affiliation | Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Sciences, College of Arts, King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia |
| Title | Citations and Sources in al-Fihrist: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis Study |
| Source | Journal of King Saud University. Arts. Volume 14, No 2. (2002/1422) |
| Abstract | This study investigates the reliability of al-Fihrist through tracing al-Nadeem’s citations and the extent of their fulfillment of the elements of reference citations, their historical distribution, and setting them against the rules of terminology scholars. The bibliometric and the content analysis methods were employed. They have shown the rarity of Al-Nadeem’s citing of the works he referred to in his references. They have also shown that his inconsistency in mentioning names in references and his lack of distinguishing between what he says and what he reports to be said has made the reader prone to deception. The juxtaposition of the number of works he referred to or claims to have seen against the number of titles he mentioned did not support the prevailing view that he has seen most of what he referred to or that he defined the manner of reference; or that he was precise in presenting information on the works cited. The study concluded that the reason that caused him not to state the names of those he cited in his direct citations might be that he relied on memory in his recording. And this might be the reason for the paucity of the number of those he determined to have known or seen; or that his social life was limited; or that the Fihrist that is available in this age does not represent the version written by al-Nadeem. Also, his abundance of unspecified sources, which may be the result of his ignorance, or of his knowing them but not mentioning them because of trust in them defies the rules set by terminology scholars. The study questioned the reasons he used differing expressions in referring to the means through which the contents of his citation were transmitted to him and his lack of adhering to what terminology scholars have agreed upon with regards to using those expression, things that may make him prone to deception. The study sees that his confinement in expressing his opinion of his sources to only ninety-five of his 783 citations makes the prevailing view that he generally resorted to proving his viewpoint on what he narrated and judging its merit seems to be in need of support. |
