What is the ruling on publishing and acting upon a Hadith about whose authenticity scholars have differed, such as the Hadith: "Whoever prays six rak'ahs after Maghrib and does not speak ill between them, they will be equivalent to the worship of twelve years"? And is it better to mention the name of the narrator or the ruling of the Hadith scholar when publishing the Hadith?

The prophetic hadith, "Whoever prays six rak'ahs after Maghrib, not speaking ill between them, it will be equivalent to the worship of twelve years," is very weak because one of its narrators, Omar ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Khath'am, is munkar al-hadith (his narrations are rejected), and he cannot be used as a reference even for virtuous deeds.

Despite the weakness of the hadith, it is still recommended to perform absolute supererogatory prayers between Maghrib and 'Isha, based on evidence including the actions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the practice of the Companions and the Tabi'in (successors), and because this time is not among the prohibited times for prayer. The jurisprudential schools agree on the recommendation of praying during this time.

When there is a disagreement between Al-Suyuti and Al-Albani regarding the ruling on a hadith, it is preferable to adopt Al-Albani's view if he explicitly rules it as weak after study. If Al-Suyuti remains silent and Al-Albani weakens it, then adopting Al-Albani's view is more appropriate.

There is no harm in writing the narrator's name before or after the text of the hadith, or in presenting the hadith scholar's ruling on it, as the matter is broad.