If the statements of a single imam regarding the authentication or criticism of a narrator conflict, what is the course of action in that case?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : It is assumed that he has more than one statement. What is the way or path to determining a specific statement regarding this man? In the biographical dictionaries, there are multiple statements about this man. For example, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) has two statements regarding Dawud ibn Abi Hind; at one time he authenticated him, and at another time he seemed to weaken him. So I do not know if there is a method to follow to know which of his statements is the stronger position?
The Shaykh : Dawud ibn Abi Hind, about whom did the statement differ?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : At one time he authenticated him!
The questioner : And at another time he weakened him.
The Shaykh : This question was raised in a session by one of the strong students of knowledge, and my answer was as follows: Such a difference from a single imam, where two differing statements are issued regarding the same narrator, is in its status like if one of these two statements was issued by one imam and the other by another imam. So how do you reconcile between them? If the rule is clear to you in my example, then apply it to your mentioned example, and you will be at ease. But if it is not clear, then it must be made clear. I say: It is not hidden from you, I believe, the rule of the scholars of hadith which states: In such a difference, "the original rule is that criticism takes precedence over authentication." However, this statement in its absolute generality and comprehensiveness is not intended. This is because among the causes of criticism are things that are not considered a disqualifying criticism. Let us give a famous example among scholars and students of knowledge: that a narrator is criticized by being, for example, from the people of religious innovation, such as being from the Murji'ah, or from the Khawarij, or the like. This is not considered a disqualifying criticism in his narration, but it is a criticism in his jurisprudence and creed. From this, we find, for example, the Imam of the Muhaddithin, al-Bukhari, narrating from 'Imran ibn Hittan the Khariji!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : That is because the matter is as the scholars of hadith say in the terminology: The consideration for a narrator of hadith is: First, that he be a Muslim. Second, that he be just. Third and finally, that he be precise and a memorizer. If these conditions are met in the narrator, his hadith is on the straight path, valid and upright, naturally, provided it does not contradict the other known conditions: that it is not defective and not anomalous. Now, then, we look at the two differing statements: one authenticated, and the other weakened. If the criticism is explained, and the criticism itself is a disqualifying defect, the criticism is given precedence over the authentication.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the criticism is explained but it is not a [disqualifying] criticism, it has no value. And if the criticism is merely a general weakening without explaining the reason at all, the authentication is given precedence over the weakening. And in this way, the problem is solved regarding a single imam who authenticates at one time and weakens at another. For example, if the one who weakens says: "It became clear to me that the man is a denouncer of hadith," this would be an explained criticism and an acceptable criticism. In that case, his criticism is given precedence over his authentication, because when he authenticated him, his defect had not become clear. But since his defect has become clear, and it has become clear to us that this defect is disqualifying and critical, in that case, we prefer the criticism over the authentication. This is how the difference should be resolved.
Yes.
The Shaykh : Dawud ibn Abi Hind, about whom did the statement differ?
The questioner : Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him).
The Shaykh : At one time he authenticated him!
The questioner : And at another time he weakened him.
The Shaykh : This question was raised in a session by one of the strong students of knowledge, and my answer was as follows: Such a difference from a single imam, where two differing statements are issued regarding the same narrator, is in its status like if one of these two statements was issued by one imam and the other by another imam. So how do you reconcile between them? If the rule is clear to you in my example, then apply it to your mentioned example, and you will be at ease. But if it is not clear, then it must be made clear. I say: It is not hidden from you, I believe, the rule of the scholars of hadith which states: In such a difference, "the original rule is that criticism takes precedence over authentication." However, this statement in its absolute generality and comprehensiveness is not intended. This is because among the causes of criticism are things that are not considered a disqualifying criticism. Let us give a famous example among scholars and students of knowledge: that a narrator is criticized by being, for example, from the people of religious innovation, such as being from the Murji'ah, or from the Khawarij, or the like. This is not considered a disqualifying criticism in his narration, but it is a criticism in his jurisprudence and creed. From this, we find, for example, the Imam of the Muhaddithin, al-Bukhari, narrating from 'Imran ibn Hittan the Khariji!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : That is because the matter is as the scholars of hadith say in the terminology: The consideration for a narrator of hadith is: First, that he be a Muslim. Second, that he be just. Third and finally, that he be precise and a memorizer. If these conditions are met in the narrator, his hadith is on the straight path, valid and upright, naturally, provided it does not contradict the other known conditions: that it is not defective and not anomalous. Now, then, we look at the two differing statements: one authenticated, and the other weakened. If the criticism is explained, and the criticism itself is a disqualifying defect, the criticism is given precedence over the authentication.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if the criticism is explained but it is not a [disqualifying] criticism, it has no value. And if the criticism is merely a general weakening without explaining the reason at all, the authentication is given precedence over the weakening. And in this way, the problem is solved regarding a single imam who authenticates at one time and weakens at another. For example, if the one who weakens says: "It became clear to me that the man is a denouncer of hadith," this would be an explained criticism and an acceptable criticism. In that case, his criticism is given precedence over his authentication, because when he authenticated him, his defect had not become clear. But since his defect has become clear, and it has become clear to us that this defect is disqualifying and critical, in that case, we prefer the criticism over the authentication. This is how the difference should be resolved.
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.