The three books are adduced as evidence. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said:(1) That is, worthy of being adduced as evidence, so that his unqualified wording does not admit the objection of an abrogated [report] or one that is outweighed when contradicted. And God knows best.

We say: Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ and al-Nawawī(2) rejected what al-Baghawī held in his book *al-Maṣābīḥ* regarding his naming the *Sunan* "the good" (*ḥisān*), and that this is a convention unknown to the practitioners of this discipline, and that the *Sunan* contain the sound, the good, and the weak, so applying the name "good" to them is not correct.

The scholar Tāj al-Dīn al-Tabrīzī responded to them both, as al-Ḥāfiẓ reported from him,(3) mentioning that al-Baghawī, by applying the name "good" to the *Sunan*, intended only a specific convention of his own, not the general convention, because he—that is, al-Baghawī—said: "By 'good' I mean what Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī, and other imams transmitted." Then he said: "And whatever was weak or odd (*gharīb*), I indicated it, and I refrained from whatever was objectionable (*munkar*) or fabricated (*mawḍūʿ*)." Al-Ḥāfiẓ then said: Among the evidence for the correctness of his intending by his word "good" a specific convention of his own is that he says in places within the section on the good: "This is sound," at times, and "This is weak," at times, according to what appears to him of that.

--------------------------------------------
(1) In *al-Nukat* 1/489.
(2) In their two books *al-Muqaddima*, p. 37, and *al-Taqrīb*, p. 47.
(3) In *al-Nukat ʿalā Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ* 1/445–446.