Why scholars differed while grading the Ahaadeeth from the 4 Sunan

بسم الله والحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله ، وبعد

💠 This is a brief clarification on why a Hadeeth has two different grading - which has caused some confusion among the general mass - especially regarding the Ahaadeeth from the 4 Sunans (Sunan Abu Dawood, Sunan al-Tirmidhee, Sunan al-Nasaa’ee and Sunan Ibn Maajah):

🌟1) In the English world, or for most of the English readers, there are two sources for the Hadeeth grading from the books of contemporary scholars:

➡a) from the Books of Shaikh al-Albaanee (which many often rely while translating the Hadeeth in their posts), 

➡b) and then there is by Darussalam, who have incorporated the checking by Shaikh Zubair `Alee Zai.

➡As for the Arab readers and students of knowledge, there is a vast ocean out there, from the contemporary scholars, the likes of Shaikh Badee`-uddeen al-Sindee, Shaikh Muqbil, Shaikh Muhammad `Alee Aadam al-Ethiopee, Shaikh `Abdul Muhsin al-`Abaad, Shaikh Waseeullaah, and many others; and from the earlier scholars, like Ibn Hajar, al-`Iraaqee, al-Daraqutnee, Ibn Abee Haatim, al-Dhahabee and many more.

🌴🌴🌴

🌟2) Between Shaikh al-Albaanee and Shaikh Zubair, there is a difference on how they would grade a narrator.

➡Example: Imaam Muhammad Ibn Shihaab al-Zuhree, he was a Taabi`ee and had met around ten Companions of the Prophet ﷺ. He was a Haafidh (one who had memorized thousands of Ahaadeeth), a Faqeeh, and there is a consensus among the Muhadditheen about his status, proficiency and precision. Ahaadeeth from his route have been reported in the Saheehain. But it is claimed that on a few occasions he did Tadlees (i.e. giving the wrong impression that he had heard it from the narrator or masking the identity of his immediate authority in order to strengthen his Isnaad). Sometimes he would use the phrase “`An” (عن) meaning: “from” or “on the authority of”, and sometimes he would say: `Akhbaranee, Haddathanee, meaning: “he informed me”, “he reported to me”.

➡In the Saheehain both of these routes have been used. Example: 

a) “ `An Ibn Shihaab, qaala, Akhbaranee `Urwah ” (from Ibn Shihaab that he said: `Urwah informed me…), 

b) and also: “ `An Ibn Shihaab `an `Urwah ” (from Ibn Shihaab, from `Urwah).

In the first example, it is clear that Imaam Ibn Shihaab al-Zuhree clearly states that he heard it from `Urwah, but in the second example, it is not obvious. But irrespective of that, both the Shaikhain, al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, reported his Ahaadeeth from both these routes a numerous times in their Saheeh.

➡As for Shaikh Zubair `Alee Zai, he would not accept the Ahaadeeth of Imaam al-Zuhree except: 

a) when he (al-Zuhree) stated clearly that he had heard it from his Shuyookh (like `Urwah, or Saalim Ibn `Abdullaah Ibn `Umar, or Mahmood Ibn al-Rabee` and others) using the phrases: “Haddathanee”, “Akhbaranee”.

b) or if that Hadeeth is already reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree or Saheeh Muslim, even if from the route using the phrase: “`An” (عن).

As for the narrations with “`An`ana” from scholars known to commit Tadlees in Saheehain, then Shaikh Zubair accepted their “`An'ana” only in the Saheehain for the following reason which Ibn Hajar mentioned in his book, “al-Nukat”: “Ibn al-Salaah, al-Nawawee and others have said: ‘Whatever has been reported from the Mudalliseen in the Saheehain and other books of “al-Saheeh”, then it is presumed that the possibility of them having heard it has been proven in some other place.’” [al-Nukat (1/105)]

➡And as for Shaikh al-Albaanee, he authenticated the Ahaadeeth of Imaam al-Zuhree from both the routes, unless the chain had some other defect, i.e. another narrator was weak or had been abandoned etc.

➡As for Imam al-Zuhree, there is difference of opinion if he was a "Mudallis" or not. Shaikh al-Albaanee also weakened the narrations of some other Mudallis narrators with “`An'ana” in other books (whose narrations are reported in Saheehain) .

🌴🌴🌴

🌟3) On the issue of accepting “Hasan li ghairihee”, i.e. those Ahaadeeth that are weak in themselves, but the collaboration of different routes raises the level of the Hadeeth from “Dha`eef” (Weak) to “Hasan li ghairihee” (accepted due to other supporting chains). [Weak + Weak = Hasan li ghairihee] 

➡Shaikh Zubair outright rejected this principle and did not accept it. For “Hasan li gharihee”, Shaikh Zubair accepted those weak narrations which had support from “Hasan li Dhaatihee” narrations (i.e. those narrations which were “Hasan” in themselves) naming it as “Hasan li ghairihee”, i.e. [Weak + Hasan = Hasan li ghairihee]. If all routes to the narration are weak, even if their weakness is not severe, yet he would reject such narrations.

➡Shaikh al-Albaanee and many other scholars accepted this principle, i.e. [Weak + Weak = Hasan li ghairihee] 

📑Note: We are not referring to those weak Ahaadeeth which have severe defects, like where a narrator has been accused of lying, or fabricating a Hadeeth, or who was abandoned by the scholars etc. Such Ahaadeeth are outright rejected. The discussion is about accepting the Hadeeth of a narrator - who had weak memory - while there are other routes to support this chain, and these other routes may suffer a defect of their own, but the defect is not severe.

🌴🌴🌴

These are some of the reasons why we find a difference in grading between different scholars for the same Hadeeth. 

And Allaah knows best.