Is the principle "Disparagement takes precedence over commendation" sound, and does it apply only to Hadith narrators?

To determine the correct ruling on a narrator when there is a contradiction between disparagement (jarh) and accreditation (ta'deel), specific steps are followed:

Step One: Ascertaining that the contradiction is real, not illusory, by:

1. Verifying the authenticity of the contradictory statement (whether disparagement or accreditation): That it originates from someone whose statement is acceptable in jarh and ta'deel. That the chain of narration for the statement to the Imam is established. That the transmitter of the expression made no mistake. That the Imam who made the disparagement or accreditation did not err in gathering or differentiating narrators. That the jarh or ta'deel is explained by what makes it valid.

2. The possibility of reconciling the contradictory statements without undue strain, while considering: The context in which the statement was made, as the jarh or ta'deel might be relative (e.g., weakness in one country but not another, or from certain shaykhs, or at one time but not another, or from his memory but not his books). The comprehensive nature of jarh and ta'deel expressions among early Imams, encompassing multiple meanings and ranks. The specific terminologies of some Imams.

3. Verifying that the disparagement or accreditation was issued impartially, and not due to excessive hatred or extreme love.

Step Two: Prioritization (Tarjeeh):

1. Explained disparagement with a clear defect is prioritized, unless the discreditor’s error is evident through successive indications. 2. Unspecified disparagement is prioritized over accreditation, as it is assumed to be based on knowledge. 3. Accreditation can be prioritized over unspecified disparagement when there are indications of the strength of the accreditation, such as the large number of accreditors, the prominence of the accreditor, their impartiality, their contemporaneity or shared locale with the subject, and the strength and clarity of the accreditation statement.

Step Three: Suspension (Tawqif): When there is no prioritizer or the statements are equally balanced after being unable to proceed through all previous stages.