If no one narrates from a narrator except his son, is the existence of the son evidence that the father is not suspected of being unknown in his identity?

The questioner : In the matter of some narrators, I read in al-Tahdhib that no one narrates from him except his son or grandson. Is the existence of the son evidence that the father is not suspected of being unknown in his identity, such that he would be considered unknown in status?

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : It is not sufficient.

The Shaykh : It is not sufficient; rather, it may be the opposite, unless the son is a trustworthy and well-known person.

The questioner : Does it mean that even if there is another trustworthy person besides the son, we rule that the identity is unknown? Does the presence of the trustworthy son now remove the unknown status of the identity?

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner : I understood from your words that it removes the unknown status of the identity if the son is a trustworthy and well-known person.

The Shaykh : No, I said that if he is not, then perhaps the opposite is closer: if the son is not trustworthy.

The questioner : Not trustworthy.

The Shaykh : Yes. But if he is trustworthy, his ruling is the same as the ruling of a narrator from whom only one trustworthy person narrates.

The questioner : Meaning he is unknown in identity.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : But what can be raised is: if the narrator has many sons who narrate from him, what is the ruling for this father? I still say his ruling is like the ruling of a trustworthy person from whom a group narrates. If they are trustworthy, you know the answer!

The questioner : Meaning kinship does not add anything.

The Shaykh : It neither advances nor delays.