Ushahidi wa 'aqīdah lazima uwe wa uhakika na wa usahihi usiotiliwa shaka. Ndiyo maana khabari ya mtu mmoja (khabar al-ahad) haifai kuwa ushahidi wa 'aqīdah, hata kama ni hadīth Sahih kwa maana yake na usimulizi wake. Kwa upande wa hukmu ya Sharī'ah, inatosha kwa ushahidi wake kuwa wa dhana (zanni). Kwa hiyo, kama vile hadīth mutawatir inavyotosha kuwa ushahidi wa hukmu ya Sharī'ah, vivyo hivyo khabar al-ahad inatosha kuwa ushahidi wa hukmu ya Sharī'ah. Hata hivyo, khabar al-ahad inayofaa kuwa ushahidi wa hukmu ya Sharī'ah ni hadīth Sahih na hadīth Hasan. Kwa upande wa hadīth Da'eef, haiwezi kabisa kutumika kama ushahidi wa Sharī'ah. Yeyote atakayeitolea hoja hatachukuliwa kuwa ametoa ushahidi wa Sharī'ah. Hata hivyo, kuifanya hadīth kuwa Sahih au Hasan kunategemea mtu anayeitolea hoja, ikiwa ana uwezo wa kuelewa hadīth hiyo, jambo ambalo huenda lisiwe hivyo kwa wanachuoni wengine wa hadīth. Hii ni kwa sababu kuna wapokezi ambao ni thiqa (waaminifu) kwa baadhi ya wanachuoni wa hadīth lakini si kwa wengine, au wanachukuliwa kuwa majhul (wasiojulikana) kwa baadhi yao na maarufu kwa wengine. Kuna hadīth ambazo si sahihi kwa njia moja ya usimulizi lakini ni sahihi kwa njia nyingine, na kuna njia za usimulizi ambazo ni sahihi kwa baadhi lakini si kwa wengine. Pia kuna hadīth ambazo hazitambuliwi na baadhi ya wanachuoni wa hadīth na wanazikosoa, lakini zinatambuliwa na wanachuoni wengine ambao wanazitumia kama ushahidi. Na kuna hadīth ambazo baadhi ya Ahl al-hadīth waliziikosoa, lakini mafaqihi kwa ujumla walizikubali na kuzitumia kama ushahidi. Watu kushikilia kuifanya hadīth kuwa Sahih au Hasan kwa kufuata msimamo fulani au misimamo yote ni kushikilia kusiko sahihi, na kunapingana na uhalisia wa hadīth. Haifai pia kukubali hadithi kwa haraka bila kuchunguza kwa makini usahihi wake; vivyo hivyo, haifai kuikataa hadithi kwa haraka na kuitupilia mbali kwa sababu tu mmoja wa wanazuoni wa hadithi (muhaddithin) amehoji uadilifu wa mpokezi mmoja, kwa kuwa huenda hadithi hiyo ikakubalika kupitia mpokezi mwingine. Wala haifai kuikataa hadithi kwa sababu tu mwanazuoni mmoja wa hadithi ameikataa, kwa kuwa huenda ikakubaliwa na mwanazuoni mwingine; wala kuikataa kwa sababu wanazuoni wa hadithi kwa ujumla wameikataa, kwa kuwa huenda imetumiwa kama hoja na maimamu na jumla ya wanafiqhi (wanasheria wa Kiislamu). Mtu hapaswi kuwa na haraka katika kuipinga au kuikataa hadithi isipokuwa pale ambapo mpokezi wake anajulikana na wote kuwa ana kasoro, au pale ambapo hadithi hiyo imekataliwa na kila mtu, au pale ambapo hakuna aliyeitumia kama hoja isipokuwa baadhi ya wanafiqhi waliokosa ujuzi wa hadithi. Ndipo hadithi hiyo inapopingwa na kukataliwa. Mtu anapaswa kuwa makini na kufikiri kwa kina kabla ya kuihoji hadithi au kuikataa. Yeyote anayechunguza wapokezi na hadithi atakuta tofauti nyingi kati ya wanazuoni wa hadithi kuhusu hao, na mifano ni mingi. Kwa mfano: Abu Dawud amesimulia kwa mapokezi ya 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, aliyepokea kutoka kwa baba yake, aliyepokea kutoka kwa babu yake, kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema:

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:

Msimulizi wa hadithi hii ni 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, na 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb alisimulia kutoka kwa baba yake, na kutoka kwa babu yake, na mnyororo wa wasimulizi wake unajulikana sana. Licha ya hayo, wengi wametumia hadithi zake kama ushahidi, na wengine wamezikataa. Tirmidhi alisema: Muhammad ibn Isma'il alisema: Niliwaona Ahmad na Ishaq (naye akawataja wengine) wakitumia hadithi ya 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb kama ushahidi. Alisema:

