Rule: "Criticism is not accepted unless it is explained"; is this rule absolute?

The questioner : Another question, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The rule that criticism is not accepted unless it is explained; is this rule absolute? And if a hadith scholar has two statements regarding a person, one of vindication and one of criticism, which one do we follow?

The Shaykh : Which is more serious to you: if criticism comes from one imam and vindication from another, or if both come from the same imam?

The questioner : If it comes from two people, as far as I know, the rule is: if it comes from two people and the criticism is explained.

The Shaykh : What... about the rule, I am asking you: which is more serious and which is more difficult, or call it whatever you like; is it a person about whom both criticism and vindication are reported, or two people, or two imams, to be more precise, one criticizes and the other authenticates?

The questioner : The first one.

The Shaykh : The first is more difficult?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; why?

The questioner : Because the person is inconsistent regarding him; at one time he vindicated him and at another time he criticized him, whereas there...

The Shaykh : And the one who is not inconsistent means it is not more serious; is it the contradiction of one with the other?

The questioner : I mean, in my view, I reconcile between...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, excuse me, I do not like it when... the respondent answers before the question is clarified to him, what...The questioner : or before the respondent digests the question, if it is clear; is the speech clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : Okay; so my question is: if a person is inconsistent regarding a narrator, or an imam is inconsistent regarding a narrator, sometimes authenticating him and sometimes weakening him, this means that this imam himself is inconsistent. But if the vindication comes from one person, he is not inconsistent, and the criticism comes from another person; he is not inconsistent. This is more difficult than that!

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I understood the opposite.

The questioner : So which is more difficult for you; the first or the second?

The Shaykh : I said: the person about whom two contradictory statements were reported.

The questioner : More difficult.

The Shaykh : I asked which is more difficult?

The questioner : I said: this one, about whom two contradictory statements were reported, is more difficult.

The Shaykh : This is what I am refuting.

The questioner : And this is what I said.

The Shaykh : Did you understand me?

The questioner: I understand, yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; now what do you think after this presentation?

The questioner : I did not think of anything, I say: the person...

The Shaykh : Since you did not think of anything, I will answer you. You said - may Allah bless you - : an imam criticized in one narration and authenticated in another narration. You yourself said - and you spared me the trouble of saying it - that this person is inconsistent. Okay; two imams came to us; one authenticates and the other weakens. Both of these are imams, and neither is described as inconsistent. And that inconsistent one is more difficult, and he is inconsistent in his ruling, meaning his ruling is not established and not fixed. So how is this difficult? Because as some scholars say... in some authentic hadiths: they contradicted each other so they were both discarded. Do you know this phrase? Okay; so we say now, as a principle, that this imam has two statements; they contradicted each other so they were both discarded. And we do not say this about the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) because they are more noble and higher. But this imam is a human being who errs and hits the mark. And there is no doubt that in the state of him saying once "trustworthy" and another time "weak," once "vindicated" and another time "criticized"; there is no doubt that he is inconsistent. So his two statements contradicted each other and both were discarded. And this, in any case, in reality, was not what... in this precision of treatment; because the matter is easier than that. But what is difficult for me is your saying: that this is more difficult for you, and you emphasized that it is more difficult than the statement of the two excellent scholars. But my answer now is: let us set aside the statement of the one imam who was inconsistent in criticism and vindication, to return to it later. I think you know if the statement of an imam contradicts the statement of another, one of whom criticized and the other authenticated; there, as you started to say, and now I leave the speech to you if you wish, which is...
...this is what brought joy to me, even if there was some haste, but in any case: , we were asked repeatedly about this issue, and my answer in brief, and I think it will go with you: the rule is that criticism takes precedence over vindication, on the condition that the criticism is first: explained and detailed. And the second condition: that the explained criticism is actually a cause for criticism; that it is a cause for criticism. An example: what the scholars of terminology differed on, the innovation. If a trustworthy, memorizing man is described as an innovator, this is the criticism. Does such a criticism invalidate his integrity, and prevent us from authenticating or grading his hadith as good, at least? I say: the criticism is studied in a - as they say - objective manner. If it is an 'illah (operative cause) according to the hadith scholars, and at least according to the stronger opinion among them; then at that time the criticism is a criticism that is explained first, then accepted as a criticism second. Is it clear up to here?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; the criticism might be - for example - not the accusation of innovation; it might be, for example, that he drank nabidh (fermented drink), or that he listened to musical instruments. And these two issues are disputed among the jurists in the past, and it should not be that there is disagreement in such matters, were it not that human capacity is limited.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... ؟

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He, al-Zubayr, is a tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain) practitioner. This example is better. Some spoke about him regarding the accepted tadlis. This example is actually prior in the speech - as it is said - it has many threads; so he is criticized for tadlis, but some criticized him because he was strict in weighing (goods), this is not a criticism. Everyone loves good for himself, but with goodness of heart from what? The seller, for example, and you know the authentic hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in some hadiths: , so the accusation of Abu al-Zubayr that he practices tadlis, and that is a fixed criticism against him; so this is an acceptable criticism. But the accusation that he was strict in weighing, this is not a criticism. It is a criticism for the one criticizing, but when we weighed it with the evidence of the Shari'ah, we found it is not a criticism; so this is not suitable. With this detail, we say: criticism takes precedence if its cause is explained, and its cause is actually a criticism; then at that time, criticism takes precedence over vindication. If we now know how to reconcile the criticism and vindication coming from two memorizing imams, we return to the one imam who criticized and authenticated at the same time. If there is someone who agrees with him on one of the statements, the answer has preceded. And if he has no one agreeing with him, and we only have two different statements from the same imam, the same rule is applied, and it is easier here, because either we say: they contradicted each other so they were both discarded, or we say: we gave precedence to the criticism if the cause was explained. If the cause was not explained to us, we return to the rule that is applied to all scholars who differed in criticism and authentication. Is it clear? Okay.

The questioner : This statement is understood on the condition that it is not known which of the two statements is earlier or later from the speech of the memorizing imam who criticized, or does it not matter?

The Shaykh : It does not matter...

The questioner : ...with this question, O Shaykh, as it is said: "And the defect of news is only in its narrators." One of those who attended your session in Jeddah conveyed to me that you said: criticism always takes precedence over vindication, even if it is not explained; because it is an increase in knowledge. I said: this statement is strange, and we do not take it until we ask...The Shaykh .

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : So I said: tadlis takes precedence, even if it is not explained, because it is an increase in knowledge. And that you clarified in this that the one who criticized actually vindicated, then when something became clear to him, he criticized. If it were the opposite, this matter would not be straight; meaning it is not straight to criticize then vindicate, but it is straight to vindicate then something becomes clear to him and he criticizes.

The Shaykh : We are on the rule, whether the two statements come from two imams or from one imam.

The questioner : If you say... criticism and vindication, criticism takes precedence and the cause is explained, okay, do we not look at the state of the narrator before we look at the criticizer?

The Shaykh : What do we not look at?

The questioner : We look at the state of the criticizer; perhaps one of the criticizers is strict and the other is moderate?

The Shaykh : We are not in the position of details, that one is lenient and one is strict, whereas we say: two memorizing imams, meaning each of them is in criticism without excess or deficiency. But when other examples come, each has its answer.