The meaning of a man about whom some scholars said: "His status is unknown," while others said: Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) authenticated him

The questioner : The meaning of a man about whom some scholars said: "His status is unknown," while others said: Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) authenticated him, and some later scholars of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil followed him in this. An example of this is what was narrated from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "I have not seen a man whose prayer was more similar to the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) than this young man—meaning 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz—so we fell into prostration—into bowing—and he glorified Allah ten times, and into prostration and he glorified Allah ten times." The hadith ends here.
In this hadith, there is a man named Wahb ibn Manus; Ibn al-Qattan said of him: "His status is unknown," and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said of him: "His status is concealed," and Ibn Hibban authenticated him, and al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) followed him in this. So the question is: Is al-Dhahabi's statement about this man considered? And what is the grade of this hadith?

The Shaykh : The hadith, in my takhrij that I did long ago for "The Description of Prayer," is weak. As for Ibn Hibban's authentication, we have spoken about it more than once that he is lenient in authentication. However, there is an exception to this weakening of his authentication, which is that sometimes he authenticates a man who is, as Ibn al-Qattan said, "of unknown status," but he may have a large number of narrators, four or five, who are trustworthy. In this case, we find ourselves reassured and inclined to rely on Ibn Hibban's authentication of such a man; because his authentication of him is accompanied by the narration of a group of trustworthy people from him, especially if you accurately report that one of the later huffaz, like al-Dhahabi, agreed with his authentication, as you mentioned earlier.
And we find in reality not a few of Ibn Hibban's trustworthy narrators; some say of them: "Unknown," and some rely on Ibn Hibban's authentication. So the difference that obliges us sometimes to rely on the authentication and sometimes not to rely on it is that we look at who narrated from him; if they are a group—three or more, and trustworthy—then here one should rely on his authentication. And if they are less than that, the matter remains as Ibn al-Qattan said, or as he says, about many narrators: "He is of unknown status."
In short: Ibn Hibban's authentication should not be given a rigid, unchanging rule. Most of the trustworthy narrators he authenticated are trustworthy. A few of them fall under the previous detail: some are among the unknown, and some are those whom he alone authenticated, but he has what excuses him due to the large number of narrators from the one he authenticated; in that case, his authentication is relied upon.
Yes, please.

The questioner : Regarding this issue; whether he is from the Tabi'un or from others, in the previous detail?

The Shaykh : Whether he is what?

The questioner : From the Tabi'un or from others.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, he is from the Tabi'un, so the soul is reassured. And if he were below the level of the Tabi'un and had many narrators from him who are trustworthy; then at that time he is authenticated by his authentication. And this is how al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani proceeded with many narrators whom no one but Ibn Hibban authenticated, and yet they said of him—al-Dhahabi or al-'Asqalani: "Trustworthy or truthful," and Ibn Kathir and Ibn Rajab, and so on, but these are the famous ones.
Yes.