When the scholars differ regarding a narrator, with some strengthening him and others weakening him, what is the position of the student of knowledge regarding this disagreement?

The questioner : When the scholars differ regarding a narrator, with some strengthening him and others weakening him, what is the position of the student of knowledge regarding this disagreement?

The Shaykh : In my opinion, the student of knowledge must be cautious and not rush the matter. He must first study the science of terminology, specifically the terminology of hadith, and second, he must practically apply what he has studied of the science of terminology to the chains of narration. He does this by observing how the famous scholars of hadith, known for their memorization and knowledge, extract the hadith and how they authenticate or weaken a narrator, despite the existing disagreement in his biography. For example, they mention in the science of terminology that if there is a disagreement regarding a narrator between one who is authenticated and one who is weakened, they say: "The criticism takes precedence over the vindication." This is the first rule. However, this condition is not absolute. They said: The criticism takes precedence over the vindication, provided the reason for the criticism is explained. Then, this alone is not sufficient. The critic may explain the reason for his criticism of the narrator, but when the distinguished researcher examines this reason, he may find it to be a non-critical reason, meaning it is not sufficient for there to be an explained criticism; rather, one must look at this explained criticism to see if it is truly a criticism or not. For example, we say: So-and-so said about him that he is trustworthy, and the other said: weak. This "weak" is an unexplained criticism. We follow up and find that one of them said: "He became confused in his old age." This is an explained criticism, so his hadith is dropped. But if we come across a criticism of the other type: So-and-so is weak. Why? He said: "Because I saw him riding a mule." I do not know if the mule is known in this country. In Damascus, Syria, until recently, and especially before cars became widespread, this mule was the means of transport for some merchants who would go around to their clients to collect the earnings, the money. This mule is a horse that is between an Arabian horse and a mule. When it walks, it moves like this, and you see the rider on it strutting just like horses. So, one of the imams of criticism and vindication criticized a person. He was asked: Why? He said: "Because he was riding a mule." As if he is accusing him of being arrogant.
The student : Arrogance.

The Shaykh : But he does not do this, and this is not his doing; rather, this is the result of the movement of what? The mule. One person criticized another, saying: "I heard musical instruments from his house." This is also a criticism that is not permissible to use to criticize a trustworthy narrator. Why? Because we imagine many, and very many, possibilities. Today, we are accustomed to hearing the sound from our neighbor. If one of our visitors is in our house, we assume that what?
The student : That it is from our place.

The Shaykh : That it is from our place. And this assumption can happen constantly and always. Even I, recently, had this happen to me. We were sitting on the balcony, and I heard the sound of a telephone. Not the sound of singing, praise be to Allah, but the sound of a telephone. By Allah, this was in the house. I ran inside, and there was nothing. Finally, we found out recently that this telephone was in the house below. Subhan Allah! I, the head of the household, assumed it was coming from my place. So what would the person outside the house assume? He would assume the same as I did. So, it is not permissible to criticize based on such reasons, because they are possible. I say: It is also possible that the sound truly came from the house of that man whom some authenticated, but he has a young son. We can say, meaning, a son who is not committed, if we do not say a son who is an open sinner. The father is good at raising his son and sees it as good policy in raising his son not to be strict with him and not to expel him from his house because of his indulgence in musical instruments. Because if he expelled him from his house, this son would become worse than before and he would lose him. So, he sees it as a policy of the Shari'ah to keep this son, despite his committing what the father does not want and does not approve of. So, the fact that that critic, the imam who heard musical instruments from him, is not sufficient. The criticism should be: "Because I saw him playing the oud, for example," because this removes the doubt we mentioned earlier. However, there are other things in which they used to differ. For example, some of the Hanafis used to...