Does absolute authentication not get overturned by absolute weakening, as the Hafiz said, or must the authentication be interpreted?

The questioner : Also, in this regard, the Hafiz’s word is always mentioned in several places: if a man’s status of trustworthiness is established, he is not removed from it except by a clear matter.

The Shaykh : Except by a clear matter.

The questioner : By a clear matter.

The Shaykh : A clear matter, yes.

The questioner : Yes, the Hafiz mentions this. Some students of knowledge understand that if two imams speak about a narrator, one saying he is trustworthy and the other saying he is weak, they say, "The matter is settled; this man’s status of trustworthiness is established, so he is not removed from it except by a clear matter. Therefore, a general criticism is not clear and has no standing." Is this the place where the Hafiz spoke, or is the Hafiz’s statement about one whose criticism is well-known?

The Shaykh : No, no, it is not said that it has no standing absolutely. It must be taken into consideration. However, one should also try to reconcile this absolute weakening with the absolute authentication. That is, if we authenticate—excuse me—if we reconcile the absolute authentication with the explicit criticism, what should not be discarded is the absolute weakening for which no reason was mentioned. We only try to combine them if it is feasible for us; otherwise, we resort to reconciliation in this case.

The questioner : Yes, very well, our Shaykh. Can the Hafiz’s statement be applied to one whose status of trustworthiness is established, whose integrity is well-known, and whose matter is clear? So if someone comes to criticize him with an unexplained, non-critical, or ineffective criticism, in this case, it is said that the man’s status of trustworthiness is established. Here, "established" is not merely by the statement of one imam, but his status of trustworthiness is well-known, so he is not removed from it except by a clear matter.

The Shaykh : The truth, may Allah reward you, is that the issue is precise. Have you seen if there is an authenticator who has standing in authentication, and a group said about this authenticator, "He is weak from the beginning"? It is not like if there were only one authenticator and one weakener.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I mean, here there are weakeners.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : There is an authenticator, so we should not take the word said earlier that since his trustworthiness is established, we do not give weight to this general, unexplained weakening. It is necessary to conduct an objective study regarding every narrator about whom there is disagreement between authentication and weakening.

The questioner : This is my statement, our Shaykh. I did not deviate from it, but I wanted to say: is it possible to interpret the Hafiz’s statement to mean that if a man’s establishment is not merely by the authentication of one imam, but by the well-known authentication of him by an imam among the imams, and there are those who criticize him with ineffective words, then it is said to him: this word the Hafiz said, "The man’s status of trustworthiness is established by a clear and certain matter," so we cannot depart from this authentication except by a clear and certain matter like it.

The Shaykh : Very well, this statement is accepted. But take the other side of my statement: his trustworthiness is well-known by the authentication of a group.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : But here there are weakeners as well.

The questioner : And it is general.

The Shaykh : Yes, general. Yes, but it is not one weakener.

The questioner : Weakeners.

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning as the Hafiz’s statement depicts: his authentication is well-known. Where did the fame come from?

The questioner : The multitude of authenticators.

The Shaykh : The multitude of authenticators.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So I am now assuming a scenario: whoever is well-known for being weakened, then it is necessary in that case...

The questioner : Very well, is it possible to interpret this "clear matter" as the multitude of weakeners, so that it is also considered clear?

The questioner : The example, our Shaykh, is not at all like your example.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : Ah, my professor.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : It is not the example I mentioned: one weakener, general.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The Shaykh : It adds another scenario: the multitude of weakeners, even if his weakening is general. Here it is said: is it possible to say that the multitude of weakeners is considered a clear matter, even if it is not explained?

The Shaykh : No, no, it remains unexplained. But this prevents us from giving standing to that authentication which—yes—which we described as being well-known.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So in that case, it is necessary to apply reflection to reconcile the well-known authentication with the opposing weakening that is also well-known. But when the authentication is singular and the group are authenticators, the statement holds: a singular weakening, yes, and the authenticators are plural.

The questioner : What Allah willed.