“The majority of the scholars only mandated a clarification when criticizing from those who were now knowledgeable of the causes of jarh (discrediting a narrator) and Ta’deel (validation/praising a narrator). But as for the one who was aware of their causes, then they would accept his jarh (discrediting of a narrator) without (him having to offer) any explanation (for it).

This becomes clearer in what Al-Khateeb quoted in Al-Kifaayah from Al-Qaadee Aboo Bakr Al-Baaqilaanee that he related that the view of the majority of the scholars was:

‘When a jarh (discrediting) comes from a person who does not know jarh, it is an obligation to explain it.’

But this is not required for those who possess knowledge of this field. Al-Qaadee said:

‘The strongest view in our opinion is that no explanation is needed when the critic is knowledgeable (about jarh), just as it is not required for a person grading someone reliable not to explain those statements by which a praised individual becomes trustworthy…’

What we have quoted here from Al-Qaadee Aboo Bakr is the most correct view.”

[Muqaddamah Ibn As-Salaah Ma'a At-Taqyeedi Wal-Eedaah, p.141]

As for placing lights and candles over graves, then this is in itself a waste of money which is forbidden based on Allaah’s saying:

“Indeed the wasteful are brothers of the devils, and ever has Satan been to his Lord ungrateful.” [17:27]

It also resembles the Jews who used to light the graves of their seniors with candles then venerate these graves and preoccupy themselves with that which is not of concern.”

[Al-Kawaakib Ad-Daraaree, 1/316-317]

Al-Aloosee Al-Hanafee said:

“I have seen those who allow what the ignorant do at the grave of the dead pious such as honoring graves, building tombstones over graves, lighting graves with candles… All of that is opposition to Allaah and His Messenger (saw) and innovating in the Deen that which Allaah did not permit.

[Rooh Al-Ma'aanee, 15/239-240]

Imaam Ismaa’eel Ad-Dehlawee Al-Hanafee said regarding he many forms of shirk and innovated actions that occur besides graves:

“… and lighting the place with candles around it out of veneration and worship…”

[Tawiyat Al-Imaan]

Ibn Hajar Al-Makkee Al-Haytamee said:

“…The Messenger (saw) forbade such things and instructed to destroy such graves and all candles or lights have to be removed from these graves and it is not correct to stand by them or make vows at them.”

[Az-Zawaajir 'An Iqtiraaf Al-Kabaa'ir, 1/195]

Ar-Rifaa’ee stated in Sharh Al-Minhaaj:

“…and the lighting of candles at graves is haraam whether one benefits from it or not.”

[Fath Al-Majeed, p.213]

“Based upon this it becomes clear to us the accuracy of what has been acknoledged by the scholars of our era in regards to the prohibition of wreaking havoc, hijacking airplanes and killing non-Muslims in their lands which is commited by some young Muslims who enter those lands with Amaan (safe-passage and security), in the form of entry-visas (1).

For this is an example of betrayal and treachery, the prohibition is intensified when it is ascribed to the sharee’ah and considered as being from ‘jihaad’, as they claim!”

[Kitaab Al-Injaad Fee Abwaab Al-Jihaad, 1/63-81]

(1) Just to add, Muslims should not be deceived into thinking that 9/11 and 7/7 were acts carried out by Muslims. There is no concrete proof to say 9/11 was carried out by Muslims, nor is there any solid proof to say 7/7 was carried out by Muslims. Please see comments below.

Ibn ‘Uthaymeen says:

“This means that a woman must not strike her feet so as to let it be known what she conceals (from her adornment), such as her ankle bracelets or anything else that she adorns herself with for a man. So is a woman is forbidden (in this aayah) from stamping her feet, for fear of causing fitnah for a man, due to what he hears rom the sound of her ankle-bracelet or its types, then how about exposing the face?

Which of the two is a greater cause for fitnah? That a man hears the sound of tthe ankle-bracelet produced by the foot of a woman, not knowing who she is, nor her beauty nor if she is young or old or if she is unattractive or beautiful. Which of these two is a greater fitnah? This, or that he looks at a woman’s uncovered face that is perhaps beautiful, fair, young, bright, enticing, and which is perhaps beautified with that which attracts fitnah (temptation) and calls for the prohibited look?

Indeed, every man that has an interest in women knows which of the two is a greater fitnah and which is more deserving of being covered and concealed.”

