This article presents a critical investigation of the claim that Sayyidunā Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī رضي الله عنه was allegedly (God forbid) seen placing his face/forehead on the grave of the Prophet ﷺ, and that Marwān bin al-Ḥakam seized him by the neck and lifted him up.
Our objective is to clarify that the narrations forming the basis of this story are neither strong in chain (sanadan) nor in implication (dalālatan):
① The narration presented as the “original” source does not even mention placing the face/forehead on the grave.
② In its chain, Kathīr bin Zayd is considered weak / having some weakness (fīhi layn) by the majority.
③ Regarding his shaykh al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbdullāh, there is discussion about frequent irsāl (missing links) / tadlīs, and without establishing his direct connection to a Companion, deriving proof from him remains problematic.
④ In the second chain where the addition of “placing the face on the grave” appears, Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ is unknown / not well-recognized.
⑤ The authentication of al-Ḥākim and the concurrence of al-Dhahabī cannot be taken as decisive proof in light of the majority’s criticism and the critiques made elsewhere by some of these Imams themselves.
As a result, neither is the act of “placing the face on the grave” established from this incident, nor is the accusation of “disrespect toward the Prophet’s ﷺ chamber” against Marwān proven with an authentic chain.
The Claim and the Presented Narration
① The Narration of Ibn Abī Khaythamah (Presented as Evidence)
Arabic Text:
حدثنا إبراهيم بن المنذر، قال: حدثنا سفيان بن حمزة، عن كثير -يعني ابن زيد- عن المطلب، قال: جاء أبو أيوب الأنصاري يريد أن يسلم على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فجاء مروان وهو كذلك فأخذ برقبته، فقال: هل تدري ما تصنع؟ فقال: قد دريت أني لم آت الخدر ولا الحجر- ولكني جئت رسول الله، سمعت رسول الله عليه السلام يقول: لا تبكوا على الدين ما وليه أهله، ولكن ابكوا على الدين إذا وليه غير أهله
English Translation:
Ibrāhīm bin al-Mundhir narrated, saying: Sufyān bin Ḥamzah narrated to us, from Kathīr (i.e., Ibn Zayd), from al-Muṭṭalib, who said: Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī رضي الله عنه came intending to send salutations upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Marwān came while he was in that state and seized him by the neck, saying: “Do you know what you are doing?”
He replied: “I know well that I did not come to a curtain nor to a stone; rather, I came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: Do not weep over the religion as long as it is governed by its rightful people, but weep over the religion when it is governed by those unfit for it.”
📚 al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr – Ibn Abī Khaythamah, Vol. 3, p. 27, no. 6447.
Brief Clarification:
This is the text presented as evidence; however, it is noteworthy that there is no explicit mention of placing the face or forehead on the grave. It merely mentions “coming to send salutations” and Marwān seizing and questioning him.
Scholarly Analysis: Step-by-Step Arguments
② First Reality from the Text: No Mention of “Face/Forehead on the Grave”
📌 The claim is that Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه was seen placing his forehead on the Prophet’s ﷺ grave.
However, in the narration of Ibn Abī Khaythamah, there is no wording such as waḍaʿa wajhah, waḍaʿa jabhatuh, sajada, or any explicit attachment to the grave.
✅ Therefore, this narration does not prove the act of placing the face/forehead on the grave. At most, such a claim would depend on later additions or other routes requiring separate investigation.
③ Central Narrator: Kathīr bin Zayd (Weakness/Layn According to the Majority)
The main narrator in the chain is Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī, about whom even the party presenting this report itself quoted:
كثير بن زيد الأسلمي أبو محمد المدني، عن المقبري، وطائفة، وعنه ابن أبي فديك، وآخرون، قال أبو زرعة : صدوق فيه لين.
English Translation:
Kathīr bin Zayd al-Aslamī, Abū Muḥammad al-Madanī… Abū Zurʿah said: He is truthful (ṣadūq), but there is some weakness (layn) in him.
📚 al-Kāshif – al-Dhahabī, Vol. 2, p. 203, no. 4631.
Clarification:
The description “ṣadūq fīhi layn” itself indicates that the narrator is not of strong reliability. Moreover, the details of the majority of hadith scholars’ criticisms of him are given in a previous article (the same conclusion applies here).
✅ Hence, declaring this report ḥasan li-dhātih contradicts the majority’s criticism and the cautious methodology of several Imams, especially when further defects are present (as discussed below).
④ Second Pivot of the Chain: al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbdullāh and the Issue of Connection
The presenting party itself quoted this passage about al-Muṭṭalib from Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb:
المطلب بن عبد الله بن المطلب بن حنطب بن الحارث المخزومي صدوق كثير التدليس والإرسال
English Translation:
Al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbdullāh bin al-Muṭṭalib… al-Makhzūmī: he is truthful, but frequently practices tadlīs and irsāl.
📚 Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb – Ibn Ḥajar, p. 563, no. 6710.
And in its footnote the following is recorded:
قلت : ما وصفه احد بالتدليس، ولا المصنف في جزئه عن المدلسين. انما قال ابن سعد : يرسل عن النبي ﷺ كثيراً و عامه اصحابه يدلسون.
English Translation:
(The annotator writes:) I say: No one described him as a mudallis, nor did the author mention him in his treatise on the mudallisūn; rather, Ibn Saʿd said that he narrates mursal reports from the Prophet ﷺ frequently, and (also said) that most of his students practise tadlīs.
📚 Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb – Ibn Ḥajar, p. 563, no. 6710.
Brief Clarification:
There are two basic points here:
✅ (a) Even if there is discussion about the expression “tadlīs”, the very text of the Taqrīb explicitly states “frequent irsāl”; and “irsāl” means precisely that a problem of connection arises in the narration.
