Dole ne shaidar ‘aqīdah ta kasance tabbatacciya kuma ta kasance ingantacciya ba tare da wata shakka ba. Shi ya sa khabar al-ahad (hadīth da wani mutum ɗaya ko fiye da haka ya ruwaito shi ba tare da ya kai matsayin mutawatir ba) ba ta dace ta zama shaida ga ‘aqīdah ba, koda kuwa hadīth ɗin Sahih ne a cikin ma’anarsa da kuma yadda aka ruwaito shi. Amma game da hukuncin Shari’ah, ya isa shaidarsa ta zama ta zato (zanni). Saboda haka, kamar yadda hadīth mutawatir ya isa ya zama shaida ga hukuncin Shari’ah, haka nan khabar al-ahad ya isa ya zama shaida ga hukuncin Shari’ah. Duk da haka, khabar al-ahad wanda ya dace ya zama shaida ga hukuncin Shari’ah shi ne hadīth Sahih da hadīth hasan. Amma hadīth da’eef (raunanne) ba zai iya zama shaidar Shari’ah ba kwata-kwata. Duk wanda ya yi istidlali da shi, ba za a ɗauke shi a matsayin wanda ya yi istidlali da shaidar Shari’ah ba. Sai dai, la’akari da hadīth a matsayin Sahih ko hasan ya danganta ne ga wanda ya yi istidlali da shi, idan yana da cancantar fahimtar hadīth, wanda hakan bazai kasance ga sauran muhaddithai ba. Wannan saboda akwai masu ruwaitowa da suke amintattu (thiqa) ga wasu muhaddithai amma ba haka suke ba ga wasu muhaddithan, ko kuma a ɗauke su a matsayin majhul (wanda ba a san su ba) ga wasu muhaddithai, alhali kuma sun shahara ga wasu. Akwai ahadīth da ba su da inganci daga wata hanyar ruwaya, amma suna da inganci daga wata hanyar. Akwai kuma hanyoyin ruwaya da suke daidai ga wasu amma ba daidai ba ne ga wasu. Akwai ahadīth da wasu muhaddithai ba su amince da su ba, suna kuma sukar su, amma wasu muhaddithai suna amincewa da su kuma suna gabatar da su a matsayin hujja. Akwai ahadīth da wasu daga cikin Ahl al-hadīth suka ƙi su, amma fuqaha gabaɗaya sun karɓe su suka yi amfani da su a matsayin hujja. Dogara ga la’akari da hadīth a matsayin Sahih ko hasan bisa wata ra’ayi ta musamman ko bisa dukkan ra’ayoyi, wannan dogara ce da ba ta dace ba, kuma tana saɓawa da hakikanin hadīth. Ba a halatta a karɓi hadísi cikin gaggawa ba tare da yin la'akari sosai da ingancinsa ba; haka kuma ba a halatta a ƙi hadísi cikin gaggawa ba, kawai saboda wani daga cikin malaman hadísi ya tambayi amincin wani mai ruwaito shi, bisa yiwuwar cewa za a iya karɓar sa ta wata hanyar ruwaitowa daban. Haka kuma bai kamata a ƙi hadísi kawai saboda wani malamin hadísi ya ƙi shi ba, bisa yiwuwar cewa wani malamin hadísi zai karɓe shi, ko kuma a ƙi shi saboda malaman hadísi gaba ɗaya sun ƙi shi, bisa yiwuwar cewa Imamai da jumlar malaman fiqhu sun yi amfani da shi a matsayin hujja. Ba kuma ya kamata a yi saurin ƙaryata hadísi ko ƙinsa ba, sai dai idan mai ruwaitowarsa an sani daga kowa cewa yana da mummunan suna, ko kuma idan kowa ya ƙi hadísin, ko kuma babu wanda ya yi amfani da shi a matsayin hujja sai wasu daga cikin malaman fiqhu waɗanda ba su da ilimin hadísin. A lokacin ne za a ƙaryata hadísin a ƙi shi. Ya kamata a yi taka-tsan-tsan, a yi tunani sosai kafin a tambayi ingancin hadísi ko a ƙi shi. Duk wanda ya bincika masu ruwaito da hadísai zai ga akwai bambance-bambance masu yawa game da su tsakanin malaman hadísi. Misalai kuwa suna da yawa. Misali: Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, wanda ya ruwaito daga mahaifinsa, wanda ya ruwaito daga kakansa cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

