Salafi Research Institute SRI
Someone shared Imam adh-Dhahabi’s statement as a means of rejecting and ignoring the criticism of contemporary scholars of each other. They and others share the following statement of Imam adh-Dhahabi’s statement from his Mizan ul-I’tidal,
كلام الأقران بعضهم في بعض لا يعبأ به، لا سيما إذا لاح لك أنه لعداوة أو لمذهب أو لحسد، وما ينجو منه إلا من عصم الله، وما علمت أن عصرا من الأعصار سلم أهله من ذلك سوى الأنبياء والصديقين، ولو شئت لسردت من ذلك كراريس، اللهم فلا تجعل في قلوبنا غلا للذين آمنوا ربنا إنك رؤف رحيم
“Do not pay attention to the criticism of contemporaries, especially if it seems to be based on hatred, Madhhabs (juristic or doctrinal differences), or jealousy. Only those protected by Allah were saved from it. I do not know of any era where people were protected from this, except for the Prophets and the Siddiqin. If I wanted to, I could fill (many) booklets with examples. Oh Allah, do not put rancour in our hearts towards those who believe, our Rabb, Indeed You are truly Kind and Merciful.” (Mizan ul-I’tidal (1/111) Dar al-Ma’rifah, 1382H/1963)
Adh-Dhahabi also mentions numerous statements like this in his Siyar and Tarikh al-Islam. The detractors were hasty and negligent without making effort to examine adh-Dhahabi’s statement in context. If they had, they would not have pounced on these words to support their fragmented view of rejecting criticism on their revered personalities.
Contextualizing the Statement
Imam adh-Dhahabi makes an entry for Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani, Ahmad b. Abdullah al-Hafiz (d. 430H) in his Mizan ul-I’tidal on the same page the detractors copied and pasted this statement from. Adh-Dhahabi said,
٤٣٨ -[صح] أحمد بن عبد الله الحافظ أبو نعيم الأصبهاني. أَحَدُ الأعلام صدوق تكلم فيه بلا حجة ولكن هذه عقوبة من الله لكلامه في ابن مندة بهوى
…
وكلام ابن مندة فى أبى نعيم فظيع لا أحبُّ حكايته ولا أَقْبَلُ قَوْلَ كل منهما في الآخر بل هما عندى مقبولان لا أعلم لهما ذَنْبا أكثر من روايتهما الموضوعات ساكتين عنها
قرأت بخط يوسف بن أحمد الشيرازى الحافظ رأيت بخط ابن طاهر المقدسي يقول : أسخن الله عَيْنَ أبي نعيم يتكلم فى أبي عبد الله بن مندة وقد أجمع الناس على إمامته / وسكت عن لاحق وقد أجمع الناس على أنه كذاب
“No. 438 – Ahmad b. Abdullah al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani. One of the notable scholars, truthful, he was criticised without evidence but this was a punishment from Allah upon him due to his speech concerning Ibn Mandah which was based on desires.
…
And Ibn Mandah’s (d. 475H) criticism of Abu Nu’aym (d. 430H) was abominable and I do not wish to mention it. As a result I will not accept their criticisms of each other and rather both are accepted (trustworthy) with me. I do not know of any censure against them except that they would transmit fabricated narrations and then remain silent. I read the writing of Yusuf b. Ahmad ash-Shirazi al-Hafiz who saw the writing of Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi who said, “May Allah warm the eyes of Abu Nu’aym who criticised Abu Abdullah b. Mandah whereas the people were unanimous on his leadership (in hadith) and they remained silent on what happened while the people agreed he (Abu Nu’aym) was a liar.” (Mizan ul-I’tidal (1/111 no.438).
Then adh-Dhahabi proceeds to mention the words the detractors quoted regarding contemporary criticism. This clearly explains the context, the defining factor was unjust criticism for it to be ignored which came from enmity, hatred and jealousy; not because they were contemporaries. In fact adh-Dhahabi criticises the criticism which was based on injustice and desires – relegating this as punishment from Allah.