✅ (b) In the incident under discussion, al-Muṭṭalib is narrating from Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه (“he said: Abū Ayyūb came…”), so in principle hearing/meeting/connection must be established here; otherwise, there remains a strong likelihood that the report is disconnected (munqaṭiʿ/mursal in meaning).
Hence, merely saying “al-Muṭṭalib is ṣadūq” is not sufficient unless connection is established in this particular report.
⑤ Claim of Preservation of “Kathīr from al-Muṭṭalib”
It was claimed that, according to some Imams of ʿilal, the route “Kathīr bin Zayd from al-Muṭṭalib” is more preserved, citing:
Reference: Kitāb al-ʿIlal – Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Vol. 1, p. 309, no. 1029.
Clarification:
In books of ʿilal, saying “preserved/more correct” sometimes means that among the various routes this route is comparatively less erroneous; but it does not follow that the route is also ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan li-dhātih.
That is, if problems such as Kathīr’s weakness or al-Muṭṭalib’s irsāl/lack of connection remain in the original chain, the word “preserved” does not remove those problems.
⑥ al-Ṭabarānī’s Narration: Additional Transmission, Same Defect
📚 al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr – al-Ṭabarānī, Vol. 3, p. 51, no. 3901.
Brief Clarification:
Al-Ṭabarānī’s takhrīj shows that the report exists in some sources; but the multiplicity of a report’s sources does not by itself guarantee its authenticity, so long as the defect in the chain (especially the condition of the narrators and connection) is not resolved.
⑦ Addition of “Placing the Face on the Grave” and Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ
It was claimed that al-Mustadrak of al-Ḥākim contains the addition that Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه placed his face on the grave of the Prophet ﷺ, that al-Ḥākim declared it “ṣaḥīḥ al-isnād”, and that al-Dhahabī agreed:
📚 al-Mustadrak – al-Ḥākim, Vol. 4, p. 560, no. 8571.
However, it was also quoted alongside this that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, may Allah have mercy on him, said elsewhere about Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ: “I do not know him”:
📚 Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl – al-Dhahabī, Vol. 3, p. 14, no. 2620.
Brief Clarification:
📌 This point is decisive: the addition of “placing the face on the grave” comes through a route in which there is the problem of a narrator being unknown (majhūl/ghayr maʿrūf).
So if Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ is unknown, the very basis of this addition becomes weak, and the addition is then no longer a proof.
⑧ Musnad Aḥmad and the Ruling of Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ
According to your quoted text:
📚 Musnad Aḥmad, Vol. 38, p. 558, no. 23585.
Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ declared it weak due to the unknown status of Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ and criticism of Kathīr bin Zayd by some Imams.
Clarification:
✅ This ruling actually reinforces the principle that the addition of “placing the face on the grave” is unreliable because of the unknown narrator.
And if there is a place where the same researcher said “its chain is ḥasan” for another report of Kathīr bin Zayd from al-Muṭṭalib, this is understood by the general principle that a narrator may be accepted with certain supporting indicators/corroborations, but not everywhere without restriction—especially when there is an additional defect here (an unknown narrator).
(The second reference, according to your quoted text:)
📚 Musnad Aḥmad, Vol. 35, p. 457, no. 21580.
⑨ Historical and Contextual Consideration
In the quoted reply this point was raised:
📌 The death of Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه (52 AH) was before that of the Mother of the Believers ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها (58 AH), and the Prophet’s ﷺ grave was not an open place/public thoroughfare but was inside the chamber of ʿĀʾishah; therefore the situation of “people passing by” and “seeing” that is understood from some accounts of this story is difficult in terms of circumstantial indicators. Hence the claim that Companions were seen attending the grave in this manner during ʿĀʾishah’s lifetime requires strong proof with an authentic chain, which the weak routes presented here do not provide.
Brief Clarification:
This argument is not by itself a decisive verdict, but as a contextual indicator it is very strong: when the chain is weak and the context is also unfavourable, caution in accepting the report increases further.
⑩ Implication: At Most, “Salutation,” Not “Placing the Face on the Grave”
From the wording:
قد دريت أني لم آت الخدر ولا الحجر- ولكني جئت رسول الله
English Translation:
“I know that I did not come to a curtain nor to a stone; rather, I came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”
Even if this sentence is accepted as authentic, at most it shows that Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه came with the intention of salutation/visitation and negated any idolatrous intention towards inanimate objects; it does not necessarily prove placing the forehead/face on the grave—especially since that addition depends on another chain which is itself disputed.
Final Summary
🧾 Overall, the following points become clear about this incident:
✔ (1) The narration of Ibn Abī Khaythamah does not explicitly mention placing the face/forehead on the grave.
✔ (2) The majority lean toward weakness/layn regarding Kathīr bin Zayd in the chain, so the claim of “ḥasan li-dhātih” is not strong.
✔ (3) There is the problem of irsāl/connection regarding al-Muṭṭalib bin ʿAbdullāh, and this report cannot be relied upon without establishing his connection with the Companion.
✔ (4) The addition of “placing the face on the grave” comes through the route of Dāwūd bin Abī Ṣāliḥ, in which the problem of his being unknown (majhūl/ghayr maʿrūf) has been explained.
✔ (5) Al-Ḥākim’s authentication and some concurrences do not become decisive proof against the majority’s criticism and the other indicators.
Conclusion
Basing claims on this incident to assert that Abū Ayyūb رضي الله عنه placed his face/forehead on the Prophet’s ﷺ grave, or that Marwān committed disrespect toward the Prophet’s ﷺ chamber, is not established by authentic chains.
At most, what may be understood (in some forms) is the mention of salutation/presence; but establishing a belief, a ruling or a historical accusation on unproven additions and weak routes is not correct according to scholarly methodology.
Scans of Important References
