'Ilm ur-Riwayah: Jarh Mufassar and Ta'deel
By Ahmad Shaakir from al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth
P. 96 of al-Baa'ith al-Hatheeth
Note: al-Baa'ith al-Hatheeth is the name of the comments of Ahmad Shaakir on Ikhtisaar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth which is a summary by ibn Katheer on the book 'Uloom al-Hadeeth of Abu 'Amr ibn as-Salaah.
Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer says:
Ta'deel is accepted if the reason is mentioned (or not mentioned) because listing all the reasons would be lengthy, so it is accepted in general form in contrast to jarh, because it is not accepted except if it is explained. This is because people differ over the reasons for one being sinful. So one Jaarih sees something as a cause for someone being sinful therefore he makes him weak because of that, however it may not really the case in reality or it may not be the case in the opinion of someone else. So it has been made a condition that the reason for jarh be explained.
Shaykh Abu ‘Amr (ibn as-Salaah) said:
"Most of what is found in the books of Jarh and Ta'deel is: “So and so is weak,” or “ matrook ,” or similar to that. So if that did not suffice us, then a huge door would be closed in this matter."
So the response to him is the fact that: even if we don't suffice with it we do hesitate about his situation, because of some doubt about him that it causes.
I ( ibn Katheer) say: As for the words of those imams who are firmly established in this science then it is fitting that it be accepted without mention of the reason, and that is because of our knowing their knowledge, their ability, and their excellence in this science, and because of their possessing the attributes of justice, piety, understanding, and sincerity not to mention if they give a ruling that a man is weak, or matrook , or a liar, or similar to that. So the muhaddith who is well grounded does not hesitate a bit in agreeing with them because of their truthfulness and their trustworthiness and their sincerity. So for this reason ash-Shaafi'i says in much of his discussion about hadeeths :
“The people of the science of hadeeth do not place him in a position of strength"
and he will reject him, and not use him for proof, simply because of that. And Allaah Knows best.
__________________________
Footnote by Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir:
( They differed over Jarh and Ta'deel: should they both be accepted in unexplained form without mention of their cause? So some of them made it a condition for acceptance that the cause be mentioned in both of them, and some of them made it a condition that the cause for ta'deel be mentioned to the exception of jarh . And some of them accepted the ta'deel without mention of its cause. And they made it a condtion for jarh that the cause be explained in detail. And that is what ibn as-Salaah and an-Nawawi and others viewed, and it is well-accepted amongst many of the people of knowledge.
And ibn as-Salaah responded to that by using the books of Jarh and Ta'deel as an example because they usually do not mention the cause for the jarh . He argued that making such a condition would close the doors of jarh . However, he was answered with the fact that the benefit of such jarh is that one hesitates regarding the one they made jarh of. So if we research his affair and the doubt is removed, and he is deemed trustworthy, then we accept his hadeeths .
And some of them viewed that it is not necessary to mention the cause for jarh or ta'deel , because the one who made the jarh or ta'deel is well-informed of the causes for jarh and ta'deel – and the differences regarding that – and has insight and is pleasing in his understanding and in his actions. As-Suyooti said in at-Tadreeb (p.122):
“It is the view of al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr, and the majority quoted it and Imaam al-Haramayn, al-Ghazaali, ar-Raazi, and al-Khateeb held it as their opinion, and al-Haafidh Abu al-Fadhl al-'Iraaqi and al-Balqeeni affirmed it in Mahaasin al-Islaah. And Shaykh al-Islaam-meaning ibn Hajr-held a pleasing opinion:
'So if the jarh is unexplained and someone from the imaams of this science have given him tawtheeq then the jarh is not accepted from anyone no matter who he is, unless it is explained, because he has been affirmed as holding the level of thiqah , so he is not removed from that except by a clear matter, because the imaams of this science do not give tawtheeq except to someone whose affair they examine, firstly in regards to his religion, and then in regards to his hadeeths. And they judge him accordingly, and they are the most insightful of people. Therefore the ruling of one of them is not rejected except by a clear matter. But if he has no ta'deel then the jarh is accepted even if it should be unexplained, if it has come from one who is well-informed, because if he is not given any ta'deel then he is amongst those who are majhool, and acting upon the statement of the one giving jarh is better than disregarding it.'
And adh-Dhahabi said about criticism of narrators-and he is from those who had read and researched extensively-
'No two people from the scholars of this science agreed upon giving tawtheeq to a weak person, nor upon making tadh'eef of a thiqah.'
And this is why the madh-hab of an-Nasaa'i was such that he would not leave narrating the hadeeth of a man until they all agreed upon leaving him.” And the opinion which ibn Hajr chose is that which the researcher into ta'leel and jarh and ta'deel feels comfortable with, after refering to the sciences of hadeeth and its books.)
_______________________
P. 98
Ibn Katheer says:
As for if the jarh and ta'deel are contradictory, then the jarh must be explained: but is it given precedence? Or do we give precedence to what is most prevelant or what is most confirmed? There is a well-known debate regarding this from the issues of Usool al-Fiqh and its branches and the science of hadeeth. And Allaah Knows Best.
