Is the man's local region given precedence over other masters of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, even if they are numerous, in the matter of knowing the hearing or al-jarh wa al-ta'dil in general?

The questioner : It is known, Shaykh (may Allah preserve you), that the words of the masters of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil are relied upon, especially the words of the narrator's local scholar, particularly if he is one of the masters of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. Sometimes a researcher finds that this local scholar contradicted a large group of masters in his statement, whether in affirming the hearing or denying it, such as affirming it while they deny it, or otherwise. I paused here on a statement by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in the biography of Makhul and his hearing from 'Anbasah ibn Abi Sufyan, where he gave precedence to the statement of Dakhim over al-Bukhari, Ibn Ma'in, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur'ah, and al-Nasa'i. They deny the hearing, and Dakhim affirmed it, and he is more knowledgeable about the Shamiyyin.

The Shaykh : Who is saying this?

The questioner : I mean Dakhim, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in the book al-Tahdhib.

The Shaykh : About Dakhim.

The questioner : About Dakhim, and this is in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib in the biography of this man, in al-Talkhis, may Allah preserve you, pardon me, this is in al-Talkhis. So, is the local scholar more deserving of being given precedence? But even if this large group contradicted him, and if that is the case in the matter of the hearing, is it also the case in the matter of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil, such as if he weakens a narrator and they authenticate him, or the reverse? May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Regarding the example you mentioned, it is easy.

The questioner : In the matter of the hearing.

The Shaykh : The example is easy; you should have a difficult example. As for the ease here, even if it were not the local man, who in the example is Dakhim, if he were the one who affirmed it, what is our position toward this affirmer with those deniers? Without doubt, we will apply the rule that the affirmer takes precedence over the denier, and also that the one who knows is a proof over the one who does not know. This is a rule, but it is not absolute; there is no difference there, as we have mentioned more than once.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : There is no general rule that is not specific in some case, but the rule is this: if we assume that the one who authenticated or affirmed the hearing, the one who affirmed the hearing, is not from the country of the one for whom he affirmed the hearing, what is our position? He is with the rule that the affirmer takes precedence over the denier. Confidence in this affirmer is strengthened if he is the son of the country of the one for whom he affirmed. So, there is no problem in this.

The questioner : Now I wanted to use it as evidence for the other thing. Is it also the case?

The Shaykh : What is the other thing?

The questioner : Is it also the case in al-jarh wa al-ta'dil for the local scholar? Because when al-Hafiz spoke, I know the rule that the affirmer takes precedence over the denier, but what he emphasized most was that he is more knowledgeable about the Shamiyyin.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Is it also the case if we assume that Dakhim contradicted these people in the matter of authentication and criticism, such that he authenticates and they criticize?

The Shaykh : Reverse it now: Dakhim said he did not hear, and those people said he heard.

The questioner : A fortiori, they are given precedence over him.

The Shaykh : Okay, okay. Now let me assume another example: Dakhim weakened this local man.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And those people authenticated him.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Is this a valid example? Another example of what is in your mind.

The questioner : Is this it? Is it said that the local scholar takes precedence over these people?

The Shaykh : No, there is no difference. We are now studying this weakening and that authentication with the scale of the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil. If his criticism is explained, as mentioned in some previous sessions, and if this criticism, after being explained, is a criticism that constitutes a decisive defect, it is preferred, and we do not look at whether he is a local man or not. So, this benefits us in a matter where we are confused. But if we have rules that dispel our confusion, it does not matter to us if he is a stranger or a local.

The questioner : Yes, meaning the issue of him being a local scholar, with the equality of circumstances or the aspects of preference, the local aspect here in this case is preferred, meaning the scale...

The Shaykh : Yes.