If the statements of a critic regarding a specific narrator differ, with him being graded as trustworthy at one time and weak at another, what is the method for preferring one of the two statements?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Here, if the statements of a critic regarding a certain narrator differ, meaning that more than one statement is found regarding him, what is the way and method for determining a specific statement regarding this man? Sometimes, in the biographical dictionaries, more than one statement is found regarding this man, such as the statement of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding Dawud ibn Abi Hind, where he graded him as trustworthy at one time and seemed to weaken him at another. I do not know if there is a method to follow to know the stronger statement regarding him?
The Shaykh : Dawud ibn Abi Hind, about whom did the statement differ?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : He graded him as trustworthy at one time.
The questioner : And at another time he weakened him.
The Shaykh : This is a question that was raised in a session by one of the strong students of knowledge. My answer was as follows: Such a difference from the same Imam, where two different statements are issued regarding the same narrator, is the same as if one of these two statements was issued by one Imam and the other by another Imam.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So how do you reconcile them? If the rule is clear to you in my example, apply it to your mentioned example and you will be at ease. But if it is not clear, it must be clarified. I said, it is not hidden from you, I believe, the rule of the scholars of hadith which states that in such a difference, the default is that the criticism (jarh) takes precedence over the vindication (ta'dil). However, this statement in its absolute generality and comprehensiveness is not intended. This is because among the causes of criticism are things that are not considered a disqualifying criticism. Let us give a famous example among scholars and students of knowledge, which is that a narrator is criticized by being, for example, from the people of innovation, or from the Murji'ah, or from the Khawarij, or something similar. This is not considered a disqualifying criticism regarding his narration, but it is a criticism regarding his jurisprudence and creed. From here, we find, for example, the Imam of the Muhaddithin, al-Bukhari, narrating from 'Imran ibn Hutan the Khariji. This is because the matter, as the scholars of hadith say in the terminology, is that the consideration for the narrator of hadith is first that he be a Muslim, second that he be just, and third and finally that he be a preserver and memorizer. If these conditions are met in the narrator, his hadith is on the right path, valid and sound, provided, of course, that it does not contradict the other known conditions, that it is not defective and not anomalous. Now, we look at the two differing statements, one of which is a vindication and the other a weakening. If the criticism is explained and the criticism itself is a disqualifying defect, the criticism takes precedence over the vindication.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the criticism is explained but it is not a disqualifying criticism, it has no value. And if the criticism is merely a general weakening without explaining the reason at all, the vindication takes precedence over the weakening. And with this, the problem is solved regarding the same Imam who vindicates at one time and weakens at another. For example, if the one who weakens says, "It has become clear to me that the man is a denouncer of hadith," this is an explained criticism and an acceptable criticism. At that time, his criticism takes precedence over his vindication, because when he vindicated him, his defect had not become clear. But once his defect became clear to him and it became clear to us that this defect is disqualifying and harmful, at that time we prefer the criticism over the vindication. This is how the difference should be resolved.
The Shaykh : Dawud ibn Abi Hind, about whom did the statement differ?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : He graded him as trustworthy at one time.
The questioner : And at another time he weakened him.
The Shaykh : This is a question that was raised in a session by one of the strong students of knowledge. My answer was as follows: Such a difference from the same Imam, where two different statements are issued regarding the same narrator, is the same as if one of these two statements was issued by one Imam and the other by another Imam.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So how do you reconcile them? If the rule is clear to you in my example, apply it to your mentioned example and you will be at ease. But if it is not clear, it must be clarified. I said, it is not hidden from you, I believe, the rule of the scholars of hadith which states that in such a difference, the default is that the criticism (jarh) takes precedence over the vindication (ta'dil). However, this statement in its absolute generality and comprehensiveness is not intended. This is because among the causes of criticism are things that are not considered a disqualifying criticism. Let us give a famous example among scholars and students of knowledge, which is that a narrator is criticized by being, for example, from the people of innovation, or from the Murji'ah, or from the Khawarij, or something similar. This is not considered a disqualifying criticism regarding his narration, but it is a criticism regarding his jurisprudence and creed. From here, we find, for example, the Imam of the Muhaddithin, al-Bukhari, narrating from 'Imran ibn Hutan the Khariji. This is because the matter, as the scholars of hadith say in the terminology, is that the consideration for the narrator of hadith is first that he be a Muslim, second that he be just, and third and finally that he be a preserver and memorizer. If these conditions are met in the narrator, his hadith is on the right path, valid and sound, provided, of course, that it does not contradict the other known conditions, that it is not defective and not anomalous. Now, we look at the two differing statements, one of which is a vindication and the other a weakening. If the criticism is explained and the criticism itself is a disqualifying defect, the criticism takes precedence over the vindication.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the criticism is explained but it is not a disqualifying criticism, it has no value. And if the criticism is merely a general weakening without explaining the reason at all, the vindication takes precedence over the weakening. And with this, the problem is solved regarding the same Imam who vindicates at one time and weakens at another. For example, if the one who weakens says, "It has become clear to me that the man is a denouncer of hadith," this is an explained criticism and an acceptable criticism. At that time, his criticism takes precedence over his vindication, because when he vindicated him, his defect had not become clear. But once his defect became clear to him and it became clear to us that this defect is disqualifying and harmful, at that time we prefer the criticism over the vindication. This is how the difference should be resolved.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.