What is the criterion for accepting a hadith that some scholars authenticate and others weaken?

Al-Halabi : What is the criterion for accepting a hadith that some hadith scholars authenticated and others weakened?

The Shaykh : The answer to this is one word, because there is no other answer. The criterion is that one must be a person of hadith knowledge; that is, one must be knowledgeable about the rules of the hadith scholars, their principles, and what they said in the biographies of the hadith narrators, especially regarding this specific hadith about which there is disagreement. Some say it is authentic, and some say it is weak. A person who has no knowledge cannot intervene to judge between the differing hadith scholars regarding authentication and weakening, unless he is a third party in hadith knowledge. I will bring you closer to this with an example. There is no doubt that there are agreed-upon rules and criteria, but there are also matters of disagreement, just like in fiqh issues. This question is exactly like this: What is the criterion or rule for knowing the truth between two differing opinions on some branch issues? One scholar says that if a mature girl marries herself without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is invalid. Another scholar says, no, her marriage is valid. What is the rule? What is the criterion for knowing the truth between these two opinions? This is exactly like that. I say the answer is to be knowledgeable in the science of usul al-fiqh, just as we say regarding the first question that one must be knowledgeable in the science of usul al-hadith. The narrator may have been a subject of disagreement since ancient times; some called him trustworthy, and some called him weak. The one who authenticated the hadith relied on the opinion of those who deemed him trustworthy, and the one who weakened the hadith relied on the opinion of those who deemed him weak. Ah, what is the criterion for distinguishing? We tell you to return to the science of terminology. It tells you that when such a disagreement arises, where one authenticates and one weakens, it is said that the criticism (jarh) takes precedence over the vindication (ta'dil). This is the rule that the criticism takes precedence over the vindication, meaning the opinion of the one who weakens is given precedence over the opinion of the one who authenticates. But is this absolute? The answer is no. First: The criticism takes precedence over the vindication if the criticism is explained and clarified. A mere "weak" does not take precedence over authentication because he has no proof. Second: If there is a criticism with a stated reason, the reason must be studied. If the reason is related to the narration, we give a prominent example: if he is accused of lying, then this is an explained criticism, and it takes precedence over the authentication of those who authenticated him. But is this the only case? No. We say that his status might be better than this, but even so, the criticism takes precedence. For example, if someone says he is weak and has poor memory, and provides some evidence indicating his poor memory by his contradiction of the trustworthy narrators, then we say the criticism takes precedence over the vindication. Who will do this? The scholar of hadith. There are also other reasons, and the research into this is very long, but I will summarize it with one example. The main point of the one who authenticated the hadith is not that he contradicts the one who weakened it. This is one of the subtle points. The authenticator agrees with the weakener in one aspect but differs from him in another. The weakener weakened a specific chain regarding the hadith, and the authenticator of the hadith agreed with him in the weakness, but he found another chain for it. This chain might be authentic in itself, which the weakener missed, or good in itself, which the weakener missed, or weak like the first one, but one of them says the other. This is one of the reasons for disagreement. So what is the criterion? You want a scholar of hadith. He is the one who reveals what the criterion is by returning to the science of terminology.
Al-Halabi : To add to this topic, he says:The questioner : Some claim that the Salafis weaken hadiths that are authentic according to the four Imams or some of them, and authenticate what agrees with their methodology that contradicts the madhhab-based approach.
Yes
So what is your opinion?

The Shaykh : I say this claim is false. As it was said, "If you do not establish proofs for your claims, your children are claimants." The difference between the Salafis and the madhhab-based scholars is that they do not show partisanship for any of the Imams of the Muslims, neither in fiqh nor in hadith, nor in anything else. Rather, they follow the advice of the Imams themselves, who forbade following them blindly and said to their followers, "Take from where we took." We try to take from where they took. For example, they took from the Companions, and the Companions from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but they did not restrict themselves to a specific Companion. Sometimes they took from Abu Bakr, and sometimes from 'Umar, just as they followed this methodology in the best of people after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). We also do what they did: we take from their madhahib what agrees with the Book and the Sunnah, and the authentic Sunnah. We do not show partisanship for any of them. Sometimes we agree with all of them, and sometimes we disagree with all of them, because in this second case, we took according to what other Imams were upon, and so on. So the claim that we contradict the Imams, or some of the Imams, to support our madhhab—we do not have a specific madhhab. Our madhhab is to follow the truth wherever it is, and this is what our Imams ordered us to do.