If al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) conflict, and the critique is weak, with weak corroborating evidence; does the critique rise in rank, or does the vindication rise in rank?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the question, O Shaykh, if al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) conflict, and the critique is weak, with weak corroborating evidence; does the critique rise in rank, or does the vindication rise in rank?
The Shaykh : How do you mean it has corroborating evidence?
The questioner : I mean for other reasons that indicate the weakness of the narrator's critique, but they are weak in themselves... the first one; does it rise in rank as a whole, like a mursal (a report missing the Companion link) to the level of vindication?
The Shaykh : This is, in fact, something I cannot visualize; do you have any examples of this?
The questioner : If a set of reasons is mentioned regarding a narrator.
The Shaykh : No, ... do you have an example of this question?
The questioner : The example of critique in a narrator is that there is a reason for the narrator's critique.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Especially if it conflicts with the vindication.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : If the reason is weak, its chain is weak... there is a weak man in it, or the critic is weak...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And does this reason rise with this weakness, or do we look for corroborating evidence to elevate it?
The Shaykh : For example, is it acceptable in your question that it was said of one of the narrators that he is, for example, a Murji'ah (a sect that excluded deeds from faith), and we said: the critique regarding the school of thought in opposing the school of thought is not a decisive critique, so it is a weak critique. Then it was said of this narrator that he has some weakness; if he were to narrate alone with this type of weakness, his hadith would not be rejected, but rather his hadith would be hasan (a good hadith), or according to some, it might be sahih (an authentic hadith); because no person is free from some error or weakness. But let us assume that the statement made about his memory places his hadith at the level of hasan (a good hadith). Here, two critiques have come together, each of which is not sufficient to reject this narrator's hadith; is this the example you are circling around in your question?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We say: this does not affect it; because each of... on the side does not affect the weakening of the man.
The questioner : And his hadith would be sahih (an authentic hadith)?
The Shaykh : His hadith would be either hasan (a good hadith) or sahih (an authentic hadith), as we said earlier.
The Shaykh : How do you mean it has corroborating evidence?
The questioner : I mean for other reasons that indicate the weakness of the narrator's critique, but they are weak in themselves... the first one; does it rise in rank as a whole, like a mursal (a report missing the Companion link) to the level of vindication?
The Shaykh : This is, in fact, something I cannot visualize; do you have any examples of this?
The questioner : If a set of reasons is mentioned regarding a narrator.
The Shaykh : No, ... do you have an example of this question?
The questioner : The example of critique in a narrator is that there is a reason for the narrator's critique.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Especially if it conflicts with the vindication.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : If the reason is weak, its chain is weak... there is a weak man in it, or the critic is weak...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And does this reason rise with this weakness, or do we look for corroborating evidence to elevate it?
The Shaykh : For example, is it acceptable in your question that it was said of one of the narrators that he is, for example, a Murji'ah (a sect that excluded deeds from faith), and we said: the critique regarding the school of thought in opposing the school of thought is not a decisive critique, so it is a weak critique. Then it was said of this narrator that he has some weakness; if he were to narrate alone with this type of weakness, his hadith would not be rejected, but rather his hadith would be hasan (a good hadith), or according to some, it might be sahih (an authentic hadith); because no person is free from some error or weakness. But let us assume that the statement made about his memory places his hadith at the level of hasan (a good hadith). Here, two critiques have come together, each of which is not sufficient to reject this narrator's hadith; is this the example you are circling around in your question?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We say: this does not affect it; because each of... on the side does not affect the weakening of the man.
The questioner : And his hadith would be sahih (an authentic hadith)?
The Shaykh : His hadith would be either hasan (a good hadith) or sahih (an authentic hadith), as we said earlier.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.