[Taken from "Four Essays On The Obligation Of Veiling" Ch. 2: An Essay On Hijaab, p. 31]

Proof:

Aboo Dharr narrated the Messenger of Allaah said:

“In the intimacy (sexual relations) of any one of you there is charity [sadaqah].“

They said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah (saw), if one of us fulfils his (sexual) desires will he be rewarded for that?‘

He (saw) said:

“Don’t you see that if he does that in a haraam [unlawful] manner, he will carry a burden of sin for that? By the same token, if he does trhat in a permissible manner, that will bring him reward.“

[Musilm & Ahmad]

It is permissible for a man and wife to enjoy each other, and enjoy each other’s body except (a) sexual intercourse through the back passage, and (b) having sexual relations with her when she is in her state of major ritual impurity (menstruation etc.).

A question can be asked here:

‘Is it permissible for her to help him ejaculate in manners other than sexual relations?’

The answer to this is that it is permissible for her to help him in this provided, both are happy to proceed.

Likewise it is permissible for both the husband and the wife to be completely naked when having intercourse, and to see one another. The body of the wife is halaal for the husband and the body of the huband is halaal for the wife. In this regard, the Prophet (saw) said:

“Guard your ‘awrah, except from your wife or your landmaiders (i.e, what your right hands posses).“

[Ahmad, Aboo daawodd, At-Tirmidhee, An-Nisaa'ee & Ibn Maajah]

Another proof for this is found in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) who said:

“The Prophet (saw) and I used to do ghusl following janaabah from a single vessel.“

[Bukhaaree, Ahmad among others]

We also know that ‘Aa’ishah (ra) used to go sleep only wearing her lower garment, and the Prophet (saw) used to ‘fodder’ her upper body, as the narrations state.

Furthermore, it is permissible for both to play with one another in a lovable, and intimate way as the Prophet (saw) said to Jabir bin ‘Abdullah”

“Why didn’t you marry a young girl, so you can play with her and  she can play with you.“

[Bukhaaree]

A name among the early third century transmitters is Hajjaaj Bin Nusayrat Al-Fasaatitee of Basra (d. 214H).

Yahyaa Ibn Ma’een said he was “saadiq (truthful).”

Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him among the thiqaat (reliable).

‘Alee Ibn Al-Madeenee said “his hadeeth is dismissed.”

Aboo Haatim, Ar-Raazee, Aboo Daawood and An-Nisaa’ee have considered him weak and have said his hadeeth was abandoned.

And finally, Imaam Bukhaaree said that many remained silent about him.

[Mizaan Al-I'tidaal Fee Naqd Ar-Rijaal of Adh-Dhahabee, 1/116, 210 & As-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah of 'Umar Haashim, Pp. 100-102. See "Hadeeth Studies" by Mohammad Hasim Kamali Pp. 80-95 for more info]

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]

Who Is/Isn’t Discredited

The scholars have often made brief statements that “so-and-so is weak (da’eef) or abandoned (matrook)” and the like without giving much detail. Brief comments of this type often fell short of explaining or specifying the grounds of jarh, but they succeeded nevertheless in casting doubt on the reliability of their subjects.

Scrutinising Those Lower In The Chain

The higher links in the chain of transmission, who were closer to the source, were given greater credibility and recognition than lower links. The scholars of hadeeth thus tended to scrutinise reports by their contemporaries or narrators of later generations more stringently compared to, for example, narrators who belonged to the taabi’oon or even the taabi’ taabi’oon (1).

What Is A Valid Ground For Discrediting A Narrator?

Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadee has a chapter in Al-Kifaaya in which he elaborates on what is not suitable nor valid to be considered as a ground for jarh (2). Below are some of the reasons why scholars may/may not discredit a narrator:

Bid’ah

Pursuit of pernicious innovation (bid’ah) and indulgence in capricious opinion (hawaa) also counted as grounds of al-jarh (discrediting). When a narrator of hadeeth became known for these, or known for fraudulent dealings and dishonesty in financial transactions, his reports did not fail to be downgraded or abandoned (3).

Forgetfulness

When someone narrates a hadeeth and subsequently forgets what he narrated, this does not amount to jarh (discrediting) of himself and the hadeeth he had narrated is also not effected by his forgetfulness. This is the position of the majority of the scholars of hadeeth, with the exception of the Hanafees.

