The Shaykh’s clarification of the issue of disagreement among hadith scholars in their rulings, and how it resembles the disagreement among jurists in jurisprudential issues

The Shaykh : For example, first, and second: what you mentioned regarding al-Malibari. In truth, in what I have come across of his words, it now raises a problem among students of knowledge, and especially among the hadith scholars among them. It raises a problem, if not a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), because he raises certain opinions that the hadith scholars, the preservers among them, and those who have examined the conflicting opinions regarding what was issued by some of the early Imams, did not follow. He takes an opinion and leans toward it, and relies on it. If he does not make it a principle, he at least sows doubt in the minds of people today, who proceed from the principle of Imam al-Shafi'i with which I began my answer just now. He brings another opinion, for example, that contradicts it. But we say, in the end: which of the two opinions is stronger (rajih) according to the hadith scholars, the preservers among them, who have examined this and that, and conducted a review between this and that, and finally settled on one of the opinions? This is exactly an example of one who raises issues in the inherited fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), which is not free from disagreement in many of its issues: either affirming or negating the affirmation, or prohibiting or disliking or permitting, and so on. He says: there are two opinions in the issue, but what is the relied-upon (mu'tamad) of these two opinions in fiqh? Likewise, we say in the science of hadith. And now, since the issue is not agreed upon by the hadith scholars, neither regarding what I mentioned just now about Imam al-Shafi'i, nor what you mentioned about al-Malibari, the issue has a type of disagreement, but what did the preservers and critics of hadith rely upon? No researcher in the science of hadith doubts that declaring a hadith defective (i'lal) merely due to the singularity (tafarrud) of a trustworthy narrator is not a decisive defect. Rather, it may be a decisive defect if it is opposed by another narration from a more trustworthy narrator, or from a group of trustworthy narrators. There is no doubt that in that case, the defect is established regarding that trustworthy narrator who was singular in contradicting the more trustworthy one or the trustworthy ones. Then we say: regarding the doubt (shubhah) that you related, attributed to Imam al-Bukhari: assuming that the attribution to al-Bukhari is correct, because as I told you just now: I do not recall this as a defect in the hadith mentioned just now: , if this is authentic from Imam al-Bukhari!
The student : Excuse me, you said: .

The Shaykh : How?
The student : You said: !!

The Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good. What I want to say on this occasion: perhaps you know that many of the preservers have graded this hadith as authentic (sahih) or good (hasan)?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : I say: perhaps you know!
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, these people do not know the opinion of Imam al-Bukhari, if it is narrated from him and is correct, without a doubt.
The student : Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, so what is the meaning of their grading the hadith as authentic or good? It means, and it necessarily implies, that that declaration of defect is a personal opinion of the Imam to whom this declaration is attributed, and there is no harm in that for him. The issue is like the jurisprudential issues where an Imam states an opinion, and then another contradicts him, and the reference in that is to the stronger position (tarjih).
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : So, the confusion regarding opinions that we can say are anomalous (shadhdh) relative to what the critics among the preservers followed after that opinion was issued.