What is the ruling derived from his (peace be upon him) saying: “My Ummah will not agree upon error”?

The questioner : What is the meaning of al-Dhahabi’s statement: “Two scholars of this discipline have never agreed to authenticate a weak narrator, nor to weaken a reliable one”?

The Shaykh : In truth, I read this statement and did not understand it, but it is, may Allah know best, a derivation and citation from his (peace be upon him) saying: “My Ummah will not agree upon error.” From our observation of this hadith, after understanding it correctly, we can hear al-Dhahabi’s words. Many people, in their belief and knowledge, do not understand this authentic hadith, “My Ummah will not agree upon error,” correctly. They say that this hadith is always true regarding those who do not understand it correctly. They say that the hadith means “My Ummah will not agree upon error,” and by that they mean relying on the majority, relying on what the majority (al-jumhur) holds. They understand from the hadith that it supports the majority opinion, and this is a very clear error. Let us give an example to distinguish between this incorrect understanding and the correct understanding, which will become clear after the example is given. Suppose the Ummah consists of ten people, nine of whom hold one opinion, and the tenth holds an opinion contrary to the first. According to the incorrect understanding of the hadith, the error is with the one and the truth is with the nine. But we say that the hadith means that this Ummah, which in our hypothetical scenario consists of ten people, did not agree upon error, because one of them said one thing and the nine said another.
It is possible that the truth is with the one, in which case his (peace be upon him) saying “My Ummah will not agree upon error” is true. It is also possible that the truth is with the nine, in which case the hadith is even more true. However, interpreting the hadith always and forever as proof that the majority is always and forever correct is an error in understanding the hadith first, and an error in applying this understanding practically to the opinions in which scholars differ. I mean, you will not be able to find a scholar, a student of knowledge, or anyone below that level who is a “majoritarian” in every issue; you will not find such a person. So, if your initial understanding of the hadith is correct, you must be a majoritarian in every issue, and this does not exist. How many scholars have contradicted the majority? How many schools of jurisprudence have contradicted other schools? How many followers of a school (muqallid) have contradicted the majority opinion within the same school? And so on. Therefore, practically, adhering to the opinion of the majority is not a reality. So how do you understand the hadith with an incorrect understanding first, and then it does not match your practical application second? This is an error. Thus, it is not possible for the Ummah to agree to authenticate a person who is, in reality, not trustworthy, and the reverse is the same. There must be disagreement among them, with some authenticating and others weakening. In that case, one must weigh matters with a straight balance, and that is by referring to the science of hadith terminology.