Explanation of the Rule: Whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized.

The Shaykh : And whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized. This is like if it is established with us that a narrator was asked about a hadith and he denied it, then he was asked about it again after some time and he confirmed it. In the second instance, he has an increase in knowledge compared to the first instance. This increase is accepted from a trustworthy person, and he is trustworthy. This applies to one individual. The same rule applies to two individuals: the narrator of the hadith who forgot it, and the one who narrated from him before the forgetting occurred in the first narrator. So, if the one who narrated from the forgetful person is a trustworthy, precise person, then whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized, and the denial of the first narrator is not considered, because it is due to the forgetting that overtook him. Otherwise, we would be forced to accuse a trustworthy person for no reason, merely because of forgetting. That is, the trustworthy person who had memorized the hadith. For example, I heard the hadith from you, and you say, "No, I did not narrate this." One of two things must be the case: either you are accused of fabrication, or you are accused of forgetting, or I am accused of what? Of error regarding a trustworthy person. And this is not something they dare to do, because they said, "Whoever has memorized is a proof against whoever has not memorized." Therefore, this phrase is not accepted in its absolute generality.

The questioner : A response to them.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : A response to them.

The Shaykh : Is it a response to them?

The questioner : Yes.