We further understand this principle in the words of adh-Dhahabi himself when he further navigated the differences between Ibn Mandah and Abu Nu’aym. When Abu Nu’aym criticised Ibn Mandah, adh-Dhahabi went on record addressing Abu Nu’aym in Ibn Mandah’s biographical entry, he said,
قلت : لا يعبأ بقولك فى خصمك للعداوة المشهورة بينكما، كما لا يعبأ بقوله فيك فقد رأيت لابن منده مقالا في الحط على أبي نعيم من اجل العقيدة اقذع فيه وكل منهما صدوق غير متهم بحمد الله في الحديث
“I say: your critical statements about your detractor (Ibn Mandah) are not taken into account since the enmity between you two is well known, just as his (Ibn Mandah’s criticism) of you is also not accepted. I saw the article Ibn Mandah wrote on the Aqidah of Abu Nu’aym – slandering him in it. Both of them are truthful without any accusations in hadith with the praise of Allah.” (Tadhkiratul Huffaz (3/1034 no. 959) (Da’iratul Ma’arif al-Uthmaniyyah, 1375H/1955).
In the biographical entry of Abu Nu’aym in Tadhkiratul Huffaz he said,
ولابي عبد الله بن منده حط على ابى نعيم صعب من قبل المذهب كما للآخر حط عليه لا ينبغى ان يلتفت الى ذلك للواقع الذي بينهما
“And Abu Abdullah b. Mandah severely criticised Abu Nu’aym from the perspective of his Madhhab (doctrinal or juristic differences) just as others criticised him. Therefore one should not pay attention to that due to the reality (of the differences) that occurred between them.” (Tadhkiratul Huffaz (3/1096 no. 993).
Adh-Dhahabi said while describing this contemporary criticism in the entry of Ibn Mandah in Mizan,
أقذع الحافظ أبو نعيم في جرحه لما بينها من الوحشة، واتهمه، ونال منه، فلم يلتفت إليه لما بينها من العظائم، نسأل الله العفو، فلقد نال ابن مندة من أبي نعيم وأسرف أيضاً
“al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym slandered him (Ibn Mandah) in his criticism of him due to animosity between them, and he accused and spoke ill of him. So, it was not given any attention due to the serious matters between them. We ask Allah for forgiveness. Ibn Mandah who also spoke ill of Abu Nu’aym and he was also excessive in this.” (Mizan ul-I’tidal (3/479 no.7213).
This is the true context of the criticism of contemporaries, when both Imam Abu Nu’aym and Imam Ibn Mandah were impressive Imams and pioneer traditionalists and the criticism between them was based on personal reasons. What the detractors did not know, let alone show, was that adh-Dhahabi criticised both of them for their unlegislated criticisms that were devoid of proof and in one instance based on desires.
So, as it is, some people use these statement to imply and derive the dismissive nature of the valid criticism of contemporaries. This principle with the scholars of hadith holds validity in principle and is generally accepted but it is not absolute. It warrants further details, there are exceptions and thus each case mandates individual investigative analysis. Imam al-Bukhari alludes to the extensive discussion on this matter when he said,
“There are numerous statements [concerning] this matter.” ([Juz] al-Qira’h Khalf al-Imam (p.235, no. 133) (Dar as-Sami’i, 1436H/2015)
Therefore, ignoring valid criticism and errors of some contemporary individuals and their deviation from the Salafi Manhaj is incorrect while basing it on this statement alone. Take for instance the argument which some people share – that the era of disparagement and praise (al-Jarh wa’t-Ta’dil) has lapsed – but here they use a principle from that era and apply it to individuals in current times, so, which is it? Are these principles restricted or open to every era?
Hafiz adh-Dhahabi himself clarified in the same book, Mizan ul-I’tidal in the tarjamah of Affan b. Muslim as-Saffar,
وكلام النظير والأقران ينبغي أن يتأمل ويتأنى به
“Critical statements of peers and contemporaries should be considered carefully and deliberated upon.” (Mizan ul-I’tidal (3/81 no. 5678).
Meaning, that such statements are not to be always dismissed in totality but they should be investigated. They are credible if supported by evidence and rejected if based on partisanship, enmity, jealousy and so on and so forth. Adh-Dhahabi saying criticism should be considered and deliberated upon indicates it should be accepted after ascertaining the validity or veracity of the criticism.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani shares a similar view to Hafiz adh-Dhahabi and further clarifies the generality of it. He also advocated that totally rejecting contemporary criticism is not the default position but rather it is to be accepted if supported with clear evidence. He said while discussing criticism by contemporaries (Ahmad b. Salih and Uthman b. Salih),
فلا يقبل قوله فيه أ إلا ببيان واضح
“The [criticism of contemporaries against another] is not accepted except with clear conclusive evidence.” (Hadyus Sari (p. 423) (Bulaq, 1301H), (2/1130) Dar Tayybah 1432H/2011).
