for the main stream nawasib of this era

this post should act as eye opener, espacially what they are going to read from their lord albani

the reason why i am saying so is, that they would easily reject such sort of a narrator which we are going to present, and term him “majhool”

but their lord albani, he was not in mood of that

now, we see that there is a narrator named moharar bin abi huraira

and ibn hajar wrote about him in tehzeeb

[90] س ق النسائي وابن ماجة محرر بن أبي هريرة الدوسي المدني

and giving the important opinions, he just mentioned one

and that was his tautheeq by ibn haban

he also mentioned that he narrated few ahadeeth

there is no other tautheeq for him from any other person as per tehzeeb ut tehzeeb;

keeping that in mind

ibn hajar termed him MAQBOOL in his book taqreeb ut tehzeeb

6500- محرر ابن أبي هريرة الدوسي المدني مقبول من الرابعة مات في خلافة عمر ابن عبد العزيز س ق

so we see what he did in his arwa ghaleel, vol 4,

so albani says:-

i say: the narrators are narrators of sheikhain except moharrar bin abi huraira; and he is thiqa as per ibn haban

and then he says

i say: from him narrated many greats like zahri, ata, akrama, so he is thiqa inshallah; and so the saying of ibn hajar [maqbool=accepted] is not maqbool=accepted]; and so the sanad is sahih

what he means is

that unlike present day people who would easily negate the grading MAQBOOL from ibn hajar;

or tautheeq of ibn haban saying that his tautheeq alone has no value, he is too lenient bla bla

albani is in mood of accepting the hadeeth as SAHIH in any case

and he accepted that there is no other tautheeq for this narrator apart from ibn haban

let us see from his work in silsila ahadeeth sahihiya , vol 4, page 156

he said:-

all the narrators are narrators of bukhari, except moharrar bin abi huraira, he is a narrator of nisai and ibn maja only; and no one did his tautheeq except ibn haban; and ibn hajar also did not do his tautheeq; he just said “maqbool=accepted”