Clarification that it is necessary to say regarding the weak hadith

The Shaykh: And on this occasion, I would like to point out an example similar to this, and students of knowledge should know it and understand it.
It is established in the books of hadith terminology that it is not permissible to narrate a hadith with a phrase that implies the hadith is authentic. One should not say regarding a weak hadith: "The Messenger of Allah said," or "It came from the Messenger of Allah," or "The Messenger of Allah used to do such and such," and so on. Rather, one should say regarding a weak hadith: "It was narrated," "It was reported," "It was mentioned," and similar expressions of weakening based on the passive voice. This is a settled matter in the books of terminology.
My personal opinion, which I have not seen anyone before me express, and I hope it is correct; this is because the scholars say—and this is another benefit I am pointing out to you—"Rulings change with the change of time and place." This is a very dangerous rule if it is stated in this general way: "Rulings change with the change of time and place." The correct understanding of this rule is: Rulings derived through the ijtihad of the imams, and not the rulings that are explicitly stated in the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah. These explicit rulings are excluded from this rule which says: "Rulings change with the change of time and place." Rather, these are the rulings that the imams derived through deduction and ijtihad. First, because deduction and ijtihad are subject to error and correctness, unlike what is explicitly stated in the Book and the Sunnah. Second, these rulings that were established through ijtihad and deduction took into account the condition of the people at the time, and these rulings were formulated to be suitable for that time.
It may be useful to give a somewhat unusual example and explain how rulings change with the change of time and place, with the aforementioned qualification: rulings that are stated through deduction and ijtihad, not relying on the explicit text. In "Sharh al-Wajiz" by Imam al-Rafi'i, one of the relied-upon Shafi'i books, it is stated: "If a man prays on a swing that is not supported by the ground and not suspended from the ceiling." Pay attention to what he says. Have you heard of this swing? It is not resting on the ground, nor is it hanging from the ceiling. If he prays on such a swing—this distinguished imam said—his prayer is invalid. Why? Because he is praying in mid-air. If he prays on a swing that is not supported by the ground and not suspended from the ceiling, his prayer is invalid. Now, this swing was created by Allah, as He—Mighty and Majestic—indicated: . Do you know what this swing is? It is the well-known aircraft, specifically the "helicopter," that hovers above heads without moving, without descending or ascending, without turning left or right. Do you think that if the one who said that word were in this present age, he would say that prayer in an airplane is invalid? He would not say that. He imagined something that he thought would become a reality.
Therefore, it happened to me, among the discussions and debates I had with some of the imams of taqlid in our country, Syria. I visited a town in northern Syria for the first time in the course of da'wah fiqh from one town to another. As Allah willed, a gathering took place in the place where I stayed, and among them was the mufti of the town. That mufti, naturally, was a follower of taqlid who issued fatwas based on his Shafi'i madhhab. He began with words of beautiful welcome and polite diplomacy, and so on, but he was preparing to make veiled criticisms. Finally, he said: "It has reached us that you do not follow taqlid and that you engage in ijtihad." We got into a discussion with him, and the details do not concern us. I said to him: "O Shaykh, we are now in an age where new matters and issues have arisen. A person may not find an explicit answer in the books of fiqh for this new issue. So what does he do?" I meant to say to him: Ijtihad is necessary, and opening the door of ijtihad is a mercy from Allah, and closing it is as he—peace and blessings be upon him—said to that Bedouin who urinated in his mosque. Then, among his errors—meaning his misguidance as it came in the hadith—was that when he was angry at the Companions of the Messenger who were about to beat him when they saw him urinating in the Prophet's Mosque, he said to them—peace and blessings be upon him: . They left him alone until he relieved himself in the Prophet's Mosque, urinating. Among his errors and his ignorance was that after the prayer, he supplicated to his Lord as if he was quenching the anger in his heart at the Companions of the Messenger who had been about to harm him. He said: "O Allah, have mercy on me and on Muhammad, and do not share us with anyone." He did not share those hard-hearted people who were about to harm him with mercy; rather, "Have mercy on me and on Muhammad, and do not share us with anyone." He—peace and blessings be upon him—said to him: . And those who restricted the Muslim ummah and forbade ijtihad, claiming that its door was closed since the fourth century of the Hijrah, I said to this Shaykh: "How do you deal with some of the issues that befall Muslims today?" He said to me: "For example?"—and here is the point—I said: "For example, what do you say about prayer in an airplane? Is it valid or not?" Immediately and obviously, he answered with the correct answer: It is valid. I said to him: "What is the evidence?" He said: By analogy to prayer on a ship. I said: "Now you have fallen into what you blame me for." He said: "How?" I said: "You engaged in ijtihad. Who among the scholars before you said that prayer in an airplane is permissible first? And then, what is the evidence for that analogy to prayer on a ship?" The man was left speechless.
I said: "And it is amazing that you erred where you were correct. This is contradictory speech, naturally, and it is something to be wondered at, and I mean what I say." He said: "How?" I said: "When you engaged in ijtihad, you were correct, but if you had followed taqlid, you would have erred." He said: "I do not understand." I said—and I mentioned the previous phrase: "Imam al-Rafi'i said in his book 'Sharh al-Wajiz': 'If a man prays on a swing that is not supported by the ground and not suspended from the ceiling, his prayer is not valid.'" This is the airplane. So if you had followed this imam, you would have said that the prayer is not valid. Do you see how ijtihad is a mercy and not a punishment? He said: "I did not find this phrase." I said: "It has been said: 'Whoever knows has an argument over whoever does not know, and whoever memorizes has an argument over whoever does not memorize.' Here is the book 'Sharh al-Wajiz' by al-Rafi'i, printed in the marginal notes of 'al-Majmu'' by Imam al-Nawawi. You are able to refer to it."
The point is: Issues differ according to the difference of time and place. Which issues? Those that came from the door of ijtihad and deduction. As for what is explicitly stated, it is not permissible to change it or replace it ever.
We return; they said in terminology: It is not permissible to say regarding a weak hadith: "The Messenger of Allah said," "It came from the Messenger of Allah," and so on. Rather, it is said with a phrase of weakening, as I mentioned earlier. I am saying now, quoting what we mentioned earlier about rulings that were established considering the condition of people at that time: They said this when knowledge was widespread among people. But now, knowledge, and especially hadith knowledge in general, and more specifically hadith terminology, has become strange today.