Was Ibn Hibban lax in authenticating hadith?

Ibn Hibban laid down that in his [[work/sahih-ibn-hibban|Sahih]] he would rely only on hadiths in which every narrator combined five qualities: probity in religion shown by a good outward record, truthfulness in hadith shown by repute, understanding of what he narrates, knowledge of what distorts meaning, and freedom from tadlis. ² He stated that he sometimes relied on narrators criticised by some imams when corroboration satisfied him they were trustworthy. ³ Later critics differed over whether his book should be called lax, and Ahmad Muhammad Shakir gathered their statements in the introduction to his edition. ¹

• Ibn al-Salah, as al-'Iraqi explains him. Ibn al-Salah wrote that the [[work/al-mustadrak-ala-al-sahihayn|Mustadrak]] takes wide strides in the condition of soundness and is lax in pronouncing it, then said: "Ibn Hibban's Sahih comes close to it in standing." Al-'Iraqi says a later scholar took this to rank al-Hakim's book higher and objected that anyone who knows Ibn Hibban's condition knows its superiority; al-'Iraqi answers that this reading is wrong, that Ibn al-Salah meant closeness in laxity, and that al-Hakim is the laxer. ⁴
• Firmer than al-Hakim. Al-'Iraqi quotes al-Hazimi: "Ibn Hibban is more capable in hadith than al-Hakim"; al-Sakhawi quotes Ibn Kathir that Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn Hibban committed themselves to soundness and are far better than the Mustadrak, cleaner in chains and texts. ⁵
• Examination is still needed. Al-Sakhawi says that his closeness to al-Hakim means his hadiths too must be examined, since he does not restrict himself to accredited narrators, sometimes includes unknown ones, and holds that hasan belongs within sound; he concludes that examination is needed in every case, for even Ibn Khuzayma's Sahih holds many hadiths declared sound that do not rise above hasan. ⁵
• A dispute over terms. Al-Sakhawi reports that his teacher Ibn Hajar rejected the charge of laxity except in one respect: if it rests on the presence of hasan hadith, that is a dispute over terms, since Ibn Hibban calls it sound; if it rests on his light conditions, he includes a trustworthy narrator who is not a concealer, who heard from the one above him and was heard by the one below, with no gap or break; and a narrator with no known discreditation or accreditation, whose teacher and student are both trustworthy and who brings nothing objectionable, is trustworthy in his eyes. ⁵ Al-Suyuti gives the same and adds that this falls short of al-Hakim's condition, so that in sum Ibn Hibban kept to his conditions and al-Hakim did not; Kashf al-Zunun reports al-Biqa'i saying, in effect, that al-Busti was not lax at all, and the most that can be said is that he calls hasan hadith sound. ⁶
• Shakir's view. Shakir says he cannot tell whether their ranking of Ibn Khuzayma's Sahih above it holds, since he had not seen it, but he affirms or at least favours the view that Ibn Hibban set precise, clear conditions and met them, apart from the slips and differences of judgement in criticism that no scholar escapes. ⁷

Ibn Hibban defines the upright narrator as one whose outward conduct is mostly obedience to God, not one in whom no sin is ever found. ² He refers readers to his book of trustworthy narrators for those he relied on despite criticism. ⁸ That book, as al-Sakhawi quotes Ibn Hajar, contains many narrators of the kind described, which is why those who did not know his convention objected to it. ⁵

The card How should al-Hakim's authentications in the Mustadrak be treated? presents the other side of this comparison.