What is the ruling on one who examines the narrations of a narrator in order to pass judgment on him, especially regarding narrators about whom there is disagreement?

The questioner : The second question: What is your opinion on examining the conditions of narrators by tracking their narrations?

The Shaykh : Is this the second one, or is there a third?

The questioner : The first one, O Shaykh, has three paragraphs.

The Shaykh : Ah

The questioner : This is the second one.

The Shaykh : Okay, what is it?
Al-Halabi : Indeed, a hunter, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: What?
Al-Halabi : Indeed, a hunter.

The Shaykh : A hunter, yes.

The questioner : The second question: What is your opinion on examining the conditions of narrators by tracking their narrations to pass judgment on them with a ruling that may agree with the statement of some of the Imams regarding that man, or may contradict it, specifically regarding narrators about whom there is disagreement and the like, such as Sharik al-Qadi? If his narrations are examined and tracked, and we see that his hadith is good, and so on.

The Shaykh : I see no objection to this tracking; rather, it is undoubtedly beneficial, provided it is controlled and restricted by the condition mentioned therein, namely the condition that it does not go beyond any of the statements of the early Imams. If the purpose of this tracking of the narrator's hadiths is to help in preferring one statement over another, then that is excellent. However, if one were to innovate a statement that no one has preceded him in, we have already known the answer to that from before. As we say in many occasions, whether hadith-related or jurisprudential, we derive evidence from the generality of the statement of He who is Blessed and Exalted: We have a text from the Imam, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), in which he says, "It is not permissible for any of the later scholars to come with a statement that contradicts all the statements of the early scholars, because he would be an innovator, he would be one who introduces religious innovation, and he would be contrary to the path of the believers." The path of the believers in a particular jurisprudential issue, for example, involves two statements, so you may choose one of them. But to come with another statement that is neither in agreement with the first statement nor in agreement with the second statement is a contradiction of the path of the believers. I gave an example a long time ago: the jurists, as you know, regarding eating the meat of camels—whether it invalidates the ablution or not—have two statements. One is that it invalidates it, and this is the correct one in terms of evidence or reasoning. The other is that it does not invalidate it, but those who say it does not invalidate it recommend performing ablution from eating camel meat. We found a statement that no one before or after has said, except that it was unique to that Sufi known as Muhyi al-Din. In my time, I read much of his books, especially his massive book, *Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah*. Glory be to Allah, this man combines contradictions; he is a rigid Zahiri in jurisprudence and an atheist in Sufism, believing in the unity of existence. He preceded the Zahiris in rigidity. And here is the point: he said, "Whoever eats camel meat must perform ablution, but if he does not perform ablution, his prayer is valid." That is, he did not consider it among the things that invalidate the ablution; he commanded the Prophet's command regarding ablution from camel meat. So we implement it, but there is no connection between this and the prayer; it is a completely independent ruling. On this basis, we always say that we proceed in jurisprudence and hadith from this Quranic principle: that one does not follow other than the path of the believers, but rather follows the path of the believers. Therefore, if the purpose of this induction and tracking of the narrator's hadith is to take it as a means to prefer one of the statements of the early scholars regarding this narrator, then that is excellent.