وَإِنَّمَا أَلْزَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمُ الْكَشْفَ عَنْ مَعَايِبِ رُوَاةِ الْحَدِيثِ وَنَاقِلِي الْأَخْبَارِ، وَأَفْتَوْا بِذَلِكَ حِينَ سُئِلُوا، لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ عَظِيمِ الْخَطَرِ؛ إِذِ الْأَخْبَارُ فِي أَمْرِ الدِّينِ إِنَّمَا تَأْتِي بِتَحْلِيلٍ أَوْ تَحْرِيمٍ، أَوْ أَمْرٍ أَوْ نَهْيٍ، أَوْ تَرْغِيبٍ أَوْ تَرْهِيبٍ.
Translation: Hadith scholars therefore obliged themselves to disclose the defects of hadith transmitters and conveyors of reports, and they gave their judgments about those defects when asked, because of the grave danger involved: reports dealing with religion may declare something lawful or unlawful, command or forbid an act, encourage good conduct or warn against wrongdoing.
Muslim’s argument identifies the practical need behind critical disclosure: a person treating a report as religious evidence must be told of relevant known defects. The scholars’ answer to a question is a responsible assessment, not aimless personal criticism.