What is your opinion of this definition of *'adalah* (integrity): "It is the likelihood of the narrator's truthfulness"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : If we say it is the likelihood of the narrator's truthfulness, then the innovator and others fall under this, as I mentioned just now... Do you know that *'adalah* is the likelihood of the narrator's truthfulness?
The Shaykh : Truthfulness alone is not sufficient, because the witness must be truthful, and this does not make him *'adl* (integrity). The key point in the matter is distinguishing between narration and testimony; it is memory and precision, not truthfulness, because truthfulness is obligatory in both. That is to say, if one testifies that he saw so-and-so doing such-and-such, is it not required that he be truthful... Keep up with me!
The questioner : ...His acceptance of good requires that he be truthful, meaning!
The Shaykh : I am not telling you about the report; I am saying, if one testifies that so-and-so hit so-and-so, or took so-and-so's money, is it not required that he be truthful?
The questioner : It is not required.
The Shaykh : ...You know... Truthfulness is required in the witness and the narrator, but the difference is that he must be known as precise and having good memory. Because this precise narrator with good memory has his brain filled with tens, hundreds, or thousands of narrations, so he must be firm in his precision. Unlike this witness who saw something like this; it is easy for him to convey it as he saw it. However, it is required that he be truthful and not a liar, but it is not required of him what is required of the narrator who memorizes many, many narrations. As they say, for example, so-and-so is weak. Why? Because he would connect a broken chain, or elevate a report stopping at a Companion, or stop a report traced to the Prophet, and so on. Why does he do this? Because the many narrations that filled his brain get mixed up, and he does not have that firm precision and memory, so he is classed with the weak narrators who are not cited as evidence. Then these are divided into two groups: some make many errors, and it is said he is very weak and not to be cited, and some do not make many errors, and it is said he may be cited. But sometimes they say so-and-so lies, or so-and-so does such-and-such. However, the first group is called *sidduq* (truthful). As Ibn Hiban says in many of his biographies, he was a righteous man, but he narrated denunciations, or from the trustworthy ones, and brought falsehoods from such-and-such, and so on, not intentionally, because he was righteous, meaning he was truthful in himself.
The Shaykh : Truthfulness alone is not sufficient, because the witness must be truthful, and this does not make him *'adl* (integrity). The key point in the matter is distinguishing between narration and testimony; it is memory and precision, not truthfulness, because truthfulness is obligatory in both. That is to say, if one testifies that he saw so-and-so doing such-and-such, is it not required that he be truthful... Keep up with me!
The questioner : ...His acceptance of good requires that he be truthful, meaning!
The Shaykh : I am not telling you about the report; I am saying, if one testifies that so-and-so hit so-and-so, or took so-and-so's money, is it not required that he be truthful?
The questioner : It is not required.
The Shaykh : ...You know... Truthfulness is required in the witness and the narrator, but the difference is that he must be known as precise and having good memory. Because this precise narrator with good memory has his brain filled with tens, hundreds, or thousands of narrations, so he must be firm in his precision. Unlike this witness who saw something like this; it is easy for him to convey it as he saw it. However, it is required that he be truthful and not a liar, but it is not required of him what is required of the narrator who memorizes many, many narrations. As they say, for example, so-and-so is weak. Why? Because he would connect a broken chain, or elevate a report stopping at a Companion, or stop a report traced to the Prophet, and so on. Why does he do this? Because the many narrations that filled his brain get mixed up, and he does not have that firm precision and memory, so he is classed with the weak narrators who are not cited as evidence. Then these are divided into two groups: some make many errors, and it is said he is very weak and not to be cited, and some do not make many errors, and it is said he may be cited. But sometimes they say so-and-so lies, or so-and-so does such-and-such. However, the first group is called *sidduq* (truthful). As Ibn Hiban says in many of his biographies, he was a righteous man, but he narrated denunciations, or from the trustworthy ones, and brought falsehoods from such-and-such, and so on, not intentionally, because he was righteous, meaning he was truthful in himself.