Does frequent narration from an unknown narrator constitute a validation of his status?

The Shaykh : ... It is not intended in the sense that we intend it today when we look for many narrators from a narrator who is originally unknown. They did not intend by their comprehensive collection of narrators what we intend today. Therefore, he relied on what was transmitted from the memorizers, the critics who validated or criticized narrators. This transmission suffices for the purpose we are pursuing when we seek a large number of narrators from a validated narrator, such as Ibn Hibban. Our current method of research differs from al-Mizzi’s method in *Tahdhib al-Kamal*, because they rely on the transmission of criticism and validation from the preceding Imams. However, if we come across a biography in *Tahdhib al-Kamal* that says, "So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him," and then there is nothing after that, this benefits us in what we are seeking. But if it says, "So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him," and perhaps it mentions a hundred narrators, but in the end it says, "Imam Ahmad validated him, and Ibn Ma'in validated him," then we know that he does not mean by this exhaustive search what we mean in our previous topic. But if a biography comes, and there are some examples of this in reality in the two *Tahdhibs*—*Tahdhib al-Kamal* and *Tahdhib al-Tahdhib*—that says, "So-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so narrated from him," and then there is nothing after that, and it may say, "And Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy," and then there is nothing beyond that, or it may say, "Al-'Ujli validated him," and there is nothing beyond that, then the result of a biography like this differs from the other biography that says, "So-and-so narrated from him, and Ibn Hibban validated him," or "Al-'Ujli validated him." There is no doubt that it is not permissible to equate the first biography, which mentioned four or five trustworthy narrators and then said, "Ibn Hibban mentioned him," with the other biography, which mentioned only one narrator for the subject and then said, "And Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy." The current practice among students of knowledge in this time, and even among scholars in the past, is to equate the two biographies on the grounds that only Ibn Hibban validated him. I consider this an error after careful examination. It is necessary to distinguish between the first biography, which has a greater status and weight than the other. Otherwise, we would discard the value of the large number of narrators. This is the number that those who wrote on the science of terminology noted when they distinguished between the unknown in identity (*mujhul al-'ayn*) and the unknown in status (*mujhul al-hal*) by the number of narrators from the unknown in status. But in truth, and I say the truth, they did not dwell on this point that is raised now in some scholarly gatherings: that this large number of trustworthy narrators, if they narrate from a narrator who was not validated, takes him out of being unknown in identity and puts him into being unknown in status. They did not state that he sometimes joins the truthful ones or the trustworthy ones. This is a neglected point in the science of terminology. Therefore, it is correct for us to say, "How much did the first leave for the last?" and not as it was said, "The first left nothing for the last."