Discussion of the hadiths narrated by the two Shaykhs: Do they provide certainty or preponderance of probability?

The questioner: ... A question from the Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

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

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: ... The valid ahad hadiths in matters of creed, and the opinion of the majority is known regarding them, and ... the four Imams and ... Is there a disagreement regarding the position of the hasan hadith in this? Is it accepted ...?

The Shaykh: No, that is the intention - my brother - 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: Go ahead.

The questioner: Some of the Imams ... with us speak about the hadith ... .

The Shaykh: And upon you peace.

The questioner: ... In matters of creed, they state their position based on the presence of this hadith in the Sahih in "the two Sahihs" - for example - ... specifically saying so, and specifically when the two Shaykhs agree upon it.

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: No, I think - no blame on you - 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 issue of whether creed is taken from a valid hadith. Rather, he mentions that in the context of whether certainty is established for the hadiths of "the two Sahihs"? Meaning, does what the two Shaykhs narrated in "their two Sahihs" provide preponderance of probability or does it provide certainty and conviction? In this research, "the two Sahihs" are mentioned, and Ibn Taymiyyah and others elaborate on this, saying: Yes, what the two Shaykhs narrated in "their two Sahihs" provides certainty and conviction, except for what has been criticized in them, except for what has been criticized in them. This is a different topic that has no relation to the topic of whether creed is established by a valid hadith in general; 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 provides certainty does not mean this 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 a relation to Islamic creed, which is the saying of the Messenger - peace be upon him - : , so when the Muslims agree on the validity of what is in "the two Sahihs" with the aforementioned exception; then the protection came to these hadiths from containing - for example - a weakness that was hidden from the hadith scholars. This protection 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 that what appears to us is valid, and it may be otherwise. But the protection came from the fact that the scholars of the Muslims received the hadiths of "the two Sahihs" with the aforementioned exception with acceptance; so much so that many of the hadiths in which scholars differed regarding their application in jurisprudence are agreed upon as valid, 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 validity, 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 a valid 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 in their 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 a valid 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 any matter related to Islam in the obligation of taking it and adopting it, as long as it is established in the hadith. And I say: it is established in the hadith; because establishment among hadith scholars is broader and more comprehensive than the word "valid." "Valid" means that it is hasan and more, so "valid" in terminology does not mean "hasan"; this is the predominant terminology. And if one of them wants to clarify that this valid hadith is in a rank lower than the rank of "valid," he says: "hasan." And if he wants to use an expression that includes both "valid" and "hasan," he says: "established." And "established" cannot be interpreted by the listener of this word as "it became valid" or as "it became hasan," unless he returns to the chain of narration, or returns to the statement of this speaker and finds it deposited in another place; as if he says: "it became valid." So the word "established" is interpreted by "valid," as evidenced by the use of the other word by the first reader, or he said in another place: "it came with a hasan chain," so you say: "established" means "hasan," and so on.
So, whoever says that creed is established by a valid hadith, there is no difference for him between "valid" and "hasan" in terminology, so he must take creed from the hasan hadith just as he takes the ruling from the same hadith.