regarding the authenticity of the hadith "The disagreement of my Ummah is a mercy"?

The Shaykh : Yes, this hadith, in reality, is like the rest of your speech. What you said gave me the impression that you are presumptuous in your words, coming from outside, and you keep repeating this here without trying to look into the matter. You directly confronted us by saying, "This is a hasan (good) hadith." Is it necessary to discuss a hadith like this? It is supposed to be that I, Al-Albani, the guided or the misguided, my knowledge is with my Lord, am the author of a book titled "The Series of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths and Their Bad Effect on the Ummah". I say, without boasting, that this book is unique today in the entire Islamic world. I say, unfortunately, "without boasting", without boasting because I say, unfortunately, because there must be many books written on this serious topic in the Islamic world. Okay.
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 scholars and memorizers I do not remember now. They all stated that this hadith is munkar (denounced) and not valid. Then some people who are not qualified to be considered among the jurists come and look at this hadith, seeing that it has many chains of transmission. They take the rule that a weak hadith is strengthened by the multiplicity of its chains, and they say, "This hadith is hasan (good) due to the multiplicity of its chains." If Al-Albani said this, his enemies, before his lovers, would testify that this is a man specialized in hadith. Against his will, they would say, "There is no one like him in hadith." If he said this, they would ask him, "Who preceded you to this statement? Who is your predecessor?" You say, "My predecessor is the one who said this hadith is hasan." Bring it... until I find a chain for it, but it is not Al-Albani who said this hadith is hasan. It is 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 hasan, and he threw the words of the Imams on whom I relied in weakening this hadith to the wind. He came with his own independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). Then, my master, the door of ijtihad is closed. How is the door of ijtihad closed while you are exercising ijtihad in a science you have not studied and in which you are not specialized, and you are calling good what is not good? This hadith At that moment, unfortunately, you are rushing. You sat and said, "There is no disagreement, there is no dispute." Do you think that 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 have not studied... Islamic jurisprudence. Logically, if al-Shafi'i said that blood exiting does not break the ablution, and Abu Hanifa said the same, and Malik said the same, and Ahmad said the same, would that reassure the heart of the Muslim when he follows these in this opinion? Or would he see that Abu Hanifa says it breaks the ablution if it exceeds the exit point, while al-Shafi'i, on the opposite line, says it does not break it? And if it flowed like rivers, Malik and Ahmad say that if it is much, it breaks it, and if it is little, it does not break it. Which one is better for your heart? This is the reality. As for that hypothetical scenario you posited? Can you answer me? Do you know the answer to the question?

The questioner : ... .

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

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Hello.

The questioner : ... One issue ... .

The Shaykh : If one opinion, meaning.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It is more guaranteed and more relaxing, etc. Okay, now if the scholars of the Muslims tried to look at these three opinions and determine which is the most correct, and told the Muslims, "This is the most correct," is this not the most correct?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Brothers, the Messenger says Do you understand, my brother, how? Say, did you understand?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, you did not answer me. Say, did you understand or did you not understand?

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 that you did not understand. It is not a shame. I swear to you by Allah that it is not a shame... It is clear. I did not understand. I say, you are asking how they should make these three opinions into one opinion? I am telling you, by returning to the Book and the Sunnah.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the way, by returning to the Book and the Sunnah. Do you understand this statement?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Fine.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Regarding the hadith This hadith is not... .

The Shaykh : Of course not, because you have not studied the knowledge.

The questioner : It is necessary, how do we... .

The Shaykh : I am not telling you to return, my brother, to me. I read for you the conclusion... . I am not burdening you, and I told you frankly at that moment, "Be a follower (mقلid), my brother. You are not qualified." But we want a follower who is blind and walking, not a second follower who is not blind but has one eye open. There is a second follower who has two eyes open, who has opened his insight and his heart, etc. Knowledge has degrees, my brother. Knowledge has degrees. So if you want to look into your religion, take one step, one step. Walk. But if you do not take this step, you are walking in ignorance, not with insight. This is not the nature of the Muslim. Knowledge has degrees, and scholars have degrees, let alone students of knowledge, let alone the general public, etc.
So I am not telling you... I am telling you, but I am saying to the people of knowledge. Why did you ask the brother at that moment? To whom is the address? Did you not hear that the address is to the scholars? Why are you applying the verse to yourself? I am telling you it is for the scholars, and I did not give you a certificate that you are among the people of knowledge. On the contrary, I gave you a certificate as a follower (mقلid)!

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : In the end.