BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The narration of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
If you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him!
In this chain appears Mujalid ibn Sa’id al Hamadani al Kufi.
In this chain appears ‘Ali ibn Zaid Jud’an.
In this chain appears al Hakam ibn Zahir al Fazari, al Kufi.
Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi has jointly narrated this with al Hakam ibn Zahir as is mentioned by Ibn Hibban in al Majruhin (2/163). However, Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi, Abu ‘Abdullah, the Kufan, is weak, especially in that which he narrated from memory after being assigned a post in the judiciary.
Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (6/112) has indicated to the occurrence of a non-corroborated, solitary narration by weak narrator, he said: “And this [narration] with this [wording] I have not recorded it except from [the narration of] ‘Ali ibn Sa’id.”
Furthermore, appearing in this chain is Salamah ibn al Fadl, Abu ‘Abdullah, al Abrash, and he is weak. He has many contradictions and solitary narrations. As for that which he narrates from Muhammad ibn Ishaq under the genre of Maghazi only, it is stronger than the rest even though a general status of weak is accorded to his narrations.
However in this narration we find the problem of implicit narration of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, and he was described — may Allah have mercy on him — with evasiveness. When he narrates in the implicit form he evades, especially if he narrates other than the Maghazi genre. So if his evasiveness is present, the narration is not accepted; and the solitary nature of this narration indicates that he has indeed evaded.
In this chain appears Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari, al Masisi. Regarding him, Ibn ‘Adi, in al Kamil (3/419), said: “He used to ‘steal narrations’ [by attributing a fictitious corroboratory narration] and interferes with the chains [by substituting a narrator or omitting a narrator — usually an unreliable narrator — between reliable narrators],” then mentioned this particular narration of his and said: “Sufyan al Fazari has interfered with this since he said, “from Jafar ibn Muhammad, from his father, from Jabir,” and he has also narrated it from Mansur ibn Salamah, from Sulaiman ibn Bilal — and Sulaiman is reliable and Mansur is acceptable — whereas this is only related by way of Jafar ibn Muhammad, from a group of the participants of Badr from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” Sufyan ibn Muhammad has narrations other than those mentioned for which he has absolutely no corroboration from the reliable narrators, as he has many fabricated narrations along with narrations for which he has forged supplementary chains from the narrations of reliable narrators. Additionally his narrations have names of narrators who have been switched as well as continuity for chains that have [known] missing links above the stage of the Tabi’in. His weakness is evidently clear.
In this chain appears Khalid ibn Makhlad al Qatawani, who — even though he is from the narrators in al Bukhari — is weak in narration.
It has a number of defects:
Therefore, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid was a confounded liar, especially from that which he narrates from Hassan. Humaid al Tawil, Ayub al Sakhtiyani and Ibn ‘Awn have all clearly stated this. So, this chain is unsubstantiated. And even if the chain is proven it is from the Mursal narrations of Hassan, and the Mursal narrations of Hassan are not considered.
In al Muntakhab min al ‘ilal li al Khallal (229), al Khallal said: “‘Abdullah narrated to us, from his father — who said — Sulaiman ibn Harb narrated to us — who said — Hammad ibn Zaid narrated to us — saying — a man said to Ayub, ‘indeed ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid narrates from Hassan that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “If you see — meaning Muawiyah — on the pulpit…” to which he — Ayub — said: ‘‘Amr has lied.’ He — ‘Abdullah — said: ‘I asked my father to narrate to me the narrations of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid — I know them — so he dictated to me from the narration of Sahl ibn Yusuf from ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid from Hassan, then he said, ‘Leave it, for he has lied against Hassan!’”
It is evidently clear from all of this that this narration is baseless, in terms of the chain of narration as well as the text. A number of scholars have pointed out the fact that this narration is baseless.
1. Al Bukhari said in al Tarikh al Awsat:
Hammad ibn Salamah related from ‘Ali ibn Zaid, from Abu Nadrah, “when Muawiyah delivered the sermon from the pulpit, a man stood up and ascribed to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘if you see him on the pulpit kill him,’ and another said, ‘write to ‘Umar,’ — and they did so — but ‘Umar was already murdered.” However, this is a Mursal narration and Abu Nadrah did not witness those days. ‘Abdur Razzaq says — by way of — Ibn ‘Uyaynah, from ‘Ali ibn Zaid, from Abu Sa’id from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and this has been interpolated, and not established. It has also been narrated by Mujalid, from Abu al Wadak, from Abu Sa’id from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and this is extremely weak. Ahmed said of Mujalid that his narrations are as if they are dreams. Yahya ibn Sa’id said if one wished, he would have made them all from al Sha’bi, from Masruq, from ‘Abdullah. It has also been related by way of Ma’mar, from Ibn Tawus, from his father, from a man, from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this incident, and this narration is interrupted [in its chain], not to be relied upon. Al A’mash narrates from Salim, from Thowban, from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding this incident. However, Salim did not hear from Thowban, as for al A’mash it is uncertain whether he heard this from Salim or not. Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Ayyash relates from al A’mash that he said: “We seek forgiveness from Allah for things we would narrate on the basis of amazement, they have taken it as part of the religion. The Sahabah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were present when Muawiyah became a governor during the era of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and after that for a period of ten years, yet no one stood up with the intention of killing him. [Al Bukhari says] This is a clear indication that these narrations have absolutely no basis and no report of this nature has been proven from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with regard to any of his Sahabah. It is only people of weakness who spoke of this among themselves, except that which occurred during Jahilyyah, and then they entered into Islam, and Islam wiped clean all that occurred before it.
