Watering Down of Jarḥ by Dismantling the Principles Set by the Salaf (Part 11)

Sheikh Abdulḥamīd Az-Zu'kari hafidahullāh wrote: [From the innovated principles:] Blind-following in the affair of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl Ash-Shawkānī said in Adab At-Ṭalab (p. 158): "Among the causes that prevent fairness is blind-following in the science of jarḥ wa taʿdīl—especially when there is fanaticism from those who write in this field, as the intelligent observer often finds. For when one who is afflicted with blind-following undertakes this task, the reliable (‘adl) narrator to him is the one who agrees with his own madhhab that he believes in, while the discredited (majrūḥ) is the one who opposes him—regardless of who that may be. If this is hidden from someone, let him examine the works of the ḥuffādh after the spread of madhāhib and people’s adherence to them. The same is found in the books of historians: agreement in madhhab becomes a reason to avoid mentioning valid causes of criticism, and to conceal the reasons that necessitate such criticism. If any of those reasons are mentioned, it is only rarely, and the writer excessively resorts to interpretation, evasion, and strained justifications to negate the possibility that the criticised person is actually blameworthy. But when it comes to discussing the state of someone who holds a different opinion, the matter is the opposite: the virtues are diminished, and the faults are publicised—without interpretation or giving the benefit of the doubt. In summary, their concern when dealing with those who agree with them is to highlight merits rather than flaws, and when dealing with those who disagree, it is the opposite. I do not claim that they deliberately lie or intentionally conceal the truth—for they are above that and have more conscience of Allāh—but love of their own madh-hab has become deeply rooted in their hearts, leading them to assume the best of its adherents. This, in turn, causes the very issues I have mentioned, though they are unaware that this practice is among the gravest forms of fanaticism and most appalling acts of injustice. Rather, they believe this to be a defense of the religion, an elevation of the truth, and a debasement of falsehood—though it stems from heedlessness and imitation. This even occurs among those within the same madhhab, despite their agreement on following a single imam and shared creed. When one of them writes biographies of the people of his school, he extensively elaborates on the virtues of his teachers and students, citing all he possibly can. Similarly, he expands the discussion when writing about anyone to whom he owes some favour. But when he writes about someone outside his group of teachers, students, or companions, he is unjust and biased, shortchanging them in description and indulging in unfair criticism. If this happens despite agreement in madhhab and belief, then what do you suppose happens when there is a difference in madhhab, even if they all claim the same label—whether in belief or otherwise—such as the four madh-habs? Though they disagree in madh-hab and agree on being from Ahlus-Sunnah (generally speaking), and the majority share belief in the Ashʿarī creed, their differences in their whims widen and love for biased fanaticism intensifies. This is plainly evident in the way they write each other’s biographies—especially between the Ḥanbalīs and those outside their school, and likewise between the Ḥanafīs and others from the four madh-habs. Whoever examines that with an eye of fairness will recognise the truth, let alone what occurs due to differences in madh-hab and creed, for such disagreements often lead to enmity exceeding even that found among adherents of entirely different religions. A person of fairness pays no attention to any instance of jarḥ wa taʿdīl that is rooted in sectarian or denominational affiliation.