“His hadith is abandoned.”

I say: His corroboration, then, is of no value. The hadith also has brief supporting reports similar to the hadith under discussion:

First: Hushaym reported: Humayd informed us from Anas, who said: “When the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, divorced Hafsa, he was commanded to take her back, so he took her back.” It was recorded by Abu Ya‘la (3/957) and al-Hakim (2/197), who said: “Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.” Al-Dhahabi agreed with him, and it is as they said. Al-Darimi also recorded it, but did not mention the command; he criticized the hadith on grounds that do not impair it. Al-Hakim also has another chain for it (4/15), but it is weak.

Second: From Musa ibn Jubayr, from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf, from ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar, in a report attributed to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Ahmad recorded it (3/478), as did al-Tabarani, as cited in Majma‘ al-Haythami, who said: “Its narrators are trustworthy.”

I say: This unqualified declaration of trustworthiness is clearly open to question. For this Musa—namely, the Medinan Ansari—was not declared trustworthy by anyone besides Ibn Hibban. Moreover, although Ibn Hibban is known for being lenient in declaring narrators trustworthy, his full statement about him in his book al-Thiqat (7/451) is: “He makes mistakes and contradicts others.” If that is the case, then he is not among the trustworthy narrators whose reports may be used as evidence, as is the case with one who has been declared trustworthy without qualification. Rather, he is one whose hadith may be selectively used for supporting evidence and corroborating reports—especially since Ibn al-Qattan said of him: “His status is unknown.”