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:

ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb alisikia hadithi kutoka kwa ʿAbd Allah bin ʿUmar. Abu ʿIsa alisema: yeyote aliyezungumzia hadithi ya ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb alimtaja kuwa dhaifu kwa sababu alikuwa akinukuu hadithi kutoka kwenye vitabu vya babu zake kana kwamba walimwona hakuzisikia hadithi hizi moja kwa moja kutoka kwa babu yake. ʿAli bin Abi ʿAbd Allah al-Madini alisema kwamba Yahya bin Saʿid alisema: Hadithi ya ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb kwetu ni isiyo na msingi. Licha ya hayo, mtu akithibitisha hukumu ya Sharīʿah kwa hadithi ya ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb, ushahidi wake utachukuliwa kuwa ushahidi wa Sharīʿah kwa sababu ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb ni miongoni mwa watu ambao hadithi zao wanazonukuu wanazuoni wa hadithi kama ushahidi. Kwa mfano, katika al-Darqutni, al-Hasan alisimulia kwa mapokezi ya ʿUbada na Anas bin Malik kwamba Nabii ﷺ alisema:

'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:

Katika isnādi ya hadīth hii yumo al-Rabi' ibn Subayh. Abu Zur'a amemthibitisha kuwa ni mwaminifu, lakini kundi jingine limemdhoofisha. Al-Bazzar pia ameinukuu hadīth hii, na inachukuliwa kuwa hadīth Sahih. Mtu anapoitolea dalili hadīth hii, au hadīth ambayo isnādi yake ina al-Rabi' ibn Subayh, basi amekuwa ametolea dalili ya Sharī'ah, kwa kuwa hadīth hii ni sahih kwa mtazamo wa kundi moja (la wanachuoni wa rijāl), na kwa sababu al-Rabi' ni thiqa kwa mtazamo wa kundi jingine la wakosoaji wa rijāl. Hapa haipaswi kusemwa kwamba mtu anapotangazwa kuwa mwaminifu na pia akadhalilishwa, basi ukosoaji (jarh) una nguvu kuliko uthibitisho wa uaminifu, kwa kuwa hilo linaweza kuwa tu pale ambapo mtu mmoja amesemwa juu yake kwa mtazamo wa mtu mmoja. Lakini pale ambapo wamesemwa na watu wawili, mmoja akiona ni kasoro (ta'n) na mwingine asiione hivyo, basi inaruhusiwa. Ni kutokana na hapa ndipo baadhi ya wanachuoni wamewatambua baadhi ya wapokezi kuwa wa kuaminika, na wengine hawakuwatambua.

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.

Kwa mfano: Abu Dawud, Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja na al-Tirmidhi wameeleza kwa mapokezi kutoka kwa Abu Hurairah kwamba:

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

Tirmidhi amesimulia kwamba Bukhari alithibitisha usahihi wa hadīth hii, na Ibn 'Abd al-Barr alilihukumu kuwa sahihi kwa sababu wanachuoni ('Ulamā) wameikubali, na Ibn al-Munzir pia ameithibitisha. Ibn al-Athīr alisema katika Sharh al-Musnad: Hadīth hii ni Sahīh na mashhūr; maimamu waliirekodi katika vitabu vyao, wakaitumia kama hoja, na wapokezi wake ni waaminifu. Shāfi'ī alisema kuwa kuna mpokezi katika isnād (mlolongo wa wapokezi) wa hadīth hii "ambaye simjui". Ibn Daqīq al-'Ayd alitaja vipengele vya kuhalalisha ambavyo kwavyo anaihalalisha hadīth hii. Mojawapo ni kutojulikana kwa Sa'īd ibn Salama na al-Mughīra ibn Abī Burda, wote wawili wakiwa wametajwa katika isnād, ilhali baadhi ya muhaddithūn wamesema kwamba wapokezi hao wawili wanajulikana. Abū Dāwūd alisema al-Mughīra anajulikana, na uaminifu wake umethibitishwa na al-Nasā'ī. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam alisema kwamba watu wa Afrika walikusanyika kumzunguka (al-Mughīra) baada ya kuuawa kwa Yazīd ibn Abī Muslim, wakasema kuwa yeye hajulikani. Al-Hāfiz alisema: kutokana na kosa hili inapaswa kujulikana kwamba yule aliyedhani kuwa yeye (yaani al-Mughīra) ni Majhūl hakuwa sahihi. Kuhusu Sa'īd ibn Salama, Safwān ibn Salīm alimfuata katika usimulizi wake kutoka kwa al-Julāh ibn Kathīr. Kwa hiyo, mtu yeyote atakayeitumia hadīth hii kama ushahidi, au atakayeitumia riwaya ya al-Mughīra na Sa'īd kama hoja, atakuwa ametumia dalili ya Kishari'a. Hii ni kwa sababu hadīth hii inachukuliwa kuwa sahihi, na wapokezi hawa wawili wanachukuliwa kuwa waaminifu kwa mtazamo wa baadhi ya muhaddithūn.

