Ahmad 588

Its isnad is very daif, and moreover it is disconnected. Muhammad bin Ubaydullah bin Abu Rafi, Bukhari said in Al-Kabir 171/1/1, "His hadith is munkar." Ibn Main said, "He is nothing." Others besides them also declared him daif. In the three original manuscripts here it appears as Muhammad bin Ubaydullah bin Ali bin Abu Rafi, but the addition of "Ali" in his lineage is a mistake, because his lineage is well known. His father, Ubaydullah bin Abu Rafi, is a well-known follower of the companions, and his grandfather, Abu Rafi, is the freed slave of the Prophet ﷺ. So the addition of "Ali" in this lineage is undoubtedly an error, and for that reason we have removed it.Ali bin Hashim ibn Al-Barid is trustworthy, deemed trustworthy by Ibn Main, Ibn Madini, and others. Umar bin Ali bin Husayn is trustworthy, but the hadith is disconnected, because his father, Zayn al-Abidin, never met his grandfather Ali bin Abu Talib, as mentioned previously in 582.The hadith appears in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, 542/6, where he said, "This is disconnected." The name Muhammad bin Ubaydullah bin Abu Rafi appears there mistakenly, just as it does in the copies of the Musnad, which shows that this is an old error made by the copyists. In Ibn Kathir there is another error, "Uthman bin Ali bin Husayn," when the correct form, as given here, is "Umar bin Ali bin Husayn." Among the children of Zayn al-Abidin Ali bin Husayn there is no one named "Uthman." See Ibn Saad's Tabaqat, 5/156.Furthermore, this hadith is mistaken, contradicting the sahih hadiths which state that the Messenger of Allah gave his wives the choice of divorce, and they chose Allah and His Messenger.