A hadith containing a narrator of unknown status, another who is weak, another who is acceptable, and another with poor memory: is each of them suitable for corroborating narrations and supporting chains, and when is a hadith suitable for corroborating narrations and supporting chains?

The questioner : A hadith containing a narrator of unknown status, another who is weak, another who is acceptable, and another with poor memory: is it suitable for corroborating narrations and supporting chains, and what are the methods that are suitable for corroborating narrations and supporting chains by which a hadith is strengthened?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is suitable. The question itself includes the methods by which a hadith is strengthened. That is, why do the scholars of hadith say that a hadith is strengthened by the multiplicity of paths, even if it is weak? Why? Because the important thing in narrating a hadith is that there is no one who lies intentionally. So, when different paths come, and in each path there is weakness without an accusation of lying, in each path there is weakness without an accusation of lying, then the sum of these paths gives strength to the original hadith for which these paths were provided for its narration. It gives this hadith strength. The scholars of hadith derived this rule from the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, regarding the testimony of a woman being half that of a man in testimony. If the legal ruling requires the testimony of two men, naturally just ones, then four women take the place of two men. The Qur'an mentioned the reason for that: So one of them strengthens the other. And the scholars of hadith stipulated in strengthening paths, in strengthening a hadith with weak paths, that there be no possibility of collusion. The possibility of collusion. And this appears through means among them, for example, that the weak man in the first path is, for example, a Syrian, and the weak one in the second path is an Egyptian or a Yemeni. These people are usually far from meeting and colluding to narrate this hadith, provided that they are not accused of lying, but rather they are accused in their memory and retention. This is sufficient to remove the accusation of collusion in their view. Likewise, regarding the testimony of one woman and another, it is possible that they might collude with each other, but they must be from the just, trustworthy, believing, righteous women. And so on. So the rule in strengthening a hadith with weak paths is to observe that there is no liar in them, and not even one accused. This is the known position in the science of hadith. But I feel, with my personal experience, that if the paths are numerous and very weak, but nevertheless there are no liars or lost ones in them, they give the hadith strength. But here the matter requires more paths than the paths in which there are weak ones who are not accused and not abandoned in narration. In summary, if a hadith comes through two paths whose men are just, except that in each of them there is one who is weak in memory in preservation and accuracy, then one of them strengthens the other, and the hadith becomes in this case a hasan li-ghayrihi (good for other reasons). If the paths of this type multiply, it rises to sahih li-ghayrihi (authentic for other reasons). But I return to the final detail: if the paths are many, many, and in each path there is one who is abandoned, not accused of lying, abandoned due to the severity of his weakness in memory, nevertheless this great multitude of paths gives the hadith a kind of strength. And upon this proceeded the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in many of his fatwas. Yes.