The Sciences of Biographical Evaluation (ʿIlm al-Rijāl) and Biographical Dictionaries (ʿIlm al-Tarājim): Historical Evolution and the Problem of Identity Confusion. The disciplines of biographical dictionaries (tarājim) and biographical evaluation (rijāl) were initially considered branches of historical studies. Over time, due to various factors, these two fields gradually diverged from general historiography and acquired independent academic identities. In the eleventh century AH, the science of rijāl further separated from tarājim. Both sciences have historically served as critical tools for identifying religious and scholarly figures.
However, with the passage of time, these disciplines have encountered several challenges—one of the most significant being the phenomenon of identity conflation (doutan-engāri). This issue results in the erroneous attribution of characteristics and accomplishments to multiple distinct individuals as though they were the same person.
This article aims to clarify and critically examine the phenomenon of identity conflation, with particular focus on the case of Sayyid Mohsen ʿArāqī, known as Ḥājj Āqā Mohsen ʿArākī, and Ḥājj Sayyid Mohsen Kazāzī ʿArākī. By analyzing existing sources, the study highlights the importance of distinguishing between these historical identities.
The research begins by outlining the necessity of the discussion and emphasizing the importance of historical identity differentiation. The methodology is based on both classical and contemporary sources that contribute to the accurate separation of the individuals under investigation.
Findings of this study demonstrate that each of these figures possesses a distinct identity, yet due to similarities in name, they have often been mistakenly conflated into a single individual. In its concluding section, the article critiques traditional biographical writing (tarājim) and presents evidence to substantiate its claims, illustrating how some historical sources have erroneously merged these two figures, effectively reducing four individuals to two.
The ultimate objective of this article is to correct and clarify scholarly identities within the fields of tarājim and rijāl, thereby preventing the recurrence of such misidentifications in future scholarship.