I say, and with God's success: There is much discussion in public and private gatherings about the authenticity of the hadiths in the two Sahihs and the acceptance of the Ummah towards them. This discussion is not new; it has roots dating back to the time of Ibn al-Salah, who stated that the Ummah accepted the hadiths in the two Sahihs. A significant debate arose regarding this matter among those who came after him, but this is not the subject of our discussion. What I intend here is to move away from the dispute that exists among contemporary scholars regarding this issue, and that there is no need for it. It is preferable to remain silent about it and engage in other matters; because there are established principles in knowledge that, if we were to consider them, we would not be compelled to dispute this matter, including: First: The authenticity of a hadith from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) through a single chain does not mean its absolute certainty; because absolute certainty is specific to the Holy Quran, and the mutawatir hadiths, and the well-known ones according to some scholars. As for the ahad hadiths, they are speculative, even if their speculation reaches the highest ranks; because they are not free from the possibility of error or mistake or forgetfulness on the part of the trustworthy narrator or something similar. Al-Jalal al-Suyuti (may God have mercy on him) said in "Al-Tadrib" (1: 35), and Imam al-Laknawi (may God have mercy on him) in "Zafar al-Amani" (p. 112): "Know that when the scholars of hadith say: This hadith is authentic, they mean what appears to us from the apparent chain of narration, not that it is definitively authentic in reality, contrary to those who say that a single report necessitates knowledge, like Al-Husayn al-Karabisi and others, and Ibn al-Sabbagh mentioned it in 'Al-‘Idda' from a group of hadith scholars. Al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani said: This is the view of one who does not attain knowledge of this field. Likewise, when they say: This hadith is weak, they mean that the conditions of authenticity do not appear to us in it, not that it is false in reality, for it is possible for a liar to be truthful, and for one who makes many mistakes to be correct," and similar statements can be found in "Al-Taqrirat al-Sunniyya" (p. 18). Second: The Sahihs of Al-Bukhari and Muslim are the most authentic books after the Book of God (the Almighty), as stated in the texts of the science of hadith, such as the introduction of Ibn al-Salah (p. 1), the summary of Al-Jurjani (p. 120), and "Al-Taqrib" (p. 2), and the introduction of Abdul Haq al-Dahlawi (p. 85). Hafiz al-Sakhawi (may God have mercy on him) said in "Al-Ghayah Sharh al-Hidayah" (p. 25): "Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim... are the most authentic books after the Book of God (the Almighty)." And the scholar Al-Futuhy (may God have mercy on him) said in "Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir" (p. 643): "They are the most authentic books after the Quran; due to the consensus of the Ummah on accepting them." And the scholar Al-Abnasi (may God have mercy on him) said in "Al-Shadha al-Fiyah" (p. 82): "Their books are the most authentic after the Book of God, the Almighty." Imam al-Laknawi said in "Zafar al-Amani" (p. 120): "This is what the hadith scholars have agreed upon, east and west: that 'Sahih al-Bukhari' and 'Sahih Muslim' have no equal in the books," and the statements of scholars supporting this are countless, and what has been mentioned is sufficient. Third: The application of hadith is another matter that differs from authenticity; because some hadiths in the two Sahihs have not been acted upon by some of the jurisprudential schools among the Sunnis, such as the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis. This is widely known and does not require evidence or examples. There are hadiths from the two Sahihs that the majority of the established Sunni schools have refrained from acting upon, such as the hadith: "The one who performs cupping and the one who is cupped have broken their fast" in Sahih al-Bukhari (2: 685). The Hanafis, Malikis, and Shafi'is hold that cupping does not break the fast, while the Hanbalis disagree and say that it does, as mentioned in the Kuwaiti Fiqh Encyclopedia (17: 17). They have provided interpretations for the hadith, including that the breaking of the fast was not due to cupping, but rather for another reason, which is that the one who performs cupping and the one who is cupped were backbiting a man, and for this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said what he said... and that their breaking of the fast is not like breaking the fast by eating, drinking, or sexual intercourse, but their reward was nullified due to their backbiting, thus making them like those who have broken their fast, but it is not a breaking of the fast that obligates them to make up for it, as stated in "Umdat al-Qari" (11: 38). Very few hadiths from the two Sahihs have the consensus of the established Sunni schools not to act upon them, such as the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him): "The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) prayed the Dhuhr and Asr prayers together in Medina without fear or travel. Abu al-Zubair said: I asked Sa'id why he did that? He said: I asked Ibn Abbas as you asked me, and he said: He wanted to not put anyone in hardship from his Ummah" in Sahih Muslim (1: 490); due to the contradiction with the verses and the mutawatir hadiths that state that each prayer has its designated time. Hafiz al-Tirmidhi (may God have mercy on him) said: "All that is in this book of hadith is acted upon, and some scholars have taken it, except for two hadiths: the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) combined the Dhuhr and Asr prayers in Medina...". Imam al-Nawawi al-Shafi'i (may God have mercy on him) said: "Combining prayers in the city without fear, travel, rain, or illness is our view and the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, Ahmad, and the majority: that it is not permissible." Likewise, the hadith: "Water is from water" in Sahih Muslim (1: 269) has been abrogated by the hadith: "When the two circumcised parts meet, then washing is obligatory" in Sahih al-Bukhari (1: 110). In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia (17: 286): "All jurists have agreed that washing is obligatory when the glans is concealed...". The lack of action by the jurists on hadiths whose authenticity has been established is not due to whims or personal preferences, far from it; rather, it is due to their awareness of circumstances that prevent them from acting upon the hadith, such as its contradiction with stronger evidence from the Quran or hadith, or