_______________________
Footnote by Ahmad Shaakir:
(If jarh , in which the cause is clear, and ta'deel are both present regarding a narrator, then the jarh is given precedence, even if those who gave ta'deel are many because the one giving jarh has extra knowledge which those who gave ta'deel did not have, because he is agreeing with the one who gave ta'deel in that which he informed of regarding his apparent situation, but he is informing of a matter which is not apparent and is hidden. And the Fuqahaa' restricted this to scenarios where the one giving ta'deel does not say: I know the cause mentioned by the one giving jarh , but he repented and his situation got better, or if the one giving jarh mentioned a specific reason for the jarh , and the one giving ta'deel rejected it with something that absolutely proves the falsehood of such a reason. As as-Suyooti said in at-Tadreeb .)
P. 184 of Irshaad al-Fuhool of ash-Shawkaani:
“The third issue: the conflict between jarh and ta'deel and combining between them
There are numerous opinions about it:
1. The first: that the jarh takes precedence over the ta'deel, even if those making ta'deel are more than those making jarh, and most of the people held this opinion as al-Khateeb quoted, and al-Baaji, and al-Qaadhi quoted consensus about it. Ar-Raazi and al-Aamudi and ibn as-Salaah said:
'It is correct, because the one making jarh has more knowledge that the one making ta'deel didn't have.'
Ibn Daqeeq al-'Id said:
'This is only correct from the perspective of those who say that jarh is not accepted unless it is explained, and the companions of ash-Shaafi'i have excluded from this the situation in which he is made jarh of for a sin, and another has witness that he repented from it, because in this case the ta'deel is given precedence because he (the one giving ta'deel) has more knowledge.'
2. The second opinion: that the ta'deel takes precedence over jarh because the one making jarh could make jarh for something that is not really jarh, and the one making ta'deel, if he is ‘ adl, will not make ta'deel except after knowing that which caused him to have jarh made of him. This was stated by at-Tahaawi from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, and this must be restricted to when the jarh is unexplained, because if the jarh is explained then the problem that one making jarh is possibly making jarh due to something that isn't really jarh, is not present.
3. The third: that the majority is accepted whether from those making jarh or those making ta'deel. In al-Mahsool, he said:
'If the number of those making ta'deel increases then it is said that it takes precedence over those making jarh,'
and that is weak because the reason for giving jarh precedence is the fact that the one making jarh has some extra knowledge, and that is not negated by greater numbers.
4. The fourth: they contradict each other, so neither of them is given precedence over the other except with a deciding factor. This opinion was quoted by ibn al-Haajib. And in at-Taqreeb ”\ al-Qaadhi made the issue pertaining to the case in which the number of those making ta'deel is more, so if they are equal then the jarh takes precedence by consensus, and al-Khateeb said similarly in “al-Kifaayah”, as well as Abu al-Husayn bin al-Qattaan, and Abu al-Waleed al-Baaji, and Abu Nasr al-Qushayri differed with them and said: the issue is regarding when the number of those making ta'deel and those making jarh are equal. He said:
'So if the number of those making ta'deel are more and those making jarh are few then it is said: his having ‘ adaalah in this case is more rightful.'
End of his statements.
And the truth which deserves to be accepted is that this is an issue of ijtihaad for the mujtahid, and we have already mentioned that the best opinion is that there should be some explanation in jarh and ta'deel, so when the one making jarh explains why he made jarh and the one making ta'deel explains why he made ta'deel, then the better of them and the worst of them will not be hidden from the mujtahid. As for the opinion that the jarh and the ta'deel which are not explained are accepted from someone who is well aquainted with jarh, then the jarh takes precedence over the ta'deel because the one making jarh can not be attributing this jarh to what is obvious from his situation, in contrast to the one making ta'deel because he may attribute his ta'deel to what is obvious from his situation. Similarly the hadeeths of those, about whom the unexplained jarh and ta'deel may have some weight, are not accepted.” Al-Albaani said in ad-Durur (p. 222) after being asked:
“There is a famous principle in the science of jarh and ta'deel and it is that the explained jarh takes precedence over ta'deel, however, with this principle-like the others- if we look at the practice of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb we see that he tries to make reconciliation between the ta'deel and the tajreeh even if it is explained as if he says, for instance, about a man: thiqah. However there is someone who said about him: weak in memory. And that is explained jarh. So he may say, for example: sadooq lahu awhaam (“truthful, he has mistakes”). So he combines both statements. Or sometimes he will say: sadooq rubbamaa waham (“truthful, sometimes he makes mistakes”). So is the principle that we see in the books of Mustalah “the explained jarh takes precendence over ta'deel” to be taken absolutely or do we not use this principle in some cases, and the researcher must combine between the jarh and the ta'deel, even if it is explained jarh?”
So he said:
“It is like this, May Allaah bless you. It is the last one you said at the closing of your words. And it is what the practice of al-Haafidh seems to center around in his book at-Taqreeb, even though sometimes the correct opinion eludes him. But the principle is that we combine between the words of the one giving ta'deel, this is of course if he is trustworthy in his tawtheeq (grading people as trustworthy), and between the words of tadh'eef, if both of these statements can be reconciled into tawtheeq. Because it isn't hidden from you that if the jarh is, for example, that he is accused of lying, then there is no room for tawtheeq in this case. However, so long as the statement which we see to be jarh, moreover we see it to be explained jarh, moreover we see it to be jarh that is acceptable, then in that case alone do we try, and so does al-Haafidh ibn Hajr try, and we are with him, to combine between the words of the one giving tawtheeq, or those giving tawtheeq, and the words of the one making tadh'eef, or those making tadh'eef, as much as we can."
Then he was asked: “So is this which you have said to be considered as guidelines?”
He said: “Yes but it is not set in stone like what we say about much that is similar to these guidelines.”
Bookmarks