What is the method for determining the reliability of a narrator?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In your question, O Shaykh, regarding al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him), he mentioned in the biography of Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr in Mizan al-I'tidal
The Shaykh : He mentioned?
The questioner : In the biography of Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr.
The Shaykh : Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : In Mizan al-I'tidal
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He said that if a group of trustworthy narrators narrate from a narrator, and nothing is reported that is criticized about him, then his hadith is authentic.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So in this, it means a vindication of this narrator, even though his reliability is not known directly, but only known through those who narrated from him. So if this issue becomes clear to us, is it specific to the Tabi'un only, or does it apply to those after them as well?
The Shaykh : No, it applies to those after them as well. Because the way to obtain knowledge of a narrator's reliability is either through direct association and contact with the narrator, or through other means. We know for certain that when the previous Imams would declare a narrator trustworthy, even though he was not their contemporary and they were not his contemporaries, they reached their vindication and their reliance on his memory and precision through investigating and following up his narrations on one hand, and following up the trustworthy narrators who narrated from him on the other hand. Because it is impossible for a later scholar to have direct contact with an earlier scholar when there are, as Allah wills, years between them that naturally prevent the researcher from having contact with the one whose reliability or criticism is being assessed. So what is the method, for example, by which Imam Ahmad and Yahya ibn Ma'in and their like of the Imams who declare narrators trustworthy or criticize them, judge a Tabi'i to be reliable or not, trustworthy and precise or not? There is no doubt that the path in that is one of two ways: either these scholars took the narration as they narrate hadith from someone who was a contemporary of that Tabi'i and followed up on him because they knew his condition, and this is very rare as far as we know; or it is by the other method I mentioned earlier, which is the crux of the matter, namely that they examine the hadiths of this narrator whom they did not live with, and then they judge him based on what their following up of this narrator's hadiths indicates. In my opinion, if this is understood, that Imam al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani followed him in that, they emulated those who came before them from the Imams of criticism and vindication when they would declare trustworthy or criticize those with whom they had no direct contact, based on their study of this narrator's hadiths and the narrators from him. So if they adopted this path from the methodology of the earlier Imams in criticizing and vindicating.
The Shaykh : He mentioned?
The questioner : In the biography of Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr.
The Shaykh : Malik ibn Abi al-Khayr.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : In Mizan al-I'tidal
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He said that if a group of trustworthy narrators narrate from a narrator, and nothing is reported that is criticized about him, then his hadith is authentic.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So in this, it means a vindication of this narrator, even though his reliability is not known directly, but only known through those who narrated from him. So if this issue becomes clear to us, is it specific to the Tabi'un only, or does it apply to those after them as well?
The Shaykh : No, it applies to those after them as well. Because the way to obtain knowledge of a narrator's reliability is either through direct association and contact with the narrator, or through other means. We know for certain that when the previous Imams would declare a narrator trustworthy, even though he was not their contemporary and they were not his contemporaries, they reached their vindication and their reliance on his memory and precision through investigating and following up his narrations on one hand, and following up the trustworthy narrators who narrated from him on the other hand. Because it is impossible for a later scholar to have direct contact with an earlier scholar when there are, as Allah wills, years between them that naturally prevent the researcher from having contact with the one whose reliability or criticism is being assessed. So what is the method, for example, by which Imam Ahmad and Yahya ibn Ma'in and their like of the Imams who declare narrators trustworthy or criticize them, judge a Tabi'i to be reliable or not, trustworthy and precise or not? There is no doubt that the path in that is one of two ways: either these scholars took the narration as they narrate hadith from someone who was a contemporary of that Tabi'i and followed up on him because they knew his condition, and this is very rare as far as we know; or it is by the other method I mentioned earlier, which is the crux of the matter, namely that they examine the hadiths of this narrator whom they did not live with, and then they judge him based on what their following up of this narrator's hadiths indicates. In my opinion, if this is understood, that Imam al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani followed him in that, they emulated those who came before them from the Imams of criticism and vindication when they would declare trustworthy or criticize those with whom they had no direct contact, based on their study of this narrator's hadiths and the narrators from him. So if they adopted this path from the methodology of the earlier Imams in criticizing and vindicating.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.