He said about Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh:
1) Maroof ibn Kharboodh. Ibn Hajar al-Askalani in “Lisanul mezaan” (7/395/n4888) noticed: Ibn Hibban said he was upright, ibn Muin said he was weak.
Tawseq of ibn Hibban doesn’t mean a lot, because he use to make tawseq upon almost everyone, who wasn’t discredited.
Dhahabi himself included this narrator in his book “Mughni fi duafa” (6342) where he said: “Shia, upright. Yahya ibn Muin said he’s weak.
Ahmad said: “I don’t know grading of his narrations”.
Abu Khatim said: “His narrations are to be recorded”.
Ibn Jawzi included him in his book “Duafa wal matrukin” (#3370).
Ukayli in his “Duafa” (1810) noticed that his narrations are not to be relied on, and they aren’t known except by him.
==========================
Do such statements actually weaken Ma'ruf, when we know that:
* Imam Bukhari has placed a chain in his Sahih, which includes him in it. That is in connection with an athar from Ali (as).
One could say it's mawquf, but al-Bukhari saw it as authentic, hence he placed it in his Sahih without another support for it.
* Imam Muslim has a chain with him in reference to a report regarding a practice of Haj.
* Ibn Hajar called him Saduq, makes some mistakes...
* Imam Dhahabi called him Saduq Shia...
* Abu Hatim said, record his Hadith
* Ibn Hibban contained him in his Thiqaat.
I thought the reliance of al-Bukhari and Muslim greatly meant something for the Sunnis.
Was it about weakening the narrator at any cost because he narrated the virtues of Ahulbayt?