If a denouncer and a vindicator conflict, which one is given precedence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : If the scholars differ regarding the authentication or weakening of a report.
The Shaykh : It is necessary for us to know about the vindicator and the denouncer: did he denounce him without saying that he was trustworthy, but rather that he was an open sinner? And did the vindicator say that he used to drink intoxicants but then repented? If the matter is detailed in this way, based on the details of what occurred, then that is the case. But if the matter is not like this, and one says, "This narrator is abandoned," while another says, "This one is trustworthy," and a third says, "There is a concern with him," or something similar, then here we must look at which of the two men had more contact with the man about whom they differed. The one with more contact is given precedence. If we do not know, then scholars differ in the intensity of their scrutiny of narrators; some denounce those who are not actually denouncable, and some are lenient in the opposite direction, vindicating those who are not actually vindicable. However, if the vindicator is among the eminent, trustworthy, and reliable scholars, there is no doubt that his opinion is the stronger position. Furthermore, it is generally the case that you will find, for example, in this hadith about which people differed regarding its narrators, other authentic hadiths that corroborate its text, thereby strengthening it and serving as a corroborating narration for it.
The Shaykh : It is necessary for us to know about the vindicator and the denouncer: did he denounce him without saying that he was trustworthy, but rather that he was an open sinner? And did the vindicator say that he used to drink intoxicants but then repented? If the matter is detailed in this way, based on the details of what occurred, then that is the case. But if the matter is not like this, and one says, "This narrator is abandoned," while another says, "This one is trustworthy," and a third says, "There is a concern with him," or something similar, then here we must look at which of the two men had more contact with the man about whom they differed. The one with more contact is given precedence. If we do not know, then scholars differ in the intensity of their scrutiny of narrators; some denounce those who are not actually denouncable, and some are lenient in the opposite direction, vindicating those who are not actually vindicable. However, if the vindicator is among the eminent, trustworthy, and reliable scholars, there is no doubt that his opinion is the stronger position. Furthermore, it is generally the case that you will find, for example, in this hadith about which people differed regarding its narrators, other authentic hadiths that corroborate its text, thereby strengthening it and serving as a corroborating narration for it.