Question:Do actual issues of ikhtilaaf among the ’Ulama in jarh wa’t-ta’deel of personalities, or when they speak about other, have regulations of issues of fiqh or ijtihaad? Is open-heartedness, avoidance of abuse of the one who erred and holding him in the best of possibilities to be applied, along with looking into what he said to correct it or hold it as incorrect not to abuse him and tabdee’ of him? Answer: All praise is due to Allaah and may peace and blessings be upon the one who he sent as a mercy to the believers, upon his family, companions till the Last Day, to proceed: I say: the ’Ulama in jarh wa’t-ta’deel, or in the speech of some of them about others, is an issue of ijtihad which can be either correct or incorrect. The mujtahid is rewarded for his ijtihaad and if he errs then he has one reward, so he is rewarded in any case and sin is raised from him based on what was stated by the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wassallam): “If a judge makes a ruling and strives and turns out to be correct then he has two rewards but if he errs then he has one reward.” This is based on what was mentioned in the question about being open-hearted and not cursing the opposer and considering him in the best of possibilities. Because the foundation with the ’Ulama is that they are people of justice and fairness yet abuse based on desires could emanate from them due to desires and this is not to be taken into consideration and infallibility is for Allaah. Imam adh-Dhahabee said: We neither claim that the Imaams of Jarh wa’t-Ta’deel are infallible and free from making occasional mistakes, nor that they are free from speaking with harshness with people they have enmity and antagonism with. For it is known that much speech of the contemporaries about each other within disputes is not to be taken into consideration. This is all the more the case when a man (who a scholar disputes with) has been deemed as credible by a group (of scholars) who are fair in their speech. Ref: Adh-Dhahabee, Siyaar A’laam un-Nubalaa’, vol.7, pp.40-41 Imam Adh-Dhahabee also said in another work: When contemporaries speak (ill) about each other that is not to be taken into consideration especially when it is apparent to you that there is enmity between them or madhdhab partisanship involved or envy of one over the other, and none is saved from this except the one who Allaah protects. I do not know of any era where people have been free from this except the era of the Prophets and the truthful, and if I wanted to I could mention books on this. Ref: Adh-Dhahabee, Meezaan ul-I’tidaal, vol.1, p.111 Imam Ibn ’AbdulBarr (rahimahullaah) said: Whoever is trusted as being credible, is confirmed as being safe in regards to knowledge and his credibility and concern with knowledge is apparent – then the statement of anyone regarding him is not to be given any attention unless he comes with clear evidence and fairness in his jarh which authenticates his jarh via testimonies which have observations and conclusive evidence. Ref: Ibn ’AbdulBarr, Jaami’ ul-Bayaan ul-’Ilm wa Fadlihi, vol.2, p.152. With this then it is not befitting to understand the principle of: “The jarh takes precedence over the commendation” In the absolute sense so that it (this principal makes a person) reject the other principle of: “The speech of contemporaries about each other is put aside and not to be mentioned” Because what is correct is that if his jarh is not based on clear and credible evidence his (the scholar being spoken about) credibility remains established especially if there are many others praising him while those criticising him are a few. At-Taaj as-Subkee said: There has to be utmost caution against understanding the principle ‘the jarh takes precedence over the commendation’ in the absolute sense. Rather it is correct that whoever’s (religious) leadership and credibility is affirmed along with many people praising him while there are a few people censuring him, and along with other factors which indicate that the reason for the jarh on him is madhdhab partisanship and something else – then the jarh on him is not to be given any attention. Ref: As-Subkee, Tabaqaat ush-Shaafi’iyyah, vol.1, p.188 Then he went on and said: We have shown you that the jarh is not always accepted from the one making it and even if he gives an explanation about one who’s obedience is more than his disobedience and those who praise him outweigh those who censure him and those who commend him are more than those who criticise him. If there is any worldly competition, as is found between contemporaries, in this case we do not give any consideration to this speech. Like the speech of ath-Thawree about Abu Haneefah, Ibn Abee Dhi’b about Maalik, Yahyaa Ibn Ma’een about ash-Shaafi’ee and an-Nasaa’ee about Ahmad bin Saalih. If we were to hold this principle of the jark taking precedence over the ta’deel in the absolute sense then none of the Imaams would be free of this as there is not an Imaam who has not been attacked, and those who are destroyed in this… Ref: Ibid., vol.1, p.190. As for when clear evidence and credible proofs are established in regards to his mistake, or his mistaken speech has been shown in light of the Book and the Sunnah and opposes them then his (incorrect) speech is to be rejected. It does not necessitate, based on the principles of the people of knowledge, that he be deemed as an innovator or be judged as having been expelled from Ahl us-Sunnah due to making a mere error in an issue of knowledge. If the one who erred was to persist on his error, or his disobedience is apparent, then in this case the jarh takes precedence over the ta’deel as it comprises additional knowledge. As for when the intent of the one who erred is unknown then his biography is to be looked at and if it is good then his speech has to be taken in a good way (i.e. that he erred and that he did not intend to err) based on when Allaah said, “And the good land – its vegetation emerges by permission of its Lord…” {al-A’raaf (7): 58} Yet if his biography is evil then his words have to be taken upon having an evil intent (i.e. that he did not err rather that is his way of saying such statements) based on when Allaah said, “…but that which is bad – nothing emerges except a little (and with) difficulty…” {al-A’raaf (7): 58} As for when the intent of the one who erred is known but he was ignorant then the Divine Legislation is judged on him and it is obligatory to take hold of the person (to inform him) and he shouldn’t speak without knowledge. Knowledge is that which has proofs for and is testified to with evidence and strengthened with proofs. And full knowledge is with Allaah and our final supplication is that all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wassallam) Ref: From one of the Shaykh’s answers dated 20 Jumadaa al-Ulaa 1428 AH/6 June 2007 CE, it can be accessed here: ferkous/rep/Bb17.php Translated by Abdul Haqq Kofi salafiyyahlondon/jarh-wa-tadeel-is-an-ijtihaad-issue-examining-the-principle-the-criticism-jarh-takes-precedence-over-the-commendation-tadeel-shaykh-abu-abdul-muiz-muhammad-ali-farkoos-al-jaz/
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:38:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015