Shadee Elmasry – How weak hadiths can still be utilized

Shadee Elmasry
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: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:05

What's the ruling about this? The ruling is the buff, automatically

00:00:05 --> 00:00:09

it is knife. However, the knife does not mean we toss it out.

00:00:11 --> 00:00:16

The knife can be multiple and they could strengthen one another so

00:00:16 --> 00:00:20

that each individual hadith is the eighth. But the collectivity of

00:00:20 --> 00:00:24

the meaning is hasn't. So there is a difference between narrations

00:00:24 --> 00:00:28

and meanings. All right, you can have many narrations, each single

00:00:28 --> 00:00:34

narration is Hessen good, which is good, not not totally good, but

00:00:34 --> 00:00:38

not perfect, like so here, but 100% reliable but hasn't good,

00:00:39 --> 00:00:42

reliable but not great. Okay.

00:00:43 --> 00:00:45

But there's so many of them that the meaning becomes

00:00:47 --> 00:00:50

this happens and it becomes an obligatory belief. And we have

00:00:50 --> 00:00:53

that in the the how we mentioned certain doctrines like that, such

00:00:53 --> 00:00:57

as the doctrine about him and Maddie, where it no individual

00:00:57 --> 00:01:01

hadith is a hit, but there's so many of those like 15 or 16, that

00:01:01 --> 00:01:03

the meaning becomes Saha.

Share Page