Dealing with differing opinions regarding a single narrator.

Al-Halabi : My Shaykh, here something may be confusing for some people, especially those who have not studied the science of hadith, its rules, and its terminology. Is this rejection or non-acceptance of al-Shafi'i's statement that a narrator is trustworthy a diminishment of the status of Imam al-Shafi'i and a criticism of his knowledge?

The Shaykh : Never.
Al-Halabi : We want clarification so that the difficulties are removed.

The Shaykh : Far be it from Allah that this is the first disagreement to occur, for there are many narrators about whom the scholars of hadith differed, some classifying them as reliable and others as weak. Therefore, the rules of the science of hadith terminology were established so that a person does not become confused between conflicting opinions about a single narrator, and so that it does not occur to some, as mentioned in the question, that Imam al-Shafi'i says, "A trustworthy man informed me," while this same man is not considered trustworthy by others. We say that Allah the Exalted...

The questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, welcome. I said that Allah the Exalted, as He stated in the Noble Qur'an, So when the scholars of hadith authenticate a narrator or weaken him, their path to knowing his weakness or his trustworthiness and integrity is one of two ways: either they are direct contemporaries who interacted with him for a period of time, which may be long or short, or they are transmitters from those who were direct contemporaries. For we find in the words of the Imams like al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Yahya ibn Ma'in, and others of the Imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) that they authenticate or weaken a Tabi'i (successor). How did they know the trustworthiness or weakness of the Tabi'i when they did not live in his time and did not interact with him? That is through the path of narration from others who preceded them and came before them and interacted with those Tabi'un. There is also another method, which is very precise, and that is that they judge the narrator by what he deserves of vindication or criticism by sifting and researching his hadiths. If they find them straight and consistent with the hadiths of other narrators, they judge him trustworthy, and the opposite is the opposite. The point is that if a scholar is a transmitter of authentication or weakening, there is no blame on him because he relies on others, just as is our case today. We have no path to authentication or preference except by relying on the earlier scholars. Likewise, whoever authenticates or weakens someone who was not his contemporary is relying on those who relied on his statement. And if he disagrees with him, here the precision in the matter may be that his interaction with him was of short duration and his review of his hadiths was not extensive. So he judges within the limits of the hadiths he reviewed and the period in which he interacted with him, because what appeared to him was only that he was upright and trustworthy. But it happens for others to find the opposite of what appeared to him, because they reviewed a quantity of hadiths that the first authenticating Imam did not review, and they found in the hadiths of this authenticated man what warrants criticism, so they criticized him. This is the reason for the differing opinions of the scholars of hadith regarding a single narrator.
From here came the rules, among which is that if the opinions of the Imams differ regarding one narrator, some authenticating him and others weakening him, on what does one rely: the authenticator, the authenticated, or the weakener? No, there is a rule they stated: if authentication and criticism conflict, the criticism is given precedence over the authentication. But they stipulated in this that the criticism be explained and that the criticism be clarified. The meaning of this is, for example, if it is said of a narrator, Ahmad said, "Trustworthy," and Ibn Ma'in said, "Weak," we apply the rule now: the criticism is given precedence over the vindication if the reason is explained. But Ibn Ma'in did not explain the reason; he said, "Weak." So here the criticism is not given precedence over the vindication because it was not accompanied by an explanation of the reason. But if Ibn Ma'in, in response to Ahmad's statement that so-and-so is trustworthy, said, "Weak due to poor memory," then the statement of Ibn Ma'in is given precedence over the statement of Imam Ahmad, and the criticism is given precedence here over the authentication and vindication because he explained the reason. With these rules and guidelines, a person reaches the knowledge of the stronger position (rajih) and the weaker position (marjuh) among what the scholars differed on in authentication and criticism. And before that, it is known that there is no problem in the fact that Imam al-Shafi'i authenticates a man and Imam Ahmad and others weaken him, because that is due to the difference in ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and each is an Imam. The matter of authentication and criticism from the hadith perspective is exactly like the matter of making things lawful and forbidden from the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) perspective. And you all know, if Allah wills, that there are issues in the rulings of the Shari'ah in which the scholars differed greatly, between one saying something is permissible and another saying it is forbidden. Does this lower the value of the one who disagrees? The answer is no, because they exerted effort in ijtihad. And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, So if the Imams, whether in fiqh or in hadith, may differ, and their difference does not lower the value of any one of them. But those who came after them should not be followers of one of them blindly, nor should they be fanatical for one individual among them, but rather they should apply the scientific rules, whether in the hadith sciences or in the fiqh rulings. In the fiqh rulings, the statement of the Exalted came, So whoever claims the prohibition of something and others claim its permissibility are required to provide proof. Likewise, whoever claims something is obligatory and another claims it is a recommended practice (sunnah), and the like, they are required to provide evidence and proof. The science of hadith is like this, but the science of hadith is more precise than the science of fiqh, because most of the fiqh rulings, praise be to Allah, have texts from the Book and the Sunnah, and the few of them, especially those that do not relate to the human's devotional life, are derived from deductions. As for the hadith issues, most of them are deductions by the scholars of knowledge and fiqh, so it is necessary to pay complete attention to them.