BENEFIT 453: It is Necessary to Accept Al-Jarh Al-Mufassar From Competent Scholars

Question: May Allāh reward you with goodness. The questioner asks: Based on what you explained yesterday, if a scholar warns against a certain individual and presents evidence for his warning, but other scholars do not agree with him, should we then also warn against those scholars who disagreed with him? And what is the evidence for that from the books of Al-Jarh wa At-Ta'dil or from the Sunnah? This highlights what I mentioned regarding the need to establish and regulate the principles of Al-Jarh wa At-Ta'dil, and the need to hold a course or seminar dedicated to such matters. If a scholar from among the qualified people warns against an individual and presents valid evidence for what he stated, and this is not countered with equivalent evidence—neither in terms of the person making the counterclaim nor in terms of the strength of the evidence—then it is necessary to follow the statement of that scholar, even if he is alone in it. However, if the scholar warns against a specific individual and does so based on what appears to him to be valid evidence, yet other scholars of knowledge and expertise disagree with him—either by not viewing the individual as someone who should be warned against or not considering the attributed matter to be something that renders one an innovator—then we cannot rely on khilāf as evidence!!! Rather, if the one issuing the warning presents evidence, and the one opposing him does not, then the position of the one with evidence is the one to be followed. But if both sides provide similar countering evidence, then the matter must be evaluated based on the standard of tarjīḥ. In such a case, the one who is tested with this issue must strive to determine which view is stronger. If it becomes apparent to him that the warning is more substantiated based on the evidence, not the status of the person issuing it, then he should act upon it. At the same time, the scholars who did not issue the warning are to be excused, provided that they, too, based their view on valid evidence. Similarly, those who follow these scholars in what appears stronger to them are to be excused, so long as their choice is not based on desires or mere khilāf, but rather on sound scholarly principles. This is a significant topic, and I will mention it here briefly. We observe that some students of knowledge argue in such matters merely on the basis of khilāf. When it is said to them that so-and-so has opposed the Sunnah, has committed such-and-such an act, or made such-and-such a statement, and that people of knowledge have warned against him and have clarified the reasons, they respond by saying: “But so-and-so has praised him.” A mere endorsement is not a valid counter to a detailed criticism supported by evidence! If the criticism is substantiated by sound evidence, then we must refer back to what was mentioned yesterday: the evidence itself must be sound, the indication derived from it must be correct, and it must not be contradicted by equal or stronger evidence. If the counter-evidence is of equal strength, then weighing must take place. If the counter-evidence is stronger—on either side—then the stronger view is to be adopted.