The statement of Ibn Hajar may differ regarding some of the *mudallis* (narrators who conceal defects), placing them sometimes in the second tier and sometimes in the third tier. Why was this discrepancy not reconciled?

The questioner : The Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s independent legal reasoning differed between his two books: the first, *Ta'rif Ahl al-Taqdis* (Defining the People of Veneration by the Ranks of Those Described as Concealing Defects), and the second, *Al-Nukat 'ala Ibn al-Salah*. It is well known that the Hafiz divided the ranks of narrators who conceal defects into five categories. We find that sometimes in his book *Ta'rif*, he places a narrator in the second rank, but when we refer to *Al-Nukat*, we find he places him in the third rank, and vice versa. This occurred frequently from him (may Allah have mercy on him).

The Shaykh : ...Because the subtle issues in which there is generally disagreement are very naturally subject to differing opinions among scholars. Why did Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) have more than one opinion on a single issue? Likewise, Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on them). Because for issues where there are no explicit texts, it is very natural for the Imam’s opinion to fluctuate between one view and another. We see this in the books of all scholars, whether jurists or hadith scholars. There is no problem with this and no objection whatsoever. We ourselves have fallen into this situation many times, and very frequently. It is a natural part of human nature. Therefore, the student of knowledge must then exert independent legal reasoning to prefer one opinion over another within the limits of the knowledge he has been given, because he must lean either toward what is in *Al-Nukat* or toward what is in the treatise on *mudallis*.
...if the recording device is working

The questioner : May Allah forgive us.

The Shaykh: Amen.