The scholars' leniency in narrating athar, and the reason for it

The Shaykh : And if we also know, through experience, that al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, despite having stated in the introduction to his Fath that he would not remain silent about any of the marfu' hadiths attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) unless that narration had reached the level of hasan in his estimation, he does remain silent. However, if it is weak, he does not remain silent. We know that this is the rule he committed to, but not one hundred percent, because he is not infallible. Therefore, we attribute to him many Prophetic hadiths about which he remained silent, and which did not merit silence. Why? Because of the nature of humanity; there is no infallibility after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). And if this is the reality with Prophetic hadiths, what can be said about the Salafi athar? They are more lenient in narrating them than they are with hadiths. Therefore, I mention on this occasion that it is not befitting for a student of knowledge, for example, to review the book Nail al-Authar by al-Shawkani and find him saying there: "The madhhab of so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so of the Companions is such-and-such." The mind of the student of knowledge becomes filled with the idea that the madhhab of the Salaf is as al-Shawkani said about so-and-so and so-and-so. These are narrations that, in many cases, do not stand up to scientific transmission. The consequence is that they may end up interpreting a sahih hadith because of such athar that have not been established. Why? Because the scholars are more lenient with athar than they are with hadiths, just as they are entirely when they divided hadiths into two categories: hadiths of rulings and hadiths of encouragement and warning. They said that hadiths of rulings must be established, but in hadiths of warning and encouragement, we are lenient. They did the same thing with hadiths on one hand and athar on the other. Their position regarding hadiths was a correct scientific position, but their position regarding Salafi athar was one of leniency. There is no harm in that, because first, we are not obligated to know whether a particular athar is sahih from Abu Bakr or 'Umar, because we do not build our Shari'ah upon it. But that is not the case with what is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Second, we are unable to verify the Salafi athar because of their sheer number, such that a person cannot encompass them all. The Salafi athar originate from thousands of men, whereas the Prophetic hadiths originate from one person, the Messenger of Allah. The scholars can barely encompass these Prophetic hadiths, let alone the Salafi athar. Therefore, one should not be overly enthusiastic. The crux of what I have mentioned is that one should not be overly enthusiastic about certain athar that contradict either a legal principle or a legal text, such as this. This is what I intended to clarify. Perhaps you will allow us to leave now? He allows it.