for such a person, Abū Dāwūd’s silence about the ḥadīth would not satisfy him, for he knows with certainty that Abū Dāwūd remained silent about countless reports that are weak—manifestly weak—as stated by scholars such as al-Nawawī, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, and others; we ourselves have illustrated this with many examples in our critique of the book Al-Tāj al-Jāmiʿ li-l-Uṣūl al-Khamsa.1

This knowledge obliges him to go back to the chain of transmission, apply the principles of this science, and then declare the report sound or weak.

By contrast, the uncritical follower who, in his own words, “has no mandate to authenticate or weaken,” such as the respected Shaykh under discussion—as we have already quoted—must, of necessity, give weight to Abū Dāwūd’s silence until he meets with the judgment of another scholar, more reliable in his view, who has pronounced the report weak. For him to venture on a verdict of weakness himself is plainly impermissible, because he lacks the requisite knowledge. This is perfectly obvious.