Watering Down of Jarḥ by Dismantling the Principles Set by the Salaf (Part 7)

Sheikh Abdulḥamīd Az-Zu'kari hafidahullāh wrote: Among These (innovated) Principles: Rejecting the Explained Criticism (Al-Jarḥ Al-Mufassir) The Manhaj of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamāʿah is to give precedence to explained Al-jarḥ Al-mufassir over taʿdīl. Al-Khaṭīb Al-Baghdādī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "'Chapter on jarḥ and ta’dīl when both are combined: which takes precedence?' The scholars have agreed that when one or two individuals criticise a person, and an equal number praise him, the jarḥ takes precedence. The reasoning behind this is that the critic informs us of something hidden that he knows, and his testimony is valid because he is offering information about the individual’s true condition, a knowledge that goes beyond the apparent state. The one praising only speaks of the apparent virtue, which does not negate the truthfulness of the critic. Therefore, the jarḥ should be given precedence over the ta’dīl. Muhammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Zarq said: 'I was told by ʿUthmān ibn Aḥmad al-Daqqāq, who said: 'Ḥanbal ibn Isḥāq narrated to us from Khālid ibn Khudāsh, who said: I heard Ḥammād ibn Zayd say: A man would come to us from the regions and speak about a person, praising him and speaking well of him. When we asked the people of his hometown, they would tell us something different. He used to say: «بلديُّ الرجل أعرف بالرجل» 'The people of the man's town know him best.' I said: When they had additional knowledge of his state that the outsider did not have, Ḥammād set their knowledge of his criticism as a criterion that should take precedence over what the outsider said about his apparent integrity.'" [Al-Kifāyah, p. 175-176] Al-Hafidh (may Allāh have mercy on him) in the introduction to Lisan Al-Mizan (1/95) after mentioning the words of Al-Khaṭīb, said: "Rather, the correct view is to differentiate: If the jarḥ is explained, it is accepted; otherwise, the ta’dīl is relied upon. This is the interpretation of those who give precedence to ta’dīl, such as Al-Qāḍī Abū At-Ṭayyib At-Ṭabarī and others. As for the case where the status of the person is unknown and only the statement of one imam of hadith is available, saying that the individual is weak, abandoned, discarded, or not to be relied upon, and similar terms, then the statement of the Imam is accepted, and we do not require further explanation of it. Had it been explained, it would not have any effect, as the ignorance of the individual's condition prevents us from accepting his report in the first place, so it goes without saying if he is deemed weak. The basis behind the statement: jarḥ is only accepted when it is explained, is in the case where they disagree about the individual’s condition, as we have explained. This is supported by the words of Ibn ʿAbd Al-Barr: 'If the person’s integrity is established, his knowledge is confirmed, and his dedication to knowledge is evident, then we do not pay attention to anyone’s words about him, unless the critic brings a legitimate and fair witness to substantiate the criticism, in the manner of testimony, supported by direct observation, which justifies its acceptance.'" [end of quote] Al-Hafidh Ibn As-Salāḥ (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "If both jarḥ and ta’dīl are found regarding an individual, the jarḥ takes precedence; because the one who praises reports what is apparent of the person's condition, while the critic reports what is hidden from the one praising. If the number of those who praise is greater, it has been said that the ta’dīl takes precedence. However, the correct view, which is held by the majority, is that the jarḥ takes precedence, as we have explained. And Allāh knows best." [Al-Muqaddimah p. 99] Az-Zarkashī (may Allāh have mercy on him) explained: "His statement: 'If the number of those who praise is greater, it has been said that the ta’dīl takes precedence' means that the quantity strengthens the assumption, and acting according to the stronger assumption is obligatory, as in cases of