2. Abu Jafar al ‘Uqayli, in al Du’afa’ (1/280), after mentioning a number of narrations — among them this narration — said: “And none of these texts have been authentically proven from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
3. Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).
4. Ibn Hibban said in al Majruhin (1/171), under the biography of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Fadalah after mentioning some narrations from him — among them this narration: “These narrations that we have mentioned here, most of them have been substituted and been interfered with, it is his handiwork.” For this reason Ibn Hajar said in Tahdhib al Tahthib (3/164): “Others besides him — Ibn Hibban — have rejected that which Hammad ibn Salamah relates from him — Ahmed ibn Muhammad — from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa’id…”
5. Al Jawzaqani in al Abatil (1/200): “This narration is a fabrication, absolutely baseless, it is nothing except from the inventions of the innovators, who are fabricators. May Allah forsake them in both worlds! As for anyone who believes this, or its like, or even thinks that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said such things, then he is a heretic, out of the religion.”
6. Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/266) said: “This narration is not authentic from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,” in (2/264) Ibn al Jowzi mentioned this narration from those which have fabricated for the purpose of vilifying Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
7. Ibn ‘Asakir, in Tarikh Dimashq (59/157), said: “All these narrations are questionable.”
8. Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah (4/380): “These narrations are not found in the books of Islam, they are lies according to hadith experts and Ibn al Jowzi has mentioned it in al Mowdu’at.”
9. Al Dhahabi said in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ (3/150): “This is a lie. It has also been said — through interpretation — that it refers to Muawiyah ibn Tabuh, the hypocrite.”
10. Ibn Kathir, in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah (11/419), said: “This narration is a lie, without doubt.”
11. Ibn Hajar al Haythami in Tathir al Janan (38).
12. Al Showkani in al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah (407).
13. Al Suyuti in al Fawa’id min al La’ali al Masnu’ah (1/388).
14. Ibn ‘Arraq al Kinani in Tanhiz al Shari’ah al Marfu’ah (2/8).
Furthermore, this narration is baseless if one considers only the text, for two reasons:
Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah (4/380):
These narrations are not found in the books of Islam, they are lies according to hadith experts and Ibn al Jowzi has mentioned it in al Mowdu‘at. Another factor that shows this narration to be a blatant lie is the fact that the pulpit of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was ascended — after the death of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu — by individuals whom Muawiyah was superior to, by consensus of the Muslims. So, if it were obligatory to kill those who ascended merely on account of ascending the pulpit, it would be obligatory to kill all of them. Furthermore, this goes contrary to what is known of the religion by necessity, that a person be killed merely on account of ascending the pulpit. And if it is said that it was meant by this that Muawiyah be killed for taking charge of the affairs of the Muslims, then it can also be said that people, whom Muawiyah was more virtuous than, assumed leadership of the Muslims, why was there no instruction to kill them. Again, this goes contrary to that which was recurrently passed on through the prophetic tradition which prohibits killing or fighting with the leaders of the Muslims. In addition to this, the consensus of Muslims goes contrary to that, since they did not attempt to kill those who assumed leadership nor did they permit it.
Ibn Kathir, in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah (11/434), has said: “This narration is a lie, without doubt. Were it reliable, the Sahabah would have not wasted any time in implementing it since no kind of censure would compromise their carrying out the instruction of Allah.”
Also, see what has been written by Ibn Hajar al Haythami al Makki in Tathir al Janan (pg.38).
The following are some academic observations on the attempt to authenticate this narrations by Hassan al Maliki, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him!”
1. His referencing to secondary sources without referring to the original sources is an indication that he has not actually come across the narration:
2. His deceitfulness in mentioning corroboratory narrations:
Al Maliki has mentioned a ‘follow-up’ chain for the narration, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him,” which has been related by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419) which has been narrated by way of Khalid ibn Makhlad from Sulaiman ibn Bilal. He mentioned the corroboratory chain which is related by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419) by way of Sufyan al Fazari from Mansur ibn Salamah, from Sulaiman ibn Bilal.
