Azami 3981

Abu Dawud (1563) and Nasai (2481) both narrated it via Khalid bin Harith, from Husayn, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who said, then he related it. Its isnad is hasan, because of the discussion surrounding Amr bin Shuayb, who is hasan al-hadith. Nawawi also graded it hasan in Majmu (6/33).Ahmad (6667) narrated it via Hajjaj, from Amr bin Shuayb with his isnad, similarly, and Hajjaj here is Ibn Artah, who is a mudallis. Tirmidhi (637) also narrated it from Qutayba, who said, Ibn Lahia narrated to us, from Amr bin Shuayb, from his father, from his grandfather, relating the same.Tirmidhi said, "This hadith was narrated by Muthanna bin Sabbah, from Amr bin Shuayb, similar to this. Muthanna bin Sabbah and Ibn Lahia are both considered daif in hadith. Nothing sound has been established in this matter from the Prophet ﷺ." This is what he said, but Muthanna bin Sabbah and Ibn Lahia are corroborated in the isnad mentioned previously.However, Nasai (2482) narrated it from Muhammad bin Abdul-Ala, from Mutamir bin Sulayman, who said, I heard Husayn say, Amr bin Shuayb narrated to me, saying, a woman came, along with a daughter of hers, to the Messenger of Allah, and on her daughter's hand were two bracelets, then he related the hadith similarly. Nasai said it was mursal. Yet he judged the connected version to be stronger, saying, "Khalid is more reliable than Mutamir."However, Zaylai quoted in Nasb Raya (2/370), and Mizzi in Tuhfat Ashraf, that Nasai said, "The hadith of Mutamir is more likely to be correct," meaning the mursal version. It appears that this is what is sahih according to Nasai's methodology.I say, if this statement of Nasai's is sahih, then perhaps Amr bin Shuayb used to narrate it in two ways, connected and mursal. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.