The evidence for the ‘aqīdah must be definite and of unquestionable authenticity. That is why the isolated report (khabar al-ahad) is not fit to be an evidence for ‘aqīdah even if it is a sound hadīth (hadīth Sahih) in its meaning and transmission. As for the Sharī’ah rule, it suffices for its evidence to be speculative (zanni). Therefore, just as the mutawatir hadīth suffices as an evidence for the Sharī’ah rule, likewise the isolated report (khabar al-ahad) suffices as an evidence for the Sharī’ah rule. However, the khabar al-ahad which is suitable to be an evidence for the Sharī’ah rule is the hadīth Sahih and hadīth hasan. As for the weak hadīth (hadīth da'eef) it cannot serve as a Sharī’ah evidence at all. Anyone who educes it he will not be considered to have educed a Sharī’ah evidence. However the consideration of a hadīth as Sahih (sound) or hasan (good) is according to the one who educes it, if he is qualified to understand the hadīth, which may not be so for the rest of the muhadithin. That is because there are transmitters who are trustworthy (thiqa) for some muhadithin but not so for some other muhaddithin, or are considered to be from the obscure (majhul) for some muhaddithin and well known for others. There are ahadīth which are not sound from one line of transmission but are from another and there are lines of transmission which are correct for some but not for others. And there are ahadīth which are not recognised by some muhaddithin and are impugned by them but they are recognised by other muhaddithin who advance them as proof. And there are ahadīth which some of the Ahl al-hadīth discredited but fuqaha in general accepted them and used then a proof. People's adherence to the consideration of a hadīth as Sahih or hasan according to a particular opinion or all of the opinions constitutes an incorrect adherence and contradicts the reality of the hadīth. Nor is it allowed to hastily accept a hadīth without due consideration to its authenticity, likewise it is not allowed to hastily discredit a hadīth and reject it merely because one of the muhaddithin has questioned the probity of a transmitter due to the possibility that it might be acceptable with another transmitter. And one should not reject a hadīth purely because one muhaddith has rejected it because of the possibility that it might be accepted by another muhaddith or reject it because the muhaddithin (in general) have rejected it because of the possibility that it might have been used as proof by the imams and general body of fuqaha (jurists). One should not be rash in discrediting or rejecting a hadīth except if its transmitter is known by all to be disparaged or the hadīth is rejected by everyone or no one advanced it as a proof except some of the fuqaha who lacked knowledge of the hadīth. It is then that the hadīth is discredited and rejected. One should be careful and give it thought before one calls a hadīth into question or reject it. Anyone who scrutinises the transmitters and and ahadīth he will find many differences regarding them between the muhaddithin. And the examples are many. For example: Abu Dawud narrated on the authority of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb who narrated from his father, who narrated from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allah  said:

Mai ruwaito wannan hadīth shi ne 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, kuma 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb ya ruwaito daga mahaifinsa, daga kakansa, kuma sarkar watsa wannan ruwaya sananniya ce. Duk da haka, mutane da yawa sun yi amfani da hadīthinsa a matsayin hujja, wasu kuma sun ƙi shi. At-Tirmidhi ya ce: Muhammad ibn Isma'il ya ce: Na ga Ahmad da Ishaq (ya kuma ambaci wasu) suna amfani da hadīthin 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb a matsayin hujja. Ya ce:

The transmitter of this hadīth is 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb and ‘Amr ibn Shu'ayb narrated from his father and from his grandfather line of transmission is famous. Despite that many have used his hadīth as proof and others have rejected it. Tirmidhi said: Muhammad ibn Isma'il said: I saw Ahmad and Ishaq (and he mentioned others) who used the hadīth of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb as proof. He said:

'Amr ibn Shu'ayb ya karɓi ahadīth daga 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar. Abu 'Isa ya ce: duk wanda ya yi magana game da hadīth na 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb ya ɗauke shi a matsayin mai rauni, saboda yana ambaton ahadīth daga littattafan kakansa kamar dai ba su ɗauka cewa ya ji waɗannan ahadīth kai tsaye daga kakansa ba. 'Ali ibn Abi 'Abd Allah al-Madini ya ce Yahya ibn Sa'id ya ce: hadīth na 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb a wurinmu ba shi da tushe. Duk da haka, idan wani ya kafa wata hukunci ta Shari'a da hadīth na 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, hujjarsa za a ɗauka hujja ta Shari'a, domin 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb yana cikin mutanen da malaman hadīth ke ambaton hadīth nasu a matsayin hujja. Misali, a cikin al-Darqutni, al-Hasan ya ruwaito daga 'Ubada da Anas ibn Malik cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

