It has three branches:

The first branch is its explanation and rulings:

Al Jarh is a description that if it is attributed to a narrator or a witness, his narration shall not be counted and acting according to his narration becomes null and void.

At-Ta dil is a description that if it is attributed to a narrator, his speech and narrations shall be counted.

Is there a certain number for Jarh and Ta dil? It is controversial.

Some scholars said the number of Jarh and Ta dil is not a condition in the narration but a condition in testimony.

Others said: It is conditioned.

Others said: It is not conditioned. However, the first view is the most correct because narration is accepted by a single narrator, so Jarh and Ta dil are more entitled to be accepted by a single narrator.

As for the reasons of Jarh, they must be mentioned unlike the reasons of Ta dil because the reasons of Jarh are controversial and they may be considered Jarh to some people, whereas other do not consider them as such.

As for Ta dil, it has more than one reason, so we do not need to mention them.

Some people said: Absolute Jarh nullifies trust, whereas absolute Ta dil does not confirm trust because people always build their judgments on outward, so we have to mention the reason of Jarh.

Some people said: Mentioning all reasons of Jarh and Ta dil is not required because if the one who uses Jarh and Ta dil is not knowledgeable of Jarh and Ta dil, he is not fit to pass a verdict of Jarh and Ta dil, and if he is knowledgeable, there is no meaning for the question.

The correct view is: The matter of Jarh and Ta dil differs according to the conditions of the one who uses them, so when people trust his judgment and accuracy, it is enough to mention the judgment without reasons, but whomever is known for his trustworthiness but his knowledge of the conditions of Jarh and Ta dil is not ascertained, he may be asked and questioned.

However, if a narrator is characterized once by Jarh and once by Ta dil, Jarh may be advanced to Ta dil because Jarh is an extra description that was not known to the one who passed the verdict of Ta dil or even negated it. However, if the person who passes the verdict of Ta dil negates that description, the trustworthiness of the one who passes the verdict of Ta dil is doubted. For instance, if a person passes a verdict that a person is trustworthy and another person testifies that the spoken about killed a person, then the one who passed a verdict of Ta dil said: No, I saw that person alive thereafter; then both verdicts become contradictory.

Some people said: If the number of the people who pass a verdict of Ta dil increased to the number of the people who pass a verdict of Jarh, Jarh shall be advanced because those who pass a verdict of Jarh have an extra description that proves their point of view, so the description cannot be negated by the number of those who pass the verdict of Ta dil.

Ta dil is ascertained by words, by narrating from the narrator, acting according to his narration, or judging according to his testimony.

The highest of these reasons is the direct speech by saying: He is a trustworthy person because I knew him as such and such. If he does not mention the reasons and he is known as a trustworthy judge, his Ta dil is accepted.

As for narrating from the narrator, it is controversial whether it is considered Ta dil or not. The correct view is: People who are known for accepting only the narration of trustworthy narrators, their narrations shall be a testimony of Ta dil to them, otherwise it will not because the habit of people is to narrate from any person from whom they heard, but when they are asked to testify in their favor, they will keep silent.

As for acting according to the narration, if it is possible to say that we act according to the narration as a caution or it is sustained by another evidence, it will not be a testimony of Ta dil. However, if it is known that he acted according to the narration of that person, it will be a testimony of Ta dil because if he acts according to false narrations, he will be lewd and his trustworthiness is doubted.

As for judging according to the narrator’s testimony, this will be more powerful than saying that he is a trustworthy. As for abandoning acting according to his testimony and narration, it is not part of Jarh because there are several reasons for not accepting his testimony and narrations other than Jarh.

Add comment