在任何讨论中，极其重要的一点是准确指出各方之间真正的争议所在。我们究竟在争论什么？我们的实际分歧从哪里开始？圣训学方法的真实性之辩也不例外；我们必须明确指出分歧所在。 许多圣训学方法的批评者，聚焦于圣训批评家本身，并试图从他们是人、容易犯错这一事实得出结论——而这一点，双方并无分歧。由于圣训学方法大量涉及辨别传述人的错误，进而或确认其可靠性，或批评其不准确之处，即所谓的“Al-Jarh wal Ta’dil”（耆尔赫与塔迪勒），圣训学方法的批评者指出，这些批评与认可不能被照单全收，因为圣训批评家受到各种偏见的影响。但我们的主张并非认为圣训批评家是完美的，也并非认为他们永远不会落入个人偏见与恩怨的陷阱。我们的主张是：因个人恩怨等原因而产生的错误确实存在，但那是例外，而非常态；而且最早的圣训批评家们也意识到了这一点。

In any discussion, it is of utmost importance to pinpoint the actual area of contention between the various parties involved. What is it that we are actually debating? Where does our actual disagreement start at? A debate on the veracity of Hadith method is no different; we must highlight where our disagreement lies. For many detractors of Hadith Method, they focus on the hadith critics themselves and seek to draw conclusions from the very fact they are human and those prone to error, a point about which there is no disagreement. Because much of Hadith Method relates to pinpointing errors of transmitters, and subsequently either endorsing their reliability or criticizing their inaccuracies, known as Al-Jarh wal Ta’dil, the detractors of Hadith Method point out that these criticisms and endorsements cannot be taken at face value because of the various biases that hadith critics are subject to. But it is not our claim that hadith critics were perfect or that they would never fall prey to their personal biases and grudges. Our claim is that mistakes due to personal grudges - for example - did occur, yet they were the exception and not the rule and at that, the earliest hadith critics were aware of this.

理论上，圣训学者确实认识到偏见的问题，并且高度意识到它可能出现。例如，叶哈雅·本·穆因在谈到艾卜·努阿ય姆对他人的批评时就认识到了这一点。伊本·朱奈德写道：

In theory, the hadith critics did recognize the problem of bias and were acutely aware of the possibility of its occurrence. For instance, Yahya b. Ma’in recognized this when discussing Abu Nu’aym’s criticisms of others. Ibn Al-Junayd writes:

我听到叶哈雅·本·马因说："艾布·努阿伊姆，如果他提到某人并说'他是好的'，并赞扬他，那他一定是什叶派。如果他称某人为穆尔吉厄派，那他一定是正统的，此人没有任何问题。"[1] 在这段引述中，叶哈雅指出，由于艾布·努阿伊姆的某些神学倾向，他往往用神学标签来描述传述者，而这些标签在叶哈雅看来可能并不准确。关于这一主题，另一条表明早期圣训批评家理解有偏见的批评之问题的重要引述，是艾布·祖尔阿·阿尔-拉齐（卒于264年）的话。阿尔-巴尔达伊引述艾布·祖尔阿说：

I heard Yahya b. Ma’in say: “Abu Nu’aym, if he mentions a person and says, „He is good,’ and praises him, then he must be a Shi’ite. And if he calls a person a Murji’, then he must be orthodox, nothing wrong with him.1” In this quote, Yahya is pointing out that, due to certain theological leanings of Abu Nu’aym, he was prone to describe transmitters with theological labels that may be less than accurate in the eyes of Yahya. Another important quote on this topic that shows early hadith critics understood the problem of biased criticism is a quote by Abu Zur’ah Al-Razi (d. 264). Al-Bardha’i quotes Abu Zur’ah as saying:

“任何不以虔敬之心谈论这一领域的人，都会自己走向毁灭。任何与他人之间存在问题或灾祸的人，都可以提出来。然而，阿尔-萨瑞和马立克曾以虔敬之心批评传述者，因此他们的意见得到了遵从。凡不以虔敬之心谈论这一学科的人，其后果必将反过来落到自己身上。”在阿布·祖尔阿的这段话中，他告诫人们不要陷入对圣训传述者进行不公正批评的陷阱，并且含蓄地承认这种情况确实会发生；随后指出，阿尔-萨瑞和马立克大体上不受偏见的影响，因此他们的裁决广受欢迎。

“Anyone who doesn’t speak about this field religiously, they throw themselves into destruction. Anyone who has a problem or calamity between them and another, it is possible for them to mention it. Though Al-Thawri and Malik used to critique transmitters religiously, hence their opinions were acted upon. Whoever doesn’t speak in this discipline religiously, it will come back to [haunt] them.2” In this quote from Abu Zur’ah, he is warning others from falling into the pitfall of unfair criticism against hadith transmitters and implicitly accepts the fact that it occurs, then pointing out that Al-Thawri and Malik were generally safe from prejudice, hence the popularity of their rulings.

