What is your opinion of Hisham ibn 'Ammar regarding the critique and vindication of narrators?

The questioner : And what is your opinion of Hisham ibn 'Ammar regarding the critique and vindication of narrators? I heard, as was reported to me two days ago, that Hisham ibn 'Ammar...

The Shaykh : ...that the scholars of hadith may differ greatly regarding some narrators. For example, it may be established with some of them that Hisham ibn 'Ammar was teaching and learning, and this becomes a defect in Hisham's hadith, while it may not be established with the others. So, for the one with whom the teaching and learning is not established, and Hisham himself is a trustworthy, memorizing, and precise narrator, if it were not for the teaching and learning that is established with others, but it is not established with him, there is no wonder in that case that he narrates from him, because the defect by which he was criticized did not reach his hearing. The original state of a narrator is that he is just, and his hadith is to be relied upon, unless something is established in him that defects his hadith. Many narrators, for example, are accused of concealment of a defect in a chain, like Abu al-Zubayr Muhammad ibn Tadrus, but Imam Muslim narrates from him much of the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir with the "an" (from) form. And so, some of the ignorant people who imagine that all knowledge is present with a memorizer or a hadith scholar—this is necessary to be known by every hadith scholar—this means very strange ignorance. It is sufficient that one of the narrators says so-and-so is unknown, and so-and-so says he is trustworthy. This is found frequently. In that case, the disagreement is treated by the rules of the science of hadith. For example, they say: The critique takes precedence over the vindication. The critique takes precedence over the vindication. But this rule is not absolute, because it is restricted to when the critique is a defecting cause. The critique takes precedence over the vindication if the critique is defecting in itself. That is, if a person says of a narrator, "So-and-so is trustworthy," and another from the memorizers of hadith says, "So-and-so lies," then this is a critique, and it is a clear and defecting critique. And as they express it in the science of hadith, it is an explained critique. But I did not say in my first statement that it is a condition that the critique be explained. I only said that it must be defecting. And the reason is that every defecting critique is explained, and not the reverse. That is, not every explained critique is defecting. For this reason, the defecting critique takes precedence over the vindication. With such a rule, the Muslim can remove such a disagreement. So now, regarding Hisham ibn 'Ammar, it appears that Imam al-Bukhari did not establish with him that he was teaching and learning, but this was established with the others. Therefore, from among us later scholars who benefit from the efforts of the earlier scholars, who are the medium between us and the Salaf, from the hadith scholars like al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, al-'Iraqi, al-'Asqalani, and the like, these establish the teaching and learning for Hisham ibn 'Ammar. But if this had been established as we mentioned, we would have been rid of this defect in Hisham by the supporting chains of the trustworthy narrators to Hisham ibn 'Ammar in this hadith. Therefore, this defect also disappears naturally.