"his ḥadīth is abandoned." I said: So one should not be pleased with his corroboration. The ḥadīth has concise supporting narrations similar to the main narration: the first is from Hushaym: Ḥumayd informed us from Anas who said: "When the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) divorced Ḥafṣah, he was commanded to take her back, so he took her back." It was recorded by Abū Yaʿlá (3/957) and al-Ḥākim (2/197), who said: "Authentic according to the conditions of al-Shaykhayn," and al-Dhahabī agreed, and it is as they said. It was also recorded by al-Dārimī, but he did not mention the command, and the ḥadīth was criticized in a way that does not undermine it. Al-Ḥākim (4/15) has another chain for it, but it is weak. The second is from Mūsá ibn Jubayr from Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf from ʿĀṣim ibn ʿUmar in a marfūʿ form: recorded by Aḥmad (3/478) and also by al-Ṭabarānī as in "Majmaʿ al-Haythamī," who said: "Its narrators are trustworthy." I said: In this unrestricted declaration of reliability, there is clear scrutiny, for this Mūsá—who is the Anṣārī from Medina—was not declared reliable by anyone except Ibn Ḥibbān, and even though he is known for leniency in declaring reliability, his complete statement in his book "al-Thiqāt" (7/451) is: "He makes mistakes and contradicts." If that is the case, he is not among those whose narrations are used as proof, as is the case with those who are declared reliable without restriction. Rather, he is among those whose ḥadīth is selected for supporting evidence and corroborations, especially since Ibn al-Qaṭṭān said about him: "His status is unknown."