Charging A Fee

As for a narrator who charges a fee for transmitting hadeeth, some scholars of hadeeth have considered this as a ground of jarh (discrediting). Ibn As-Salaah confirmed this and wrote that Imaam Ahmad and Aboo Haatim Ar-Raazee have also held the same view. According to a minority view attributed to some scholars, charging a fee in this case is like charging a fee for teaching the Quraan, which is not objectionable, especialy for someone who may be in need of earning a fee (4).

These grades were mostly followed by earlier scholars, but some degree of laxity in their application had been noted in the words of later ages.

Footnotes:

(1) Uloom Al-Hadeeth of Ibn As-Salaah, p. 136

(2) Al-Kifaaya of Al-Baghdaadee, p. 109 & Uloom Al-Hadeeth of Ibn As-Salaah, p. 106

(3) Al-Kifaaya of Al-Baghdaadee, p. 156

(4) Uloom Al-Hadeeth of Ibn As-Salaah, p. 119

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

Scholars of this science (Al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel) did not all share the exact same standard for criticising narrators (1). Some scholars were severe (in their criticism), others lenient, and a third group was moderate.

Group 1) Those who were known to be sterner judges of narrators were Ibn Ma’een, Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed Al-Qattaan, Ibn Hibbaan, and Aboo Haatim Ar-Raazee.

Group 2) Those who were known to be lenient when appraising narrators were the likes of Tirmidhee, Al-Haakim and Ibn mahdee.

Group 3) Among the moderates in this regard were the likes of Imaam Ahmad, Bukhaaree and Muslim.

Therefore regarding the same narrator, some scholars might rule him to be trustworthy, while others rule him to be weak, a difference that results from different standards set by each Imaam for his appraisal (ta’deel). In fact, it is possible that two opinions about a narrator might be related from a single Imaam, who at first ruled that he was trustworthy and then learned something that caused him to rule otherwise, and vice versa.

Stipulating The Reasons/Causes For Discrediting A Narrator

Because of partisanship and other similar motives, scholars of this science eventually stipulated that a negative criticism (jarh) of any narrator must be accomplished by an explanation that justifies the claim.

Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer said:

“… As opposed to a negative judgement (about a narrator), for it must be accomplished by justification.”

This is because people differ regarding the reasons for which they rule someone to be weak or untrustworthy; one scholar may have a set of standards for ruling in this regard, while another may have other standards, which is why a negative judgement must be accompanied by justification.

The majority of hadeeth scholars have held that discrediting (jarh) by a learned and upright person is acceptable even without any further explanation as to its grounds, but that such explanation is necessary in the event where jarh (discrediting) is attempted by a commoner (‘aammee).

The Incident Of Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee

It is thus reported that when Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee learned that someone had discredited another, he enquired into the grounds/reasons of his accusation. The man said that he saw the accused urinating in a standing position. The Imaam then asked as to what did that have to do with discrediting the person, to which the man replied that the urine would splash onto his clothes and praying in such clothes became questionable.

The Imaam then asked the man whether he had actually seen the accused praying in those clothes, to which the man said ‘no’. The Imaam then said that a learned man would not discredit another on weak grounds such as this. [Al-Kifaaya of Al-Baghdaadee, p. 135 & Al-Waseet of Aboo Shahba, p. 387]

Based on this it is known that validation (ta’deel) and discrediting (jarh) are only acceptable from persons who are knowledgeable of this subject to a degree that inspires confidence in their ability and insight.

Footnotes:

(1) Some scholars, like Adh-Dhahabee, approved of one category of standards of Imaam Bukhaaree, while disagreeing with him about another category.

[See "The Sunnah, And Its Role In Islamic Legislation", Pp.159-160 & "Hadeeth Studies" by Mohammad Hasim Kamali Pp. 80-95]

“There is no doubt that a woman being alone with a taxi man in his taxi is unlawful. No doubt he will befriend her, which would lead to corruption especially if she is a very shy modest person. So how would it be if the driver is not too religious, immodest and has no shame?! So O Noble Sister in Islaam, fear Allaah The Exalted, and be not lax regarding such affairs such as the people are. What is important is what your deen tells you, not the custom of the people.”

[Majmoo' Al-Fataawaa, 1/152]

This fatwaa is based on the words of the Prophet (saw):

“It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman…“

[Bukhaaree & Muslim]