'Amr ibn Shu'ayb heard ahadīth from 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar. Abu 'Isa said: whoever spoke about the hadīth of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb branded him as weak because he used to quote ahadīth from his grandfathers books as if they considered him not to have heard these ahadīth directly from his grandfather. 'Ali ibn Abi 'Abd Allah al-Madini said that Yahya ibn Sa'id said: The hadīth of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb for us is unfounded. Despite this, if someone establishes a Sharī’ah rule with the hadīth of'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, his evidence will be considered a Sharī’ah evidence because 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb is one of those people whose hadīth the muhaddithin cite as an evidence. For example, in al-Darqutni, al-Hasan narrated on the authority of 'Ubada and Anas ibn Malik that the Prophet  said:

في إسناد هذا الحديث الربيع بن صبيح، وقد وثّقه أبو زرعة، بينما ضعّفه فريق آخر. وقد رواه البزار أيضاً، وهو يُعدّ حديثاً صحيحاً. فإذا استدلّ أحد بهذا الحديث، أو بحديث في إسناده الربيع بن صبيح، فقد استدلّ بدليل شرعي؛ لأنّ الحديث صحيح عند فريق من أهل الرجال، ولأنّ الربيع ثقة عند فريق آخر من نقّاد الرجال. ولا يصحّ أن يُقال هنا إنّ الشخص إذا وُثّق وجُرح معاً، فإنّ الجرح يُقدَّم على التعديل، لأنّ ذلك إنما يكون إذا وردت الأقوال في شخص واحد بحسب رأي واحد. أمّا إذا نقله اثنان، فعدّه أحدهما طعناً ولم يعدّه الآخر كذلك، فالأمر جائز. ومن هنا أقرّ بعض العلماء رواةً معيّنين بأنهم ثقات، ولم يُقرّ بذلك آخرون.

In the isnād of this hadīth there is al-Rabi' ibn Subayh, Abu Zur'a has verified him as trustworthy but another group has weakened him. Al-Bazzar has recorded this hadīth also and it is considered as a sound (Sahih) hadīth. When someone educes this hadīth or a hadīth whose isnād contains al Rabi' ibn Subayh, then he has educed a Sharī’ah evidence because this hadīth is sound according to one group (of rijal scholars), and because al-Rabi' is trustworthy (thiqa) for another group (of rijal critics). It should not be said here that when a person is declared trustworthy and also disparaged that the invalidation (jarh) takes precedence over the attestation of reliabilitiess since that can only be when they are reported about one person according to the view of one person. As for when they are reported by two persons and one considers it as an impugnation (ta'n) and the other does not, then it is allowed. It is from here that some scholars have recognised certain transmitters (as reliable) and others have not.

Misali: Abu Dawud, Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja da al-Tirmidhi sun ruwaito daga Abu Hurairah cewa:

For example: Abu Dawud, Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja and al-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah that:

Tirmizi ya ruwaito cewa Bukhari ya tabbatar da ingancin wannan hadisi, kuma Ibn 'Abd al-Barr ya yanke hukuncin cewa yana da inganci saboda malaman 'Ulama sun karbe shi, kuma Ibn al-Munzir ya tabbatar da shi. Ibn al-Asir ya ce a cikin Sharh al-Musnad: Wannan hadisi Sahihi ne kuma mashhur ne, malamai sun rubuta shi a littattafansu. Sun yi amfani da shi a matsayin hujja, kuma masu ruwaitansa amintattu ne. Shafi'i ya ce akwai wani mai ruwaya a cikin isnadin (sarkar ruwaya) wannan hadisi "wanda ban sani ba". Ibn Daqiq al-'Ayyid ya ambaci dalilan tabbatar da wannan hadisi da ya tabbatar da shi da su. Daya daga cikinsu shi ne rashin sanin Sa'id ibn Salama da al-Mughira ibn Abi Burda, dukkansu da ake ambata a cikin isnadin, alhali wasu muhaddithai sun ce wadannan masu ruwaya biyu sananne ne. Abu Dawud ya ce al-Mughira sananne ne, kuma al-Nasa'i ya shaida amincinsa. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam ya ce mutanen Afirka sun taru kewaye da shi (al-Mughira) bayan kisan Yazid bin Abi Muslim, suka ce ba sananne ba ne. Al-Hafiz ya ce: ya kamata a sani daga wannan kuskure cewa wanda ya zaci cewa shi (watau al-Mughira) majhul ne bai yi daidai ba. Dangane da Sa'id bin Salama, Safwan bin Salim ya bi shi a cikin ruwayarsa daga al-Julah bin Kathir. Saboda haka, duk wanda ya yi amfani da wannan hadisi a matsayin hujja, ko ya yi amfani da ruwayar al-Mughira da Sa'id a matsayin hujja, to ya yi amfani da dalili na Shari'a. Wannan saboda ana ganin wannan hadisi ingantacce ne, kuma ana ganin wadannan masu ruwaya biyu amintattu ne bisa ra'ayin wasu muhaddithai.

