The Shaykh's commentary on Ibn Hajar's takhrij and his isnad-related remarks.

The Shaykh : ... However, it is likely that, from the perspective of hadith terminology, it would have been better to mention Ibn Hibban before al-Hakim, because he said, "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and it was authenticated by al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban." If he had reversed it and said, "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and it was authenticated by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim," it would have been closer to hadith terminology in two respects. The first is that Ibn Hibban is of a higher rank, meaning he is earlier than al-Hakim in terms of era. The second is that Ibn Hibban's authentication, despite the leniency in it that we mentioned in the previous lesson, is still cleaner than al-Hakim's authentication. This is because what we said yesterday about Ibn Hibban's authentication is also said about al-Hakim's, with the addition of another point: al-Hakim not only authenticates hadiths whose chains contain unknown narrators, but he goes beyond that to authenticating some hadiths whose chains contain narrators accused of lying and fabricating hadiths about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This is something Ibn Hibban does not do. Therefore, it is certain among the scholars of hadith that al-Hakim is more lenient in authentication than Ibn Hibban, and that Sahih Ibn Hibban is cleaner than al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak. Since we mentioned that Ibn Hibban is of a higher rank first, and because his leniency in authentication is less than al-Hakim's, it is better to mention Ibn Hibban before al-Hakim, saying, "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and it was authenticated by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim." And this hadith, in reality, has a valid chain.