What is your methodology in judging men?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, welcome.
The questioner : Ziyad is speaking with you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : How are you?
The questioner : May Allah bless you and your health, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, I have two questions for you.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : Today at the university, in the College of Sharia.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Some of the doctors raised the issue.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Regarding your methodology in judging men in the *Silsilah al-Da'ifah*.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Some of them said: Your methodology in judging men, or in the *Silsilah al-Da'ifah*, is to prioritize *jarh* (criticism) absolutely.
The Shaykh : That is a lie.
The questioner : This is a lie.
The Shaykh: A lie.
The questioner : So what is your methodology, our Shaykh, so that I may convey it?
The Shaykh : My methodology is according to what is agreed upon by the scholars of hadith.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : *Jarh* (criticism) takes precedence over *ta'dil* (vindication) if the reason is known.
The questioner : That is a lie.
The Shaykh : That is, the reason for the *jarh*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if the reason is known, one looks at the reason; if the reason is one that warrants criticism, meaning it necessitates a defect in the narrator.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In that case, this *jarh* is given precedence over the *ta'dil*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the *jarh* in itself does not constitute a defect, or does not necessitate a defect in the narrator's integrity.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or in his memorization.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In that case, in this situation, the *jarh* is not considered.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : For example: So-and-so is truthful but a Shi'i.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So being a Shi'i is not the operative cause; perhaps So-and-so used to frequent the judges, or was an employee of a certain judge, or so on.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And there are many such instances in the biographies of hadith narrators.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, merely because a narrator, even if he is trustworthy, was, for example, a governor for one of the rulers, this is considered a slight criticism, but this slight criticism does not negate his integrity.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Nor does it negate his precision and memorization.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So this *jarh* has no value. And there are examples of this: someone was asked, "Why did you not narrate from So-and-so?" He said, "Because I heard the sound of a lute from his house."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible that this sound was from his neighbor, not from his house.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And it is possible it was from his house, but not from him, rather from his son who had reached the age of accountability and did not obey his father. And there are many such possibilities.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh : And it was said to another, "Why do you not narrate from him?" He said, "Because I saw him riding a mule." Such criticisms are not considered *jarh*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But if it is said, "So-and-so has poor memorization," or "So-and-so is accused of lying," then there is no doubt that this takes precedence over *ta'dil* and *tawthiq* (certification of reliability).
The questioner: Yes.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, is it permissible to delay it and pray the one who is the *Duha*?
The questioner : Ziyad is speaking with you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : How are you?
The questioner : May Allah bless you and your health, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, I have two questions for you.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : Today at the university, in the College of Sharia.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Some of the doctors raised the issue.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Regarding your methodology in judging men in the *Silsilah al-Da'ifah*.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Some of them said: Your methodology in judging men, or in the *Silsilah al-Da'ifah*, is to prioritize *jarh* (criticism) absolutely.
The Shaykh : That is a lie.
The questioner : This is a lie.
The Shaykh: A lie.
The questioner : So what is your methodology, our Shaykh, so that I may convey it?
The Shaykh : My methodology is according to what is agreed upon by the scholars of hadith.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : *Jarh* (criticism) takes precedence over *ta'dil* (vindication) if the reason is known.
The questioner : That is a lie.
The Shaykh : That is, the reason for the *jarh*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it clear up to here?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if the reason is known, one looks at the reason; if the reason is one that warrants criticism, meaning it necessitates a defect in the narrator.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In that case, this *jarh* is given precedence over the *ta'dil*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the *jarh* in itself does not constitute a defect, or does not necessitate a defect in the narrator's integrity.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Or in his memorization.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In that case, in this situation, the *jarh* is not considered.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : For example: So-and-so is truthful but a Shi'i.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So being a Shi'i is not the operative cause; perhaps So-and-so used to frequent the judges, or was an employee of a certain judge, or so on.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And there are many such instances in the biographies of hadith narrators.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, merely because a narrator, even if he is trustworthy, was, for example, a governor for one of the rulers, this is considered a slight criticism, but this slight criticism does not negate his integrity.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Nor does it negate his precision and memorization.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So this *jarh* has no value. And there are examples of this: someone was asked, "Why did you not narrate from So-and-so?" He said, "Because I heard the sound of a lute from his house."
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible that this sound was from his neighbor, not from his house.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And it is possible it was from his house, but not from him, rather from his son who had reached the age of accountability and did not obey his father. And there are many such possibilities.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh : And it was said to another, "Why do you not narrate from him?" He said, "Because I saw him riding a mule." Such criticisms are not considered *jarh*.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But if it is said, "So-and-so has poor memorization," or "So-and-so is accused of lying," then there is no doubt that this takes precedence over *ta'dil* and *tawthiq* (certification of reliability).
The questioner: Yes.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, is it permissible to delay it and pray the one who is the *Duha*?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.