Tirmidhi has reported that Bukhari verified the soundness of this hadīth and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr judged it as sound because the '‘Ulamā have accepted it and it has been authenticated by Ibn al Munzir. Ibn al-Asir said in the Sharh al-Musnad: This hadīth is Sahih and mashhur, the imams recorded it in their books. They used it as proof, its transmitters are trustworthy. Shafi'i said that there is a transmitter in the isnād (chain) of this hadīth 'whom I do not know'. Ibn Daqiq al-'Ayyid mentioned the aspects of justification by which he justifies this hadīth. One of them is the lack of knowledge surrounding Sa'id ibn Salama and al-Mughira ibn Abi Burda, both of whom are mentioned in the isnād, whereas some muhaddithin have said these two transmitters are indeed known. Abu Dawud said al-Mughira is known and his reliability is attested by al-Nasa'i. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam said the people of Africa gathered around him (al-Mughira) after the murder of yazid bin Abi Muslim and said that he is unknown. Al-Hafiz said: it should be known from this mistake that the one who assumed that he (i.e AlMughira) is Majhul is not correct. As for Sa’id bin Salama, Safwan bin Salim followed him in his narration from al-Julah bin Kathir. So if anybody used this hadith as an evidence or he used the report of al-Mughira and Said as a proof then he would have used a Shar'i evidence. This is because this Hadith is considered valid and these two transmitters are considered reliable in view of some Muhaddithin.

Wannan hadīsi al-Tirmidhi ya inganta shi, amma wasu mutane sun soke shi, daga cikinsu akwai al-Tahawi, al-Tabari, Ibn Hazm da Abdul Haqq, saboda a cikin isnadinsa akwai Zayd Abu ‘Ayaash, kuma shi majhul ne. An ce a cikin littafin ‘at-Talkhees wal-Jawab’ cewa al-Darqutni ya ce shi amintacce ne (wato Zayd Abu ‘Ayaash), al-Munziri kuma ya ce mutum biyu amintattu sun ruwaito daga gare shi, Malik kuma ya dogara da shi duk da tsananin suka da aka yi masa. Saboda haka, duk wanda ya dauki wannan hadīsi a matsayin hujjar Shari‘ah, ko ya dauki hadīsi wanda ke dauke da Zayd Abu ‘Ayaash a matsayin hujja, to ya yi wa hujjar Shari‘ah kuskure.

This hadīth has been authenticated by al-Tirmidhi and a group of people impugned it, from them are Tahawi, Tabari, Ibn Hazm and Abdul Haqq because in its isnad there is Zayd abu ‘Ayaash and he is Majhul. It is said in ‘at-talkhees wal jawab’ that Darqutni said that he is trustworthy (i.e Zayd abu ‘ayaash) and Munziri said, two trustworthy people have narrated from him and Malik relied on him despite the severe criticism. So if some one takes this Hadith as a Sharī’ah evidence or takes as an evidence a hadith which has Zayd Abu ‘Ayaash, then he would have educed from a Shari’ evidence.

Misali: Ahmad & Abu Dawud sun ruwaito cewa Abu Sa'id al-Khudri ya ce: Na ji Manzon Allah ﷺ yana cewa:

For example: Ahmad & Abu Dawud narrated that Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: I heard the Messenger of Allah  say:

Wannan hadisi yana da ‘Ikrima ‘Amaar al-‘Ajaily, Muslim ya karbi hadisinsa a cikin Sahihinsa (watau Sahih Muslim), duk da cewa wasu daga cikin Huffaz sun raunana hadisan ‘Ikrima wadanda ya ruwaito daga Yahya ibn Kathir, alhali kuwa Muslim ya ruwaito hadisai ta hanyar Yahya, kuma Bukhari ma ya shaida hakan. Saboda haka, idan wani ya fitar da hukunci daga wannan hadisi ko daga hadisin da ke dauke da ‘Ikrima, to zai kasance ya fitar da shi daga hujja ta Shari’a, duk da kasancewar sukar wannan hadisi da kuma ta ‘Ikrima. Misali: Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja da al-Tirmidhi sun ruwaito ta hanyar Yusra bint Safwan cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce:

