Discussion on the difference in the ruling of one of the imams regarding a narrator.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Rather, it is not strange for both of these expressions to come from a single imam. There are many examples of this, which we often see in the biographies of some narrators. Two completely contradictory expressions are reported from the same imam: at times he authenticates him, regardless of the specific wording of authentication, and at times he weakens him, regardless of the specific wording of weakening. The point now is how we can conceive of two contradictory expressions, which cannot be reconciled, coming from a single imam.
This is very easy if you recall such cases in the science of jurisprudence. You find that some imams are reported to have two different opinions on the same issue. The imam among the four who is most characterized by having multiple opinions on the same issue is Imam Ahmad. Does this diminish the value of the imam? The answer is no. What is the basis for these contradictory opinions?
It is a difference in independent legal reasoning, just as we say this regarding jurists from whom contradictory opinions reach us on the same issue. Likewise, we say this regarding the imams of hadith if two contradictory statements reach us from one of them: one authenticates and the other weakens. That is only because his opinion and independent legal reasoning differed regarding this single narrator.
Here, it is useful for determining the stronger position to look at the stance of the other imams. If they joined him in authenticating, we prefer the narration of authentication over the narration of weakening. If they contradicted him in authenticating and leaned toward weakening, we prefer his weakening or the narration of weakening over the narration of authentication. This is the answer to this question.
The questioner : My intention is that the same word from a single imam at the same time, in a critique of a specific narrator, says: "He was prone to many errors," and "He was acceptable."
The Shaykh : This is the answer I gave you. "He was acceptable" is authentication, and "prone to many errors" is weakening. So he said this once and said that once.
The questioner : In the same sentence, O Shaykh, meaning he said it in the same sentence.
The Shaykh : Ah, may Allah bless you. You must clarify. In the same sentence, he says: "He was acceptable, prone to many errors." In that case, one of the expressions must be qualified by the other. Because the word "acceptable," if isolated, gives what I mentioned earlier, that his hadith would be good. But now, the question is defined by the following form: One of the hadith scholars says about a single narrator: "He was acceptable, prone to many errors." "Prone to many errors" means that he is truthful in himself but prone to many errors. And one who is like that is not relied upon as evidence due to the frequency of his errors. So his saying "he was acceptable" here should be interpreted as if he had said "truthful, prone to many errors."
This is very easy if you recall such cases in the science of jurisprudence. You find that some imams are reported to have two different opinions on the same issue. The imam among the four who is most characterized by having multiple opinions on the same issue is Imam Ahmad. Does this diminish the value of the imam? The answer is no. What is the basis for these contradictory opinions?
It is a difference in independent legal reasoning, just as we say this regarding jurists from whom contradictory opinions reach us on the same issue. Likewise, we say this regarding the imams of hadith if two contradictory statements reach us from one of them: one authenticates and the other weakens. That is only because his opinion and independent legal reasoning differed regarding this single narrator.
Here, it is useful for determining the stronger position to look at the stance of the other imams. If they joined him in authenticating, we prefer the narration of authentication over the narration of weakening. If they contradicted him in authenticating and leaned toward weakening, we prefer his weakening or the narration of weakening over the narration of authentication. This is the answer to this question.
The questioner : My intention is that the same word from a single imam at the same time, in a critique of a specific narrator, says: "He was prone to many errors," and "He was acceptable."
The Shaykh : This is the answer I gave you. "He was acceptable" is authentication, and "prone to many errors" is weakening. So he said this once and said that once.
The questioner : In the same sentence, O Shaykh, meaning he said it in the same sentence.
The Shaykh : Ah, may Allah bless you. You must clarify. In the same sentence, he says: "He was acceptable, prone to many errors." In that case, one of the expressions must be qualified by the other. Because the word "acceptable," if isolated, gives what I mentioned earlier, that his hadith would be good. But now, the question is defined by the following form: One of the hadith scholars says about a single narrator: "He was acceptable, prone to many errors." "Prone to many errors" means that he is truthful in himself but prone to many errors. And one who is like that is not relied upon as evidence due to the frequency of his errors. So his saying "he was acceptable" here should be interpreted as if he had said "truthful, prone to many errors."