I say: He—may Allah have mercy on him—did indeed discharge that promise to the full extent of his independent effort, pointing out the reports whose weakness is severe and whose defect is intolerable, while he held back¹ with respect to those whose weakness is light and tolerable. Hence, his silence—under these circumstances—regarding a ḥadīth does not in itself mean that he considered it ḥasan, especially when we apply the later, post-classical definition of ḥasan. In the usage of the early scholars that category actually falls under one of the subdivisions of ṣaḥīḥ, a report that the majority of scholars deem binding, or one that Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Bukhārī may have omitted while Muslim accepted, or the reverse. It therefore sits at the lowest tier of soundness; if it were to sink below that, it would no longer serve as admissible proof and would remain suspended between weakness and ḥasan.

In Abū Dāwūd’s Sunan the highest level of reliably established material² is what both of the Shaykhs—al-Bukhārī and Muslim—have transmitted; that comprises roughly half of the book. Next comes what only one of the two recorded while the other refrained. After that is what both omitted yet whose isnād (chain of transmission) is good, free of hidden flaw or irregularity. Following this are the reports whose isnād is acceptable and which the scholars have approved because they arrive through two or more lenient routes, each supporting the other. Next are the reports whose isnād is weakened owing to a narrator’s deficient memory; Abū Dāwūd generally includes these and remains silent about them. After that come the narrations whose weakness is plainly evident on account of their transmitter, and this