Their creed is not established except by evidence that is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning.

The Shaykh : ... where they said that the creed is not established except by evidence that is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning, so they established their creed upon this, which is: that an authentic hadith in terms of narration, but not definitive in its meaning, does not yield a creed. So we asked them, in our discussion and debate with them, where did you get this rule from? It is a rule that entails a creed, so where did you bring this creed from? What is the evidence that it is not permissible for a Muslim to build his creed upon an authentic hadith that is not by the path of tawatur which conveys certainty, but is definitive in its meaning? Where did you bring this from? They became confused here in their answer, and the research here is long and very long. They cited as evidence something like the saying of Allah the Exalted: Here, the research takes us away from what we are currently discussing, which is explaining what we know about the Tahrir Party, because discussing this rule and explaining the objections against it, and that it was established upon evidence like a mirage in a desert plain that the thirsty man thinks is water, and therefore we will suffice for now with explaining that this creed, namely that it is not permissible for a Muslim to adopt a creed from an authentic hadith that has not been verified by the philosophy of definitive establishment—he is not definitive in establishment but is definitive in meaning—where did they bring this from? There is no evidence for it, not from the Book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from what the Salaf were upon...