Briefly explaining the different sayings on the underlying conditions in accepting a jarh or ta’deel

The Acceptance of Jarh and Ta’deel if it is Done with Explanation or Without

Meaning, if the person who does Jarh or Ta’deel, is it a must that he must explains his position, without him giving the reasons why.

Taken from the book ‘Principles in Jarh wa Ta’deel’ by Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Muhammad Abdul-Lateef [May Allaah have Mercy on him], (Pg. 53-56).

Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Raheem al-Bukhaaree [May Allaah Preserve him] said in explaining this;

The person doing Jarh or Ta’deel can do either of the following;

Tafseer; this is when he gives the reason for Jarh or Ta’deel

Mubham; this means there is no reason given for his Jarh or Ta’deel

The author continues;

The scholars differed on the conditions of one giving Tafseer of the Jarh or Ta’deel he does, there are five opinions;

1) The majority of the scholars say that if one give Ta’deel without explanation then this is accepted however Jarh must be given with explanation.

This has been mentioned in Fath al-Mugheeth by Shakhaawee, ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth and al-Kifaayah of Khateeb where he has a chapter called, ‘The Chapter; Does Jarh need explaining or not’. He mentions in there the statement of at-Tabaree who said, “Jarh can only be taken if it comes with explanation, this is the way of the scholars like Bukhaaree, Muslim, Aboo Dawood and others.”

The author continued to mentioned that the ways of Ta’deel are many however when it comes to Jarh then we must be certain before we dispraise the person and leave him, there should be no doubt in this.

Similar was also mentioned by as-Shakaawee in Fath al-Mugheeth.

The author then states that the causes of Jarh differ, one may have Jarh in a matter of ‘Aqeedah, for example, but the Jarh has nothing to do with the topic that you are concerned with. Especially if the person doing the Jarh is harsh and strict, so he may do Jarh of a narrator but in actual fact it is not a form of dispraise for others. Therefore, the reasons and causes of Jarh upon a person must be explained and must be made clear before we take the Jarh from him.

This was also stated by Khateeb and Tabaree.

2) The second view from the scholars is that the Jarh from a scholar may be given without justification, whereas the Ta’deel needs to be explained.

Based on this view, if a Imaam gives Jarh or Ta’deel without justification then we are allowed to accept it, because he is an Imaam. However, other scholars need to explain, because the reasons for giving Ta’deel are various and apparent. So one may be quick to do Ta’deel by looking at ones apparent situation but be deceived by it. However, we are able to tell if one has Jarh on him by looking at his apparent situation, and if a scholar does Jarh upon on him on top of this, then this reinforces the Jarh.

3) The third view from the scholars is that both Jarh and Ta’deel are not accepted unless one explains it.

4) The fourth view is that they are both accepted without the scholar giving the reason.

5) The fifth view is the view of Haafidh Ibn Hajar [May Allaah have Mercy on him]. This is that Ta’deel without reasoning is accepted and Jarh with explanation and reasoning is of types; either the Jarh is general however others scholars have stated that he is accepted and given him Ta’deel then we take the Ta’deel above the Jarh. Therefore, in this state we only take the Jarh if it comes with a detailed explanation.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Raheem al-Bukhaaree [May Allaah have Mercy on him] explains;

In origin or the ‘Usl is that the Ta’deel stand and he is accepted but if there is a detailed Jarh then we take this, so based on this Jarh in detail comes before Ta’deel that is general.

This principle is taken from the statement of Imaam Ahmad [May Allaah have Mercy on him], “All people who have Ta’deel established upon them then we accept this unless if there comes a Jarh upon him which is more detailed in explanation, otherwise the Jarh is not bidning.” [Tahtheeb al-Tahtheeb (7/273)]

Based on this, the scholars of this science didn’t make someone as being trustworthy except if his religion was clearly strong, then they would review his Hadeeth, this is binding for them as they are the most reliable of people in this regard. So we can’t go against the Hukm given on someone except if we have concrete evidence and a reason to do so.

[Tadree ar-Raawee (1/308)]

Another type of Jarh is for an Imaam to do go against the Ta’deel of other scholars by doing Jarh, in this situation the statement of the well known Imaam is accepted above the Ta’deel. Based on this, if there is a narrator and we don’t know his situation, then he is Majhool or unknown, meaning his situation is not clear. Therefore, if there is Jarh against one who is Majhool then we accept the Jarh against him even if he doesn’t explain his Jarh.

[See: Lisaan al-Meezaan 1/16]

Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Raheem al-Bukhaaree [May Allaah have Mercy on him] explains;

This view is very similar to the view of the majority of the scholars, however they added and placed the following conditions;

A-That Jarh and Ta’deel must be done by a scholar, it cant be someone who is unknown to this field. The person doing Jarh and Ta’deel must be someone who is certain.

Khateeb in his book al-Kifaayah said, “The one who has more knowledge of Jarh and is able to explain the reason for his Jarh has precedence over the one who does Ta’deel because he has a more profound knowledge that others don’t have.

B-They also stated that Jarh must be done with a detailed explanation. Imaam Bukhaaree in his book Juz Qira’ah Khalf al-Imaam said, “Many people talk but we only accept based on proof and clarification, and the proof for this is many.

Khateeb in al-Kifaayah has a chapter entitled, The Chapter of Those Who Have Given A Detailed Explanation in Jarh and they mention what the person doing Ta’deel didn’t mention.

C-The one who does a detailed Jarh must have proof.

D-If there is general Jarh upon someone then this takes precedence over Ta’deel even if the Jarh is very basic and general. This is because Jarh that is general is from a scholar who knows and has based it upon something; this was mentioned by Ibn Hajar. The detailed Jarh is accepted even if there are many who have done Ta’deel of the narrator.

This was mentioned by Khateeb in al-Kifaayah, he said, “If there is a group of scholars who do Ta’deel of one and some do Jarh then we accept the Jarh.”

Other scholars stated that we don’t give Jarh the precedence; they stated that the ruling on one who has Ta’deel is accepted even if there is Jarh that is more descriptive however this is a mistake. This was mentioned in detailed by as-Sakhaawee in Fath al-Mugeeth and he stated that the correct opinion was given by Khateeb, mentioned above.

[Taken from the Explanation of the book, ‘Principles Jarh wa Ta’deel’ by Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Raheem al-Bukhaaree]