How do we reconcile those who weakened 'Abbad ibn Rashed with those who graded him as trustworthy?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Regarding al-Hasan, Yahya al-Qattan left him. How is that?
The questioner : 'Abbad ibn Rashed is weak. Is he weak in hadith in an absolute sense?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes. This is the view of those who say so, meaning this is Yahya's view. As for him, there is disagreement. Some people graded him as trustworthy. Regarding 'Abbad ibn Rashed, they said: "Trustworthy, a Shaykh, truthful, sound."
The questioner : This is al-Halali, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Here we return to the principles of hadith, which state the rule: "Criticism takes precedence over vindication." Then, as we mentioned earlier, no general rule exists without a specific exception. This rule is specified; it is not absolute or comprehensive.
The student : If you make this absolute, it is a problem.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : If you make this absolute in its entirety, it is a problem.
The Shaykh : Of course, criticism takes precedence over vindication if the reason is clarified. The reason for the criticism is also restricted; it is not absolute. If, after studying the reason, it is indeed a valid criticism, then the criticism takes precedence over the vindication. Otherwise, the vindication takes precedence. For example, as they say in Syria, "So-and-so is weak." Why? He is accused of lying. Only the one who graded him as trustworthy is not considered, because it appeared to him that he was truthful and trustworthy, but it did not appear to him what appeared to the one who criticized him, namely that he is accused of lying. We rise, we rise, until we say, "He is weak because he became confused." Thus, he is weak because confusion is an agreed-upon criticism. "He is weak, his memory is poor; he would elevate mawquf reports and connect munqati' or mursal reports," and similar expressions. With these rules, a person can then prefer the criticism over the vindication, or the vindication over the criticism.
The questioner : Even the issue of confusion, my Shaykh, is it absolute?
The Shaykh : No, it may be absolute, or there may be Shaykhs who knew that they narrated from him before his confusion, in which case their narrations from him are valid. There is no god but Allah. Hadith science is one of the most difficult sciences because it has rules, but the branches for applying these rules are in the thousands, whereas any other science you study is stable.
The questioner : Well, my Shaykh, the rules... there is no view from the person himself...
The Shaykh : This is without a doubt, but with the restriction you mentioned, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : Very long experience.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : 'Abbad ibn Rashed is weak. Is he weak in hadith in an absolute sense?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes. This is the view of those who say so, meaning this is Yahya's view. As for him, there is disagreement. Some people graded him as trustworthy. Regarding 'Abbad ibn Rashed, they said: "Trustworthy, a Shaykh, truthful, sound."
The questioner : This is al-Halali, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Here we return to the principles of hadith, which state the rule: "Criticism takes precedence over vindication." Then, as we mentioned earlier, no general rule exists without a specific exception. This rule is specified; it is not absolute or comprehensive.
The student : If you make this absolute, it is a problem.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : If you make this absolute in its entirety, it is a problem.
The Shaykh : Of course, criticism takes precedence over vindication if the reason is clarified. The reason for the criticism is also restricted; it is not absolute. If, after studying the reason, it is indeed a valid criticism, then the criticism takes precedence over the vindication. Otherwise, the vindication takes precedence. For example, as they say in Syria, "So-and-so is weak." Why? He is accused of lying. Only the one who graded him as trustworthy is not considered, because it appeared to him that he was truthful and trustworthy, but it did not appear to him what appeared to the one who criticized him, namely that he is accused of lying. We rise, we rise, until we say, "He is weak because he became confused." Thus, he is weak because confusion is an agreed-upon criticism. "He is weak, his memory is poor; he would elevate mawquf reports and connect munqati' or mursal reports," and similar expressions. With these rules, a person can then prefer the criticism over the vindication, or the vindication over the criticism.
The questioner : Even the issue of confusion, my Shaykh, is it absolute?
The Shaykh : No, it may be absolute, or there may be Shaykhs who knew that they narrated from him before his confusion, in which case their narrations from him are valid. There is no god but Allah. Hadith science is one of the most difficult sciences because it has rules, but the branches for applying these rules are in the thousands, whereas any other science you study is stable.
The questioner : Well, my Shaykh, the rules... there is no view from the person himself...
The Shaykh : This is without a doubt, but with the restriction you mentioned, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : Very long experience.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.