在第一章中，我们讨论了圣训学者因自身偏见而作出的错误判断。对于此类错误确实存在，各方并无异议，但提出了两个要点。第一，这些错误对圣训学界而言并非新闻，他们也并不因此感到意外。他们在理论上承认其存在，在实践中一旦出现此类错误，也会谨慎地予以指出。第二，这些错误属于例外而非常态，第三章关于客观性的讨论已经证明了这一点。 在第二章中，简要概述了圣训学者用来判定传述人可靠性的最重要方法。通过各种理论与实例，考察了这些方法如何运用，以及这些方法所得结果的含义。本章的要旨在于说明圣训学者评判传述人所用方法背后的理性基础。这些方法建立在理性与历史原则之上，而非主观、武断的理念。

In the first chapter, we discussed erroneous judgments by hadith critics rulings motivated by their own personal biases. While no one disagrees on the occurrence of these types of errors, two important points were made. Firstly, that these occurrences were not “news” to the hadith, nor were they taken surprised by it. They recognized its existence in theory and in practice they were careful to point it out when it did occur. Secondly, that these mistakes were the exception and not the rule, as proven by the discussion on objectivity in the third chapter. In the second chapter, a brief synopsis was given on the most important methods used by hadith critics in determining the reliability of transmitters. How these methods were applied and the implications of these results from the methods were observed through various theoretical and practical examples. The takeaway from this chapter was to demonstrate the rationale behind the methods used by hadith critics in judging transmitters. It is based on rational and historical principles not subjective and arbitrary ideals.

在第三章中，从三个不同角度考察了圣训评论家在运用其原则评判传述者时的客观性。第一个角度是展示圣训评论家如何对待神学立场相反的传述者。第二个角度是展示圣训评论家如何对待与自己神学倾向相同的传述者。最后一个角度是展示圣训评论家如何对待明确支持其偏见的圣训。通过这每一个角度，都证明了圣训评论家在运用原则时非常客观。弱点不会因为同门之谊而被忽视，可靠性也不会因为神学观点相左而被抹杀，某些圣训因明确支持其意识形态偏见而产生的吸引力，也未曾影响他们对其真实性的判断。 在第四章也是最后一章中，考察了众多圣训评论家的若干例子，并突出了其中体现诚实与真诚的要点。在所讨论的例子中，我们看到圣训评论家为了维护圣训学领域的完整性，宁愿牺牲自己在圣训学履历上的个人利益。

In the third chapter, the objectivity of the hadith critics in applying their principles on judging transmitters was looked into from three different angles. The first angle was to show how the hadith critics dealt with transmitters of opposing theology. The second angle was to show how the hadith critics dealt with transmitters of their theological leanings. The last angle was to show how the hadith critics dealt with hadith reports that expressly support their biases. Through each of these angles, it was demonstrated that the hadith critics were very objective in their application of principles. Weakness was not overlooked due to brotherhood, nor was reliability ignored due to opposing theological views and the appeal of certain hadith reports due to their express support of their ideological biases did not impair their judgment on its authenticity. In the fourth and last chapter, several examples from a wide array of hadith critics were surveyed and points indicative of their honesty and sincerity were highlighted. Throughout the examples discussed, we saw the hadith critics sacrifice personal gain on their hadith resumes to preserve and maintain the integrity of the field of hadith.