关于“aqīdah”（信条）的证据必须是确定的，并且真实性无可质疑。因此，孤证（khabar al-ahad）即使在其内容与传述上都是圣训“sahih”（sahīh，真实可靠的圣训），也不足以作为信条的证据。至于伊斯兰教法（Sharī'ah）的律例，其证据只需是或然性的（zanni）即可。因此，正如“mutawatir”（经众多传述线路确证的圣训）足以作为教法律例的证据，孤证同样足以作为教法律例的证据。不过，适合作为教法律例证据的孤证，是“sahih”圣训和“hasan”（hasan，良好的圣训）。至于弱圣训（hadīth da'eef），则完全不能作为教法证据。任何援引它的人，都不能被视为援引了教法证据。然而，一段圣训被判定为sahih或hasan，取决于援引它的人，前提是他有资格理解该圣训，而其他圣训学家未必如此。这是因为，某些传述人对于某些圣训学家而言是可靠的（thiqa），而对另一些圣训学家而言却并非如此；或者对某些圣训学家而言是不明者（majhul），对另一些而言却是众所周知的。也有一些圣训，从一条传述线路看并不可靠，而从另一条线路看却是可靠的；还有一些传述线路，对某些人是正确的，对另一些人却不正确。还有一些圣训，某些圣训学家不予承认并加以质疑，而另一些圣训学家却承认它并将其作为证据提出。另有一些圣训，部分“Ahl al-hadīth”（圣训学派）予以否定，但教法学家（fuqaha）总体上却接受并将其作为证据。人们若固执于依某一种观点或全部观点来判定某段圣训为sahih或hasan，这种固执是不正确的，也与圣训的实际情况相悖。 不可因草率地接受一段圣训而不认真考察其真实性，同样，也不可因为某位圣训学家对某个传述人的诚实度提出质疑，就草率地否定并拒绝这段圣训，理由是它可能通过另一位传述人而可以被接受。也不可仅因一位圣训学家拒绝了某段圣训，就拒绝它，理由是它可能被另一位圣训学家接受；也不可因圣训学家普遍拒绝它，就拒绝它，理由是它可能曾被伊玛目和整体的教法学家（fuqaha）作为证据使用。 只有在以下情况下，才不应轻率地质疑或拒绝一段圣训：其传述人被所有人公认为有缺陷，或者该圣训被所有人拒绝，或者除了一些缺乏圣训知识的教法学家之外，没有人将其作为证据。在这种情况下，该圣训才会被否定和拒绝。在质疑或拒绝一段圣训之前，应当谨慎并加以思考。 凡是审视传述人和圣训的人，都会发现圣训学家们在这些问题上存在许多分歧，而这样的例子很多。例如：艾布·达五德（Abu Dawud）记载，他是通过阿慕尔·本·舒尔拜（'Amr ibn Shu'ayb）传述的，阿慕尔从其父亲那里传述，其父亲又从其祖父那里传述，祖父说：安拉的使者ﷺ说：

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:

这段圣训的传述者是阿慕尔·本·舒爷卜，而阿慕尔·本·舒爷卜是从他的父亲那里并通过他的祖父传述的，这一传述链是广为人知的。尽管如此，仍有许多学者引用他的圣训作为证据，也有人拒绝采用。提尔米兹说：穆罕默德·本·伊斯玛仪说：我看到艾哈迈德和伊斯哈格（他还提到了其他人）以阿慕尔·本·舒爷卜的圣训作为证据。他说：

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:

"'阿慕尔·本·舒艾卜从阿卜杜拉·本·欧麦尔处听闻圣训。"艾布·尔撒说：凡是谈论阿慕尔·本·舒艾卜圣训的人，都认为他弱，因为他常引用其祖父书中的圣训，仿佛他们认为他并非直接从祖父处听闻这些圣训。阿里·本·艾布·阿卜杜拉·麦迪尼说，叶哈雅·本·赛尔德说：阿慕尔·本·舒艾卜的圣训对我们而言是不可靠的。尽管如此，若有人以阿慕尔·本·舒艾卜的圣训确立一条沙里亚律例，其证据仍被视为沙里亚证据，因为阿慕尔·本·舒艾卜属于圣训学家引用其圣训作为证据的人之一。例如，在达尔古during尼的著作中，哈桑转述自欧巴待和安斯·本·马立克，先知ﷺ说："

'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:

在这条圣训的传述链中有al-Rabi' ibn Subayh。Abu Zur'a认为他是可信的，但另有一些学者贬低了他。al-Bazzar也记录了这条圣训，并认为它是圣训（Sahih，沙希德）。当有人引用这条圣训，或引用传述链中包含al-Rabi' ibn Subayh的圣训时，他所引用的就是一项沙里亚证据，因为依照一派（圣训人物评鉴学者）的看法，这条圣训是沙希德的；而依照另一派（圣训人物批评学者）的看法，al-Rabi'是可信的（thiqa）。这里不应说：当一个人被宣布为可信，同时又被贬损时，贬损（jarh）优先于对其可靠性的肯定，因为那只适用于对某人的评价来自一个人的观点。至于当两人对同一人作出评价，其中一人视之为批评（ta'n），另一人则不然，那么引用是被允许的。正是基于此，一些学者认可了某些传述人的可靠性，而另一些学者则没有。

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.

