How to deal with when we find two differing opinions from one scholar in the critique and vindication of narrators?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : These are the narrators; you will find that one imam has two opinions regarding them, meaning the two are different. They say that regarding the one who is disputed, he is sometimes called trustworthy and sometimes called weak. How can one reconcile between them?
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : Some of the narrators
The Shaykh : I did not understand, but the last sentence
The questioner : How, I mean, can we reconcile between the two opinions of this imam?
The Shaykh : Just as you reconcile between two differing opinions from two different imams, how do you reconcile? Do you know?
The questioner : Yes, I know, the circumstances
The Shaykh : No, the rule is that the critique is taken, so it is given precedence over the vindication. Excuse me, is your question jurisprudential or hadith-related?
The questioner :-related
The Shaykh : Yes, that is the answer, it is clear
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, do we give precedence to the critique absolutely, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : No, no, the critique whose cause is made explicit is given precedence. And this is not sufficient; rather, it must be that the explicit cause, after its explanation, is in itself a critique, and that it is not in itself non-critical, and that it is not a critique for this cause. For example, a critique for innovation: so-and-so is trustworthy and precise, but he is, for example, a Murji'i. This is an explicit critique, but is this critique acceptable for this cause? The answer is no. So not every explicit or explained critique is an acceptable critique. Just as we deal with two differing opinions issued by two imams, so we deal with the two opinions issued by one imam with the same measure. Please proceed.
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : Some of the narrators
The Shaykh : I did not understand, but the last sentence
The questioner : How, I mean, can we reconcile between the two opinions of this imam?
The Shaykh : Just as you reconcile between two differing opinions from two different imams, how do you reconcile? Do you know?
The questioner : Yes, I know, the circumstances
The Shaykh : No, the rule is that the critique is taken, so it is given precedence over the vindication. Excuse me, is your question jurisprudential or hadith-related?
The questioner :-related
The Shaykh : Yes, that is the answer, it is clear
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, do we give precedence to the critique absolutely, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : No, no, the critique whose cause is made explicit is given precedence. And this is not sufficient; rather, it must be that the explicit cause, after its explanation, is in itself a critique, and that it is not in itself non-critical, and that it is not a critique for this cause. For example, a critique for innovation: so-and-so is trustworthy and precise, but he is, for example, a Murji'i. This is an explicit critique, but is this critique acceptable for this cause? The answer is no. So not every explicit or explained critique is an acceptable critique. Just as we deal with two differing opinions issued by two imams, so we deal with the two opinions issued by one imam with the same measure. Please proceed.