conflicting hadiths or indications. However, the correct view is to give precedence to the jarḥ, as we have mentioned, because the precedence of jarḥ is due to

As-Sakhāwī said something similar to this: "In this case, the statement of the critics takes precedence over that of those praising, even if the number of those who praise is greater than the critics. Even if there is only one critic and many who praise, the decisive argument lies in clear proofs and evidences, with the Salafis and their opponents. However, it is stubbornness and obstinacy." [Fath Al-Mughīth] As-Sakhāwī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "Fifth: Concerning the conflict between jarḥ and ta’dīl regarding a single narrator. The majority of scholars have given precedence to jarḥ over ta’dīl, whether the numbers are equal or not. Ibn As-Salāḥ stated that this is the correct view, and this was also confirmed by the scholars of Usool such as Al-Fakhr and Al-Āmidi. Al-Khaṭīb mentioned that the scholars agreed on this point when the numbers are equal, and Ibn As-Salāḥ's stance implies this. Thus, the statement of Ibn ʿAsākir is to be understood: 'The scholars unanimously agreed that the statement of the critic should take precedence over the statement of the one praising,' and this agreement applies even when the numbers of critics and those praising are equal, and it is more applicable when the critics are more numerous." Al-Khaṭīb said: "The reason for this is that the critic informs us of an inner matter that he knows, and the one praising speaks about the apparent condition of the individual, saying that he acknowledges what he (the one praising) has observed. However, the critic has additional knowledge of the individual’s condition, which the one praising does not possess due to his direct examination of the matter. Therefore, the critic's report is given precedence. The report of the one praising about the apparent integrity of the individual does not negate the truth of the critic's statement. Hence, the jarḥ should take precedence over the ta’dīl." [end of quote] Al-Khaṭīb Al-Baghdādī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "Section: If a group of people praise a man and a smaller number criticise him, the position of the majority of scholars is that the ruling should favour the criticism and acting upon it is preferred. A group has said that the ruling should favour the praise, but this is incorrect for the reasons we mentioned: the critics inform us of knowledge about the individual’s hidden condition, while those praising only speak of what is apparent. The critics possess additional knowledge that those praising do not. This group of scholars argued that the greater number of those praising strengthens their position and necessitates following their reports, while the fewer critics weaken their reports. However, this is a misjudgment. Even though those praising may be many, they do not report the absence of what the critics have reported. If they were to say, 'We testify that this did not occur,' they would have made a false statement, as they would be testifying against something that is valid and could have occurred, even if they do not know it. Thus, our point is confirmed." [Al-Kifāyah] Al-Hafidh Ibn Kathīr (may Allāh have mercy on him) said: "As for when jarḥ and ta’dīl conflict, the jarḥ should be explained. Should it be given precedence? Or should the preference be given based on the number of critics or the one who has better memory? There is a well-known dispute in Usool Al-Fiqh, its branches, and in the science of hadith. The correct view is that the jarḥ should always take precedence if it is explained. And Allāh knows best." [Mukhtasar 'Ulūm Al-Ḥadīth] [التمييع...فتنة العصر ١/٣٠٥]