The work of al-Hafiz in a biography where there is disagreement and it is not clear to him whether it is one person or two, so he combines them in terms of criticism or vindication; is this practice to be followed?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding al-Hafiz's practice in *al-Taqrib*, I find that in some biographies, if there is both vindication and weakening in a specific biography, and the vindication is explained and the weakening and criticism are explained in a biography where there is disagreement over whether it is one person or two—now there is disagreement over the biography, whether the intended person is one or two—al-Hafiz combines the ruling between the two opinions. If the biography is disputed, it is said he is so-and-so, and it is said he is so-and-so, and it is possible that the vindication is for one and the weakening for another. Since it did not become more probable for al-Hafiz who was intended by this, he combines them, or he says "trustworthy and weak," or he says "truthful, for example," or "trustworthy but with poor memory," or he says "truthful." Is this usage and understanding correct... regarding this al-Hafiz?
The Shaykh : I do not think so, if it is as you mention. I do not believe this is the case.
The questioner : This exists, my Shaykh. I mean, sometimes he says, for example, "truthful," and it might be "truthful" and "unknown," and sometimes he moves to the word...
The Shaykh : No problem. My intention is to understand from your words that it did not become more probable for him that these two biographies are equal to one biography, so that my answer would be: I do not believe this is correct if it did not become more probable for him that the two biographies are one biography. If it did become more probable for him, there would be no problem with this.
The questioner : What if it becomes more probable for you, my Shaykh, that the biography is so-and-so or so-and-so, does he take the vindication alone or the weakening alone? I mean, if it becomes more probable for him that the biography is two biographies, not one biography, he attributes the vindication to one biography and the weakening to the other. But this combination—what makes him say about the narrator, for example, that Ahmad said he is "trustworthy," that he lowers him to "truthful" except for the saying of the other? This is when there is hesitation. He himself mentions this in *al-Tahdhib*.
The Shaykh : And what about the one whom Ahmad vindicated, who said, for example, something close to a criticism? It is not close.
The questioner : For example, "weak," so he comes and says he is "truthful" or "truthful with errors." This has passed me by often, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : My question is, let me clarify it.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We have Zayd ibn Muhammad.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And we have Zayd ibn Muhammad. It may be difficult for some of the Hafizs that they are two people or that they are one person. It is said of Zayd ibn Ahmad, for example, that Imam Ahmad said he is "trustworthy," and it is said of Zayd ibn Muhammad that he is "weak." So Imam al-Hafiz al-Iskandari combines the two biographies and takes the vindication from Imam Ahmad for the first one, who is Zayd ibn Ahmad, and from the saying of the one who said Zayd ibn Muhammad, he summarizes from the first vindication and the other criticism and says he is "truthful." My question now: is there not someone who said about the first man something contrary to the saying of the one who vindicated him, such that if we said the biography is one, it is Zayd ibn Ahmad, but there might be another saying in his biography other than the saying of Imam Ahmad who said he is "trustworthy"? So we conclude from the contrary saying to Ahmad's saying in the first biography that he summarizes, and this is the practice of Imam al-Iskandari, as you know, in his summarization of the sayings of the preceding Hafizs, giving him a summarized word, which is, for example, "truthful" for one who was said to be "trustworthy." He may err, he may be mistaken, so he gives him "truthful." The summary. My question now: is it possible that I am asking you considering that you are, I mean, close in time and a transmitter, we say, "May Allah reward you, what a blessing," so there is only the saying of Ahmad, for example, that Zayd ibn Ahmad is "trustworthy," and the saying of so-and-so that Zayd ibn Muhammad is "weak," and nothing else.
The Shaykh : I do not think so, if it is as you mention. I do not believe this is the case.
The questioner : This exists, my Shaykh. I mean, sometimes he says, for example, "truthful," and it might be "truthful" and "unknown," and sometimes he moves to the word...
The Shaykh : No problem. My intention is to understand from your words that it did not become more probable for him that these two biographies are equal to one biography, so that my answer would be: I do not believe this is correct if it did not become more probable for him that the two biographies are one biography. If it did become more probable for him, there would be no problem with this.
The questioner : What if it becomes more probable for you, my Shaykh, that the biography is so-and-so or so-and-so, does he take the vindication alone or the weakening alone? I mean, if it becomes more probable for him that the biography is two biographies, not one biography, he attributes the vindication to one biography and the weakening to the other. But this combination—what makes him say about the narrator, for example, that Ahmad said he is "trustworthy," that he lowers him to "truthful" except for the saying of the other? This is when there is hesitation. He himself mentions this in *al-Tahdhib*.
The Shaykh : And what about the one whom Ahmad vindicated, who said, for example, something close to a criticism? It is not close.
The questioner : For example, "weak," so he comes and says he is "truthful" or "truthful with errors." This has passed me by often, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : My question is, let me clarify it.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We have Zayd ibn Muhammad.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And we have Zayd ibn Muhammad. It may be difficult for some of the Hafizs that they are two people or that they are one person. It is said of Zayd ibn Ahmad, for example, that Imam Ahmad said he is "trustworthy," and it is said of Zayd ibn Muhammad that he is "weak." So Imam al-Hafiz al-Iskandari combines the two biographies and takes the vindication from Imam Ahmad for the first one, who is Zayd ibn Ahmad, and from the saying of the one who said Zayd ibn Muhammad, he summarizes from the first vindication and the other criticism and says he is "truthful." My question now: is there not someone who said about the first man something contrary to the saying of the one who vindicated him, such that if we said the biography is one, it is Zayd ibn Ahmad, but there might be another saying in his biography other than the saying of Imam Ahmad who said he is "trustworthy"? So we conclude from the contrary saying to Ahmad's saying in the first biography that he summarizes, and this is the practice of Imam al-Iskandari, as you know, in his summarization of the sayings of the preceding Hafizs, giving him a summarized word, which is, for example, "truthful" for one who was said to be "trustworthy." He may err, he may be mistaken, so he gives him "truthful." The summary. My question now: is it possible that I am asking you considering that you are, I mean, close in time and a transmitter, we say, "May Allah reward you, what a blessing," so there is only the saying of Ahmad, for example, that Zayd ibn Ahmad is "trustworthy," and the saying of so-and-so that Zayd ibn Muhammad is "weak," and nothing else.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.