The narrator whom some hadith scholars have criticized and others have authenticated: to whom do we turn, and what is the principle we follow to judge this narrator?

The questioner : Regarding the narrator whom some hadith scholars have criticized and others have authenticated, to whom do we turn? And what is the principle we follow to judge this narrator in this chain of narration?

The Shaykh : The principle is known by their saying: "Criticism takes precedence over authentication." They stipulate that the criticism which must take precedence over authentication must be a clear, explained, and specified criticism. If the reason is specified, it may appear that it is not valid to consider it a criticism that invalidates the narrator's integrity. This is because when the scholars began discussing the conditions of the trustworthy narrator, it was undoubtedly through their independent legal reasoning, not through explicit texts in the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, their opinions may differ on this matter. One of the clearest examples in what we are discussing is criticizing a narrator for his school of thought. The scholars previously differed on this issue. If the narrator is upright in his religion, meaning he does not commit any of the abominations that invalidate his integrity, and in addition to that, he is a preserver and controller of the hadith, then the two conditions are present in him, which, when combined in a narrator, lead to a judgment of trustworthiness. However, his school of thought is deviant from the Sunnah, such as the Murji'ah, for example, or the Mu'tazilah, or the like. Some of them would invalidate the hadith of this upright, trustworthy person because he deviated in some aspect of his creed from the path of the people of the Sunnah, so his hadith is not considered a proof. Others held that the basis for narrating hadith and using it as proof is trustworthiness in terms of integrity and preservation, while the school of thought is left between him and his Lord. Allah is his accountant if he reached that school of thought by following desire or by independent legal reasoning in which he did not hit the truth. For this reason, Imam al-Bukhari narrated from some of those with deviant inclinations, because he trusted this narrator, finding that integrity, control, and preservation were present in him, while the school of thought is a matter for which Allah is his accountant.
For example, 'Imran ibn Hattan the Khariji. He is famous for his fanaticism against 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Nevertheless, Imam al-Bukhari did not refrain from narrating his hadith because he did not consider his school of thought a criticism of his integrity or his preservation. From this, it should be noted that criticism must be acceptable to the scholars of hadith in order to take precedence over authentication. The researcher will find in the biographies of some narrators statements from some of the Imams that he cannot rely on because they are far from being a criticism of this narrator who has been authenticated by others. For example, some may say so-and-so's hadith is not used as a proof. Why? Because the sound of striking the 'ud was heard from his house. This is a criticism and it is explained, but it is not considered a criticism that invalidates this narrator's hadith as long as those two qualities are present in him: the quality of integrity along with control and preservation. As for the fact that musical instruments were heard from his house, the answer to this is from two aspects:
The first aspect: It has previously been established that there was an old disagreement regarding musical instruments; are they forbidden or not? And we, unfortunately, even in this era after the evidence establishing the prohibition of musical instruments has become clear, still find some scholars who are not mentioned alongside those scholars; they are neither in the caravan nor in the army, as the saying goes. Nevertheless, they hold to this day that musical instruments are permissible. So how can one not excuse those who were in the early centuries when the evidence of the Shari'ah had not yet been gathered in every issue on which the scholars differed? Therefore, it is not appropriate at that time to criticize a man from among the scholars of the Muslims and the narrators of the noble Prophet's hadith merely because he held that striking the 'ud or another type of musical instrument was permissible. This was his opinion and his independent legal reasoning. If we were to open such a door for invalidating the integrity of narrators, the integrity of many of the Imams of the Muslims would be invalidated. This is one point.
The second point: That statement does not indicate that this critic saw with his own eyes that narrator striking the 'ud. Rather, all that is in the report is that he heard it. It is possible that what he heard did not come from his house, but from his neighbor's house. Or it may have come from his house, but it was not he who was striking the 'ud, but rather some of his family or relatives from those who may not listen to his word, and he considered it wisdom and policy not to expel this person who has a connection with him from his house, for the sake of policy and accommodation, fearing that the reins of the matter might slip from his control if he expelled him. Such possibilities arise; therefore, it is not permissible to overlook them and rely on that statement to criticize this narrator. Thus, it is necessary that the criticism be specified first, and then that this criticism be accepted as a criticism of the narrator second. If the scholars' opinions differ regarding a narrator, between authenticating and criticizing, the argument of the critic is studied. If it stands independently in criticizing him, his criticism is given precedence over the authentication of others. Otherwise, the authentication is given precedence over the criticism. The researcher in this field in the books of criticism and authentication will undoubtedly find many and contradictory statements. He must first rely on this principle along with the details I mentioned earlier. Then, one last thing: he must have long experience in applying the principle and others, because practical application may reveal to the researcher subtle matters that he does not notice merely from reading the science of terminology theoretically.
This is the answer to the previous question.