Watering Down of Jarḥ by Dismantling the Principles Set by the Salaf (Part 6)

Sheikh Abdulḥamīd Az-Zu'kari hafidahullāh wrote: Among These (innovated) Principles: لا نقبل الجرح حتى يجمعوا عليه “We Do Not Accept Criticism (Jarḥ) Unless There Is Consensus Upon It” This principle, though popularised by Al-Ḥalabī and frequently emphasised by him, was actually stated in the presence of Sheikh Rabīʿ (may Allāh preserve him), who rejected it. Nevertheless, Al-Ḥalabī later documented its content in his book 'The Methodology of the Righteous Predecessors', which was previously referenced, where he stated: «ثم موقف عامة الطلبة إذا أجمع أهل العلم على تبديع واحد لا يسعهم أن يخالفوه». “Then, the position of the general body of students is that if the scholars unanimously agree on declaring someone an innovator, it is not permissible for them to oppose that.” Despite this, the statement has become a practical approach adopted by many du'aat—may Allāh guide them—although it is well known that one who possesses knowledge is a proof over one who does not, and the critic (mujarriḥ) holds additional knowledge. If we examine the books of the Salaf, we find that they were not upon this principle. Rather, they gave precedence to explained criticism (jarḥ mufassar), because the critic possesses knowledge of matters not known to others. This applies in cases where there is both criticism and praise. But if there is only the statement of a critic who is qualified in this field, and there is no scholarly disagreement concerning the individual being criticised, then the criticism is accepted even if not explained. They is a disagreement with relation to those cases where there is a difference of opinion. Some have said that criticism should always be given precedence, while others argue that it must be explained. The latter view is stronger, due to the varying causes for criticism among scholars. Is Multiplicity a Condition in Accepting Jarḥ and Taʿdīl? Al-Ḥāfidh Ibn Aṣ-Ṣalāḥ (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: “The scholars differed over whether a single statement is sufficient to establish jarḥ or taʿdīl, or if two are required—as in the case of testimony. Some said that two are necessary, but the correct view, which was chosen by Al-Ḥāfidh Abū Bakr Al-Khaṭīb and others, is that it is established by a single person. This is because a number is not required for accepting a report, so it is likewise not required for the jarḥ or taʿdīl of its narrator—unlike in testimonies. And Allāh knows best.” [Muqaddimah, p. 98] Ibn Kathīr (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: “According to the correct view, one person is sufficient for both jarḥ and ta’dīl.” [ʿUlūm Al-Ḥadīth, 1/290] Imām An-Nawawī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: “The correct view is that jarḥ and taʿdīl are established by a single person; others have said that two are required. When both criticism and praise are present, then the criticism takes precedence.” [At-Taqrīb wa At-Taysīr, p. 204, with Tadrīb Ar-Rāwī] As-Suyūṭī, commenting on the words of An-Nawawī, said: “The correct view is that jarḥ and taʿdīl are accepted from a single person, because a number is not required in the acceptance of reports, so likewise it is not required in the jarḥ or taʿdīl of narrators. Commendation (tazkiyah) is akin to a legal ruling (ḥukm), which also does not require multiple individuals. Some, however, have said that two are needed—as in legal testimony—but the distinction has already been clarified. Sheikh Al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: If it is said that a distinction should be made between Tazkiyah based on one’s own ijtihād and that based on transmission from others, then this would be a valid position. For if it is the former, then multiplicity is not required at all, as it is akin to a judgment; and if it is the latter, then the disagreement applies, but it also becomes clear that multiplicity is not required in transmitted information, nor in what branches off from it.” [Tadrīb Ar-Rāwī, p. 204] [التمييع...فتنة العصر ١/٣٠٣]