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.

Hadithi hii imethibitishwa na al-Tirmidhi, lakini kundi la watu wameikosoa, miongoni mwao ni al-Tahawi, al-Tabari, Ibn Hazm na Abdul Haqq, kwa sababu katika isnadi yake yumo Zayd abu ‘Ayaash, ambaye ni Majhul. Imesemwa katika kitabu ‘at-Talkhees wal-Jawab’ kwamba al-Daraqutni alisema kuwa yeye (yaani Zayd abu ‘Ayaash) ni mwaminifu, na al-Mundhiri alisema kwamba watu wawili waaminifu wamepokea kutoka kwake, na Malik alimtegemea licha ya ukosoaji mkali dhidi yake. Kwa hiyo, mtu yeyote anayechukua hadithi hii kama dalili ya Sharia, au anayechukua kama dalili hadithi yenye Zayd abu ‘Ayaash, basi atakuwa amepata hukumu kutoka kwenye dalili ya Sharia isiyo sahihi.

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.

Kwa mfano: Ahmad na Abu Dawud walipokea kutoka kwa Abu Sa'id al-Khudri kwamba alisema: Nilimsikia Mtume wa Allah ﷺ akisema:

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

Hadithi hii ina Ikrima Amaar al-Ajaily, ambaye Muslim amemkubali katika Sahih yake (yaani Sahih Muslim), ingawa baadhi ya Huffaz wamedhoofisha hadithi za Ikrima aliyesimulia kutoka kwa Yahya ibn Kathir, ilhali Muslim ameripoti hadithi kwa mapokezi ya Yahya, na Bukhari naye ameshuhudia hilo. Kwa hiyo, mtu akitoa hukumu kutokana na hadithi hii au kutokana na hadithi nyingine yenye Ikrima, basi atakuwa ametoa hukumu kutoka kwenye dalili ya Kisharia licha ya kuwepo kwa kukosolewa kwa hadithi hiyo na kwa Ikrima. Kwa mfano: Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Maja na al-Tirmidhi wameeleza kwa mapokezi ya Yusra bint Safwan kwamba Nabii ﷺ alisema:

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:

Hadith hii imepokewa na Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Hayyan, al-Hakim na Ibn al-Jarud. Abu Dawud alisema: Nilimwambia Ahmad: Hadith ya Busra si sahihi. Akasema: Hapana, ni sahihi. Bayhaqi alisema: Ingawa al-shaykhayn (yaani, Mashekhe wawili, Bukhari na Muslim) hawakuinukuu hadith hii kwa sababu ya tofauti za maoni juu ya kama sama' (kusikia hadith) ilifanyika kutoka kwa 'Urwa au Marwan, lakini wametumia wapokezi wake wote (kwingineko kama wapokezi waaminifu). Mtu yeyote akitumia hadith hii kama ushahidi, ni dalili ya Sharī'ah hata kama Bukhari na Muslim hawakuinukuu. Ikiwa hadith haijatolewa na Bukhari na Muslim kama ushahidi, hilo halimaanishi kuidharau hadith hiyo.

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.

Mfano: Hadīth:

For example: The hadīth:

na hadīth

and the hadīth

Fuqaha wengi kwa ujumla wametumia Hadith, na baadhi yao wamepinga usahihi wake. Ikiwa mmoja wao ametumia hizi kama ushahidi, basi anachukuliwa kuwa ametoa dalili ya Sharia.

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.

Hivyo basi tofauti nyingi katika hadith, wapokezi na misururu ya upokezi baina ya wanachuoni wa hadith zinadhihirika. Kunatokea pia mivutano mingi baina ya wanachuoni wa hadith, mafakihi kwa ujumla, na baadhi ya wanachuoni wa ijtihadi. Hadith inapokataliwa kwa sababu ya mvutano huu, basi hadith nyingi zilizochukuliwa kuwa Sahih au Hasan zimekataliwa, na dalili nyingi za Sharī'ah zinaondolewa, jambo ambalo haliruhusiwi. Ndiyo maana hadith haipaswi kukataliwa isipokuwa kwa sababu sahihi, ambayo inaweza kutambuliwa na wengi wa wanachuoni wa hadith, au huenda isitimize masharti yanayohitajika kwa hadith Sahih na Hasan. Inaruhusiwa kutoa hukumu kutoka kwa hadith pale inapotambuliwa na baadhi ya wanachuoni wa hadith na kutimiza masharti ya hadith Sahih na Hasan. Hiyo inachukuliwa kuwa dalili ya Sharī'ah, na hukumu inayotolewa kutoka kwake ni kanuni ya Sharī'ah.

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.