Shadee Elmasry – How weak hadiths can still be utilized
AI: Summary ©
The speaker discusses the difference between narrations and Jackson's "innocenty eating" claim. They note that narrations are more reliable and have a higher likelihood of being true, while Jackson's "innixious eating" claim is more likely to become an obligatory belief. The speaker also mentions the various narrations that make Jackson's claim a hit, but not a great belief.
AI: Summary ©
What's the ruling about this? The ruling is the buff, automatically
it is knife. However, the knife does not mean we toss it out.
The knife can be multiple and they could strengthen one another so
that each individual hadith is the eighth. But the collectivity of
the meaning is hasn't. So there is a difference between narrations
and meanings. All right, you can have many narrations, each single
narration is Hessen good, which is good, not not totally good, but
not perfect, like so here, but 100% reliable but hasn't good,
reliable but not great. Okay.
But there's so many of them that the meaning becomes
this happens and it becomes an obligatory belief. And we have
that in the the how we mentioned certain doctrines like that, such
as the doctrine about him and Maddie, where it no individual
hadith is a hit, but there's so many of those like 15 or 16, that
the meaning becomes Saha.