When Scholars Differ Over The Reliability Of A Narrator, Part 3

Conflict In Grading Men

Should there be conflicting information concerning a narrator of hadeeth, some of whch qualifies him to be reliable and the rest does not, the evidence of al-jarh (discrediting) takes priority over the evidence on al-ta’deel (validating/uprightness). (1)

But if the negative evidence only related to an earlier part of the narrator’s life and he is subsequently known to have become upright and reliable, then his narration may be accepted.

It is important to note that in situations of uncertainty such as this, greater attention will be paid to the grounds/reasons that are given for al-jarh rather than validation (ta’deel).

Although the evidence in support of al-jarh (discrediting) takes priority over that of al-ta’deel (validation/uprightness), but if the number of validators exceed those of jarh (discreditors), then validation may take priority over the jarh.

The safer position, as Ibn As-Salaah points out, is still the first one, which is supported by the majority, namely that jarh takes priority over ta’deel.

Does Reference Have To Be Made When Discrediting A Narrator?

The scholars have differed over whether they accept the jarh (discrediting) and ta’deel (validation/uprightness) without any reference made to the reason thereof (2). There are three opinions n this matter:

Opinion 1) Some have considered specification of the reason required for both jarh and ta’deel.

Opinion 2) Some have considered specification of the reason required for jarh only.

Opinion 3) And some have considered specification of the reason required for ta’deel only.

Ibn Hajr’s View

Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalaanee has held the view that jarh (discrediting) without explanation is unacceptable concerning a person who is considered upright by even a single learned scholar of hadeeth. For once a person is validated, he retains that qualification unless it is set aside by clear evidence.

The Strongest Opinion:

The correct view is that explanation of the causes/reasons is not required in validation (ta’deel), but it is required in jarh (discrediting). This view is held by Yahyaa Ibn Ma’een, Ibn As-Salaah, An-Nawawee, Ash-Shaafi’ee (3), among others. According to Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadee this opinion is the madhhab of all the leading scholars of hadeeth.

It is thus unacceptable to judge a narrator to be weak, or unreliable, without explaining the grounds/reasons of his weakness.

Footnotes:

(1) This difference could arrise, for example, as one Imaam may know of some defect in the narrator which another Imaam may not, hence you could have two reliable Imaams of hadeeth, both of whom differ about the reliability of a narrator.

(2) However, it is generally known that the leading Imaams of hadeeth do not validate nor discredit a person unless they are assured of the grounds of their assessment.

(3) See the previous post for the incident which occurred with Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee.

[See "Hadeeth Studies" by Mohammad Hasim Kamali Pp. 80-95 for more info]

Advertisement