Is the mere narration of trustworthy narrators from a narrator sufficient to grant him integrity?

The questioner : I have a difficulty regarding this issue, which is that examining narrations deals with the aspect of precision; as for the aspect of integrity, the man's integrity in his religion, I do not know if examining narrations and the narration of a number of trustworthy people from him removes that? And especially, I found some biographies where the man is described as a memorizer, he is described as a memorizer, and yet you find him to be a liar. Al-Daraqutni mentioned this, and al-Dhahabi cited some of their biographies in Mizan al-I'tidal.

The Shaykh: Correct.

The questioner : I wish you would resolve this difficulty for us, especially since Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, in al-Sarim al-Manki, when he addressed his refutation of al-Subki, addressed the authentication of Ibn 'Adi. I think I do not remember the man, but when he addressed him, he pointed out this issue. He said Ibn 'Adi sometimes authenticates a man as a result of his examination of his narrations. It seems Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider this method, and Allah knows best. I wish you would resolve this difficulty we have encountered?

The Shaykh : I previously mentioned the answer to this question recently. We infer from the presence of a large number of narrators from a certain narrator, along with the fact that those imams from whom we learned that these narrators narrated from that narrator did not explicitly state that each one who narrated from that narrator narrated from him a denunciation, that he is not of the type who is actually known for precision but is nonetheless accused of dishonesty. We learned this from their mention of these narrators and their not speaking about him because they narrated from that biographee, for example, from Ibn Hibban, something denounced. And what I want to draw attention to is that what I quoted earlier from Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, his statement about Ibn 'Adi that he judges a man by examining his hadiths, this reality is a method that the early hadith scholars, and then the hadith scholars like us, must rely on. Especially since Ibn Hibban, when they direct his statement that the narrator with him is originally trustworthy, because the original state of a Muslim is integrity; if this original state is accompanied by the absence of denunciations in the narrations of those trustworthy people from this narrator, then the soul is reassured, not only because he is just, but also because he is a memorizer in the attribution of the hadiths he narrated through these trustworthy narrators. This is what we believe in this issue. And we must remind at the end of the answer that many issues are not like mathematical issues of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and the like. No, they are intellectual issues in which views may differ and independent legal reasoning may differ according to the difference in the degree of knowledge of all these differing people, whether in the increase or decrease of knowledge, application or non-application. His knowledge may be theoretical, his knowledge may be practical, so the knowledge of this specialist may be practically stronger and more reassuring to the soul than that of the one who relied only on theoretical knowledge. And Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, knows best.

Another questioner : Regarding lying, examining reports and hadiths, there is no doubt that it reveals that...

The Shaykh : How?

Another questioner : Regarding examining reports and hadiths, it reveals lying. If it reveals delusion and error, then it is all the more so that it reveals lying. This is a clarification of what the brother mentioned regarding knowing the number of narrators. How do we know them? One of the clearest methods is what al-Mizzi mentioned in Tahdhib al-Kamal. He generally does not mention that these who narrated from the man, or from whom this man narrated, are in error in their hadiths or otherwise. He merely lists a list of the names of the sheikhs and students, then turns to authentication and the critique and vindication of narrators. So how do we know from these who mentioned the sheikhs and students that he is in error in his narration from them, for example?

The Shaykh : How do we know? Did you understand?

The questioner : You mentioned, O Shaykh, that generally whoever mentions the sheikhs or students clarifies that he is in error in their hadiths or not in error, so that does not compel us...

The Shaykh : I said, it is supposed that these trustworthy people who narrated from the authenticated one, like Ibn Hibban, it is supposed that these imams, like Ibn Abi Hatim, for example, when he mentions that so-and-so and so-and-so narrated from him, there is no doubt that he stopped at the narrations of these so-and-sos, if the expression is correct, he stopped at them. So either he saw something denounced in them or he did not see it. If we say that he saw it, he will say, as Ibn Hibban himself says, that he narrates denunciations, for example, from the famous ones. And if he did not say that, we inferred from his mention of the narration of this trustworthy person from him and his not mentioning that he narrated from him a denunciation that he did not find a denunciation in his narrations. Perhaps this is the answer to what you asked?

Another questioner : Half of it, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Bring it, let me see what remains of the second half?

Another questioner : Regarding al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi in al-Siyar and others who mention the students and sheikhs, and they extracted them, for example, from the six books, listing who narrated from his sheikhs and his students without examining their reports, as al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi and others do. What is the method with them? Or do we specify that to those mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim in al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil?

The Shaykh : But these, my brother, now the research has taken another stage. Al-Hafiz al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal, when he multiplies the narrators from the biographee, does not intend what one of us today intends when he multiplies the narrators from a narrator who is originally unknown or concealed. He does not intend by his comprehensiveness of narrators what we intend today. So at that time, he relies on what he transmits from the memorizing critics, the vindicators or the denouncers. This transmission of his suffices him from the purpose we are heading toward when we seek the multitude of narrators from the authenticated narrator from Ibn Hibban. So our path now in research differs from al-Mizzi's path in Tahdhib al-Kamal, because they rely on transmitting the critique and vindication from the preceding imams. But if we stop at a biography in Tahdhib al-Kamal that says so-and-so and so-and-so narrated from him, and then nothing after that, this benefits us here with what we intend. But if he says so-and-so and so-and-so narrated from him, and perhaps he mentions that a hundred narrators, but at the end he says Imam Ahmad authenticated him, or Ibn Ma'in authenticated him; then we know that he does not mean from this exhaustive search what we mean in our previous topic. But if the biography comes, and there are some examples of this in reality in the two Tahdhibs, Tahdhib al-Kamal and Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, it says about him so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so narrated from him, and then nothing after that. And he may say, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy ones, and then nothing beyond that. And he may say, al-'Ijli authenticated him, and nothing beyond that. Then the result of a biography like this differs from another biography that says so-and-so narrated from him, and Ibn Hibban authenticated him, or al-'Ijli authenticated him. So there is no doubt that it is not permissible at that time to equate the first biography with the other biography, I mean the first biography in which four or five of the trustworthy ones were mentioned, and then it said Ibn Hibban mentioned him, and the other biography in which one narrator was mentioned from the biographee, and then...