During the scrutiny of the narrators of Hadith, there is often mutual disagreement among the scholars of Jarh and Ta'dil regarding many narrators, and it is known that the status of the narrator plays a significant role in determining whether a Hadith is authentic or weak. Thus, the authenticity and status of Hadiths become more doubtful.
First Point
In all the sciences and arts found in the world, there is some difference of opinion in one way or another. For example, two doctors may disagree about the treatment method for a disease, or two engineers may differ on how a building should be constructed. However, no one concludes from this disagreement that the science of medicine or engineering is doubtful. Sometimes there is disagreement regarding the understanding or grammatical marks of a verse of the Holy Quran, but this does not make the status of that verse doubtful. Similarly, disagreement about whether a narrator is trustworthy or weak does not make the status of the Hadith doubtful.
Second Point
The narrators about whom there is disagreement regarding whether they are trustworthy or weak are very few in number compared to those narrators about whom the hadith scholars have consensus, whether that consensus is on calling them trustworthy or weak. Therefore, even if it is accepted that this disagreement causes the status of the hadith to be doubtful, at most it should apply only to those hadiths whose chain of narration includes such a disputed narrator. But where such a situation does not exist, the status of the hadith should be considered established! What kind of justice is it to declare the entire collection of hadith doubtful based on this minor disagreement?
Third point
Having scholarly disagreements is not a flaw; it becomes a flaw only when there is no way to resolve these disagreements. Just as in every field there are differences among experts and also known methods to resolve them, similarly in the science of Jarh wa Ta'deel (criticism and accreditation), where disagreements exist, there are also ways to resolve them, which experts in this field are familiar with. Furthermore, to understand these disagreements and determine their level, scholars have established formal criteria, numbering more than fifty. In other words, not every contradiction will be objected to; rather, these disagreements will be resolved in light of these criteria.
This makes it clear that the disagreement in the science of Jarh wa Ta'deel is not merely confusion or weakness but a principled and systematic method of research, which has made the Hadith corpus more reliable and academically robust.
Fourth Point
If there is a disagreement regarding the proof of an accusation against a person, whether the accusation is established or not, can the judge abandon the decision by saying that since there is a disagreement, we will refrain from it? Or is it necessary to decide despite the disagreement so that if the accusation is proven, the punishment is given, and if not proven, the person is acquitted? The matter of a hadith is somewhat similar; in it, a person attributes a statement to the Shariah, saying that such and such was said by the Prophet ﷺ. Therefore, it becomes necessary to decide so that if it is indeed a Prophetic saying, it is accepted as Shariah and acted upon, and if not, the Shariah is declared free from it. In short, there is no alternative but to decide
Reference: Tahrir Ulum al-Hadith by Al-Juday‘: 1/516
.Fifth Point
If there are two parties regarding a person, one opinion being that he is good and the other that he is bad, and it is necessary to make a decision, then a few matters are taken into consideration in the decision:
◄ The status of both parties is determined to see whether they are people whose opinions are trustworthy or if they themselves are disreputable and insignificant. If those who say he is good are reliable and those who say he is bad are unreliable, then the opinion of those who say he is good is accepted and the decision is made accordingly. Similarly, in the case of narrators, the status of those who criticize or praise them is examined and the decision is made accordingly.
◄ If both parties are reliable, then it is examined whether it is possible to reconcile these two statements or not, in such a way that the one who says good is referring to a particular aspect or dimension, and the one who says bad is referring to another aspect, and there is no doubt that a person can simultaneously possess both good and bad qualities. For example, a person may be good in business matters but bad in domestic matters. Similarly, it is possible that a narrator is good in truthfulness (justice) but not good in memory (accuracy).
◄ If it is not possible to reconcile the statements of both parties, then the statement of one party is preferred in the light of evidence and indications, for example, the number of those who speak well is greater and those who speak ill are fewer, or those who speak well are of higher status and rank than those who speak ill, or one party has spent more time with the person and therefore knows him better, etc. Exactly the same criteria are observed regarding criticism and accreditation of the narrator
Reference: Tahrir Ulum al-Hadith by Al-Judai: 1/518 – 540
.Sixth Point
It should also be kept in mind that those who critique narrators were not ordinary individuals; rather, Jarh and Ta'dil is a specialized and precise science, in which only the opinions of critics who meet the conditions of this discipline are considered valid. It is essential for them to be familiar with the circumstances of the narrators and their teachers, to thoroughly understand the terms of Jarh and Ta'dil and their levels, to have a deep insight into the conditions of the narrators, not to be themselves flawed, and to be free from all kinds of innovation, bias, and personal inclinations. Furthermore, they must possess understanding and intelligence, and have the ability to reach conclusions after deep research and subtle analysis. The Jarh and Ta'dil of individuals who meet these conditions is accepted by the Muhaddithin. This clarifies the fact that differences in Jarh and Ta'dil do not cast doubt on the authenticity of Hadith; rather, this science, due to its scholarly depth and principled balance, makes the corpus of Hadith stronger and more reliable.
It is clear from all the above that since the knowledge of Jarh and Ta'dil (criticism and praise) pertains to forming opinions about individuals and evaluating them, the scholars have used rules and regulations in this regard that are not only rational, logical, and extremely precise but are also used in our daily lives. Therefore, to dismiss these rules and regulations as mere personal efforts is sheer ignorance and injustice.
