Is it permissible to cite the mursal reports of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib?

The questioner : The mursal report of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : We do not see it as permissible to cite any mursal report unless there is a corroborating narration for it.

The questioner : Even if it is a clear analogy and it is possible... the text has a reading.

The Shaykh : Even if it is, because the issue is not that the meaning is correct. Suppose, as I said earlier, a mursal hadith that agrees with a clear analogy. Set that hadith aside. Do you accept the claimed clear analogy or not? If you accept it, the hadith does not gain strength from the clear analogy, because the original of this mursal hadith could be a mawquf report. But if this analogy is not clear, as I said, then it is not permissible to act upon either the analogy or the hadith. The fact that a hadith matches correct ijtihad does not necessitate that the hadith itself is authentic. Any hadith that is a wise saying and has weakness in the chain does not necessitate that the hadith, in reality, was issued from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no necessary connection between the two. We fear that if it is said of the mursal hadith that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said it, we would have fallen into what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And perhaps you have read in the science of hadith terminology that some of the misguided sects used to consider it permissible to lie about the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When they were rebuked and argued against them using his (peace and blessings be upon him) mass-transmitted saying: They would say, "We lie for him, not about him." There is no doubt that this is part of their misguidance and deviation. So, if his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: were true, then they would have said a false statement about the Messenger, because the Messenger did not say it. If the meaning of a weak hadith is established by analogy or by a sound chain, that does not necessitate that the hadith is authentic in reality. From this, some of the fanatical followers of schools of jurisprudence err when they categorically state that every hadith cited by an imam from the imams of ijtihad is authentic, because if it were not authentic in his view, he would not have adopted it. We say this is false and incorrect, because it is possible that his adoption of it was not for the specific hadith, but rather, as you said earlier, for a clear analogy or correct ijtihad. Therefore, any hadith that appears in the books of fiqh, even in the books of the early imams, must be studied in light of the science of hadith. If it is authentic, then good; otherwise, the fact that an imam acted upon it does not necessitate that it is authentic.