在圣训批评家拒绝某项针对另一位传述人的批评、理由是当事人之间存在偏见的实际例子有好几个。例如，Al-Sijzi在询问Al-Hakim（卒于405年）时写道：我问他（即Al-Hakim）关于Ibrahim b. „Abdillah Al-Sa’diy的情况，他说：“他是可靠且值得信赖的，虽然他曾贬低Muslim b. Al-Hajjaj，因此Muslim无故地指责了他。”Al-Hakim把Muslim批评Al-Sa’diy的动机归因于两人之间的个人矛盾，并最终断定这种批评没有根据。在下面引自Abu Ya’la Al-Khalili（卒于446年）的一段话中，他把Al-Nassa’i对某位传述人的批评归因于对此人的某种偏见，并宣称这种批评是不可接受的。他写道：

In terms of practical examples where hadith critics reject a criticism against another transmitter due to biases of those involved, there are several. For example, while questioning Al-Hakim (d. 405), Al-Sijzi writes And I asked him (i.e. Al-Hakim) about Ibrahim b. „Abdillah Al-Sa’diy, so he said, “He is reliable and trusted though he used to belittle Muslim b. Al-Hajjaj, and thus Muslim impeached him without justification.3” Al-Hakim attributes the motivation behind Muslim’s criticism of Al-Sa’diy to a personal problem between the two and ends by declaring it to be unjustified. In the following quote from Abu Ya’la Al-Khalili (d. 446), he attributes Al-Nassa’i’s criticism of a transmitter to be based on a form of prejudice against him and declares that it is unacceptable. He writes:

艾哈迈德·本·萨利赫·阿尔-米斯里：可靠（thiqah）的权威学者（Hafiz）。布哈里从他那里记录了圣训，穆罕默德·本·叶海亚·阿尔-杜赫利从他那里书写圣训，阿布·祖尔阿和阿布·哈提姆也是如此。阿布·阿卜杜勒-拉赫曼·阿尔-纳萨伊批评过他，但权威学者（Huffaz）一致认为他的批评出于偏见，而像他这样的人（即阿尔-纳萨伊）的批评并不会损害他。4 在上面的引文中，阿尔-哈基姆对叶海亚·本·赛义德针对某位传述人的批评是否合理存有疑问。阿尔-哈基姆记载，他曾问阿尔-达拉古特尼：

“Ahmed b. Salih Al-Misri: a reliable (thiqah) Authority (Hafiz). Al-Bukhari recorded from him, and Muhammad b. Yahya Al-Dhuhli wrote from him, as did Abu Zur’ah and Abu Hatim. Abu „Abd Al-Rahman Al-Nasa’i criticized him, but the authorities (Huffaz) agreed that his criticism is prejudice, and the criticism from his likes (i.e. Al-Nassa’i) doesn’t harm him.4 “ In the last quote, it shows Al-Hakim wondering if Yahya b. Sa’id criticisms against a particular transmitter were justified or not. Al-Hakim reported that he asked Al-Darauqtni:

“我(即阿勒·哈基姆)说:伊布拉欣·本·穆哈吉尔?他(即达拉古特尼)回答:他们弱化了他;叶哈雅·阿勒-盖塔documentation 和其他人批评了他。我说:是否有道理?他说:当然!他传述的圣训,没有其他人予以佐证。舒尔巴也批评了他。”5 对此前所述内容,没有比阿勒-扎哈比在其《Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala'》中的话更能概括的了。他说:“我们不主张耆德的权威们(Jarh Wal-Ta'dil)是绝无过失的,但他们是最精确的、最少出错的、最公正的,也是最远离偏见的。”6

“I (i.e. Al-Hakim) said: Ibrahim b. Al-Muhajir? He (i.e. Al-Daraqutni) replied: They weakened him; Yahya Al-Qattan and others criticized him. I said: Rightfully so? He said: Of course! He transmitted hadith reports that he hasn’t been corroborated on. Shu’bah also criticized him.5” No quote will better summarize what preceded than Al-Dhahabi’s words on the topic in his Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’. He says, “We don't claim infallibility for the authorities of Jarh Wal-Ta'dil, but they are the most accurate, least prone to mistakes, most fair and the furthest from prejudice.6”