that he nonetheless declared authentic?! Al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Ruhāwī relates in his book “al-Mādiḥ wa-l-Mamdūḥ” that when Abū al-Ḥasan al-Dāraqutnī came across it he repudiated it and said, “Is he really supplementing the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections with the ḥadīth of the roast bird?!” When this reached al-Ḥākim, he struck it out of his book (1).
He also reports from one of the leading ḥadīth masters (2) that when he examined the work he said, “There is not a single ḥadīth in it that should be appended to the two Ṣaḥīḥs!”
In short, al-Ḥākim’s rulings of authenticity yield absolutely no benefit in assessing a ḥadīth’s merit, let alone its soundness.

Section
They say: As for Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī’s asking al-Bukhārī (3) about the report of Sufyān b. Ḥusayn regarding alms-tax, and al-Bukhārī’s statement, “I hope it is preserved, and he is truthful,” this does not indicate that al-Bukhārī accepted the spurious ḥadīth we are examining. The report on alms-tax is reliably preserved through al-Zuhrī, from Sālim, from his father; it is a document the Messenger of Allah ﷺ dictated, the caliphs acted upon, and ʿUmar b.