If a layperson follows a scholar in hadith who weakens a certain hadith, and another layperson follows a different scholar who authenticates that same hadith, is this like following the schools of jurisprudence?

The questioner : A person says, if a layperson follows a scholar...

The Shaykh : May he meet Allah in a safe state.

The questioner : May he meet Allah in a safe state, but this man says: if a scholar from among the early hadith scholars uttered or recorded this hadith in his book, and then it became clear that this hadith is weak, you say that this weak hadith is weak in your view based on your trust that your shaykh said this hadith is weak, and I say it is authentic. So he compared this to following the schools of jurisprudence. What do you say, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I mean, the summary of what I understood from your words is that there are two Muslims, one follows a hadith scholar who weakens a hadith, and the other says this hadith is authentic. You, I mean, follow or adhere to the scholar who weakens it, and I follow the scholar who authenticates it; is that correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, we say with complete frankness that this issue is a reality, not just in this era, but in every era. However, the problem is that the one who says this is not saturated with the saying of Allah the Exalted: It is obligatory for every Muslim, regardless of whether he is a scholar, a student of knowledge, or a layperson; all of these, these, and these must have clarity in their religion. But the path to reaching clarity differs according to the type of these three categories. The path of the scholar is that of the mujtahid, who relies on the principles in every science, whether in the science of hadith or the science of jurisprudence, after knowing the Arabic language and its etiquette. The student of knowledge follows, meaning he approaches this general direction. What does the layperson do? The layperson does his duty here, as Allah the Exalted said: So this...The questioner : ...the one you referred to earlier does not follow these guidelines that we explained earlier, the last of which is . So it is not permissible for him to follow a statement made in the past, and the matter is not as if he followed the statement of one of the well-known scholars today, meaning the scenario I mentioned earlier. Now I will give it another scenario: there are two hadith scholars, for example, one in the East and one in the West. The Eastern one authenticates it, and the Western one weakens it; or vice versa. If some laypeople follow this one and some follow that one, there is no problem with that. But the problem is that neither group should be biased toward the Eastern or the Western one, but rather each should exert what effort he can to determine which of the two statements is closer to the truth, each within the limits of his capacity. I am closer to you, for example, with some scenarios. There is no doubt that it is possible to distinguish between the scholar who acts upon his knowledge and the scholar who abandons acting upon his knowledge. So when these two differ, whether their difference is in jurisprudence or hadith, the soul is more reassured by the one who acts upon his knowledge than by the one who abandons knowledge. This is a clear phenomenon, and it is easy for even laypeople to participate in knowing it. But this criterion is abandoned; I say this criterion is abandoned... Yes.

The questioner: He is present.

The Shaykh : It exists, and for example, there is a scholar specialized in his field, whether it is jurisprudence, hadith, or tafsir, and a second scholar who is a generalist. This generalist contradicts the specialist, whether in tafsir or jurisprudence, and so on. There is no doubt that the statement of the specialist is stronger than the statement of the generalist. And so on, and so on, many things that laypeople can observe so that they do not fall into bias toward individuals, as is the reality and as represented by the previous question. Finally, there is an observation we feel today regarding the extent of specialization. Let us assume two specialists, but this one has been a specialist for five or ten years, while this one has been a specialist for half a century. This is also another merit added to the other merits. Do you see those who say this word, "You take the statement of so-and-so, and I take the statement of so-and-so," did they weigh the two statements by looking at their sources? Or did they just find it this way? They just found it this way. So we must have clarity in our religion, and clarity implies these observations that we have presented.

The questioner : The implication of this answer is that the one who follows a scholar among the scholars regarding a hadith must, at the very least, have knowledge of the science of hadith in order to prefer one over the other.

The Shaykh : This is self-evident.

The questioner : This is self-evident!

The Shaykh: It is known.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. The second issue, O dear Shaykh, and I think some of the brothers, I mean, by Allah, it is not a debate, because it is not fair for me to debate with you...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : But for the sake of knowledge, did you mention or did you touch upon the ruling on the one who commits sodomy with a sheep, that the rider and the ridden are stoned? I mean, the rider and the ridden are killed, the active and the passive are killed.

The questioner : Yes.

Another questioner : Listen, O our brothers.

The questioner : Is this your basis for the act of sodomy with a male, or is it your ijtihad? Inform us, may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : I said the hadith is .

The questioner : Okay, and is the sheep compared, meaning the hadith of the sheep?

The Shaykh : The active is the passive object. Who is the passive object in the question? Although in a hadith it explicitly mentions the beast, yes.

The questioner : This is not what I want, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you. It is your turn now.