What is the difference between al-ta'dil and al-tawthiq?

The Shaykh: To the lands of disbelief, shirk (associating partners with Allah), open sinfulness, and lewdness. A believer is not stung twice from the same hole, and you have been stung more than once. Is my speech clear or not? What is your need? Yes.

The questioner: Is there, O Shaykh, a difference between al-ta'dil and al-tawthiq? The origin of this question is... If we look at all the books of hadith sciences, we find that the scholars defined 'adalah (integrity) as a quality that compels the narrator to adhere to taqwa (mindfulness of Allah) and mar'ah (dignity). They also defined taqwa as avoiding bad deeds, such as ingratitude, open sinfulness, and religious innovations, and so on. But when we look at the books of authentic hadith, specifically al-Bukhari and Muslim, we find that they narrated from innovators, while taking into account the distinction between whether the innovator was a propagator of the innovation or not. However, we find in the biographies of these narrators that the scholars described them as truthful and trustworthy. So what is the difference between al-tawthiq and al-ta'dil? And is the definition applied by the majority of scholars, which I mentioned earlier, a suitable definition for 'adalah?

The Shaykh: What is the definition?

The questioner: 'Adalah is defined as the narrator's avoidance...

The Shaykh: I understood your words. It seems to me that it includes two things. Please summarize it for me so that I can answer.

The questioner: I want to know the difference between al-tawthiq and al-ta'dil.

The Shaykh: This is one question. So, keep your second question in mind if there is a second one. The difference between al-ta'dil and al-tawthiq is like the difference between the general and the specific, or like the difference between an animal and a human. Every human is an animal, but not every animal is a human. Is this clear? Good. Every trustworthy person is 'adil (integrity), but not every 'adil is trustworthy. Is this clear?

The questioner: Every trustworthy person is 'adil.

The Shaykh: 'Adil, but not every 'adil is trustworthy. But in my opinion, an answer like this...
The student: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh: And if it is, as they say—and peace be upon you—comprehensive and exclusive, it seems to need some clarification. You know that there are not a few of the Imams of the Muslims, including some respected jurists, but if they narrate a hadith and it is not supported by another chain, their hadith is not considered authentic (sahih). Do you know this?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Good. So what is said about this type? Is he trustworthy? The answer is no. Is he 'adil? Yes, he is 'adil. So this example clarifies my brief statement earlier: every trustworthy person is 'adil, but not every 'adil is trustworthy. This is because in the definition of the authentic hadith, they said: "What is narrated by an 'adil who is precise (dabbit)." If this 'adil is described as precise, meaning he has a good memory, he becomes trustworthy. If he is not described as precise, he remains 'adil and does not become trustworthy. I think this is the answer. As for whether there is another question in the folds of your words, as it seemed to me, or if it was included in the answer, I do not know.