Discussion of the hadiths narrated by the two Shaykhs; do they establish certainty or preponderance of probability?

The questioner : , O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Regarding the topic of the hasan hadith...

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : ...the authentic ahad hadiths in matters of creed, and the view of the majority is well known regarding them, and... the four Imams and... so is there a disagreement regarding the position of the hasan hadith in this matter? Is it accepted in this regard...?

The Shaykh : What do you mean, my brother, by the hadith, the hadith?

The questioner : Complete the question, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Just complete the question.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : Complete the question.

The Shaykh: Please proceed.

The questioner : That some of the Imams... with us spoke about the hadith.

The Shaykh: And upon you peace.

The questioner : ...in matters of creed, you state that this hadith is in the authentic collections, in "the two Sahihs," for example, ... specifically, he says, and especially if it is agreed upon by them.The Shaykh : The Shaykh :

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, I think, without blame, you have confused one matter with another. When Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that a hadith is in "the two Sahihs," it has no relation to the topic of whether creed is taken from an authentic hadith. Rather, he mentions that in the context of whether certainty is established for the hadiths of "the two Sahihs"? Meaning, does what was narrated by them...The Shaykh : ...in "their two Sahihs" establish preponderance of probability or establish certainty and conviction? In this research, "the two Sahihs" are mentioned, and Ibn Taymiyyah and others elaborate on this, saying: Yes, what was narrated by them...The Shaykh : ...in "their two Sahihs" establishes certainty and conviction, except for what has been criticized, except for what has been criticized. This is another topic that has no relation to the topic of whether creed is established by an authentic hadith absolutely; that is, whether it is in "the two Sahihs" or outside "the two Sahihs." And Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that what is in "the two Sahihs" with the aforementioned condition establishes certainty does not mean from the perspective of narration or from the perspective of the chain of narration, but rather it means from another aspect that has no relation to the chain of narration, but has relation to Islamic creed, which is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . So when the Muslims agree on the authenticity of what is in "the two Sahihs" with the aforementioned exception; the infallibility came to these hadiths from having, for example, a hidden weakness that is unknown to the hadith scholars. This infallibility did not come from the side of the chain of narration; the chain of narration gives us preponderance of probability, and preponderance of probability means this is correct for us, but it may be otherwise. However, the infallibility came from the fact that the scholars of the Muslims received the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" with the aforementioned exception with acceptance, until many of the hadiths in which scholars differed regarding their application in jurisprudence, they agreed on their authenticity; as evidenced by the fact that when one of the disputants argues against the other with a hadith from "the two Sahihs," the opponent has no choice but to concede its authenticity, but he responds to them from a jurisprudential perspective. So, the one who acts upon the hadith and the one who opposes it, both agree that this is an authentic hadith, but they may differ, as we said, regarding its jurisprudential implication. So Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) points to this; that is: the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" took on certainty, certainty of establishment; not from the perspective of their chains of narration, but from the perspective of the consensus of the Ummah and their reception of them with acceptance. So this is one topic. And the topic of whether creed is taken from an authentic hadith outside "the two Sahihs" or not?
The answer, according to the disagreement you pointed out, is that we consider it more likely that there is no difference between creed and rulings and morals, and anything related to Islam in the obligation of taking it and adopting it; as long as it is established in the hadith. And I say "established in the hadith" because "establishment" among hadith scholars is broader and more comprehensive than the word "authentic." "Authentic" means "good" and more, so "authentic" in terminology does not mean "good"; this is the predominant terminology. And if one of them wants to clarify that this authentic hadith is in a rank lower than the rank of authentic, he says: "Good." And if he wants to use an expression that includes both authentic and good, he says: "Established." So "established" cannot be interpreted by the listener of this word as "authentic" or as "good," unless he returns to the chain of narration, or returns to the statement of this speaker; and he finds it clarified in another place; such as saying: "Authentic." So the word "established" is interpreted as "authentic"; as evidenced by the use of the first word by the reader of the other word, or he said in another place: it came with a good chain; so you say: "Established" means "good," and so on.
So whoever says that the hadith... whoever says that creed is established by an authentic hadith, there is no difference for him between authentic and good in terminology; so he must take creed from the good hadith, just as he takes the ruling from the same hadith.