People, including Muslims, like to think freely. When they saw that many of the sacred texts were generating different interpretations, scholars began negotiations. If they were not entirely certain in a text, differences developed. However, these differences rested on serious arguments, logical approaches, and scientific analysis. Then they realized that these differences are by the grace of Allah. The differing opinions of the scholars are ultimately a grace to the Umma.
Now let’s look at the nature of the differences on a fiqh (derived jurisprudence) basis. The differences rely on 36 reasons. The first of these is the evaluation of the Hadith, of which I will mention only three. Hadiths are not rated by all scholars with the same strength. Maybe the credibility of a hadith is strong at one scholar and weak at the other. There are some in which they have agreed, (muttafiqun aleyhi عليه متفق ,(but the same may be rejected by a few of them. There may be controversy in the path of the hadith as it has reached our age (naskh نسخ .(So, there is a consensus in the body of the text itself, but there may be an opinion about its later force. An example:

Narrated by Jaber bin Abdullah:
The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Lash the one who drinks alcohol. If he returns drinking it at fourth time kill him.” Then a man came to the prophet who drank alcohol even after the third punishment and he was lashed and not killed at the fourth time.

This hadith shows what the Prophet (peace be upon him) originally said and later changed his judgment. So, a hadith also has a life, as it was first uttered and then as it was later applied. This tracing is called naskh. The whole story is about No’man who drank and was lashed. Then he drank again and was lashed and that happened even in the third time. When he drank the fourth time nonetheless, Omar wanted to kill him, but the Prophet did not allow it and said: “He loves Allah and His Prophet.” With that, the original hadith lost its validity. (This derivation comes from Dr. Ali Juma, the Grand Mufti of Egypt).

Another hadith about Suleyk Ghatafani:

Some of them said on the authority of Jabir: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said when he was preaching: pray two rak'ats, because this way is not nice Suleik!”

This hadith is also linked to a story. While performing the sermon the Prophet (peace be upon him) called on Suleik to pray two rakaats who just entered the mosque. These two rakaats are sunnah, so it is a tradition to honor the mosque. But was that the point here?

It is also a hadith, but a hadith appointed to a person (hadith ein عين حديث !(It was applied only to Suleik. The following happened.
The followers of the prophet entered the mosque and took their seats. The prophet did not give them any instruction. Suleik Ghatafani was a very poor man. He lived in the desert. The followers of the prophet decided to collect a donation for him. However, they did not personally know Suleik, only the news of his poverty reached them. When the prophet interrupted his sermon and spoke to Suleik, it was the sign by which he let the people know that the person they wanted, Suleik arrived. I know people today would do it differently. One would shout that Suleik is here, give him your donations, but that age was different.

In this study, I only mentioned the traceability and scope, so is it general or specific? But the chain of reference, i.e. Isnad اسناد is just as significant. It is important to know if credible people refer to a prophetic statement or liars. If there was only one person of doubtful credibility in the chain of reference, the hadith lost its authenticity.
Incidentally, it is the same precision that characterized the study of scholars of antiquity, the translation of their work, and the commenting. Thoughts of Aristotle, Plato are clearly separated from the translator's, analyst's thought, and the chain through which the thoughts survived can be traced.
Therefore, I caution anyone who quotes Hadith and an even more sensitive text, the Quran, if he/she is unaware of the context, the role of the same text at a later time, he/she should not quote it or has to derive it. Grabbing a sentence and quoting it according to the opinion of the orator without putting it into the context causes serious damage.