Some scholars are strict in al-jarh (criticism of narrators) and others are strict in al-ta'dil (vindication of narrators); what is the correct position?

The questioner : Some scholars are lenient in al-jarh (criticism of narrators) and strict in al-ta'dil (vindication of narrators), while others are the opposite, and some are moderate in both. We ask for clarification of this issue, with examples for each of the three groups.

The Shaykh : It is not easy to recall examples right now, but there is no doubt that the best of things are their middles. One should not be strict in criticizing narrators nor in vouching for them, but rather, as it is said, the best of things is the middle. Exaggeration is an error, and moderation in every matter is what the Wise Lawgiver, Blessed and Exalted is He, commands. It is well known that those who are moderate in al-jarh (criticism of narrators) and al-ta'dil (vindication of narrators) are like Imam Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and Abu Dawud, with a bit of leniency in his case, and Abu Zur'ah al-Razi and imams like them. They are moderate in this field. As for others, they are either lenient or strict. For example, Ibn Abi Hatim regarding his father has some strictness, and al-'Uqayli has some strictness and exaggeration in criticism, and so on. The details of these matters are taken first from books of terminology, and secondly from books of al-jarh (criticism of narrators) and al-ta'dil (vindication of narrators). This is what can be answered now. Yes... Leave your turn for someone else and return later.