Regarding Unacceptable Jarh (Narrator Criticism)

Regarding Unacceptable Jarh (Narrator Criticism) ʿAbd al-hayy al-laknawi Translated by Ali Godil [Translator s note: ʿAllamah ʿAbd al-hayy Laknawi wrote this treatise more than one hundred years ago in the context of some ʿulama, particularly those of the ahle hadis movement, using the statements of the early hadith scholars to disparage and declare unreliable certain great imams. This topic is even more poignant in our modern context, because although such discussions were largely limited to scholars and students of knowledge in the past, now every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a broadband connection, upon reading an article, listening to a lecture, or attending a weekend crash course on ʿulum al hadith deems himself worthy of declaring an imam like Abu Hanifah to be an unreliable narrator. As the author so effectively displays, this brashness in passing judgment on great figures in Islamic history stems largely from a lack of precision in understanding the hadith sciences. As in every science, the rules have certain conditions and nuances, and it is not enough to simply read a book on one s own and take a maxim like jarh mufassar is given preference over taʿdil and unleash one s pen on the imams. Rather, this is a complex field that requires training at the hands of a

master. As the old adage goes, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Due to the above, I felt that the following chapter would be particularly relevant to our context and would perhaps deter certain bold individuals from making their tongues and their pens a means of their own destruction. The footnotes are generally summarized from the comments of the erudite scholar, ʿAbd al-fattah Abu Ghuddah s comments on the same text. I only chose to include comments that I felt were essential to understanding the text. For more information, please refer to the original Arabic text referenced at the end of this article.] Any narrator criticism (jarh) that is issued due to partisanship or enmity is dismissed. 1 In light of this principle, Imam Malik s statement regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the [famous historian and] author of al-maghazi, that he is a dajjal 2 (liar) from amongst the dajjals, is not accepted, since it stemmed from clear personal animosity. In fact, most scholars affirmed that he was hasan al-hadith (a reliable narrator 1 Such as mutual envy, creedal differences (including the controversies surrounding the Qur an s being uncreated or its being pre-eternal, actions being created or uncreated, etc.), difference in legal schools, being inclined towards Sufism or opposed to it, etc. What is meant by enmity in this context is beyond merely opining that another person has fallen into error or some sort of reprehensible innovation. If even criticism issued by two people who belong to the same school of thought in creed and law but have a personal dispute is not accepted, then a fortiori, that which is issued by people differing in creed is not valid. 2 To better understand this and other terms used to describe a narrator s reliability, please refer to the chapter entitled Alfaz al-jarh wa Taʿdil wa Maratibuha in Dr. Nur al-din ʿItr s Manhaj al-naqd.

