وَإِنَّمَا مَثَّلْنَا هَؤُلَاءِ فِي التَّسْمِيَةِ لِيَكُونَ تَمْثِيلُهُمْ سِمَةً يَصْدُرُ عَنْ فَهْمِهَا مَنْ غَبِيَ عَلَيْهِ طَرِيقُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ فِي تَرْتِيبِ أَهْلِهِ فِيهِ فَلَا يُقَصَّرُ بِالرَّجُلِ الْعَالِي الْقَدْرِ عَنْ دَرَجَتِهِ وَلَا يُرْفَعُ مُتَّضِعُ الْقَدْرِ فِي الْعِلْمِ فَوْقَ مَنْزِلَتِهِ وَيُعْطَى كُلُّ ذِي حَقٍّ فِيهِ حَقَّهُ وَيُنَزَّلُ مَنْزِلَتَهُ
Translation: These names were offered to clarify the specialists’ method of ranking: no person of high standing should be rated below his due, nor someone of lesser standing elevated beyond his place; each is granted his proper due.
This is fairness in narrator criticism and evaluation. It is wrong either to conceal a transmitter’s strength or to overstate his precision. The relevant criterion, established evidence, and scope of the ruling must be kept distinct.