The opinion is that of the specialists in the field, not that of others.

The Shaykh : ... So now we come to an example known in the present age, which is specialization in knowledge. People’s souls respond to their fitrah (innate natural disposition); they know and feel that the scholar specialized in a certain science is the one to be referred to, and the soul finds more reassurance in his knowledge than in that of a non-specialist.
You know today, for example, the science of medicine and its types and divisions. There is general medicine and there is specialized medicine. A man who complains of pain in his mouth, or in his eye, or in his ear does not go to the general practitioner, but to the specialist. This is a very clear example. A man who wants to know whether a ruling is haram (forbidden) or halal (lawful) does not ask the linguist, nor does he ask the doctor. Count all the examples; he asks a scholar of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). And I mean generalization now: he asks a scholar of the Shari'ah. But scholars of the Shari'ah are divided into categories. There are those who know what is called today comparative jurisprudence, and they will tell you: So-and-so said this, and so-and-so said that, and so-and-so said this. They leave you in confusion. In any case, asking him is infinitely closer to logic than asking someone who is a scholar or specialist in the Arabic language. But if you know that there is another man who is a scholar of the Shari'ah, but he issues fatwas (scholarly legal rulings) based on the stronger position of the scholars, relying on evidence from the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way) and the sayings of the Imams of the Salaf (the earliest generations), there is no doubt that you will find more reassurance in him than in the first one. And so on. Now we enter into what we are addressing. As I said, opinions differ, and some of them refute others. What the student of knowledge should note is this logical sequence. I do not want to speak of myself, although this naturally concerns me directly, but this is an example of the scientific principle from which the student of knowledge should proceed. For example, we now have a problem concerning 'aqidah (creed). We have 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz (may Allah preserve him), and we have this man whom the Jordanian people have been afflicted in this time with his ignorance and his lack of proper conduct toward the scholars of the Salaf, let alone the Khalaf (the later generations). He says, for example, aboutThe Shaykh : 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz (may Allah preserve him), and we have this man whom the Jordanian people have been afflicted in this time with his ignorance and his lack of proper conduct toward the scholars of the Salaf, let alone the Khalaf (the later generations). He says, for example, aboutThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz that he has no knowledge of tawhid (the oneness of Allah). So I am amazed at these young men who have gathered around him. When did this man become known for knowledge such that he can be relied upon? AndThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz, for example, filled the Islamic world with his knowledge. So here it is one of two things: either ignorance or following desire. These young men who gather around this man—this man is a newcomer in knowledge today; no one knows him, and no one has testified to him, neither from the guided scholars nor from the misguided scholars. No one has testified that he is a scholar. So why do these young men gather around him? It is one of two things: either they do not know this precision in which we proceed in sequence from the Companions to today. Two Companions differed: one from the earliest of the first generation, and another from those who followed them with excellence, from the people of the conquest and others who came later in Islam. These are people of knowledge, and these are people of knowledge, but these are from the earliest of the first generation. So here the same case proceeds exactly: two men, one of whom has reached an age, as Allah wills, and he is a scholar who spreads knowledge and acknowledges his knowledge and virtue. The other is insignificant, of no value, with no recognized scholarly standing among the people of knowledge in his country, let alone in other lands. So from here, a person takes a methodology: from whom does he take knowledge? From this newcomer, or from this distinguished, virtuous scholar who has filled the world with his knowledge? Now we come to the core of your question. By Allah, the opinions differ, and some of them refute others. I say that our brothers, the students of knowledge, unfortunately, are in the same situation as these people who are deceived by someone like al-Siqaf. They left the scholars, both old and new, and gathered around him, who is a newcomer. I do not say this in terms of knowledge, but in terms of seeking knowledge, and perhaps that does not even apply to him. So where are these scholars you mentioned in your question who refute one another? This one authenticates and this one weakens? This does not exist, except very rarely. And here, if we arrive at two men who are equal in precedence in knowledge, in authentication and weakening, equal in this, then there are other criteria for preference. For example, the student of knowledge who is caught in a dilemma between this one who authenticates and this one who weakens, or the reverse, and they are equal in terms of precedence and in terms of righteousness, but I will give you a very simple example: one is an employee and the other is not. Do you not feel that the employee is constrained and the non-employee is free? So this becomes a criterion for preference for these two who are equal in what? In knowledge and in righteousness. What if it becomes clear to the student of knowledge that one of them is distinguished over the other? I do not say in knowledge; let us assume they are equal. But one of them is distinguished over the other in righteousness. The reality may be the opposite, but I say that for the student of knowledge, in order to remove confusion from himself, there is Ahmad and there is Muhammad. Both are equal in age, equal in work, equal in specialization, and so on. But Ahmad is lower than Muhammad in righteousness. The soul finds more reassurance in Muhammad than in Ahmad, even if in reality, in the knowledge of Allah the Exalted and Majestic, the