A couple of principles regarding jarh and ta’deel clarified



We ask that Allah reward the brothers and sisters who helped and continue to help clarify. Note that proof from the speech of the Scholars is included


1.When the Scholars differ over someone – – some praising him and others criticizing, then the principles of jarh and ta’deel are applied to this situation, not the principles of ijtihaad


So it is an affair of khabr and not ijtihad. If you read what was posted by Shaikh Muhammad Bazmool here http://salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=11794 from Misleading Statements (about 2/5 down the page):

“Seventhly: It is incumbent to differentiate between the situation of taking the ijtihaad of a mujtahid in a matter of ijthaad, and between following a scholar regarding that which he informed of. For verily following him, if the matter is like this, is from the aspect of accepting the news of the trustworthy, and this is obligatory, except if it becomes apparent that he has erred. In this situation one can not say “I am not obliged to take the statement of this Scholar!ý or ýI am not taking his statement regarding so and so until I hear the error myself”.

All of this is using this statement out of context!


So a person who is well known to you and he comes to you with a detailed criticism from a Scholar who is trustworthy, the origin is that you follow the statement of this Scholar. You donýt say: well I know him, so I’m not taking the detailed criticism until I hear it myself. You do not say this, and this is exiting from the way of the Salaf in this matter. Yes, the general criticism regarding the one whose uprightness has been established is not accepted, and the criticism takes precedence over the praise, except if the one who praises him mentions why he was criticized and refutes the reason [he was originally refuted].” [end of quote]



2. The principle of jarh and ta’deel is that the specific detailed criticism of a thiqah person is taken over the general praise of a thiqah person (if one or both are not thiqah then you must verify – ‘Oh you who believe if a sinner was to come to you then verify it..’ (Al-Hujjaraat 49:6) Also see excellent article here )

Shaikh Rabee said:

معظم الناس لايعرفون قوا عد الجرح والتعديل,وأن الجرح مفصل مقدم على التعديل,لأ ن المعدل يبنى على الطا هر وحسن الظن,والجارح يبنى على العلم والوا قع ,كما هو معلوم عند أئمة الجرح و التعديل

“Most of the people dont know the principles of jarh and ta’deel, and that jarh mufassal (specific criticism) take prcecedance over the ta’deel (praise), because the one praising builds his praise upon a pure and good thought, and the criticizer builds his criticism on the knowledge and reality, as is known to the Imams of Jarh and Ta’deel” (Reference: The Separating Boundary Between the Truth and Falsehood – كتاب الحد الفاصل بين الحق و الباطل )

3.Hearing both sides of the story is used for disputes ( خصومة )


The Shaykh answered that this is only applied in a dispute between two parties (khusoomah), for example if someone comes and says, “So-and-So owes me money” and the likes. But as for when a scholar comes and rules on a person then we must accept it as this is the acceptance of the trustworthy one (thiqah). And it is obligatory to accept the narration of the trustworthy one. For example, he mentioned that if Shaykh Al-Albaanee, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, or Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen ruled upon a person that he was a liar, then this is accepted from them, and it is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to bring the liar to hear his side of the story. So it was with the likes of Yahyaa ibn Ma’een, and rather the Deen of Islaam is built upon this

(Shaikh Rabee – see above link for more info)

4.The (thiqah) person criticizing has additional knowledge that is hidden from the (thiqah) praiser

And Shaikh Ubaid al Jaabiree said:

هذه قا عدة الجرح والتعديل وملخصها:أن من علم حجة على من لايعلم


This is a principle of Jarh and Ta’deel and a summary of it: the one who knows is a proof against the one who doesn’t know” (source is here )


He also said: “So the one who establishes the proofs against the man – that he is majruh – and makes apparent the proof of his jarh from his own books or from his statements and clarifies that he is majruh due to these proofs, then it is obligatory to accept the jarih (the criticizer) and to abandon the statement of the mu’adil (the appraiser), because the jarih has additional knowledge, which was hidden from the mu’adil.And perhaps, we will mention an example here. Rather, two examples…” (read more here )



And Shaikh Muhammad Bazmool said: “What is correct is that you accept the words of one who makes Jarh…because the one who makes the jarh has additional knowledge with him, he has additional knowledge(from the same source as the above link)


5.And the specific criticism is taken over the general praise even if the one praising has more knowledge : http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=23&Topic=1113



6.The person who is ma’roof – known for his uprightness upon the Salafee manhaj – a general criticism is not accepted against him. The person criticizing must bring proof and detail against the one who is known for his uprightness upon the Salafee manhaj.


Shaikh Bazmool said: “Yes, the general criticism regarding the one whose uprightness has been established is not accepted, and the criticism takes precedence over the praise, except if the one who praises him mentions why he was criticized and refutes the reason [he was originally refuted].” (this is part of the first quote mentioned above)



Lastly, an excellent quote from here: http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=6&Topic=3752

Ibn Al-Junayd Al-Hanbali said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma’een say, “If Abu Nu’aym used to mention a person and say, “So and so is sound” and praise him, then he (that person spoken of) is a Shee’iyy and if he said “So and so is Murji”, know that he is a person of the Sunnah.” (Al-Meezaan 3/350).

This Abu Nu’aym, alongside his excellence, noble status and the praise of him by Imam Ahmed and others, then neither jarh or ta’deel was accepted from him, and you can see that his jarh here (in what is quoted above) is relating to ‘aqeedah but it was not accepted by Yahya ibn Ma’een or Ibn Al-Madini or other than them.



%d bloggers like this: