The first army to attack Constantinople, the date of death of Abu Ayyub Ansari and Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid رض

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

الْحَمْدُ لِلّٰهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِيْنَ، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ رَّسُولِ اللّٰهِ وَخَاتَمِ النَّبِيِّينَ، الَّذِي لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ، وَعَلَى جَمِيعِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالْمُرْسَلِينَ، وَعَلَى وَأَزْوَاجِهِ وَذُرِّيَّتِهِ، وَأَصْحَابِهِ أَجْمَعِينَ، وَمَنْ تَبِعَهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ إِلَى يَوْمِ الدِّيْنِ، أَمَّا بَعْدُ:

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all worlds, and blessings and peace be upon Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, after whom there is no prophet, and upon all the Prophets and Messengers, their wives, children, all the Companions, and all those who follow in their footsteps until the Day of Judgment.

The Glad Tidings of the Noble Prophet ﷺ: The First Attack on Constantinople

Dear readers! Regarding the army that first attacked “Constantinople,” the Noble Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, gave the following glad tidings:

قال رسول الله ﷺ:«أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ مَدِينَةَ قَيْصَرَ مَغْفُورٌ لَهُمْ»

Translation: The very first army of my Ummah that will attack the city of Caesar (the king of the Romans) (Constantinople), their forgiveness will be granted.

Praise of Imam Mahlab and Yazid

The first to present this glad tidings in the praise of “Amir Yazid (d. 64 AH)” was Imam Mahlab bin Ahmad Al-Asadi (d. 435 AH). His student Imam Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Khalaf, known as Ibn Battal (d. 449 AH), quoted Imam Mahlab’s statement in his Sharh Bukhari:

قال المهلب:«من هذا الحديث فضل لمعاوية، لأنه أول من غزا الروم وابنه يزيد غزا مدينة قيصر»

Translation: From this hadith, the virtue of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is established, because he was the first to attack the Romans, and his son Yazid attacked the city of Caesar.

Criticism of this opinion and historical disagreement

Later scholars also objected to Imam Mahlab’s statement. According to Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani (d. 852 AH), Imam Ibn al-Tin (d. 611 AH) and Imam Ibn al-Munir (d. 695 AH) pursued this uniqueness and did not consider it correct.

Nevertheless, after Imam Mahlab, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) also mentioned this glad tidings in praise of Yazid.

Attitude of Later Scholars

The commentators and researchers who came after these three scholars have specifically quoted Imam Mahlab’s statement. Some even presented this statement as evidence, while some scholars rejected it.

Important Point:

However, no one has presented any authentic proof that “Amir Yazid (d. 64 AH)” was indeed the commander of that first army whose forgiveness was promised.

Contemporary researchers have tried to prove that Yazid was the “first army,” but they have not succeeded. Rather, according to the hadith scholars and historians, Amir al-Mu’minin Muawiyah رضي الله عنه himself attacked Constantinople several times and sent various armies.

Silence of the Early and Later Scholars

It is also noteworthy that early hadith scholars, jurists, and historians such as Imam Ghazali (d. 505 AH), Imam Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi (d. 600 AH), Imam Ibn al-Arabi (d. 543 AH), Imam Abdul Maghith (d. 583 AH), etc., although they have spoken in defense of Yazid, none of them presented this glad tidings as praise for Yazid.

If anyone has done so, please kindly inform.

⚔️ The First Attack on Constantinople: Which Army Was It?

Dear readers! Which was the first army to attack “Ard al-Rum,” that is, “Constantinople”? On this issue, there are various statements from the pious predecessors رحمهم الله.

The hadith scholars and historians have mentioned several campaigns of Amir al-Mu’minin Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with them, and there is also mention of numerous armies sent by him, some of which have weak or fabricated chains of narration, and some have been transmitted without any chain.

Therefore, we will only mention those narrations whose chains are authentic or good, and in their light, we will try to determine which army made the first attack on Constantinople.

Note: Our aim is to clarify the ongoing dispute among Ahl al-Hadith regarding Yazid based on evidence. Because this issue has also reached the general public, and on this basis, people are calling each other Rafidhi or Nasibi, while the book “A Research Review of the Allegations against Yazid ibn Muawiya” by Kifayatullah Sanabli is further fueling this debate.

If only Sanabli Sahib clarified the truth about Yazid in the light of evidence, but he seems to be quoting objections against Amir al-Mu’minin Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, in defense of Yazid.

InshaAllah, in response to Sanabli Sahib, our book will soon be published. We pray to Allah Almighty to grant us the ability to act upon the truth, believe in it, spread it, and turn away from our wrong stance. Ameen.

(1) The Army of Sayyiduna Ma’n ibn Yazid ibn Al-Akhnas رضي الله عنهم

Imam Abu Dawood (275 AH) narrated:

عن أبي الجويرية الجرمي، قال:«أَصَبْتُ بِأَرْضِ الرُّومِ جَرَّةً حَمْرَاءَ فِيهَا دَنَانِيرُ فِي إِمْرَةِ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَعَلَيْنَا رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ مِنْ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ يُقَالُ لَهُ: مَعْنُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ…»

Translation: Abu Juwayriya Al-Jarmi (may Allah have mercy on him) states that during the era of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, we found a red jar on the land of Rome containing dinars. At that time, our leader was the Companion of the Prophet ﷺ Sayyiduna Ma’n ibn Yazid رضي الله عنه, who distributed those dinars among the Muslims.

Benefit: This narration is evidence that this army was dispatched during the caliphate of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه. Although the year of the event is not mentioned in this narration, it is clear that its commander was Sayyiduna Ma’n ibn Yazid.

Note: Sayyiduna Ma’n ibn Yazid رضي الله عنه was killed in 64 AH because he had pledged allegiance to Abdullah ibn Zubair رضي الله عنهما.

(2) The Army of Sayyiduna Abu Tha’labah al-Khashani رضي الله عنه

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) narrated:

قال أبو ثعلبة الخشني:«وَهُوَ بِالْفُسْطَاطِ فِي خِلَافَةِ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَكَانَ مُعَاوِيَةُ أَغْزَى النَّاسَ الْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةَ، فَقَالَ: وَاللّٰهِ لَا تَعْجِزُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةُ مِنْ نِصْفِ يَوْمٍ…»

Translation: Abu Tha’labah al-Khashani رضي الله عنه says: I was in the city of Fustat during the caliphate of Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, and Muawiyah sent people to attack Constantinople. Then he said: By Allah! This Ummah will not be powerless even for half a day…

Note: This narration does not mention the year of the battle or the name of the commander, but some later scholars have clarified.

For example, Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Dimashqi (d. 281 AH) states:

«أغزاهم معاوية ابنه يزيد بن معاوية هذه الغزاة سنة خمس وخمسين، وحضرها أبو ثعلبة الخشني».

Translation: Muawiyah appointed his son Yazid as the commander in this expedition, which took place in 55 AH, and Abu Thalabah Al-Khashani participated in it.

Conclusion: From this statement, it is understood that Abu Thalabah’s army was the same that was sent under Yazid’s command.

(3) Commander Yazid’s (d. 64 AH) Army

Imam Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH) narrated a tradition which makes it clear that Yazid bin Muawiyah was the commander of an army that attacked the land of Rome (Constantinople). Among this army was the Companion of the Prophet, Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه.

عن محمود بن الربيع الأنصاري قال:

«فِي غَزْوَتِهِ الَّتِي تُوُفِّيَ فِيهَا، وَيَزِيدُ بْنُ مُعَاوِيَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِأَرْضِ الرُّومِ… فَتَأَكَّدَتِ الرِّوَايَةُ»

Translation: Mahmood bin Al-Rabee’ رضي الله عنه says that I narrated a hadith at the time when Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه was present in that jihad against Rome, in which he passed away, and at that time Yazid bin Muawiyah was their commander.

Date of Death of Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه

Imam Ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH) narrated from Mahmood bin Al-Rabee’ in which the following statement is also present in his narration:

«توفي أبو أيوب في غزوة عمورية ويزيد بن معاوية عليهم في أرض الروم، ومات أبو أيوب في سنة ثنتين وخمسين بالقسطنطينية»

Translation: Abu Ayyub Ansari, may Allah be pleased with him, was martyred in the Battle of Amuriyah when Yazid bin Muawiyah was the commander over them, and his death occurred in 52 AH in Constantinople.

(📚 Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn Asakir: Vol. 5, p. 444 / Vol. 16, p. 61, Hadith 1876)

Critical Examination of the Chain of Narration

The narrators of this report are the following reliable personalities:

1. Umm al-Baha Fatimah bint Muhammad al-Asbahaniyah (d. 539 AH) – Sheikhah, scholar, pious
2. Abu Tahir bin Mahmood al-Asbahani (d. 455 AH) – trustworthy, muhaddith
3. Muhammad bin Ibrahim known as Ibn al-Muqri’ (d. 381 AH) – trustworthy, author of principles
4. Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Ishaq al-Manbiji – pious, virtuous
5. Ubaidullah bin Sa’d al-Zuhri (d. 260 AH) – judge, trustworthy
6. Ya’qub bin Ibrahim bin Sa’d (d. 208 AH) – virtuous, trustworthy
7. Ibrahim bin Sa’d (d. 185 AH) – trustworthy and reliable
8. Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 125 AH) – unanimously agreed upon for his greatness and precision

Therefore, this narration is authentic in its chain of transmission.

Conclusion

This narration is not only clear evidence that Yazid bin Muawiya attacked Constantinople in 52 AH, but it also proves that Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه was part of that army and that he passed away during that jihad.

