in matters of doctrine—a phenomenon found in abundance (1), both in earlier and in later times—but no one should issue a blanket verdict of disparagement on that basis, for we have already examined in detail (2) the question of acting upon the reports transmitted by innovators (3).

[When is disparagement given precedence over commendation?]
Disparagement takes precedence over commendation, and a number of scholars (4) have stated this without qualification. Its proper place, however, is when the criticism is set forth with an explanation by someone who understands the reasons for it; for if the criticism is unexplained, it does not impugn a narrator whose uprightness is already established, and if it comes from a person ignorant of those reasons, it is likewise of no consequence.

If the narrator under criticism enjoys no prior commendation, a general, unexplained disparagement is accepted—provided it proceeds from a knowledgeable critic—according to the preferred opinion; for when there is no endorsement in his favor, he effectively falls into the category of the unknown, and giving effect to the critic’s statement is preferable to ignoring it.

Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (9), in such a case, inclined toward withholding judgment (10).