If one says a narrator is weak and another says he is unknown, is it said that the one who called him weak removed his unknown status, making him known as weak?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : If, for example, one of the imams says a narrator is weak and another says he is unknown, and we investigate the number of his students and find only one narrator, do we say he is weak, or that his hadith is weak due to his unknown status, and classify him as unknown? Or do we say that since it is known that he is known to be weak, his weakness means... Let me summarize my point: if in the biographical entry one imam says "weak" and the other says "unknown," do we say the one who called him weak meant he is weak due to his unknown status, and add this to the classification of unknown? Or does he rise from the level of unknown to the level of known if he is called weak?
The Shaykh : Whether it is this or that.
The questioner : In terms of practical application, yes, both are in the category of weakness or can be used as supporting evidence. But I only wanted to know if this combination is correct: should he be classified as weak or as unknown, for example, in *al-Taqrib*?
The Shaykh : As far as we are concerned.
The questioner : We want to summarize these two opinions regarding those we use as evidence in research. What do we say about him?
The Shaykh : As far as we are concerned, we look at it. If, as you mentioned, only one person narrates from him, then he is unknown. Practically, the hadith of an unknown narrator is weak. But we cannot judge that the hafiz who said this unknown narrator is weak because of the single narration from him is mistaken. We cannot judge that he is unknown or that his hadith is weak, because we do not have what clarifies or reveals his intention to us.
The questioner : In the issue, my Shaykh, regarding the difference between the two expressions, it is known that a weak narrator can be used as supporting evidence, as in the issue of agreement, but an unknown person (by name) is not, as you mentioned previously.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So here, does a difference arise in that the weak narrator is in a better state than the unknown person (by name)?
The Shaykh : No, no difference arises as long as only one person narrates from him. We will treat him as an unknown person.
The Shaykh : Whether it is this or that.
The questioner : In terms of practical application, yes, both are in the category of weakness or can be used as supporting evidence. But I only wanted to know if this combination is correct: should he be classified as weak or as unknown, for example, in *al-Taqrib*?
The Shaykh : As far as we are concerned.
The questioner : We want to summarize these two opinions regarding those we use as evidence in research. What do we say about him?
The Shaykh : As far as we are concerned, we look at it. If, as you mentioned, only one person narrates from him, then he is unknown. Practically, the hadith of an unknown narrator is weak. But we cannot judge that the hafiz who said this unknown narrator is weak because of the single narration from him is mistaken. We cannot judge that he is unknown or that his hadith is weak, because we do not have what clarifies or reveals his intention to us.
The questioner : In the issue, my Shaykh, regarding the difference between the two expressions, it is known that a weak narrator can be used as supporting evidence, as in the issue of agreement, but an unknown person (by name) is not, as you mentioned previously.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So here, does a difference arise in that the weak narrator is in a better state than the unknown person (by name)?
The Shaykh : No, no difference arises as long as only one person narrates from him. We will treat him as an unknown person.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.