We find in "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah wa al-Mawdu'ah" (The Chain of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths) some hadiths regarding whose authenticity we are hesitant; such as the narrations of 'Ata ibn al-Sa'i, for example.

The questioner : Under the title "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah wa al-Mawdu'ah" (The Chain of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths), we find in this chain some hadiths regarding whose authenticity we are hesitant; such as some of the narrations of 'Ata ibn al-Sa'i, for example. The question is: Were these hadiths included under this title, "Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifah wa al-Mawdu'ah" (The Chain of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths), even though a ruling of weakness or fabrication was not issued for them, because they have the same ruling, or because it was not appropriate to create a separate book for this type of hadith, so they were closer to that category?

The Shaykh : I said that we are hesitant until a ruling of weakness is issued for them; how so?

The questioner : I mean, for example, in the context of research, you would say: "I am hesitant... regarding its authenticity or its weakness," or "I am hesitant regarding its authenticity." Does this phrase imply weakening the hadith?

The Shaykh : Weakening it according to... and this does not stop at the image in the example you gave, but it may extend to any hadith that is weak due to a defect that invalidates its authenticity; such as a hadith containing a weak narrator, for example. We rule on weakness based on what is before us, but as for what is hidden from us, that is conjecture without knowledge, and we do not rule on it. So, if we are hesitant about the authenticity of a certain hadith, that does not mean it is not weak at this moment; because the absence of a ruling of authenticity for it necessitates that, practically speaking, it is weak. Perhaps this connects us and leads us to a branch of the science of hadith; which is the science concerning the mixed-up narrator or the two narrators, ... as Ibn al-Salah and others who came before or after him mentioned, that the mixed-up narrator has three states: If a hadith comes from him, either we know that he narrated it before his confusion, and it is authentic, or we know that he narrated it after his confusion, and it is weak, or we do not know either this or that, and that is hesitation. But if we look at this word, "we are hesitant about a certain hadith" because we did not know whether he narrated it before the confusion, in which case it would be authentic, or after the confusion, in which case it would be weak, then practically speaking, what is the state of this hadith regarding which we are hesitant about ruling it authentic? It is weak; because its authenticity has not been established. Rarely do I hesitate about some hadiths because the state of this narrator suggests to us this hesitation, but practically speaking, that does not mean that we do not weaken it, but rather it is weak, due to our ignorance of whether he narrated it before the confusion; so this is the reason for the expression we mention, and that does not mean that we are hesitant about ruling it weak, but rather it is a necessary consequence that it is weak.