Why do you distinguish between good hadiths, accepting some and leaving others? Example: a hadith of al-Tirmidhi

Eid Abbasi : The questioner asks: Why do you distinguish between good hadiths, accepting some and leaving others? Example: a hadith of al-Tirmidhi: "It was narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he raised his hands in supplication, did not lower them until he wiped his face with them." Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: It has corroborating narrations that support it, including in Abu Dawud the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas and the hadith of al-Sa'ib ibn Yazid, and other corroborating narrations, and their total indicates that it is a good hadith. You do not accept this, but you accept the hadith: , which is a good hadith narrated by Ahmad, and the hadith: narrated by al-Tirmidhi?

The Shaykh : This is a precise scientific question; a quick, hasty answer is not sufficient to satisfy the questioner, but a general answer is necessary, which is:
The first hadith, which we do not accept and which the questioner says is good, he says so by following the precedent of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar—and this is his duty by nature—and Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself acknowledges that the hadith reached the level of goodness in his view through the totality of its chains. We used to think this statement was correct for a period of a few years; that is, that this hadith is good through other chains. Then, when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) willed for me to devote myself to tracing the hadiths of a book of jurisprudence known as "Manar al-Sabil" (The Lighthouse of the Path), I traced them, and this hadith came to me. Here, I did not proceed in all my annotations and verifications by authenticating a hadith, grading it as good, or weakening it by following others; because there is not much work in that, and this is something a beginner in the pursuit of any knowledge can do, saying: So-and-so said such and such, and so-and-so said such and such. But I proceeded with research, verification, and digging. When I came to this hadith and studied the chains by which Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar strengthened the hadith, I found them severely weak. Every chain in it has severe weakness. And they have established in the terminology of hadith science that a weak hadith that is strengthened by the multiplicity of its chains is one in which the weakness has not become severe in its chains. When I found that this rule did not apply or was not realized in the individual chains of wiping the face with the hands after supplication, I left the hadith as weak, and I left the individual chains as severely weak. This is the general answer.
As for the detailed answer, this requires that we task the questioner—and he appears to want scientific research—to trace these chains for us, each chain separately, and for him to study, if he is able, or through someone else, the weakness of the narrator by which the hadith was weakened. If he finds that it is slight weakness, meaning he is trustworthy in himself, but there is weakness in his memory, then your question comes to me, and my response is that I do not see what you see. Rather, it is permissible for you to adopt the opinion of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar with insight, according to your opinion and independent legal reasoning. And this is, of course, until the questioner does this. I think there are gaps and there are difficulties and troubles. But we are now, by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), in the process of printing this book in which I traced this hadith, which is "Irwaa' al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil" (The Quenching of Thirst in Tracing the Hadiths of Manar al-Sabil). Perhaps this book, at least the first volume, will be published, and it contains this hadith, so the questioner can look at it, and thereby look at my treatment and my uncovering of the severe weakness I referred to in the individual chains of it. After that, he should hold himself accountable. If he is convinced by what I said, the question does not arise. If he is not convinced except by what Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, we do not impose our opinion on others, and consequently, it is not permissible for others to impose their opinion on us: .
Other than that?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : ... through corroborating narrations and supporting chains.

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : The question is about the meaning of the text? The chains are about...?

The Shaykh : It does not differ, my brother. These chains are referred to as supporting chains and corroborating narrations. This is a technical term that does not distinguish from what we were discussing. That is, if you read the words of Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir in "Al-Ba'ith al-Hathith" (The Eager Incitement), you will find there that they mean this by that sometimes, and the reverse. So corroborating narrations are hadiths other than the first hadith, but sometimes the same hadith is intended, coming through other chains, and they are called: corroborating narrations. This is a technical term, and it is not a rigid technical term either, but rather it has...
Other than that?