How is the obscurity of a narrator's status and the obscurity of his identity removed? And does the mere abundance of narrations from a man remove his obscurity?

The questioner : It is known that a large number of narrators from a man removes the obscurity of his identity, not the obscurity of his status.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : We understood from your discussion, regarding the practice of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi, that it may also remove the obscurity of his status. Is it not the case that the practice of Yahya ibn Ma'in, Ibn Hajar, and al-Dhahabi is [the same]?

The Shaykh : Yahya ibn Ma'in?

The questioner : Yes. As you mentioned by way of example, they authenticate a man whom they did not live with. Yes, their authentication of a man does not come from the large number of narrators from him, but rather from the large number of his narrations, their examination, and their comparison with other narrations, and knowing that the man does not err or make many mistakes. It is from here that their authentication of this man proceeds, and it does not come from the large number of narrators?

The Shaykh : I mean, it seems to me that I understand from your words that what al-Dhahabi and al-'Asqalani resorted to—and I agree with them in that—contradicts the method of the earlier scholars?

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So then?

The questioner : It may be that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi did not issue a ruling on the man because of the large number of narrators; rather, they examined his hadiths.

The Shaykh : No, it is not so. The phrase the brother quoted in the biography of Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr does not mean what you are saying.

The questioner : We need precision in quoting the phrase and we look at the wording, O Shaykh. Does it allow for this or that?

The Shaykh : No, it means the large number of narrators from the man.

The questioner : Yes, the large number of narrators. Is that sufficient for authentication? But there is...

The Shaykh : No, no. We are now discussing what al-Dhahabi said first, and what they did second. What al-Dhahabi said is very clear: he relied on the large number of narrators from this narrator, not on examining the narrations of this narrator. Yes.

Another questioner : Al-Dhahabi said: If a group of trustworthy narrators narrated from a man, and nothing was reported that is rejected of him, then there are two conditions. The first condition is narration from a group of trustworthy narrators. The second condition is that in the case of examining his narrations, nothing was found that is rejected of him. Because it is known to you that a man may have a group of trustworthy narrators narrating from him, and yet he may have poor memory?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So, something was reported that was rejected of him. Thus, al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) qualified his rule with these two conditions: the first condition is a group of trustworthy narrators, and the second condition is that nothing was reported that is rejected of him.

The Shaykh : Correct. But here something comes in: knowing whether something was reported from him that is rejected of him, or not. We are reassured in this knowledge by the mention of those who mentioned the narrators from them, and they did not mention that they narrated from that biographee, the authenticated Ibn Hibban, anything rejected. By this path, we reach what the earlier scholars reached. Is the answer clear?

The questioner : Ibn Hibban did not specialize... in the general narrator.

The Shaykh : This is what I said just now. I mentioned it just now.

The questioner : I mean al-Mizzi.

Another questioner : Our Shaykh, if you would repeat the answer.

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : If you would repeat the answer, O Shaykh, it was not clear to me.

The Shaykh : I said just now that I mentioned that Ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi say regarding a narrator whom no one authenticated: sometimes they say he is trustworthy, and sometimes they say he is truthful, even though no one authenticated him. Why? Because they found that those many narrators had narrated from that narrator. When we mention Ibn Hibban, the reason for that is that he became famous for authenticating unknown narrators. Otherwise, the matter is much broader than that. Even if Ibn Hibban did not authenticate him, and a narrator has a large number of narrators; they consider, according to the detail that you mentioned and we mentioned with you, that the large number of narrators from that narrator is a vindication of him, even if none of the scholars of critique and vindication explicitly stated his vindication. So the issue is not specific to those whom Ibn Hibban authenticated, but even to those whom no one authenticated at all. This was mentioned just now, and this is a confirmation of what was mentioned before.
Yes.