Hadith benefit: Sheikh al-Muhaddith 'Abdullah as-Sa'd (فك الله أسره) : "In regard to Shabīb ibn Bishr al Bajali (hadith narrator), Yahya ibn Ma'īn declared him to be trustworthy, Abu Hātim ar-Rāzi said he is layyin (weak), while Ibn Hibban mentioned him…

Hadith benefit:

Sheikh al-Muhaddith 'Abdullah as-Sa'd (فك الله أسره) :

"In regard to Shabīb ibn Bishr al Bajali (hadith narrator), Yahya ibn Ma'īn declared him to be trustworthy, Abu Hātim ar-Rāzi said he is layyin (weak), while Ibn Hibban mentioned him in Kitāb ath-Thiqāt (book of trustworthy narrators) and said: 'he makes many mistakes'. What's most likely to be correct is that he (Shabīb) is hasan-al-hadīth (good narrator), la ba's bihi (no harm in him), sadūq (truthful but less precision).

Abu Hātim ar-Rāzi rahimahullah as we mentioned previously and as is well-known among many of those engrossed in hadīth sciences is that he is very strict (mutashaddid jiddan), and he barely ever declares a narrator to be trustworthy; to the point where he said about 'Abd ar-Razzaq, author of al-Musannaf, that his hadith is to be written down but isn't taken as a proof...while 'Abd ar-Razzaq is from the major huffādh...so he (Abu Hātim) rahimahullah is strict in declaring narrators to be trustworthy (shadīd-ut-tazkiyah).
So when his saying opposes the saying of Yahya ibn Ma'īn the saying of Yahya ibn Ma'īn is given preference over his since Yahya, even though he is a mutashaddid (strict), however his strictness is less [than Abu Hātim]; Yahya ibn Ma'in is closer than Abu Hātim to moderation (i'tidāl), so the saying of one who is mu'tadil (moderate) is given preference.

And it seems that ibn Hibban's criticism of Shabīb ibn Bishr would [only] lower him from the level of thiqqah to the level of sadūq since he [still] listed him in the book of thiqāt and didn't list him in the book of majrūhīn."

(The above is a summary of what the Sheikh stated as other less relevant details were discussed as well)

[تعليقات على حاشية كتاب التوحيد لابن قاسم]

Sheikh 'Abdullah as-Sa'd (حفظه الله):

The most correct view is that the collection of ibn Hibban is more authentic than Sahih ibn Khuzayma, because ibn Khuzayma rahimahullah had leniency in narrating weak ahādīth that relate to fadhāil al-a'māl, particularly in the chapter of fasting in it's introduction he mentioned many weak ahādīth which are not sahīh, so ibn Hibban's book is more authentic; and the book of an-Nasāī is more authentic than [both of] these books; he often points out the defective ahādīth; if there is a defect in the hadīth he mentions the defect. Thus, many of the predecessors called an-Nasāī's book Sahīh an-Nasāī, as has been related from ibn 'Adī, and likewise from al-Khatīb al-Baghdādi, and also from Abu 'Abdillah al-Hākim, adh-Dhahabi, and others. And indeed most of the ahādīth of an-Nasāī (as-Sunan as-Sughrā) are Sahīh and the ahādīth which have defects he mentions the defects in these ahādīth.

[تعليقات على حاشية كتاب التوحيد لابن قاسم]

(Edit: some details [lines 4-9] have been added to the translation for more benefit which weren't included initially for the sake of summarisation)

Sheikh al-Muhaddith 'Abdullah as-Sa'd (حفظه الله):

According to my knowledge, those who were the most correct in relating ijmā' (consensus) were Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm and Abu al-'Abbās ibn Taymiyyah; and the most lenient was Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr. Even ibn al-Mundhir was stricter than him (ibn 'Abd al-Barr), ibn 'Abd al Barr was more lenient. Muwaffaq ad-Dīn ibn Qudāmā also had leniency in relating ijmā'; likewise ibn al-Qayyim had leniency in relating ijmā'. However, ibn Hazm was among the strictest, and likewise ibn Taymiyyah.

[تعليقات على حاشية كتاب التوحيد لابن قاسم]

Sheikh al-Muhaddith 'Abdullah as-Sa'd (حفظه الله):

Sheikh-ul-Islām [ibn Taymiyyah] reported an ijmā' of the sahābah that the khawārij are not ruled as kuffār; and it is the correct view. When the tābi'īn came they differed in regard to takfīr of the khawārij, and likewise [the tabi'īn differed] in regard to takfīr of al-Hajjāj [ibn Yusūf]. The sahābah were in agreement on not making takfīr of al-Hajjāj. It's proven in al-Bukhāri that ibn 'Umar prayed behind him. It's been reported that he said some munkar words but that is likely not authentic.

[تعليقات عل حاشية كتاب التوحيد لابن قاسم]

Sheikh Hamūd ibn 'Uqlā ash-Shu'aybi (رحمه الله) :

The problem now is that people say the Ashā'irah are the closest people to ahl as-Sunnah; while knowing that if you look at them in terms of the attribute of speech, you find that they're in agreement with the Mu'tazilah [claiming] that Allah didn't speak nor say [anything]. And if you look at them in terms of al-qadar and the actions of the slaves, you find that they are Jabriyyah as they negate that the slave has actions. And if you look at them in terms of the attributes, you find that they are Jahmiyyah except for what they claim to affirm of seven attributes. So where is the closeness to them? for they are far away from ahl as-Sunnah, very far.

[Sharh al-'Aqīdah at-Tahāwiyyah p.48]