whose hadith would not quite be at the level of sahih) and the imams of hadith relied on his narrations. 3 I have dealt with this issue more thoroughly in my treatise, Imam al-kalam Fi Ma Yataʿallaqu bi l- Qira ah Khalf al-imam. Likewise, al-nasa i s criticism of Ahmad ibn Salih al-misri 4, al-thawri s criticism of Abu Hanifah al-kufi, ibn Maʿin s criticism of al-shafiʿi 5, Ahmad s criticism of al-harith al-muhasibi 6, and ibn Mandah s criticism of Abu Nuʿaym al-asbahani 7 are not accepted due to the same reason. There are many similar examples in the famous books of this discipline. 3 - al-zaylaʻi mentions in his Nasb al-rayah that the majority of hadith scholars view ibn Ishaq as a reliable narrator, including ʿAbd-Allah ibn Mubarak (who referred to him as thiqah thiqah thiqah) and al-bukhari. (see Juz al-qira ah Khalf al-imam) - Ibn ʿAbd al-barr mentions in Jamiʿ Bayan al-ʿilm that perhaps the reason for Malik viewing ibn Ishaq as a liar was the attribution of tashayyuʿ (Shiite leanings) and the rejection of Divine predestination to him. He also mentions in al-intiqa that it may have been due to ibn Ishaq s inaccurate claims regarding the lineage of Malik. - Hafiz al-mundhiri declares ibn Ishaq to be reliable near the end of his al-targhib wa al-tarhib. - Ibn al-qayyim includes a long discussion in which he attempts to prove that ibn Ishaq was a reliable narrator and that the criticism against him is rejected in his Tahdhib Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Dawud. - al-dhahabi discusses this issue in great detail under ibn Ishaq s biographical entry in his Mizan al-iʿtidal and concludes that he was hasan al-hadith. 4 Ibn Hajar mentions in his biographical entry in al-hady al-sari that the reason al-nasa i had a poor opinion of Ahmad ibn Salih al-misri was that the latter refused to narrate hadith to him when he travelled to Egypt. 5 According to al-subki, the preponderant opinion regarding ibn Maʿins statement that al-shafʿi is not a reliable narrator (thiqah) is that he was referring to his nephew, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-shafiʿi. This is evidenced by the fact that ibn Maʿin referred to al-shafiʿi as an imam and reliable narrator elsewhere (Muhammad b. Idris al-shafiʿi: imam, hadhiq, thiqah). In any case, assuming that the statement is authentically ascribed to ibn Maʿin and does in fact refer to al-shafiʿi the imam and not his nephew, then it would be dismissed as an error. (See Arbaʿu Rasa il fi ʿUlum al-hadith, edited and compiled by Abu Ghuddah) 6 This stemmed from their different inclinations in that al-muhasibi was a Sufi and mutakallim (scholastic theologian) Ahmad was a muhaddith and hence, naturally averse to scholastic theology. (see Abu Ghuddah s comments in his edition of Risalat al-mustarshidin for more detail) 7 See al-dhahabi s comments on this issue later in this paper.

Due to the above, the scholars stated, The criticism of one s peer is not accepted. That is, if it is not supported by any evidence, because contemporaries are often plagued by personal animosity. 8 It would be appropriate to cite relevant passages from the writings of the great hadith critics (nuqqad) in order to dispel the attacks of certain corrupt individuals. As a result of their lack of mastery of the fundamental rules and principles elucidated in the books of the Islamic sciences, many such individuals ended up causing corruption in the religion, brought destruction upon themselves and others through their unjust criticism of the imams of the religion, and they fell into misguidance and led others astray through their defamation of some of the senior scholars amongst the righteous predecessors (salaf) as well as some of greatest scholars of the latter period of Islamic history (khalaf). A number of the scholars of our time, although otherwise known for praiseworthy traits, have been afflicted with this calamity, and the masses emulate them in this regard, further exacerbating the problem. Although Allah had granted them the opportunity to study the books of history and rijal (biographical dictionaries), he did not give them the tawfiq to become firmly grounded in the principles laid out by the hadith critics. This lead to their recklessness, haste, 8 At times, being a contemporary can actually lead to bias in favor of the narrator; for instance, if both individuals in question are friends or are natives of the same country and happen to meet in a foreign land, they will naturally have an affinity towards one another and be less prone to noticing each other s faults.

negligence, and belligerence, directing criticism towards the trustworthy imams whose eminence has long been established, based on the statements of their contemporaries, adversaries, enemies, detractors, or those who opposed them merely due to obstinacy or bigotry. Therefore, an intelligent person should be wary of being deceived by such recklessness and from being included amongst the greatest losers in regard to their works; those whose effort goes astray in the life of this world, while they reckon they are doing good work. 9 Al-Dhahabi states in Siyar Aʿlam al-nubala regarding the great exegete, Abu ʿAbd-Allah Muhammad b. Hatim al-baghdadi (d. 235 AH): ibn ʿAdi and al-daraqutni declared him trustworthy. Abu Hafs al- Fallas stated regarding him, He is nothing. (laysa bi shay, meaning he is unreliable) I say: This is from the speech of peers, which is not to be given any heed, for the man is a highly reliable narrator (thabt hujjah). He mentions under the biographical entry of Abu Bakr b. Abu Dawud al-sijistani (d. 316 AH) in his book Tadhkirat al-huffaz, after mentioning his being declared trustworthy (thiqah) by a group of 9 Surat al-kahf (103-104)