From the earlier pioneer traditionalists, was Imam al-Hakim and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr references him in the biographical note on Amr b. Ali b. Bahr Abu Hafs al-Fallas when he said,
إن كلام الأقران غير معتبر في حق بعضهم بعضا إذا كان غير مفسر بما يقدح
“Criticism of contemporaries is not considered valid against each other if it is not detailed or explained which is damaging (to their character).” (Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib (10/166) (Jamiyyah Dar ul-Birr, 1442H/2020).
Meaning criticisms are taken if they detailed and explained through supporting evidence.
These statements of adh-Dhahabi suggests he was referring to contemporary criticism of major scholars of hadith whose trustworthiness and integrity was well established but there was enmity or jealousy between them.
In another example related to Muhammad b. Hatim al-Baghdadi, when he was criticised, adh-Dhahabi said,
قلت : هذا من كلام الأقران الذي لا يسمع فإن الرجل ثبت حجة
“I say: This is criticism from a contemporary, which is not given attention (listened to), for indeed the man was an established narrator and an authority.” (Siyar A’lam an-Nubala (11/451) (Dar ur-Risalah 1438H/2017).
Shaykh Abdullah (Dhiya ur-Rehman) al-A’zami said,
“And peoples nature differ from person to person, one might love a person and accept from them, and hate and despise another. This is where the caution against accepting the criticism of contemporaries emanates from. This is especially the case if the criticism is not based on evidence and proof and if there is enmity, then it is not worthy of being accepted.” (Dirasat Fi’l Jarh wa’t Ta’dil (p.90-91) (Jamia Salafiyyah Hind, 1403H/1983).
If evidence alludes to the criticism being directed due to other reasons such as bigotry, enmity or resentment it is considered unreliable and rejected. If the criticism is detailed [Mufassar] and supported through evidence – it is accepted and valid.
This was also the view of the mutaqaddimin [early] scholars. For at least Imam al-Bukhari this is the case. He said,
ولم ينج كثير من الناس في كلام بعض الناس منهم نحو ما يذكر عن إبراهيم من كلامه في الشعبي، وكلام الشعبي في عكرمة، وفيمن كان قبلهم وتأويل بعضهم في العرض والنفس، ولم يلتفت أهل العلم في هذا النحو إلا ببيان، وحجة ولم تسقط عدالتهم إلا ببرهان ثابت وحجة والكلام في هذا كثير
“Numerous individuals did not escape the criticism of some people like what is mentioned concerning Ibrahim’s (an-Nakha’i) criticism of ash-Sha’bi and ash-Sha’bi’s criticism of Ikrimah, and this applies to people who came before them. Some of the criticism was explained due to biasness and personal motives. The people of knowledge did not pay attention to such criticism except when there was clear conclusive evidence and proof. An individuals trustworthiness would only be discredited with clear and established evidence, and there are numerous statements [concerning] this matter.” ([Juz] al-Qira’h Khalf ul-Imam (p.234-235 no. 133) (Dar as-Sami’i).
Using the basis of this generalisation to dismiss the criticism of contemporary narrators (or individuals) is incorrect. This principle should not be normalised and rendered to be absolute. This would only be the case when the basis of the criticism was due to anger, enmity, partisanship, religious affiliations or scholarly differences. Furthermore, this is not restricted or specific to contemporaries and rather applies to everyone.
A contemporary is like to know more about the affair of a contemporary and it is through this route of transmission such criticisms and information is relayed through chains to the next generation. It is very important to note if this principle is applied unrestrictedly and is taken as absolute and contemporary criticism is rejected then this clearly means the very foundational principles of al-Jarh wa’t-Tad’il is questionable and uncertain. Therefore, applying this principle in generality is contradictory and impossible in the science of hadith.
Furthermore, if were to adopt this principle in general and reject all contemporary criticism it clearly leads to the conclusion that the very foundation of praise and criticism (al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil) is dubious and thus limiting this statement to its generality is impossible.
Shaykh Abdullah (Dhiya ur-Rehman) al-A’zami said,
“On the other hand, there is another point, if the criticism comes from someone who is knowledgeable of the reasons for criticism and is reliable in his Din and piety, then his statements about individuals he lived with, observed, mixed with, and was his contemporary, are more authoritative than others. This is because others judge a person after research and scrutiny, while his contemporary judges him based on experience and practice. Therefore, they said that a student is more knowledgeable about his teacher than others. This is very common in the books of al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil.” (Dirasat Fi’l Jarh wa’t Ta’dil (p.91)
Abu Khuzaimah Ansari
