What is the criterion for preferring one statement over another in the critique and vindication of narrators?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : They conclude with the statements of other imams, such as al-Dhahabi and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in *al-Taqrib*. Then they derive a summary after conducting an analysis and comparison of all the statements. They consider the statements of the moderate imams, such as Ahmad, to be the ones to which reference is made, and these are the criterion. In the end, they may arrive at a result that agrees with the result of al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi or al-Isqalani, or they may disagree with it. What is your opinion of this method?
The Shaykh : The method must be followed up to its end. However, when they reached the point of preference, which you concluded by saying that they sometimes agree with the later hafizs, such as al-Dhahabi and al-Isqalani, and sometimes disagree with them, what did they rely on to prefer what they preferred, whether they agreed with the aforementioned hafizs or disagreed with them? What is the rule? This mere presentation is not sufficient for preferring what they agreed with or what they disagreed with. If they always agreed with them, we would say that the later scholar corrects the earlier one, and that he is more detailed and has better memorization of the statements of the disputants than those earlier scholars. But since they sometimes agree with them and sometimes disagree, what is the rule to which they resorted when they preferred in agreement or in disagreement?
The questioner : They use what is called the analysis of the biography. If they come to the statements of Ibn Ma'in, for example, and they are contradictory, they try to reconcile these two statements. For instance, if one statement is absolute and the other is qualified, they apply the absolute statement to the qualified one.
The Shaykh : This is not the criterion. Let us assume that Ibn Ma'in has one statement, Ahmad has one statement, the strict ones have one statement, and the lenient and moderate ones have one statement. What is the rule to which they resorted and relied upon for preference?
The questioner : They used the rules and criteria of the critique and vindication of narrators: if a criticism and a vindication contradict each other, as is well known.
The Shaykh : Is this it? Did they apply this system?
The questioner : Yes, they apply it.
The Shaykh : This is it. So, if they resorted to the rule after this presentation you mentioned earlier, and the rule is what led them to agree with the hafizs at times and disagree with them at other times, then this is the scientific path to which every student should resort. Otherwise, many beginners in this science say: "For example, you authenticated so-and-so, but the hafiz weakened him, or said he is concealed, or something similar." As if they think that the researcher must adhere to the statement of the hafiz, even though the statement of the hafiz may contradict what came before him, such as al-Dhahabi, and so on. It is necessary to return to the scale, and the scale is: "The criticism takes precedence over the vindication if the criticism is explained. Then, if this criticism, after its explanation, is a valid objection, it may be an explained criticism but not a valid objection". Applying this rule with this precision is the final reference for preferring one statement over another, whether the weaker statement is that of the moderates, the lenient ones, or the strict ones. The rule is the judge in the matter.
The Shaykh : The method must be followed up to its end. However, when they reached the point of preference, which you concluded by saying that they sometimes agree with the later hafizs, such as al-Dhahabi and al-Isqalani, and sometimes disagree with them, what did they rely on to prefer what they preferred, whether they agreed with the aforementioned hafizs or disagreed with them? What is the rule? This mere presentation is not sufficient for preferring what they agreed with or what they disagreed with. If they always agreed with them, we would say that the later scholar corrects the earlier one, and that he is more detailed and has better memorization of the statements of the disputants than those earlier scholars. But since they sometimes agree with them and sometimes disagree, what is the rule to which they resorted when they preferred in agreement or in disagreement?
The questioner : They use what is called the analysis of the biography. If they come to the statements of Ibn Ma'in, for example, and they are contradictory, they try to reconcile these two statements. For instance, if one statement is absolute and the other is qualified, they apply the absolute statement to the qualified one.
The Shaykh : This is not the criterion. Let us assume that Ibn Ma'in has one statement, Ahmad has one statement, the strict ones have one statement, and the lenient and moderate ones have one statement. What is the rule to which they resorted and relied upon for preference?
The questioner : They used the rules and criteria of the critique and vindication of narrators: if a criticism and a vindication contradict each other, as is well known.
The Shaykh : Is this it? Did they apply this system?
The questioner : Yes, they apply it.
The Shaykh : This is it. So, if they resorted to the rule after this presentation you mentioned earlier, and the rule is what led them to agree with the hafizs at times and disagree with them at other times, then this is the scientific path to which every student should resort. Otherwise, many beginners in this science say: "For example, you authenticated so-and-so, but the hafiz weakened him, or said he is concealed, or something similar." As if they think that the researcher must adhere to the statement of the hafiz, even though the statement of the hafiz may contradict what came before him, such as al-Dhahabi, and so on. It is necessary to return to the scale, and the scale is: "The criticism takes precedence over the vindication if the criticism is explained. Then, if this criticism, after its explanation, is a valid objection, it may be an explained criticism but not a valid objection". Applying this rule with this precision is the final reference for preferring one statement over another, whether the weaker statement is that of the moderates, the lenient ones, or the strict ones. The rule is the judge in the matter.