 So, hadith scientists are very accurate. People don't realize the hard work the scholars of hadith have put in grading and classifying hadith. Hadith are not just judged with sahih and da'if, there's a lot more to it. I don't have time to give you depth, but I'll give you guys a playlist on the Hojri Baad channel It's called the Science of Hadith, David Redding, Hadith Miniz. But one thing I'll just explain, for a hadith to be considered sahih, you know, which is authentic, there are five conditions. So, for a hadith to be considered sahih, it has to meet at minimum five conditions. One of them, the chain has to be connected. It's called ittisalo sanal. So that means from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, till when it's written, there can be no breaks in the chain. For example, look at the Bible. There is no chain connecting Jesus with the disciples to where the manuscripts are written. Not anonymous office. But that would never be acceptable in hadith. I mean, if each narrator, who was it that curved from each one, we have to know who they are. The chain has to have no breaks. It has a break even if we don't know who the narrator is. Because we have a neighbor. We don't know. That's called Majhuul. That's a weak narrator. Then, each narrator has to have solid or good memory. So this is something that makes hadith sciences unique. Because in history, we don't check that. Like we talk about Alexander or Julius Caesar. Even if we look at the first time reporters, we don't check their memory. Then, you have to have good moral character. Which is called agh. So again, Western historians, even if you look in the scientific industry, when you do a clinical trial, the people that are involved, we don't check their moral character. We don't care if they're drunks or liars or gamblers. We don't check if they lie regularly. When hadith we check. Anybody that was even accused of lying, that would be a fabricated hadith. Even an accusation would not make it matroub. If it's established that they ever lied, they would become Moudua. Hadith judging is so accurate. But that's not it. The chain is connected, good memory, good moral character. Then we have to make sure there's no contradictions. If there is something stronger that contradicts it, it's called Shah. Then we don't accept it as a hadith. So there is a hadith that mentions something or a ayah in the Quran. And then a hadith comes something contradictory to it. It would never be a hadith. This is again, this is a very deep research to done to make sure that we have a full what's protected. On top of that, on top of that, there can be no textual defects. Meaning that if there is a grammatical error, if there is a word that's been flipped, that could never be Sahih. So Imam Bukhari and Muslims have even more to reach Moutawatim. That's even more difficult. But even the base Sahih hadith has to go to these five conditions at minimum. So if there is ever a chain with a break, it could not be Sahih. Most history we have today doesn't have a connected chain. So that means even if you took most of the history you believe in, it would not reach the level of Sahih. Everybody has to have a good memory, even a very good reason, but they made mistakes, they flipped words, maybe they had some dementia at a time of their age, everybody has a good moral character. A moral character for them, not just lying, even if you didn't make Salah in the Masjid, even if you ate with your left hand, they would take you out of being not reliable and hadithy. Cannot be contradicted. People say it's a hadith contradict the Quran, it cannot be. It's one of the preconditions. And if there is any grammatical, even if a word is flipped, a letter is flipped, then it would be considered to be weak. Now if this criteria is met, whether that supports your political views or not, whether that supports your madhab, your views or not, you have to accept it. And if these are not met, you have to reject it, even if it supports your point. And that's why we were discussing earlier, people's biases cannot affect hadith, because the science is neutral. So if you look at the scholars of hadith, it doesn't matter what madhab they are. Imam Bukhari, for example Abu Dawud, Ibn Hajar al-Tahabi, Ibn Shaf'i, al-Tahawi, Ibn Anafi, Ibn Al-Barb, Ibn Maliki, never affected their hadith work. Their thought is different. Why? Because in hadith we have a science that does not allow biases to create a place. You will have hadith that are pro-Amaliyah and pro-Ambassi in the same book. The rough one, they will take what they like. But not the Ahlul Sunnah. We have a criterion that goes through the introduction, insha'Allah, to a science that I love. Insha'Allah you can follow up on more. Salah al-Tahabi.