reliable hadith scholars and his being declared weak by ibn Saʿid and some other scholars: I say: It is not befitting to accept ibn Saʿid s statement regarding him, just as we do not give any consideration to his (al- Sijistani s) declaring ibn Saʿid a liar. Likewise, ibn Jarir s speech against him is not given any heed. This is due to the fact that there was clear enmity between them, so avoid the speech of contemporaries against one another. Under the biographical entry of ʿAffan al-saffar in al-mizan: The speech of contemporaries and peers requires deep reflection and careful deliberation. Under the biographical entry of Abu al-zinad ʿAbd-Allah b. Dhakwan: Rabiʿah states regarding him, He is not trustworthy. I say: Rabiʿah s statement concerning him should be dismissed due to the clear enmity between them. Under the biographical entry of Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Yahya, Abu ʿAbd-Allah, known as ibn Mandah al-asbahani: Hafiz Abu Nuʿaym directed harsh language and accusations towards him when criticizing him as a result of personal animosity between them. This is not given any consideration,

due to major disputes between them, for ibn Mandah also went to excess in speaking against Abu Nuʿaym. Under the biographical entry of Hafiz Abu Nuʿaym Ahmad b. ʿAbd-Allah al-asfahani: The speech of ibn Mandah regarding Abu Nuʿaym is dreadful, and I do not like relating it, nor do I accept the speech of either one of them regarding the other. They are both acceptable narrators (maqbul) according to me. I do not know them to have any fault greater than narrating fabricated hadiths while remaining silent about them. 10 I read in the handwriting of Hafiz Yusuf b. Ahmad al-shirazi: I read in the handwriting of Tahir al-maqdisi: May Allah distress Abu Nuʿaym for speaking against Abu ʿAbd-Allah ibn Mandah, while people have reached a consensus regarding his status as an imam. 10 This is a very serious matter, because a person may be under the impression that the hadith is not fabricated, because if it were fabricated, then surely, imam xyz would not remain silent regarding it. Due to the hadith related in Musnad Imam Ahmad on the authority of Mughirah b. Shuʿbah, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, Whoever narrates a hadith that he believes to be false is amongst the liars, the scholars of hadith have stated that it is not permissible to narrate a fabricated hadith unless it is done for the purpose of pointing out that it is not authentic.

I say: The speech of peers against one another is not given any attention, especially if it becomes clear that it is a result of personal animosity, partisanship against a particular school of thought, or envy. None is free of this trait except those whom Allah protects, and I am not aware of any era whose people were free of this trait save the prophets and the siddiqin. If I wished, I could compile many volumes expounding upon this topic. 11 The author of Fath al-mughith states: ibn ʿAbd al-barr dedicated an entire chapter to discussing the speech of contemporaries against one another in his Jamiʿ. 12 He viewed that the criticism of the people of knowledge is not accepted except when there is clear evidence for it. If such criticism is coupled with any sort of personal animosity, then it is even less worthy of being accepted. Taj al-din al-subki states in his Tabaqat al-shafiʿiyyah: It would behoove you, oh seeker of guidance, to observe proper etiquette with the past imams and not to pay any attention to their criticisms against one another unless they are supported with clear proof. Therefore, if you are able to give an alternate 11 To put things into perspective, the reader should be aware of al-dhahabi s encyclopedic knowledge of ʿilm al-rijal. His expertise was such that Hafiz ibn Hajar would supplicate to Allah upon drinking Zamzam water to attain his rank. 12 i.e. Jamiʿ Bayan al-ʿilm wa Fadlih

explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favorable manner, then do so. If that is not possible, then disregard it and move on, for you were not created for this purpose. Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not. A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves into the problems that arose between the early scholars. You must beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-thawri, Malik and ibn Abi Dhi b, Ahmad b. Salih and al-nasa i, Ahmad b. Hanbal and al- Harith al-muhasibi, etc., all the way until the time of al-ʿizz b. ʿAbd al-salam and al-taqi b. al-salah. If you occupy yourself with such matters, then I fear for your ruin, for those men are from amongst the most eminent of imams. Their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have properly understood, so our only responsibility is to ask Allah to be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that took place amongst the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them. He further states: One must be careful not to understand the maxim narrator criticism (jarh) is given precedence over accreditation (taʿdil) in an absolute, unrestricted sense. Rather, the preponderant

opinion is that when it comes to a scholar whose status as an imam and whose integrity is already well-established, whose supporters are many and detractors are few, and for whom there is some evidence to indicate that his criticism stemmed from sectarian partisanship or something similar, such criticism is not given any credence. He further states: We have mentioned that a person s criticism is not accepted, even if he explained the reasoning behind it (i.e. jarh mufassar), if it is directed towards a scholar whose good deeds far outweigh his misdeeds, whose supporters are far more prevalent than his detractors, and those who testify to his character are far more prevalent than those who criticize him, if there is an indication that there is an unacceptable motive behind this criticism, such as sectarian partisanship, worldly competition, or another such reason, as often occurs between peers. Therefore, one should not entertain the speech of al-thawri against Abu Hanifah, ibn Abi Dhi b and others against Malik, ibn Maʿin against al-shafiʿi, al-nasa i against Ahmad b. Salih, etc. If we gave preference to criticism over praise without any restriction, than no imam would remain untouched, because there is not as single imam that has not been criticized or attacked.

Ibn Hajar al-haytami states in the thirty-ninth chapter of al-khayrat al-hisan fi Manaqib al-nuʿman, in response to the narrations al-khatib al-baghdadi cited in his Tarikh Baghdad attacking Abu Hanifah: Know that al-khatib s only intention in citing such reports was to gather everything that was said regarding the man, as is the habit of historians, and he did not intend to belittle him nor to diminish his status, as is evidenced by his first mentioning the speech in his favor as well has his virtues at length, then subsequently making mention of the speech of his detractors against him. 13 Another evidence for this assertion is that the majority of the chains of narration he mentioned regarding the dispraise of Abu Hanifah are not free of criticized or unknown (majhul) narrators, and by consensus, it is not permissible to impugn the honor of an ordinary Muslim through such narrations, let alone an imam of the Muslims. If one were to assume that the criticism directed towards Abu Hanifah cited by al-khatib is in fact authentically ascribed to those scholars, it is still not given any consideration, because even if the criticism came from those who were not contemporaries of the imam, they were merely following what the imam s adversaries stated 13 However, al-khatib al-baghdadi explicitly mentioned that when there are differing reports dealing with the status of a particular narrator, then the reports that he mentions last represent what he deems to be the preponderant opinion regarding said narrator, so this excuse does not hold. (see al-khatib s biographical entry in al-dhabi s Tadhkirat al-huffaz)

or wrote before them. Similarly, the criticism is not entertained if it came from his peers, because, as was mentioned previously, the speech of peers against one another is not accepted. This principle was proclaimed by Hafidh al-dhahabi and Hafidh ibn Hajar as well. A Useful Piece of Information: The scholars have proclaimed that the speech of an individual against his contemporary is not accepted. However, this rule is restricted to criticism that is issued without any proof or evidence and stems from bigotry or personal enmity. Otherwise, it is undoubtedly accepted. Keep this rule in mind, for it will benefit you in this world and the Hereafter. 14 14 Al-Laknawi, ʿAbd Al-Hayy. Al-Rafʿ Wa Al-Takmil. 8th ed. Beirut: Maktab Al-Matbuʿat Al-Islamiyyah, 2004. Print.