We often hear scholars say that al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) prioritizes the critique over the vindication; is this rule absolute?

The questioner : May Allah reward you. We are students from the House of Hadith, and some matters in the terminology have been difficult for us. The first question: We often hear scholars say that al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) prioritizes the critique over the vindication. Is this rule absolute? We ask for clarification of this issue and an explanation of the stronger position, along with an indication of how to weigh some of the conflicting opinions.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that what the people of hadith say is that al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) prioritizes the critique over the vindication. However, when they use the word "al-jarh" (the critique), we must not understand it as a general or comprehensive term. The "al" here is for reference, meaning the specific type of critique that is considered a clear critique by the hadith scholars. There is a type of critique that is not considered a valid critique by the hadith scholars. For example, someone was asked why he did not narrate from so-and-so, and he said, "I heard the sound of an 'ud or a tanbur from his house." It is possible that this was not from him; it might have been from his neighbor, as we are afflicted with today when you hear the sound of the radio and think it is from this house, while it is actually from the next house. Or this sound might be from the same house, but not out of the owner's desire; rather, he has a wayward son and cannot, for example, expel him from his house. He sees it in the interest to keep him with him in order to repel the greater evil with the lesser evil. None of this should be considered a valid critique. So he says, "I do not narrate from him; this is my critique of him," but this critique is not accepted. Do you understand? Another example: He was asked why he did not narrate from so-and-so, and he said, "I saw him riding a mule." A mule is a type of horse, meaning that the rider is afflicted with arrogance while riding, just as if he were walking with an arrogant, haughty gait. The nature of that horse's gait causes the rider to move in a way that gives onlookers the impression that he is arrogant. This is what came to mind for that hadith scholar, so he said, "I saw him riding a mule," and so on. This is a critique from that critic, but it is not an accepted critique. Do you understand? So when they say that al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) prioritizes the critique over the vindication, they mean the critique that is considered a valid attack in the terminology of the hadith scholars, not a relative critique. For example, if the narrator is trustworthy and a memorizer, but he is, for example, a Shi'i, though not one of the Shi'is of the last times, but a Shi'i from those who preferred 'Ali over the other caliphs, some might critique him, saying, "I do not narrate from him; he is a Shi'i." But it is established among the hadith scholars that as long as he is trustworthy and a memorizer, his being a Shi'i does not harm him. Many trustworthy hadith narrators who are relied upon were from these people of desires. Perhaps you all know that al-Bukhari narrates from 'Imran ibn Hutan, who is a well-known Khariji. So when we say or read the rule that al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) prioritizes the critique over the vindication, we mean the critique that is considered a valid attack in their terminology. In that case, there is no problem if a critique of this type is established against a narrator, and another scholar has declared him trustworthy. This critique takes precedence over the declaration of trustworthiness. Why? Because the critic has additional knowledge about the narrator compared to the one who declared him trustworthy. In other words, if the one who declared him trustworthy had known what the critic knew about the narrator, he would not have narrated from him either, and he would have joined the critic in his critique. Among the scientific, jurisprudential, and usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) rules is their saying: "The one who affirms takes precedence over the one who denies, and the one who has memorized is a proof over the one who has not memorized." So if one has memorized a critique of a narrator, his memorization and his critique take precedence over the declaration of trustworthiness. Perhaps this clarifies what I was asked.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.