Explaining the weakness of the claim that it is permissible to act upon weak hadiths.

The Shaykh : Acting upon the weaker opinion. We are now raising the term "weak hadith" after we have understood that a weak hadith means the weaker opinion. Glory be to Allah! People are often taken by the words rather than the meanings and the objectives. If you asked one of those who say it is permissible to act upon a weak hadith in the virtues of deeds, if you asked him, saying: "Is it permissible to act upon the weaker opinion, O professor, O Shaykh?" He would tell you: "No, it is not permissible to act upon the weaker opinion; because this opinion is blameworthy. This opinion, the Lord of the worlds attributed it to the polytheists, , . So if one of them is asked: "Is it permissible to act upon an opinion?" He will immediately rush to give you the correct answer: "It is not permissible to act upon an opinion."
Turn the question into another wording that leads to the first wording: "Is it permissible to act upon a weak hadith?" Yes, it is permissible. Why, O Shaykh? The scholars said so. So the issue returns to following a scholar without knowing his evidence. The scholars said so!!
Now, the scholars here are divided regarding their stance on this statement, "A weak hadith is acted upon in the virtues of deeds." They are divided into three categories:
One category rejects this statement from its foundation and origin, and dismisses it entirely, saying: "It is not permissible to act upon a weak hadith in the virtues of deeds." At the forefront of these are Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim, specifically in the introduction to his "Sahih."
Another category says: "It is permissible to act upon a weak hadith in the virtues of deeds with conditions; among them: that its weakness is not severe, that it does not contradict a principle of the Shari'ah, and that the doer or the worshipper does not habitually perform it, but rather he does it sometimes and leaves it other times."
And among them—regrettably—is one who stated the claim without qualification. This is what prevailed among the later generations, and they never realized that they had fallen into that contradiction: it is not permissible to act upon the weaker opinion, yet it is permissible to act upon a weak hadith in the virtues of deeds.
We prefer, without doubt, with certainty and decisiveness, the methodology of the first two groups: it is not permissible to act upon a weak hadith in the virtues of deeds. Why? Because the noble deeds that are established by authentic, firm evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, if Dawud (peace be upon him) were alive in the Shari'ah of Islam, and he is the most worshipful of people by the explicit hadith of Muhammad (peace be upon him), he would not be able to encompass all these acts of worship that are established by firm evidence as we mentioned. So do we need to bring in acts of worship established by a weak hadith that does not yield more than the weaker opinion, and not the stronger opinion? We have no need for that at all. Rather, the outcome of that is what we witness today in reality: that the weak hadith diverts those who act upon it from acting upon the established hadiths. So the status of acting upon a weak hadith is exactly the status of religious innovation. Indeed, legislating a ruling based on a weak hadith is an innovation in the religion. So acting upon a weak hadith is a religious innovation without doubt. Just as innovations divert people from the Sunnahs, until some of the Salaf said—and it was narrated as traced to the Messenger (peace be upon him), but its chain is not authentic— "No innovation is introduced except that a Sunnah is killed." And we say: "No weak hadith is acted upon except that its counterpart, the established authentic hadith, is overturned." And we feel this rule that came from some of the Salaf, "No innovation is introduced except that a Sunnah is killed," in the life of the Muslims often and very often. The last of that, and it is not far from us: you find the Muslims today after every obligatory prayer saying: "There is no god but Allah alone, He has no partner," and they do not suffice with this glorification, but they add to it other formulas, and a prayer upon the Messenger, and upon the wives of the Messenger, and the descendants of the Messenger, and the Companions of the Messenger, a long string that has no end. So when they finish this dhikr, most of them stand up. And what about the dhikrs that the Messenger prescribed after the prayer? Some of them are such that the one who says them deserves that Allah forgive his sins even if they were like the foam of the sea. Glory be to Allah, thirty-three times, and so on. "No innovation is introduced except that a Sunnah is killed"!!
May Allah accept your obedience. He sees you in the mosque for the first time and greets you with this greeting, for which Allah has not sent down any authority!! Where did his saying (peace be upon him) go: ? This obligatory duty has fallen, lost in exchange for what? An innovation. Count as much as you want. You enter upon a person who is performing ablution and you say to him: "From Zamzam!" No, say to him: "Peace be upon you." This "from Zamzam" has no basis. And if you must say it, say: "Peace be upon you from Zamzam." And if you must say "from Zamzam," say something better than that: "From al-Kawthar!" Because many of those who say "from Zamzam" are actually disparaging it, but those who are called to drink from the water of al-Kawthar, that is a great glad tidings; because whoever this supplication is accepted for, he is certainly from the people of Paradise. As for "from Zamzam," it is maybe, maybe. But people do not act based on scientific awareness and penetrating thought, but rather as they say in our region in Syria, "Give me your hand and walk." This is how we found our fathers upon a religion!!