However, the second chain is merely an invention of Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari as mentioned by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).
3. He has said regarding the narration, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him,” it has been narrated from ‘Asim through four chains. However, he only mentions three chains. The first, by way of Sharik from ‘Asim. The second, by way of al Hakam ibn Zahir from ‘Asim and ascribed it to Siyar A’lam al Nubala’. And the third, he did not ascribe it to anyone, whereas it is in Ansab al Ashraf (5/137).
 al Kamil fi Du’afa al Rijal by Abu Ahmed, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Adi al Jurjani (d. 365 A.H / 976 CE) this work of his is a collection of biographical details of narrators of hadith who were considered weak. He also identified a number of narrations of that narrator under his biography, hence indicating the flaw in that narration.
 al Mowdu’at min al Ahadith al Marfu’at by Abu al Faraj ibn al Jowzi. This work of his is a collection of fabricated narrations attributed to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Abu al Qasim, ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 A.H/1175 CE)
 Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir is an encyclopaedia of the history of Damascus and has been printed in over 70 volumes. It covers the history of every person who visted or lived in Damascus during that period, not limited to hadith narrators but political figures as well. Ibn ‘Asakir attempted to collect everything that was said regarding these figures without any distinction between reliable and unreliable, he aimed to provide a chain of narration for every statement recorded.
 Ahmed ibn Yahya al Baladhuri (d. 279 A.H / 893 CE).
 This work deals with the biographical details and genealogy of the noble family of the Blessed Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Abu Hatim, Muhammad ibn Hibban al Busti (d. 354 A.H / 966 CE)
 Kitab al Majruhin min al Muhaddithin wa al Du’afa’’ wa al Matrukin by Ibn Hibban is a collection of biographical data of weak and unreliable narrators of hadith. He also has a book titled al Thiqat in which he collected the names of those whom he considered reliable. However, many scholars do not consider the inclusion of a narrator in al Thiqat sufficient for ratification of a narrator due to his lenient standard in this work of his.
 See also Ansab al Ashraf (5/138)
 See also Mizan al I’tidal by al Dhahabi (2/172)
 Abu Jafar, Muhammad ibn ‘Amr al ‘Uqayli (d. 322 A.H / 934 CE)
 An encyclopaedia collecting the biographical details of weak narrators of hadith.
 See also Ansab al Ashraf (5/136)
 Ahwal al Rijal (biography no. 126)
 “Laysa bi Shay’” means not anything, this term is generally used to describe narrators of extreme weakness. Sometimes Ibn Ma’in used this term when he refers to a narrator who had very little hadith — translator
 “La Ahtajju bihi,” this term is used for narrators with abundance of errors on account of weak memory and lack of accuracy — translator
 al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 552)
 al Kamil (6/423), al Tahdhib (4/24)
 Tarikh ibn Ma’in, narration of al Darimi (141)
 Tarikh ibn Ma’in, narration of al Duri (4/341)
 Ahwal al Rijal (biography no.185)
 al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (6/186)
 al Tabaqat (7/252)
 Jami’ al Tirmidhi (Hadith no. 2678)
 al Mughni fi al Du’afa’ (biography no. 4265)
 al Kamil (5/201)
 al Du’afa’’ (3/958)
 al Tahdhib (3/126)
 i.e he has narrated this jointly with others and not independently.
 al Majruhin (1/171)
 al Majruhin (1/304)
 al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no.127)
 al Kamil (2/210)
 al Thiqat (6/444)
 al Kamil (4/22)
 The military expeditions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it extends to general aspects of sirah also well.
 al Tahdhib (2/165)
 al-Tarikh al Kabir (4/84)
 al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (4/169)
 al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 1487)
 al Thiqat (8/278)
 The Arabic term is tadlis.
 There is an obvious interruption in the continuity of this chain – the translator.
 See Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani (3/93)
 al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (3/354)
 al Tabaqat (6/406)
 al-Jarh wa al Ta’dil (3/354)
 Su’alat al Ajurri li Abi Dawood (1/103)
 al Tahdhib (1/531), Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narration of al Darimi (1/104), al Kamil by Ibn ‘Adi (3/35)
 Ma’rifat al Thiqat by al ‘Ijli (1/321) and al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban (8/224)
 Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narration of al Duri (4/275)
 al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 445)
 al Majruhin (2/69)
 al Kamil (5/110)
 Compiled by al Muwaffaq ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi (d. 620 A.H / 1223 CE)