The Ruling When Scholars Disagree on the Authenticity of a Hadith

The Shaykh : And you.

The questioner : . Perhaps you sensed that the questioner intends something behind the question. The question is: If a hadith is weak according to some and authentic according to others, what is the course of action? You did not answer with the Shafi'i position, because perhaps you sensed that the questioner’s intention was...

The Shaykh : From the beauty of such-and-such’s war, may Allah pardon what has passed, and we are the people of the hour.

Another questioner : Yes. We know every manner of speech from him. I took it from him, yes, I found it to be so.

The Shaykh : There is no situation in which it is not always the case. This question is exactly like the jurisprudential aspect: if there are two opinions in a jurisprudential issue, what is the course of action? Does anyone know the answer to this question? The answer to this is exactly the same as that one. Either the person knows that there are two differing opinions on a single hadith, one authenticating it and the other weakening it. Either he is able to examine the two opinions and do so, or he is not, as is the case with most people, even among the scholars. In that case, he must follow one of the opinions, and while following one of them, he must also observe certain matters. The first is to avoid personal desire, and the second is to conduct an examination and review between the evidence for one opinion and the evidence for the other. And this person who should conduct such a review must have principles of knowledge of hadith and the science of hadith, and he must have knowledge of the biographies of the men, the levels of the scholars, and their standing among the hadith scholars. For example, the one who weakens it is Imam al-Bukhari, and the one who authenticates it is Imam Ibn Hibban. So where is Ibn Hibban?

Another questioner : What is it?

The Shaykh : Well, this is a simple examination. And with that, the examples multiply and increase, and sometimes a person stands confused. For example, we might say that al-Bukhari authenticated it and Ahmad weakened it, or vice versa. Since Ahmad is one of al-Bukhari’s teachers, in that case, one must follow the stronger opinion, avoiding bias and personal desire, as we mentioned. The matter here, as you hinted at earlier, is like a jurisprudential issue with two opinions or a dilemma. And since we are giving some practical examples, such as whether the discharge of blood invalidates the prayer or not: it does not invalidate it if it is little, and it invalidates it if it is much. A student of knowledge has not heard this contradiction in opinions on a specific issue; what does he do? We say what we said earlier: if he has some knowledge of the evidence, he must balance them and review them. And if he does not, he should look at which scholars said this and which said that. For example, the opinion that says the discharge of blood invalidates the prayer, even if it is little, contradicts all the scholars who said it does not invalidate it at all, and those who said it does not invalidate the little but invalidates the much. The one who says it invalidates both the little and the much has contradicted the majority. A layperson, or one close to a layperson, can say: “By Allah, I am more inclined to be reassured by what the majority of scholars held, since we do not have evidence.” As came in some reports regarding an issue in which Ali and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) disagreed, and he disagreed after having been with Umar. One of the noble Tabi'un said to him: “Your opinion when you were with Umar is more beloved to us than your opinion when you contradicted Umar.” This is a very reasonable logical examination, and this is the path of...
...the one who does not possess the authority to say, “Allah said” or “The Messenger of Allah said.” And so, if a hadith is authenticated by some and weakened by others, its case in jurisprudence is even more so. It is necessary to prefer one opinion, and this is feasible for the scholars. And whoever is not among them should follow the one whose opinion reassures his soul, and if he shares in its virtue, that is fine.

Another questioner : I mean, I am reading in al-Nawawi’s commentary, his commentary on Muslim, and I found a statement saying: If one says, “Peace be upon you and mercy...”

The Shaykh : Abu Abdullah, reminding you, pay attention. Yes.

Another questioner : Peace be upon you, and Allah’s mercy and blessings.

The Shaykh : It is a bid'ah (religious innovation).

Another questioner : It is a bid'ah (religious innovation). He says this because a weak hadith was reported regarding it. Here, there is a problem among the scholars. I found that according to others, the hadith is not weak.

The Shaykh : I am presenting to you an image, or an example, of some of the previous speech. That he weakens the addition of “and blessings,” while al-‘Asqalani authenticates it. And both are Shafi'i.
But in my belief, any true student of knowledge does not doubt that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani is not equated with al-Nawawi or anyone else in hadith. Here, a person can conduct a review regarding what? That this one is more settled and knowledgeable in this science than Imam al-Nawawi. But when the student of knowledge has some tracking of the narrations and knowledge of the biographies of the narrators, he will immediately judge that al-Nawawi erred and al-‘Asqalani was correct, because this hadith is narrated in Sunan Abu Dawud with a valid chain, from Wa’il ibn Hujr, and it has a corroborating narration in Musnad al-Qudsi from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and also in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir of Ibn Tabarani and other sources. So when a hadith comes, even with two weak chains, meaning one differs from the other and neither is accused of lying, then this hadith, along with the other, becomes hasan (good). And a hasan hadith is better as proof. How much more so when one of the chains is valid in itself, and the other explicitly uses it as proof? So this is an example of how, in reality, one can review between two opinions. Please, our time is short and we have reached the network. Nasser, Nasser. Meaning, before Laylat al-Qadr, we will postpone it a bit. Yes, yes.