What is the best path and the most complete criterion for knowing the correct of two differing opinions?

Al-Halabi : One of our brothers mentions, saying, "Well, for example, the issue of the vision, meaning its hadiths are mass-transmitted, and they claim that they are ahad (limited chain)?"

The Shaykh : Here we return and say, "My brother..."
Al-Halabi : Yes, the issue of methodology.

The Shaykh : Yes, I mean, the issue of mass transmission (tawatur) is currently a relative matter. If we were to gather with this man or someone else, we would ask him: What is your opinion if a hadith is an isolated report (ahad) and it is used as evidence in matters of creed? He would say, "No." We leave that aside for now; we want to proceed with him. So, what about a hadith that is mass-transmitted (mutawatir) and used as evidence? He would say, "Yes." But I know that when he says "yes," it is as they say, , meaning there is no benefit in this statement. Why? The explanation of how it is established will come later. I will ask him: How is the mass-transmitted hadith established? Do you mean the mass-transmitted hadith according to you, or according to other scholars of knowledge? If he says, "According to other scholars of knowledge," the matter between us is concluded, and the proof is established against him, because these hadiths that he claims are isolated reports are his claim, not the claim of the scholars of hadith. If he says, "No, isolated reports and mass transmission are relative to the knowledge I possess," we ask him: Are you one of the scholars of hadith? Do you not believe that there must be specialists in every field of knowledge, and that it is not permissible to encroach upon another scholar's specialty? Is it permissible, for example, for a jurist to be a doctor, or for a doctor to be a jurist?The Shaykh : Make as many examples as you wish. Of course, the answer that returns here is reason, if they have any reason left. He will say, "No, by Allah, this is correct speech." So, are you one of the scholars of hadith? What do you know of the books of hadith and the books of narrators? What is an authentic hadith? What is a good hadith? A good hadith for its own sake? A good hadith for its supporting chains? And so on. At that point, he will be defeated and cut off. If he is cut off, the discussion is cut off from its root, because he is not with us to the end. He does not acknowledge that he trusts the specialists, nor does he acknowledge that he is a specialist. So how do we discuss with him? Therefore, when we convey that a hadith is mass-transmitted, this is the testimony of the scholars. Does he believe in the testimony of the scholars? I do not think so. These innovators do not believe in the words of the people of the Sunnah or in the words of the specialists in that field. I will bring you this example with an example from among the people of the Sunnah themselves. Is there such a disagreement in the branches? For example, all the schools of jurisprudence believe that reciting the Fatiha in every unit of the prayers is a pillar. The Hanafis deviated and said, "No, it is only obligatory." The difference, according to the former, is that whoever does not recite the Fatiha, his prayer is invalid, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) . They say, "No, we say, 'No complete prayer,' meaning it is not a valid prayer, but a complete prayer." Here we entered a disagreement in language, and both interpretations are linguistic. Because when you say, "There is no man in the house," it means there is no one in the house. But when you say, "There is no young man except Ali," the young men are many. So "la" (no) sometimes comes to negate the genus absolutely in language, and sometimes to negate perfection. When it was said, "There is no man in the house," it negates the genus, meaning no one. When it was said, "There is no young man except Ali," it does not mean we judged the young men as dead? The young men are many; this is understood as a matter of course. So what does it mean? There is no young man who is complete in youth and manliness, and so on. Look at his saying . Is the "la" here like "There is no man in the house," or like "There is no young man except Ali"? Linguistically, it could be this or that. But language also has rules and guidelines so that it does not become chaos among people. When the speaker says, "There is no man in the house," it comes to mind that the negation is of the genus. It is not so with "There is no young man except Ali," because the young men are actually very many. This reality compels the listener to understand that the second "la" in "There is no young man" intends to negate perfection, not the genus. That is, there is no young man in the world other than Ali. It is not the case when the Arab says, "There is no man in the house," that there are men in the house, but he wants to say, "There is no complete man in the house." This does not come to mind. Let us return to the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) . Under which rule is it understood? It is understood under the first rule, because this is a legal ruling. The default for "la" is to negate the genus, unless there is a context, as in the second example, "There is no young man." The Hanafis said, "No." We say, "No complete prayer," with evidence that the Qur'an said . And there is no absolute text that permits them to say it is not permissible to restrict it with the hadith. Here is the point. Why? Because the Qur'an is mass-transmitted, and the hadith is an isolated report. The point remains: Who said that this hadith is an isolated report? This fanatical Hanafi jurist claims so, and his claim may be correct. But for him, he did not find the many paths for this hadith to reach the belief that it is a mass-transmitted hadith. But we say to him: The Commander of the Faithful in hadith, Imam al-Bukhari, has a treatise called "The Part on Recitation" (Juz' al-Qira'ah), a special treatise on recitation behind the imam. At the beginning of this treatise, it is mass-transmitted with us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . So do we accept the testimony of the Commander of the Faithful in hadith that this hadith is mass-transmitted, or do we accept the testimony of a jurist who has no engagement with the science of hadith, and who is not known by the scholars who came after him to have a share in the science of hadith? Without a doubt, in this case, we take the word of the specialist in this science, which is al-Bukhari. So this al-Khalili, the author of the alleged book "The Decisive Truth" (al-Haqq al-Damigh), comes and sets himself up as a mujtahid in hadith, a mujtahid in tafsir, a mujtahid in comparative jurisprudence on the four, fourteen, and forty schools, and so on. He comes and tells you, "This hadith is an isolated report." Who are you, man? No one knows that you engaged with the books of hadith, especially those of the people of the Sunnah, and traced the paths of this hadith and that one. In the end, it did not become clear to you that this hadith is a mass-transmitted hadith. What is the value of your testimony? So he is a deluded man, or he knows that he is not knowledgeable, but he wants to support what he found the fathers and grandfathers upon. Therefore, it is necessary to establish principles and rules that are agreed upon. After that, it is possible to remove disagreements, or at least some of the disagreements. Because I believe that these disagreements are built on a disagreement in the principles. If there is agreement on some of these principles, agreement is possible on some of what branches from them. I do not say "branches," because our discussion is not about what is called branches and is not principles.