What is the ruling on the contradiction of the statements of the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators)? And how is the preference between them determined? Is it by the majority, or by precedence and seniority?

The questioner : How is the contradiction of the statements of the hadith scholars in authenticating and weakening resolved? Is it by the majority, or by hierarchical precedence, or by chronological seniority?

The Shaykh : Is it by the majority, or what?

The questioner : Or by hierarchical precedence?

The Shaykh : What does that mean?

The questioner : Hierarchical means ranking. Hierarchical is written here. By hierarchical precedence or ranking, or by chronological seniority?

The Shaykh : In any case, yes?

The questioner : I mean the elevation... of the Imamate... in hadith.

The Shaykh : The elevation?

The questioner : I mean the elevation... in rank when compared to the eminent scholars.

The Shaykh : No, the rule in this disagreement is well known in the science of terminology; and it is that if the criticism (jarh) and the vindication (ta'dil) contradict each other, coming from a critic whose criticism is considered and from a vindicator whose vindication is considered; then at that time the criticism is preferred over the vindication, with the condition mentioned in the science of terminology; which is that the criticism must be explained and clarified, this from one aspect, and that after its explanation it is a valid criticism that it is correct to weaken the narrator based on it. In this case, the criticism is preferred over the vindication, and here, for example, the difference in status or the elevation of the class is not looked at.
Perhaps you all know that Imam Ahmad is among the sheikhsThe Shaykh : of al-Bukhari and Muslim, so if we assume that Imam Ahmad weakened a narrator and Imam al-Bukhari authenticated him, or the reverse of that; we do not look at the elevation of the class; that is: that Ahmad is a sheikhThe Shaykh : of them, so we apply his ruling, whether it is authentication or criticism, and we only apply the rule mentioned earlier to the authentication and criticism that came fromThe Shaykh : them and from their student who differs, we apply the rule mentioned earlier, which is undoubtedly a Shari'ah rule; because it is not permissible to issue a general criticism against one whose integrity is established and whose memorization and precision are established, except with a proof and evidence, as is the rule in all the rulings of the Shari'ah. So if the critic is alone with a mere claim, that is not accepted from him unless accompanied by proof. So if he presents the proof; and it is studied objectively, as it is said, and it becomes clear that the criticism does not hold up for criticizing the narrator, while others have authenticated him; then at that time that criticism is not accepted.
An example of this - and we do not lengthen this because we have repeated the speech on such matters many times - an example: if it is said about a man that he is weak, and another authenticated him, so when we investigated the cause of the weakening, we found that the one who weakened him did so because of his disagreement with the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) of the people of the Sunnah and the community in some ideas or beliefs, such as it being said about him - for example - that he is a Murji'i, or it is said - for example - that he is a Shi'i, or it is said that he is a Khariji, and his integrity is established and his precision is established; then at that time, disagreement in the madhhab is not considered an acceptable criticism, and so it is said about every criticism that it must be studied with a special study. We have mentioned an example for you: it was said to so-and-so: Why do you not narrate from so-and-so? He said: "Because I saw him riding a mule," and this is not a criticism; because the mule is a horse with arrogance, so when it walks with its rider, it is as if the rider himself is strutting on top of this mule, so this is not a criticism related to dropping his integrity or establishing poor memorization, and so on.
Yes.

Another questioner : Shaykh, ... takes the place of the mule today.
.
Yes.