To what extent is it true that scholars are lenient regarding narrations of the Prophetic biography (Seerah), and what is your opinion on the book "What is Widespread but Not Established in the Prophetic Biography," which weakens well-known stories and events?

When discussing weak hadiths in the Prophet's biography (Sirah), three levels must be differentiated:

The first level: Hadith scholars permit the narration of weak hadiths in the Sirah and Maghazi (military campaigns), not with certainty of their attribution to the Prophet, peace be upon him, but rather as accounts and نقل (transmissions), because they do not establish a legal ruling, unlike hadiths concerning halal and haram, which are treated with strictness. The books of scholars are filled with such narrations concerning the virtues of deeds or the flow of narratives.

The second level: Lenience in the chains of transmission (asanid) of Sirah and Maghazi does not mean attributing words to the Prophet, peace be upon him, that are not proven. Rather, it is a leniency at the level of transmission and academic research only, not at the level of certain attribution.

The third level: What has been narrated from liars and fabricators (wadda'in) or includes munkar (denounced) or shadh (anomalous) elements should not be narrated except to warn against it or to point out its error, so that it is not used as an argument to impugn the religion.

Based on this, books that seek to completely eliminate weak narrations from Sirah books have unexamined objectives and contradict the methodology of the early hadith scholars. As for objectives that differentiate between weak and fabricated (mawdu') narrations, focus on the soundness of "attribution" to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and criticize lies and denounced matters, these are good objectives and conform to the rules of hadith scholars, keeping in mind that requiring hadith authenticity for every historical narration is an undue imposition.