regarding the authenticity of the hadith: (The disagreement of my Ummah is a mercy), and the solution in matters of scholarly disagreement.

The Shaykh: So, this hadith, in reality, is like the rest of your speech; it is what gave me the impression that you are boasting with words from outside, and you are coming here to repeat them without trying to verify them. So, you directly confronted us by saying that this is a good hadith. The one who wants to discuss a hadith like this should know that I am Al-Albani, whether guided or astray, my knowledge is with my Lord. I am the author of a book titled "The Series of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths and Their Bad Effect on the Ummah." I say—and no boasting in that—this book is unique today in the entire Islamic world. I say—and with regret—"and no boasting," no boasting because . I say: with regret; because there should be many books written on this serious topic in the Islamic world.
Now, in this book, I cited this hadith and mentioned the opinions of the scholars, not my own opinion. From Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, from al-Muzani, the student of al-Shafi'i, from Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, from al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi, and other scholarly memorizers whom I do not mention now. They all stated that this hadith is denounced and not authentic. Then some person who is not qualified to be counted among the jurists comes and sees that this hadith has many chains of transmission. He takes the rule on the margin that a weak hadith is strengthened by the multiplicity of chains, and he says: This hadith is a good hadith due to the multiplicity of chains! If Al-Albani said this, his enemies before his lovers would testify that this is a specialist in hadith. Against their will, they would say: There is no one like him in hadith. If he said this, they would say to him: Who preceded you to this statement? Who is your predecessor? You say your predecessor is... Who said that this hadith is good? I would be forced to look for a supporting chain for it, but no. It was not Al-Albani who said: This is a good hadith. It was a person who has never spoken about hadith, neither authenticating nor weakening nor tracing it. I saw this person's words and read them in some Islamic magazines. He said that this hadith is good, so he threw the words of the Imams on whom I relied in weakening this hadith to the winds. He came with his own independent legal reasoning, and then, my dear sir, the door of independent legal reasoning is closed! How is the door of independent legal reasoning closed when you are exercising independent legal reasoning in a science you have not studied and in which you are not a specialist, and you are authenticating what is not good?!
This hadith: You, with your haste just now, unfortunately, sat there saying: There is no disagreement, there is no conflict. Perhaps in the issue of blood exiting, there are three opinions. What do you think? I will not discuss this with you in terms of knowledge; because you are saying that you are not a student of jurisprudence. Logically, in an Islamic sense, perhaps if al-Shafi'i said: Blood exiting does not invalidate, and Abu Hanifa likewise, and Malik likewise, and Ahmad likewise; would the heart of the Muslim be at peace when he follows these in this opinion? Or when he sees Abu Hanifa saying: It invalidates as long as it passes the exit, al-Shafi'i on the opposite line saying it does not invalidate even if it flows like rivers, Malik and Ahmad saying: If it is much, it invalidates, and if it is little, it does not invalidate. Which is better for your heart? This is the reality, whereas that is the hypothetical you assumed? Can you answer me? Do you know the answer to the question?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: You did very well. I say: The reality now in this one issue is three schools of jurisprudence; meaning three opinions. The schools are four, but in this issue there are three opinions. Two schools agreed: the school of Ahmad and the school of Malik agreed; they said: If the blood exiting from other than the two passages is much, it invalidates, otherwise it does not invalidate. The school of al-Shafi'i says it does not invalidate, whether much or little. The school of Abu Hanifa says it invalidates even if it is little, as long as it passes the exit. These are three schools. This exists today, and all the jurists know this. Now, I assume if the four schools agreed on one of these opinions in this issue, let us assume they all said: Blood exiting does not invalidate the ablution, or it invalidates the ablution. Would this be more reassuring for the hearts of the general Muslims who do not know the evidence or the reality?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: How?

The questioner: ... one issue ... .

The Shaykh: If one opinion, meaning.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: I guarantee it and it is more relaxing, and so on.
Now, if the scholars of the Muslims tried to look at these three opinions and see which is the most correct, and say to the Muslims: This is the most correct, is this not the most correct?

The questioner : How...?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : How...?

The Shaykh: Brothers, the Messenger is saying: , . Did you understand, my brother, how? Tell me: Did you understand?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: No, I will not answer you. Tell me, did you understand or not?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Because if you did not understand, what is the benefit of the talk?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: May Allah guide me and you, my brother. It is not a shame to tell me you did not understand. It is not a shame. We swear to you by Allah that it is not a shame?! It is clear!
Now, you did not understand. I say: You are asking how they should make these three opinions one opinion? I am telling you: By returning to the Book and the Sunnah.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Now, this is the way, by returning to the Book and the Sunnah; is this statement understood?

The questioner : ... the implication ... .

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: Regarding the hadith: , this hadith is not... you are returning to make a mistake in understanding it!

The Shaykh: Of course, because you are not a student of knowledge!!

The questioner: But if we want, how do we want...?

The Shaykh: I am not telling you to return, my brother. I read for you the conclusion... I am not burdening you, and I told you frankly just now: Be a follower of a scholar, my brother. You are not qualified. But we want a follower who is in the dark, with eyes closed, and walking; no, there is another follower who is not with eyes closed, but opening one eye. There is another follower who opens two eyes, opening his insight and his heart, and so on. So knowledge has degrees, my brother. Knowledge has degrees. So if you want to verify in your religion, take the first step. One step, take it. But if you do not take this step, you will be walking in the dark, not with insight. This is not the nature of the Muslim. And knowledge has degrees, and scholars have degrees, let alone students of knowledge, let alone the general public, and so on.
So I am not telling you this, I am telling it to the people of knowledge. So why did you ask the brother just now: To whom is the address? Did you not hear that the address is to the scholars? So why are you applying the verse to yourself, when I am telling you: it is to the scholars, and I have not given you a certificate that you are among the people of knowledge?! On the contrary; I gave you a certificate of being a follower of a scholar!