We all know that the ḥadiths used various means of inference in terms of accepting and rejecting
the ḥadiths and the jarḥ and taʿdīl of the narrators. They have certain methods, just like in other
branches of sciences, that they put forward for the criticism of ḥadiths in terms of script and text.
Among the sciences that emerged in this context, there are ḥadith methodology, jarḥ and taʿdīl,
the science of ʿilal al-ḥadith and other sciences specific to the field. However, a group of
contemporary researchers has tried to criticize these efforts to evaluate the efforts of the ḥadiths
in this way. One of the issues that are the focus of criticism is the methods of muḥaddith in jarḥ
and taʿdīl. These contemporary researchers claimed that the studies of the ḥadiths on this issue,
which they approached critically, were inadequate and superficial, that they were affected by
fruitless debates, and that they submitted to the pressures of the political authority that caused
them to make wrong conclusions. To reach the reality, this paper will shed the light on these
claims, review them, and examine their credibility.