If an imam among the imams declares a hadith defective without explaining its defect, is that accepted, or is it necessary to explain the reason for declaring it defective?

The Shaykh : ... Among the recent examples that have passed through my hands is a treatise by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, which I believe he titled *Al-Mubaththil* in the report of the flea. Al-Suyuti took this treatise, as is his custom, and added some narrations to it, titling it *Al-Tharthuth* in the report of the flea. The point is that this second treatise by al-Suyuti was edited by one of the doctors in Morocco, and I looked at it before it was printed, so I wrote a commentary on it. During the research, I came to the treatise of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani on which al-Suyuti’s treatise was based, and I found a difference, as is clear, between the two men: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar holds that this hadith is weak, whereas al-Suyuti is silent. The hadith is one that must have passed by you: that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) heard a man cursing the flea, and in one narration cursing it, and he said Here there is a difference in the narrations, which is not our concern now. The important thing is at the end of the treatise
Abu Malik: Did he say "awakened" or "woke up"?

The Shaykh : Yes.
Abu Malik: Did he say "awakened" or "woke up"? Shall I say?

The Shaykh : Sometimes "woke up"

The questioner : "Woke up" or "awakened," meaning the wording?

The Shaykh : No. "Woke up." The point is that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar concludes the treatise by saying, after mentioning it from the narration of Anas and the narration of Ali, "Here is the point: the narration of Anas, or the hadith of Anas, is sound, but it is acted upon in the virtues of deeds." He concluded the treatise with this, and "All knowledge is with Allah, so Allah knows best." Now, I think you remember that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar does not state the permissibility of acting upon a weak hadith as the majority do; rather, he conditions it with three conditions. So I thought about how he stated it here and restricted it there. I am inclined to believe that his case is like that of every student of knowledge: he begins the pursuit of knowledge slowly and gradually, strengthens little by little, and then reaches a level of elevation and height in knowledge. And so it is with every student of knowledge. In my opinion, and here is the point, when al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar composed this treatise *Al-Mubaththil*, he was before his strengthening in his scientific field, in which he later became one of the great scholars. In my opinion, women have not given birth to anyone like him. He said this statement with the majority who say that one acts upon the hadith in the virtues of deeds, led by Imam al-Nawawi. When the knowledge of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar matured, he established those three conditions. We observe this in many hadiths. For example, we say that in *Al-Fath*, he stated that the hadiths in which he was silent are, in his view, at least at the level of a good hadith. Yet you find that he criticized many of these hadiths in some of his books, such as *Al-Talkhis al-Habir*, or the reverse: he may have weakened a hadith in *Al-Fath* and been silent about it, and yet, excuse me, I want to say the reverse: he weakened it, and yet he strengthened it with corroborating narrations. This is something we fall into even today, and it is a very natural matter. Some ignorant people may object to it out of ignorance or denial. So, what we see of the difference or contradiction between some hadiths that came either as silent in *Al-Mustadrak*, or agreed with, or criticized, and we see the opposite in other books, its explanation is not that he did not intend to criticize *Al-Mustadrak* in the hadiths we call those in which he agreed with al-Hakim. We do not say this. Rather, this was his opinion when he summarized it. But later, the opposite became clear to him, so he stated his opinion later, as any scholar states, as we mentioned some of the examples just now.
Mashhur: O Shaykh, in the first volume he authenticates, and in the eighth or ninth he weakens, and he says, "I had authenticated it." I am aware of seven instances of this.

The Shaykh : Fine, may Allah reward you with good. This is one book; this is a natural matter. May Allah bless you.

The questioner : The third question: If an imam among the imams of hadith declares a hadith defective without explaining the aspect of the defect, but is content with saying, "This is a defective hadith," or "invalid," or "not authentic," or similar, is that accepted, or is it necessary to explain?

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. We say that in such a case, the matter differs between the scholar of hadith and the one who is not a scholar of hadith. The one who is not a scholar of hadith is in the position of the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence in jurisprudential issues. The one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence in jurisprudential issues is either one who follows without reaching a level that enables him to prefer one opinion over another, in which case he adheres to the opinion of the imam he follows or adheres to; or, if he reaches the level of preferring one opinion, it is not permissible for him to remain one who follows without knowing his evidence, but he must take what is stronger in his view. The same is the case in all sciences, including the science of hadith, authenticating, weakening, and explaining defects. So, regarding the question you mentioned, I say: the explanation of a defect where the one explaining it did not reveal the reason for his explanation of the hadith—either the one who is not a scholar stands before this explanation, in which case he must accept it; or, if he is a scholar, he investigates and seeks. If the defect does not appear to him, he has no right to follow without knowing his evidence; otherwise, he follows him with knowledge.