Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), vol. 2, p. 296
Why do differences occur in ʿIlm al-Rijāl (the science of narrator evaluation)?
Clarification of the question:
The questioner asks — Since ʿIlm al-Rijāl is now fully compiled and documented, with no room for addition or subtraction, and the details about weak, ṣaḥīḥ, and ḥasan narrations are well recorded, then why do scholars — even within the same school of thought — have differing opinions on the same narration? If a narration is truly weak, its weakness is detailed in the books of ʿIlm al-Rijāl, and the same applies to ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan aḥādīth. So why is there still disagreement in jarḥ wa-taʿdīl (criticism and praise) and acceptance or rejection?
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
Even though the details of narrators are preserved in the books of ʿIlm al-Rijāl, one of the primary causes of differences is taqleed. This becomes clear through various examples:
Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (Deobandī) admitted to accepting a certain ḥadīth as strong, yet he spent fourteen years thinking of a response to it:
Dars al-Tirmidhī, vol. 2, p. 224; al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī; Maʿārif al-Sunan; Fayḍ al-Bārī, vol. 2, p. 375
Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī (Deobandī) wrote:
“Nevertheless, our fatwā and practice will remain according to the saying of our Imām, because we are his muqallid. For the muqallid, the statement of the Imām is binding, not the four evidences, for deriving proofs is the duty of a mujtahid.”
Irshād al-Qārī ilā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, p. 412
Maḥmūd Ḥasan (Deobandī) clearly stated:
“Truth and fairness dictate that in this issue, Imām al-Shāfiʿī is correct, but we are muqallid, so it is obligatory upon us to follow our Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.”
al-Taqrīr li’l-Tirmidhī, p. 36
Qārī Raḥmat Dīn (Deobandī) said to the author in Hazro:
“Even if you present 200 aḥādīth on rafʿ al-yadayn, I will not accept them.”
This shows that if a ḥadīth contradicts personal or sectarian preference, no matter how strong it is, it is rejected — leading to the classification of some aḥādīth as “ṣaḥīḥ” or “ḍaʿīf” purely based on agreement or disagreement with one’s stance.
ʿAlī Muḥammad Ḥaqqānī (Deobandī) graded Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād as thiqah in a narration that supported his view, but graded the same narrator as ḍaʿīf in another narration that went against his view.
Nabavī Namāz (Sindhi), vol. 1, pp. 355 & 169
Amīn Okarwī (Deobandī) said about ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ in a narration that suited him:
“He had the honour of meeting 200 Companions.”
But when the narration went against his view, he said:
“He did not have the honour of meeting 200 Companions.”
Majmūʿah Rasāʾil, 1991 ed., vol. 1, p. 265 (Namāz Janāzah meṅ Sūrat al-Fātiḥah kī Sharʿī Ḥaysiyat, p. 9); vol. 1, p. 156 (Taḥqīq Masʾalah Āmīn, p. 44)
These examples demonstrate that the fundamental cause of many differences in ʿIlm al-Rijāl is taqleed, sectarian bias, and following personal desires. When scholars bind themselves to their Imām or madhhab, they sometimes refuse to accept a narration despite clear evidence of its authenticity. This attitude results in different rulings on the same narration.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
❖ Question
Why do differences occur in ʿIlm al-Rijāl (the science of narrator evaluation)?
Clarification of the question:
The questioner asks — Since ʿIlm al-Rijāl is now fully compiled and documented, with no room for addition or subtraction, and the details about weak, ṣaḥīḥ, and ḥasan narrations are well recorded, then why do scholars — even within the same school of thought — have differing opinions on the same narration? If a narration is truly weak, its weakness is detailed in the books of ʿIlm al-Rijāl, and the same applies to ṣaḥīḥ and ḥasan aḥādīth. So why is there still disagreement in jarḥ wa-taʿdīl (criticism and praise) and acceptance or rejection?
❖ Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, ammā baʿd!
Main Cause: Blind Following (Taqleed)
Even though the details of narrators are preserved in the books of ʿIlm al-Rijāl, one of the primary causes of differences is taqleed. This becomes clear through various examples:
Example 1:
Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī (Deobandī) admitted to accepting a certain ḥadīth as strong, yet he spent fourteen years thinking of a response to it:
Dars al-Tirmidhī, vol. 2, p. 224; al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī; Maʿārif al-Sunan; Fayḍ al-Bārī, vol. 2, p. 375Example 2:
Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī (Deobandī) wrote:
“Nevertheless, our fatwā and practice will remain according to the saying of our Imām, because we are his muqallid. For the muqallid, the statement of the Imām is binding, not the four evidences, for deriving proofs is the duty of a mujtahid.”
Irshād al-Qārī ilā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, p. 412Example 3:
Maḥmūd Ḥasan (Deobandī) clearly stated:
“Truth and fairness dictate that in this issue, Imām al-Shāfiʿī is correct, but we are muqallid, so it is obligatory upon us to follow our Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.”
al-Taqrīr li’l-Tirmidhī, p. 36Example 4:
Qārī Raḥmat Dīn (Deobandī) said to the author in Hazro:
“Even if you present 200 aḥādīth on rafʿ al-yadayn, I will not accept them.”
This shows that if a ḥadīth contradicts personal or sectarian preference, no matter how strong it is, it is rejected — leading to the classification of some aḥādīth as “ṣaḥīḥ” or “ḍaʿīf” purely based on agreement or disagreement with one’s stance.
Double Standards in Jarḥ wa-Taʿdīl
Example 1:
ʿAlī Muḥammad Ḥaqqānī (Deobandī) graded Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād as thiqah in a narration that supported his view, but graded the same narrator as ḍaʿīf in another narration that went against his view.
Nabavī Namāz (Sindhi), vol. 1, pp. 355 & 169Example 2:
Amīn Okarwī (Deobandī) said about ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ in a narration that suited him:
“He had the honour of meeting 200 Companions.”
But when the narration went against his view, he said:
“He did not have the honour of meeting 200 Companions.”
Majmūʿah Rasāʾil, 1991 ed., vol. 1, p. 265 (Namāz Janāzah meṅ Sūrat al-Fātiḥah kī Sharʿī Ḥaysiyat, p. 9); vol. 1, p. 156 (Taḥqīq Masʾalah Āmīn, p. 44)Conclusion
These examples demonstrate that the fundamental cause of many differences in ʿIlm al-Rijāl is taqleed, sectarian bias, and following personal desires. When scholars bind themselves to their Imām or madhhab, they sometimes refuse to accept a narration despite clear evidence of its authenticity. This attitude results in different rulings on the same narration.
ھذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