its proven abrogation, or something similar. After Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (may God have mercy on him) quoted the words of Al-Layth ibn Sa'ad (may God have mercy on him): "I counted seventy issues on which Malik (may God have mercy on him) gave his opinion, all of which contradict the Sunnah of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him)," he commented saying: "And we did not find anyone among the scholars of the Ummah who established a hadith from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) and then rejected it except with a proof, such as claiming abrogation or consensus or questioning its chain of narration. If anyone were to reject it without evidence, his integrity would be undermined, let alone his leadership, and he would be labeled as sinful. May God protect them from that. It has been reported from the Companions (may God be pleased with them) their ijtihad by opinion and their use of analogy based on the principles, which will be elaborated upon later, as well as the Tabi'in. Extracting legal rulings from the legal evidence requires an absolute jurist, and this is not achievable by everyone; because it is a report of God's ruling (the Almighty) on the matter, and only one who is qualified for it can possess it; due to the apparent contradictions that arise between the evidence, which only the jurist can resolve, and thus reconcile the evidence and clarify the legal ruling. Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (may God have mercy on him) said regarding the meaning of the statement of Imam al-Mutalibi: "If the hadith is authentic, then it is my school" (p. 18): "The saying that the hadith is misleading except for the jurists has been attributed to Ibn Wahb, Al-Layth ibn Sa'ad, and Ibn 'Uyaynah (may God be pleased with them), and its meaning is not hidden from anyone who has some connection to the books of knowledge and their people. A similar meaning has been narrated from other Imams." One of the best researchers on the issue of the authenticity of the two Sahihs and acting upon them is the contemporary hadith scholar Shabeer al-Othmani in the introduction to "Fath al-Mulhim Sharh Sahih Muslim" (1: 296-300). I mention here some excerpts from it due to their great benefit, as he said: "The consensus of the Ummah on their authenticity according to the terminology of the hadith scholars does not necessitate the consensus on acting upon their content, as Al-Tirmidhi said regarding the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him) about combining the prayers in Medina, which Muslim narrated in his 'Sahih,' that it is not acted upon. Nor does it imply that it is definitively from the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in reality, for the Ummah is commanded to act upon what is presumed where certainty is not sought, and presumption may be incorrect. This is like the judge, who is commanded to rule based on the testimony of one who appears just. His being commanded to do so does not indicate that the testimony of the just must necessarily conform to reality and be established in fact; because it is possible that he testified contrary to reality, either due to a misunderstanding that occurred to him if he is just in reality, or due to lying, which he may not hesitate to do if he appears just to people only. In any case, the judge has fulfilled what is required of him. Yes, if there is a consensus on acting according to a specific report, or the Ummah has received its content with acceptance in terms of dealing and belief, then at that time it provides knowledge of the authenticity of its content in reality and that it is acted upon in fact, even if the chain of narration is not authentic... This is a subtle distinction that Ibn Taymiyyah and others among the supporters of Ibn al-Salah (may God have mercy on him) did not notice. Moreover, the occurrence of consensus on the authenticity of the two books and their great status and precedence over others does not mean the authenticity of every hadith in them compared to others; rather, it means the authenticity of the generality of the generality, and their precedence over it... Based on this, one cannot simply use this general consensus to claim that a specific hadith from them is more authentic than the authentic hadiths in other books, except after clarifying the aspects of authenticity in that specific hadith... And every hadith that the hadith scholars have ruled as authentic is only their ruling concerning the chain of narration according to what their art and duty necessitate. This extent does not prevent the jurists and scholars of principles from sometimes not authenticating it from the perspective of the text according to their subject and duty... Thus, the consensus of the scholars of hadith on the authenticity of what is in the two Sahihs ultimately establishes the authenticity recognized by the hadith scholars, not the authenticity recognized by the jurists. It can be said that the hadiths of the two Sahihs are definitively authentic in their chains of narration and their hadith establishment among all scholars and the entire Ummah, but not in their jurisprudential authenticity and their foundational establishment... Our aim in what we have written in this discussion is not to belittle the significance of the two Sahihs or any other books of hadith, God forbid, but the goal is to negate excessive depth and extremism, to place everything in its proper place, and to highlight its status as it deserves..." If it becomes clear to you what has been mentioned, you will know that there is no need for division and dispute over the authenticity of the hadiths in the two Sahihs, considering them the most authentic books after the Book of God (the Almighty), and that their authors were more stringent and precise in the conditions of authenticity than others, as established by the scholars. This authenticity does not lead them to absolute knowledge, but rather their basis is on speculation and ijtihad. And the scientific practical aspect of this issue, which is acting upon their hadiths... involves details and evidence that are the responsibility of the jurists to address. May God have mercy on Al-Amash when he clarified this matter, saying: "O jurists, you are the physicians, and we are the pharmacists," as mentioned in the introduction to "Nasb al-Rayah" (p. 287). After this clarification and explanation of the distortions that have afflicted this issue through attacks on the hadiths of the two Sahihs and criticism of them under the false assumption that they have the same status as the Quran in terms of immunity from alteration, this is a corrupt assumption and a flawed action, which the Imams did not say, but their discussion pertains to what has been previously stated. And God knows best.