例如：艾布·达伍德、艾哈迈德、奈萨仪、伊本·马哲和提尔米兹在引述艾布·胡莱赖（愿安拉喜悦他）的传述时说：

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

Tirmidhi 报道说，Bukhari 验证了这段圣训的真实性，Ibn 'Abd al-Barr 判定它为sahih（可靠），因为学者们接受了它，并且 Ibn al-Munzir 也认证了它。Ibn al-Asir 在《Sharh al-Musnad》中说：这段圣训是sahih且mashhur（广为流传），伊玛目们将其记录在各自的书中，并以之为证据，其传述者是可信的。Shafi'i 说，这段圣训的isnād（传述链）中有一位传述者"我不认识"。Ibn Daqiq al-'Ayyid 提出了为这段圣训辩护的若干方面。其中之一是关于isnād中提到的Sa'id ibn Salama和al-Mughira ibn Abi Burda的知识不足，而一些muhaddithin（圣训学家）认为这两位传述者确实是为人所知的。Abu Dawud 说al-Mughira是为人所知的，al-Nasa'i 则证实了他的可靠性。Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam 说，在Yazid bin Abi Muslim被杀之后，非洲的人们聚集在他（al-Mughira）周围，并说他是不为人知的。al-Hafiz 说：从这一错误中应当明白，认为他（即al-Mughira）是majhul（不为人知）的人是不正确的。至于Sa'id bin Salama，Safwan bin Salim 在他从al-Julah bin Kathir的传述中跟随了他。因此，如果有人以这段圣训作为证据，或以al-Mughira和Sa'id的传述作为证明，那么他所使用的就是一个有效的Shar'i证据。这是因为，这段圣训被视为有效的，而在一些muhaddithin看来，这两位传述者是可靠的。

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.

例如:艾哈迈德转述,萨阿德·本·阿比·瓦卡斯说:

For example: Ahmad narrated that Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas said:

这段圣训已被提尔米兹进行了认证,但有一群学者对其提出了质疑,其中包括塔哈维、塔巴里、伊本·哈兹姆和阿卜杜勒·哈格,因为其传述链中有宰德·阿布·阿亚什,而他是不为人知的(Majhul)。在《at-talkhees wal jawab》中提到,达尔古特尼说他是可信的(即宰德·阿布·阿亚什),穆齐里说,有两位可靠的人从他那里传述过圣训,马立克也依赖他的传述,尽管受到了严厉的批评。因此,如果有人将这段圣训作为沙里亚的证据,或将包含宰德·阿布·阿亚什的圣训作为证据,那么他就是从非沙里亚的依据中推导出了结论。

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.

例如:Ahmad 和 Abu Dawud 记载,Abu Sa'id al-Khudri 说:我听到安拉的使者ﷺ说:

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

这则圣训中有伊克里玛·阿玛尔·阿贾伊利（‘Ikrima ‘Amaar al-’Ajaily）的传述。穆斯林（Muslim）在其《圣训实录》（Sahih）中采用了它，即《穆斯林圣训实录》（Sahih Muslim）。虽然一些哈菲兹（Huffaz）弱化了伊克里玛从叶海亚·伊本·凯西尔（Yahya ibn Kathir）转述的圣训，而穆斯林记录了通过叶海亚传来的圣训，布哈里（Bukhari）也对此予以认可。因此，如果有人从这则圣训，或从其中含有伊克里玛的其他圣训中推导出某条律例，那么尽管圣训及伊克里玛本人受到非议，他所推导的仍是源自沙里尔（Shari'）的依据。例如：艾哈迈德（Ahmad）、艾布·达乌德（Abu Dawud）、奈萨仪（al-Nasa'i）、伊本·马哲（Ibn Maja）和提尔米兹（al-Tirmidhi）通过尤斯拉·宾特·萨夫万（Yusra bint Safwan）转述，先知ﷺ曾说：

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:

这段圣训由马立克、沙斐仪、伊本·胡宰麦、伊本·哈everyone… 更正：这段圣训由马立克、沙斐仪、伊本·胡宰麦、伊本·哈yyan、哈基姆和伊本·朱鲁德记录。艾布·达乌德说：我对艾哈迈德说：布斯拉的圣训不可靠。他说：不，它是可靠的。 拜哈各书说：尽管两位谢赫（即布哈里和穆斯林）没有记录这段圣训，原因是对于“听闻”（sama'）是否发生在欧尔沃和麦尔旺之间存在分歧，但他们使用了其中所有的传述者（在别处将他们视为可靠的传述者）。如果有人以这段圣训作为证据，那么即使布哈里和穆斯林没有记录它，它也是沙里亚证据。如果布哈里和穆斯林没有将某段圣训作为证据提出，这并不构成对该圣训的贬低。

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.

例如:圣训:

For example: The hadīth:

以及圣训

and the hadīth

大多数的fuqaha（伊斯兰教法学家）都采用了这些圣训（ahadīth）作为依据，而有些人则质疑其真实性。如果其中某位学者以此作为证据，那么他就被视为已经推导出了一条沙里亚（Sharī'ah）证据。

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.

因此,圣训、传述人以及传述系统在穆哈迪斯(圣训学者)之间的许多分歧便由此得以明晰。穆哈迪斯之间、一般的菲格哈学者与某些穆扫希德(独立立法的伊玛目)之间确实存在许多分歧。若因这种分歧而拒绝一段圣训,那么许多被认为是萨希赫(sahih,可靠)或哈桑(hasan,良好)的圣训便会被弃置。如此一来,许多沙里亚的证据就会被消除,而这是不允许的。因此,除非有正当的理由,否则不应拒绝一段圣训。这种理由可能为大多数穆哈迪斯所认可,也可能是该圣训未能满足萨希赫与哈桑圣训的必要条件。当某段圣训被一些穆哈迪斯所认可,并且符合萨希赫与哈桑圣训的条件时,便允许从中推演(伊斯奈德,istinbat)律例。此时它被视为沙里亚的证据,由此推导出的裁决(hukm)即为沙里亚的律例。

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.