Which Position to Take When Two People Oppose In Disparagement & Praise?

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alī Ādam al-Ethiopī رحمه الله said:

"Regarding the Explanation of the Conflict Between Criticism (Jarḥ) and Praise (Ta‘dīl) and Related Matters

Scholars have differed concerning the situation where a detailed criticism (jarḥ mufassar) conflicts with a praise (ta‘dīl). The position of the majority (jumhūr) is that criticism takes precedence, because the one who criticizes has observed something that the one who praises has not seen, given that the critic possesses greater knowledge. Among them, the one with more knowledge is deemed superior. However, some have given precedence to the side with the greater number (of opinions), while others have prioritized the one with better memory (aḥfaẓ) without any objection. Yet others have ruled that a conflict exists, necessitating a process of weighing (tarjīḥ) to resolve the opposition. The most sound opinion is that detailed criticism (jarḥ mufassar) takes precedence, though this is qualified by the condition that it adheres to the established principles (ḍawābiṭ). This is because it is supported by evidence. However, if vague criticism (jarḥ mubham) conflicts with praise, the criticism is deemed baseless—and this is not an absolute rule either. For instance, the praise of someone lenient (mutasāhil) does not take precedence over the criticism of a balanced and meticulous imam (imām mu‘tadil muḥaqqiq) who has attained what is correct.

I say: The scholars have differed regarding the conflict between criticism (jarḥ) and praise (ta‘dīl) into several opinions:

• The First: The position of the majority, which is that criticism takes precedence over praise. This is because the one who criticizes has additional knowledge, having known something about the narrator that the one who praises did not know, and the additional knowledge of a trustworthy person is accepted.

• The Second: Precedence is given to whichever side has the greater number.

• The Third: Precedence is given to the one with better memory (aḥfaẓ).

• The Fourth: It is ruled as a conflict, requiring a process of weighing (tarjīḥ) through one of the established methods of preference.

• The Fifth—and this is the most sound (rājiḥ)—is that detailed criticism (jarḥ mufassar) takes precedence over praise, but this is not absolute. Rather, it is beneficial in light of the established principles (ḍawābiṭ) of criticism and validation.

As for when vague criticism (jarḥ mubham) conflicts with praise, al-Sakhāwī narrated from Abū al-Ḥajjāj al-Mizzī and others that praise takes precedence over vague criticism. However, this too is not absolute. For example, the praise of someone lenient (mutasāhil) does not take precedence over the criticism of a balanced imam (imām mu‘tadil).

All of this applies when the conflict occurs between two imams."

- Īdāh al-Sabīl Fi Sharh Ithāf al-Nabīl Pg 46-7

Shaykh AbdulAzīz AbdulLatīf رحمه الله said:

"The conflict between disparagement and Praise manifests in two scenarios:

• When they conflict due to being issued by two or more imams.

• When they conflict while both being issued by a single imam.

What is meant by "disparagement" (jarh) here is detailed disparagement (al-jarh al-mufassar).

When detailed disparagement conflicts with praise, and both are issued by two or more imams, the position of the majority (jumhūr) is to give precedence to the disparagement over the validation unconditionally—whether the number of those praising exceeds, falls short of, or equals the number of those disparaging. This is because the one disparaging possesses additional knowledge of the hidden condition of the narrator, which the one praising has not perceived. Thus, the disparager confirms the praiser's assessment of the apparent condition while clarifying the narrator’s hidden state.

However, there are three other opinions regarding cases where the number of praisers exceeds the number of disparagers:

• As narrated by al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī from a group of scholars: Praise is given precedence over disparagement. This is because the greater number of praise strengthens their position and necessitates acting upon their report, as the majority lends preponderance to the likelihood of that ruling being established, while the fewer number of disparagers weakens their report.

• As narrated by al-Bulqīnī: The opinion of the more precise and retentive (ahfaz) among the differing imams is given precedence. This can be justified by the fact that imams are not equal in their awareness of narrators’ conditions generally. Some, like Ibn Ma‘īn and Abū Hātim, spoke about a greater number of narrators; others, like Imam Mālik and Shu‘bah ibn al-Hajjāj, spoke about many narrators; and some addressed narrators individually, like Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah and Imam al-Shāfi‘ī. Among them may be one who has greater specific knowledge of that particular narrator’s condition.

• As narrated by al-Sakhāwī from Ibn al-Hājib: The two (disparagement and praise) conflict, and neither is given precedence over the other unless there is a decisive factor (murajjih). This is because the praiser has the added strength of numbers, while the disparager has the added strength of insight into the hidden state.

The preferred view is that the default is to give precedence to detailed disparagement over praise, but this is not absolute. Rather, it is constrained by the principles of disparagement and praise, as will be elaborated with the help of Allah, the Exalted.

As for when vague disparagement (al-jarh al-mubham) conflicts with praise, al-Sakhāwī narrated from Abū al-Hajjāj al-Mizzī and others that praise takes precedence over vague disparagement. However, this too is not absolute, for the endorsement of a lenient imam does not take precedence over the disparagement of a balanced imam."

- Dawābit Al-Jarh Wa Al-Ta'dīl pg 44-5