This hadith has ‘Ikrima ‘Amaar al’Ajaily , Muslim has accepted it in his Sahih (i.e Sahih Muslim), although some of the Huffaz have weakened the ahadith of ‘Ikrima who narrated from Yahya ibn Kathir whereas Muslim reported ahadith on the authority of Yahya and Bukhari also witnessed it. Therefore, if someone educed a rule from this hadith or from a hadith which has ‘Ikrima then he would have educed from a Shari’ evidence despite the existence of impugnation of the hadith and that of ‘Ikrima. For example: Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja and al-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Yusra bint Safwan that the Prophet  said:

An wannan hadīth Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Hayyan, al-Hakim da Ibn al-Jarud sun ruwaito shi. Abu Dawud ya ce: Na ce wa Ahmad: hadīth din Busra ba shi da inganci. Ya ce: A'a, yana da inganci. Bayhaqi ya ce: Duk da cewa shaykhayn (wato, shehunnan biyu, Bukhari da Muslim) ba su ruwaito wannan hadīth ba saboda sabani kan ko sama' (saurarar hadīth) ya faru daga 'Urwa ko Marwan, sun yi amfani da dukkan masu ruwaitonsa (a wasu wurare a matsayin amintattun masu ruwaito). Idan wani ya yi amfani da wannan hadīth a matsayin hujja, hujja ce ta Shari'a ko da Bukhari da Muslim ba su ruwaito shi ba. Idan Bukhari da Muslim ba su gabatar da wani hadīth a matsayin hujja ba, hakan ba ya nufin raina hadīth din.

This hadīth has been recorded by Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Hayyan, al-Hakim and Ibn al-Jarud. Abu dawud said: I said to Ahmad: the hadīth of Busra is not sound. He said: No, it is sound. Bayhaqi said: Even though the shaykhayn (i.e, two Shaykhs, Bukhari and Muslim) did not record this hadīth due to disagreements about whether the sama' (hearing of hadīth) took place from 'Urwa or Marwan but they have used all of its transmitters (elsewhere as reliable transmitters). If someone uses this hadīth as proof, it is Sharī’ah evidence even if Bukhari and Muslim did not record it. If a hadīth is not advanced as proof by Bukhari and Muslim then that does not amount as a denigration of the hadīth.

Misali: Hadisi:

For example: The hadīth:

da hadīth

and the hadīth

Yawancin malaman fiqhu sun yi amfani da hadisai, sai dai wasu sun yi suka game da ingancinsu. Idan wani daga cikinsu ya yi amfani da su a matsayin hujja, to ana ɗaukar sa a matsayin wanda ya samo hujjar Shari'a.

The general body of fuqaha have used both the ahadīth and some have contested their authenticity. If one of them used these as proof then he is considered to have educed a Sharī’ah evidence.

Ta haka bambance-bambancen da ke cikin hadisai, masu ruwaitawa, da kuma hanyoyin ruwaya tsakanin malaman hadisi suka bayyana. Akwai kuma sabani da yawa tsakanin malaman hadisi, malaman fiqhu gabaɗaya, da wasu mujtahidai. Idan aka ƙi wani hadisi saboda wannan sabani, to za a kasance sun ƙi hadisai masu yawa da aka ɗauka a matsayin Sahihi ko Hasan, kuma za a kawar da hujjoji masu yawa na Shari'a, kuma wannan ba a halatta ba. Saboda haka, bai kamata a ƙi hadisi sai don dalili daidai ba, wanda ko dai mafi yawan malaman hadisi suka amince da shi, ko kuma ba zai cika sharuddan hadisi Sahihi da Hasan ba. Ana halatta a fitar da hukunci daga hadisi idan wasu daga cikin malaman hadisi suka amince da shi, kuma ya cika sharuddan hadisi Sahihi da Hasan. Irin wannan hadisi ana ɗaukarsa a matsayin hujjar Shari'a, kuma hukuncin da aka fitar daga gare shi dokar Shari'a ce.

Thus many of the differences in hadīth, transmitters and the lines of transmission between muhaddithin becomes clear. Many disagreements between muhaddthin, the general fuqaha and certain mujtahidin do take place. When a hadīth is rejected due to this disagreement then many ahadīth considered to be Sahih or hasan have been rejected. And many Sharī’ah evidences are eliminated and this is not allowed. This is why a hadīth should not be rejected except for the correct reason, which might be recognised by the majority of the muhaddithin or it might not satisfy the necessary conditions for the Sahih and hasan hadīth. It is permitted to educe a hadīth when it is recognised by some of the muhaddithin and it fulfils the conditions of the hadīth Sahih and hasan. It is considered as a Sharī’ah evidence and the extracted hukm is a Sharī’ah rule.