If it is said of a narrator that he is weak, and the aspect of his weakness is not clarified, is it permissible to cite him as evidence?

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.

The questioner : This is a hadith-related issue.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : It has begun to spread among beginner students, particularly in this noble science, the science of hadith, which is

Another questioner : we have not heard of.

The questioner : I am speaking of a hadith-related issue, which is the case of a man about whom the scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) have said only that he is weak. They say that this weakness, as long as it has not become clear to us whether it is from the side of precision (dabt) or from the side of integrity ('adalah), we do not rule that it is permissible

The Shaykh : to cite him as evidence. Do you understand?

The questioner : To cite him as evidence and to have a supporting chain (mutaba'ah). This is what was discussed in a recent paper, which I believe was written by a Sudanese author, titled "Weak Hadiths in Authentic Hadiths."

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : So what is your opinion on this? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : My opinion is that the man about whom it is said he is weak is to be understood as having a weakness that allows him to be cited as evidence. Because if it were otherwise, the critics and those who denounce narrators would have clarified that for us; they would have explained it and not concealed it. That is, the one who says this about a narrator about whom it is said he is weak does not cite him as evidence. The meaning of his statement is that he is extremely weak in his view, and therefore he is not cited as evidence. We respond to this by saying that if he were extremely weak in the view of the one who deemed him weak, it would have been obligatory upon him to clarify that...
Al-Halabi : If he were extremely weak?

The Shaykh : Extremely weak, it would have been obligatory upon him to clarify that. So when the term "weak" is used and nothing more, the default is that we understand the scholars' words to mean slight weakness. This default is actually very important. And this compels me to return to the topic of their refutation of the hadiths related to the face of the woman and the possibilities they raise regarding it. Some of them say, "Perhaps the Messenger of Allah ordered her to cover her face." They said this: "Perhaps the Messenger of Allah ordered her to cover her face." We say, based on the principle we learned from the first Salafi after the Messenger of Allah, which is Ibn 'Umar: "Put 'perhaps' at that star." Why? Because it is expected of the narrator of a hadith to narrate the story in its entirety. So if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had ordered her to cover her face, that would mean we are attributing to the narrator one of two things, the best of which is bitter: either it is said that he concealed the knowledge, or it is said that he forgot it and did not preserve it, or similar phrases that are a blemish in any case on the record of this narrator. If this door were opened, many texts would be invalidated in the jurists' use of them as evidence. For example, the hadith of Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami, who one day prayed behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). A man next to him sneezed, and he said to him, "May Allah have mercy on you." The group was startled by what they had not expected, so they looked at him like this—a meaningful gesture. And this also connects us to a school of thought that says a meaningful gesture in prayer invalidates the prayer. And this invalidates that statement, because they were looking at him like this, as if their silent language was saying, "Be quiet, it is not the time, is it?" He did not bear this meaningful, silencing gesture, so what did he do but say, "Wa." The men were praying, O Abu 'Abdullah, do not forget, he is praying. So he raised his voice and said, "Wathakili Ummiyyah, what is wrong with you that you are looking at me?" He was not doing anything, the poor man was like this, and he was praying. "Wathakili Ummiyyah" means a curse upon himself, "May my mother be blind," meaning "May she die," meaning "What did I do?" The Companions struck their thighs to silence him. This man is the one who narrates his story, saying: "When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) finished the prayer, he turned to me." Imagine, an imam of our imams, this is not Abu Salah, if Allah wills. An imam who heard this from one of the worshippers, what did he do with him? He swallowed it. They say in Syria, "He swallowed it." And you say, "He should be sacrificed from the mosque, he should be scolded, he is a fool, he does not understand," and so on. This man, Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami, imagined that this is what would happen, that the Messenger of Allah would do this to him, because he knew that he had made a big mistake. First, they looked at him left and right, "Be quiet." Second, they struck their thighs, so he knew he was wrong. When he saw the Prophet stand up from his place in the prayer and come to him, he said, "What is he going to do to me? What is he going to do to me? Is he going to sacrifice me?" He said: "By Allah, he did not humiliate me, nor did he strike me, nor did he curse me, but he only said to me: " The human intellect, which is more precise than the computer that the disbelievers boast about, worked with him and he presented many questions. He said to him: "O Messenger of Allah, I ask you, among us are people who take omens." They are superstitious. He said: to the end of the hadith. And the hadith is beautiful in reality, but where is the point? The Shafi'i scholars and others used this hadith as evidence that if a worshipper speaks in prayer out of forgetfulness or ignorance, it is not permissible to speak in prayer, and his prayer is valid. And this is a valid argument. Then comes the destructive principle that these people used to demolish the evidence regarding the face of the woman. They said, "Perhaps the Messenger of Allah ordered it, perhaps he forbade it." What is left to be said here? Perhaps the Messenger of Allah ordered Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami to repeat the prayer. How do we know? Who tells us that Mu'awiyah, with whom the incident occurred, did not leave out a single detail, whether small or large, but mentioned it all? How can you assume a legal ruling that he concealed from the people? That the Messenger of Allah ordered him to repeat the prayer, and he did not inform us of this order? This means opening the door to criticizing the narrators of what hadiths? From the first generation? We return and say that the default regarding scholars is to have a good opinion of them. So when an imam of the imams of hadith says of a narrator that he is weak, it is not correct to interpret this statement to mean he is extremely weak, that it means he is extremely weak. Because if he had intended that, he would have clarified it, unless there is a context. And the research shows there is no context here. The question is, what do we have? Only that it was said of him that he is weak. Yes.

The questioner : So we suspend judgment, we do not rule that he is extremely weak, nor...

The Shaykh : No, this reservation does not benefit you anything, because we say the default regarding the words of scholars is that they are clear. And we say if the intention was that it means "extremely weak," then it does not mean "extremely weak." We do not say we suspend judgment. It does not mean "extremely weak." Then, what we see in the application of the scholars who extract hadiths on this, they do not come and scrutinize this scrutiny and say we suspend judgment. No, if there is a man who is extremely weak, they say he is not cited as evidence. But if he is weak, that means he is not extremely weak. And this man you referred to, it appears that he is connected to this science by hadith, so he does not have practice and experience in this science. And therefore, as they say, he is stumbling blindly in the dark night.