The field of jarḥ[1] (criticism) and ta’dīl (praise) is an important science.
Jarḥ and ta’dīl sometimes occur by:
- Looking at the condition of the narrator in terms of his religion; through looking at his upholding of farḍ actions and staying aways from sins etc.
- Looking at his narrations specifically, supporting narrations, contradictory narrations, and those which are narrated exclusively by him.
The first concerns the adālah of the narrator, thus their criticism is not accepted unless the criticism is clarified and that which is agreed to be a criticism,[2] regardless of whether it is from a scholar or someone else.[3]
As for praise, then praise in generic form is accepted. This is because to detail his praise would require the person to enumerate all matters regarding his religion, and this is very problematic as opposed to jarḥ.
When jarḥ and ta’dīl[4] is combined, then the jarḥ is given preference. This is because the person praising mentions that which is apparent from the condition of the narrator, whereas the person criticising informs regarding those which are hidden from the person praising.[5]
As for jarḥ and ta’dīl in regards to the precision of narration and memory of a narrator,[6] then this is not accepted unless it is from a person who is an expert in this field. There is no condition to clarify what the criticism or praise may be. This is because, the majority of the time the one praising or criticising will need to be presented with all the narrations of the narrator, and thereafter establish which narrations are conforming and which are opposing other aḥādīth, and this is very difficult. Likewise, when it comes to the ḍabṭ of the narrator, jarḥ does not precede ta’dīl, this is because many a time the one praising has a complete awareness of the narrator and their narrations, whereas this knowledge may not be with the one criticising.
A narrator not known for their adālah or being accepted is in need of some form of praise, and this is an intricate issue. As for those who are known for their adālah amongst the scholars, and their praise is circulated, then they are not in need of praise, such as the four imām’s and their like. This is why Imām Dhahabī has not included them in his Mīzān al-I’tidāl.
[1] Literally; to wound, injure.
[2] This is due to their being differences of opinion on the causes of fisq, and whether these constitute criticism. Such as Nikāḥ Mut’ah, approaching a woman from her backside and other such things. For example Simāk bin Ḥarb was criticised for hitting a horse with his feet, which is not a true jarḥ in reality.
[3] This is because it is possible to accept criticism from a non-scholar, such as a just man who is not a scholar saying “He is my neighbour, and I know that he steals”, thus his criticism will be accepted, and it will not be rejected due to him not being a scholar. This is because it is not necessary for a man to be a scholar to know the man steals.
[4] With regards to his adālah.
[5] Such as a wife mentioning that her husband drinks in the house.
[6] Such as one saying for ta’dīl; حافظ ,ضابط ,متقن , صدوق ,لا باس به or صالح الحديث and for jarḥ; وضّاع ,متهم بالوضع, متروك الحديث, مردور الحديث, ذاهب الحديث, ضعيف, لين الحديث, ليس بقوي etc.
