a ḥadith whose chain of transmission looks sound, they wish to treat it as belonging to the same category as those reports whose authenticity the scholars have decisively affirmed.

Commentary
This last point made by the Shaykh—namely, that a whole faction has fallen into this error—is all too common today. Such people rely on nothing more than the outward appearance of the isnād, pronounce the ḥadith authentic on that basis alone, and pay no attention to the rigorously sound reports that stand in the Sunnah like mountains. I constantly warn about this issue and say: whenever a ḥadith not found in the well-known, widely-accepted collections appears—even with an isnād that seems sound—yet it clashes with the clear, unequivocal ḥadiths that the scholars have received with acceptance, a person should not build upon it. Just as we do not depend on the mere façade of an isnād—whether to authenticate or to declare weak—we must refer such matters back to the broad principles of the Sharia and to those ḥadiths that are immovable mountains.

The Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—has now made it clear that a chain can be sound while the text itself is unsound, as he demonstrated earlier with examples of mistakes. Yet some who claim expertise in ḥadith and fancy themselves its custodians will seize upon a report whose narrators are trustworthy and whose outward form seems flawless, and they will set it up in opposition to the narrations that have been universally accepted as authentic. When such a report contradicts a well-known ṣaḥīḥ tradition, they force awkward interpretations upon it or use it as evidence for their own scholarly views, even though those versed in ḥadith science know that this is erroneous.

And just as a ḥadith may carry indications showing it to be genuine—so strong that one may reach certainty—