Some students of knowledge say: When the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) say that so-and-so is a truthful one who makes mistakes, or a truthful one who errs, or the like, that indicates that

The questioner: All right, our Shaykh, what is your opinion of some students of knowledge who say that when the Hafiz says, or when the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) say that so-and-so is a truthful one who makes mistakes, or a truthful one who errs, or the like, which is the fifth rank in the grades of vindication, they then say that this hadith is weak. And it is known to many scholars that they grade this hadith as good (hasan) if it is said about the narrator such-and-such?

The Shaykh: The one who says about a narrator "truthful, makes mistakes" — one must look at his terminology. If he classifies him in the tier that is used for corroboration (shahid) but not for proof (hujjah), then that is according to his terminology. But this is not binding on others. It may be that the one about whom that person said "truthful, makes mistakes" — meaning in his other expression "truthful, perhaps makes a mistake" — the criticism is thereby lightened, and the hadith becomes good (hasan) in itself. Otherwise, it is of the type used for corroboration. The important thing is that our young brothers in this field should not be fanatical like the fanatics of the madhahib (schools of jurisprudence) who think, as stated in some books, if we are asked about our madhhab, we say: "Our madhhab is correct, allowing for the possibility of error, and the madhhab of others is wrong, allowing for the possibility of correctness." This generalization narrows the scope for research and narrows the researcher's own belief that he is not infallible. Therefore, the scholars' terminology in al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) differs. So one should not stop at the terminology of one person without looking at the terminology of others. As for the beginner, he must, as we say in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), adhere to the methodology of an imam, whether that imam is an imam in fiqh or an imam in hadith. But the condition is that he does not become fanatical about him and does not judge every one who disagrees with him to be in error and mistaken. He has nothing but taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). We do not deny taqlid as a first step; rather, we consider taqlid in the first step a necessary step. But we do not see staying in it as acceptable; rather, one must move forward to ittibaa' (following the evidence) and, if possible, to ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). However, we criticize these followers of taqlid for being deluded by this shallow knowledge they have acquired. They think that because of their knowledge of whom they followed, they have become imams in themselves to be guided by. May Allah have mercy on you. So there are terminologies that should be considered with precision. And looking at the stronger opinion (rajih) among these terminologies is not as a general rule, but for every narrator who is described with such a description: "truthful, makes mistakes," or "truthful, errs," or "perhaps," and so on. We find, for example, al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi says about him "truthful," while al-Hafiz says about him "truthful, perhaps makes a mistake" or "errs" or the like. Who do we follow? It should not be al-Dhahabi, and a fortiori it should not be al-'Asqalani. But weighing the two opinions requires some knowledge of the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) so that one can rule in favor of al-Dhahabi or al-'Asqalani, or perhaps stand between them. Al-Dhahabi may say "truthful," and al-Hafiz may say "truthful, makes mistakes." And he, after studying the statements of the earlier imams regarding this narrator, says "truthful, perhaps makes a mistake." This requires study and a broad horizon of reading the statements of the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) regarding the narrators. In conclusion: The science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), then sahih (valid) and da'if (weak) grading, is exactly like the science of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In it there are the strict, the lenient, and the fanatical. So the Muslim person should seek the truth in what people differ on.