How do we proceed when we find two differing statements issued by two different imams regarding the same narrator?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... ... ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: Some of the narrators.
The Shaykh: I did not understand the last sentence.
The questioner: ... the narrators reconcile the two statements ... .
The Shaykh: Just as you reconcile two differing statements from two different imams; do you know how to reconcile them?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No, the rule is: the criticism (jarh) is adopted or given precedence over the vindication (ta'dil). Excuse me, is your question about jurisprudence or hadith?
The questioner: Hadith.
The Shaykh: And this is the answer, is it clear?
The questioner: Okay, Shaykh, is the criticism (jarh) given precedence absolutely, Shaykh?
The Shaykh: No, the criticism (jarh) whose cause is specified is not given precedence, and this is not sufficient. Rather, it is obligatory that the specified cause, after being specified, be a criticism (jarh) in itself, and that it be nothing else in itself, and that it not be a criticism (jarh) for this cause; for example, a criticism (jarh) for religious innovation (bid'ah). So-and-so is trustworthy and precise, but he is, for example, a Murji'i, or a specified criticism (jarh), but is this criticism (jarh) acceptable on this basis? The answer is: No. Therefore, not every specified or detailed criticism (jarh) is an acceptable criticism (jarh). Just as we deal with two differing statements issued by two imams, it is said: we deal with the two statements issued by one imam with the same standard.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: Some of the narrators.
The Shaykh: I did not understand the last sentence.
The questioner: ... the narrators reconcile the two statements ... .
The Shaykh: Just as you reconcile two differing statements from two different imams; do you know how to reconcile them?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No, the rule is: the criticism (jarh) is adopted or given precedence over the vindication (ta'dil). Excuse me, is your question about jurisprudence or hadith?
The questioner: Hadith.
The Shaykh: And this is the answer, is it clear?
The questioner: Okay, Shaykh, is the criticism (jarh) given precedence absolutely, Shaykh?
The Shaykh: No, the criticism (jarh) whose cause is specified is not given precedence, and this is not sufficient. Rather, it is obligatory that the specified cause, after being specified, be a criticism (jarh) in itself, and that it be nothing else in itself, and that it not be a criticism (jarh) for this cause; for example, a criticism (jarh) for religious innovation (bid'ah). So-and-so is trustworthy and precise, but he is, for example, a Murji'i, or a specified criticism (jarh), but is this criticism (jarh) acceptable on this basis? The answer is: No. Therefore, not every specified or detailed criticism (jarh) is an acceptable criticism (jarh). Just as we deal with two differing statements issued by two imams, it is said: we deal with the two statements issued by one imam with the same standard.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.