case may be the opposite. But Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. So he now considers the psychological reassurance: which one is more righteous? Which one is more mindful of Allah? Muhammad is more mindful of Allah than Ahmad. So I take the opinion of this one. Did I take this because you knew his argument? No. The whole search is that you do not know this knowledge. So we come now to the final topic in this field, because it has taken a lot of time in reality. So I say: what if you know that one of them is not a specialist in the science? He is a scholar, he is virtuous, he is in hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds), in tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and perhaps also in language. But the other is a specialist in the science of hadith. There is no doubt that you will take his opinion before you take the opinion of the other, because you have here a criterion of preference on the scale we established earlier, from the criteria for preference. In light of this explanation and this interpretation, the student of knowledge should not fall into a dilemma. By Allah, for example, we say that in reality, Al-Albani authenticated such-and-such a hadith, and so-and-so, if we asked you when you knew his knowledge, you would say: we knew his knowledge two, three, four, five, ten years ago, and so on. Is that sufficient for preference regarding Al-Albani? Measure the reverse as well. Now, if the matter differs between al-Bukhari and Al-Albani, I tell you: take the opinion of al-Bukhari and leave the opinion of Al-Albani, unless you have a criterion for preference. But if you find a criterion for preference, whatever it is from the known criteria, for example, if it is said to Al-Albani: you contradicted al-Bukhari in such-and-such, and he says to you: yes, but al-Bukhari has a rule by which he weakens the hadith, relying on this rule. But this rule is, in his view, the weaker position, and the stronger position of the majority of scholars is the opposite. So I relied on this rule adopted by the majority of scholars over the rule on which al-Bukhari relied and by which he weakened some hadiths. And among these is, for example, a hadith we need in every prayer, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): .
We are often asked: "O Shaykh, you strengthen this hadith, but al-Bukhari criticized it because of the 'nafs al-zakiyyah' (the pure soul), meaning that one of the narrators from the family of the Prophet is not known to have met his shaykh. I think it is al-A'raj, as far as I can tell, that he is not known to have met him. This is al-Bukhari's methodology: if there is a narrator known to be a contemporary of the shaykh from whom he narrated, but it is not known that he heard from him, al-Bukhari criticizes this narration and does not suffice with contemporaneity. But the majority of scholars, and upon this the science of hadith is built in terms of authentication and weakening, the majority of scholars say that contemporaneity is sufficient. I give, for example, myself: I was a contemporary ofThe Shaykh : Muhammad 'Abduh, but I did not meet him. So if I say: Muhammad 'Abduh said... it should be understoodThose present : That my narration from him is direct, unless it is known about me that I did not meet him, as is the reality that I did not meet him. In that case, it is said that this narration is munqati' (a report with a broken chain). According to the methodology of the hadith scholars, I am a thiqah (trustworthy narrator) and Muhammad 'Abduh is a thiqah, but the narration is munqati' because the link between me and him is unknown. Likewise, if I had met him and studied, for example, at al-Azhar, as many al-Azhari scholars did before, hearing some hadiths and some words from Muhammad 'Abduh and then narrating them, would we consider them muttasil (connected)? As long as he met him, we consider it connected, except in one case: if it is known that he narrates from Muhammad 'Abduh things he did not hear from him. In the terminology of hadith scholars, this is called tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain). We do not accept his hadith unless he says, "So-and-so narrated to me." The point is that al-Bukhari does not accept a narrator's narration from someone of his own time unless it is known that he heard from him in some narrations. He says about this person, known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, that it is not known that he met that Tabi'i (successor) who narrated the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He says, "I refrain from accepting this hadith." And he says in such cases, "There is no mutaba'ah (supporting chain) for it." People come who have no knowledge of the principles and rules and say, "Imam al-Bukhari weakened this hadith." We say, "You are correct." And when al-Bukhari weakened it, he based his weakening on his own methodology, which is that contemporaneity is not sufficient to prove meeting, unless there is a text where he heard it, such as "So-and-so narrated to me" and similar expressions.
Imam Muslim and the majority of scholars hold that this methodology involves restriction and the weakening of hadiths by the hundreds, indeed by the thousands. Indeed, Imam Muslim, in the introduction to his Sahih, indicates that Imam al-Bukhari himself cannot apply this methodology to the hadiths in his Sahih, let alone the hadiths he narrated outside his Sahih. Yes.

The questioner : I said, "My Shaykh, in proving the meeting... in proving the authentication, I meant you..."

The Shaykh : Establishing what?

The questioner : I said, "In proving the meeting, I said that al-Bukhari does not establish this hadith by contemporaneity. And I said after this, in proving the meeting, if you meant proving the authentication of the hadith, yes."

The Shaykh : But all roads lead to the mill, may Allah reward you.

The questioner : Contemporaneity... meeting.

The Shaykh : No, contemporaneity implies meeting. If a contemporary narrates from someone of his own time, it implies meeting. There is no error in this statement!

The questioner : No, my Shaykh, you said that al-Bukhari does not establish the authenticity of this hadith by contemporaneity, and you said here that a meeting took place with... No, I said, and al-Bukhari did not authenticate. I meant I did not say he did not authenticate this hadith by contemporaneity. I said by meeting. What do I mean, my Shaykh? I know, my Shaykh, that your statement is correct. I mean that the sentence...