📅 Different Opinions: In which year did Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه pass away?

Some historians have stated the death of Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه as 49 AH, 50 AH, 51 AH, 53 AH, and 55 AH.

However, the authentic narration from Mahmood bin Al-Rabee’, who himself participated in this expedition, specifies 52 AH, and most scholars also lean towards this.

As:

Imam Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 AH) says: Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه passed away in Constantinople in 50, 51, or 52 AH, and this expedition was led by Yazid. The opinion of 52 AH is more famous.

Imam Ibn Al-Athir (d. 630 AH) writes: Abu Ayyub passed away in 50, 51, or 52 AH, and he was part of Yazid bin Muawiya’s army.

👥 Participation of Other Companions with Yazid: Fact or Exaggeration?

Question:

Apart from Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه, were other Companions also part of the army led by Yazid bin Muawiya?

Some historians have mentioned that Sayyiduna Abu Shaibah Al-Khudri, Sayyiduna Abu Thalabah Al-Khashni, Sayyiduna Awf bin Malik, Sayyiduna Husayn bin Ali, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zubair, and Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As رضي الله عنهم participated in this army.

Let us examine each claim critically:

✅ Sayyiduna Abu Shaibah Al-Khudri رضي الله عنه

Many scholars have stated that he رضي الله عنه passed away in the land of Rome, which strongly suggests his participation:

Ibn Abi Asim (d. 287 AH): “فمات أبو شيبة رضي الله عنه بأرض الروم فدفناه”

Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH): “مات بأرض الروم في حصار القسطنطينية، ودفن هناك”

Ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH): “وكان فيمن غزا القسطنطينية مع يزيد بن معاوية”

Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH): “مات في حصار القسطنطينية، ودفن هناك مكانه”

📌 Conclusion: These statements provide a strong possibility that Abu Shaibah Al-Khudri رضي الله عنه participated, but no authentic or good narration confirming this has been found.

⚠️ Sayyiduna Abu Tha’laba Al-Khashani رضي الله عنه

Claim: Abu Zur’ah Al-Dimashqi (d. 281 AH) and Ibn Al-Adim (d. 660 AH) said that he participated with Yazid in 55 AH.

أغزاهم معاوية ابنه يزيد سنة خمس وخمسين، وحضرها أبو ثعلبة الخشني

Warning: However, it is authentically established that Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub Al-Ansari رضي الله عنه died in 52 AH in the same army, therefore the claim of 55 AH is not correct.

📌 Conclusion: Abu Tha’laba رضي الله عنه‘s participation is not proven. And Allah knows best.

❌ Sayyiduna ‘Awf ibn Malik Al-Shuja’i رضي الله عنه

Narration 1:

“أن عوف بن مالك غزا مع يزيد بن معاوية قسطنطينية…”

🛑 Reason for weakness: Isma’il ibn Rafi’ the narrator is abandoned.

Narration 2:

🛑 Reason for weakness:

The narrator Musa ibn Isa ibn Bahr is unknown.

Narration 3 (Relatively better):

“سرنا في حصن دون القسطنطينية، وعلينا عوف بن مالك…”

📌 Conclusion:

‘Awf ibn Malik رضي الله عنه was at a fortress near Constantinople, but his participation in the army with Yazid is not proven.

❌ Sayyiduna Husayn ibn Ali رضي الله عنهما

Claim: Some historians mentioned that Husayn ibn Ali رضي الله عنه participated with Yazid in the siege of Constantinople.

Ibn Asakir: “وفد على معاوية وتوجه غازيا إلى القسطنطينية…”

🛑 Issue: Ibn Asakir himself narrated another hadith on the same page and said:

“هذا حديث منكر ولا أرى إسناده متصلاً إلى الحسين”

Translation: This hadith is rejected and I do not consider it connected from Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him.

📌 Conclusion: It is not proven that Husayn ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, participated in Yazid’s army.

❌ Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Zubair, and Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, may Allah be pleased with them

Some historians have mentioned the participation of these noble Companions in the expedition to Constantinople:

📖 Imam Tabari (d. 310 AH)

وفیها كانت غزوة يزيد بن معاوية الروم حتى بلغ قسطنطينية، ومعه ابن عباس، وابن عمر، وابن الزبیر، وأبو أيوب الأنصاري.

Translation: In the same year, Yazid ibn Muawiya led an expedition against the Romans to Constantinople. With him were Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubair, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari.

🛑 Note: Sheikh Muhammad ibn Tahir al-Barzanji has classified this narration among weak reports:

📖 Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH)

“غزا يزيد بأرض الروم حتى بلغ القسطنطينية ومعه ابن عباس، وابن عمر، وابن الزبير، وأبو أيوب الأنصاري…”

📖 Imam Ibn al-Athir (d. 630 AH)

Ibn al-Athir writes in detail that Yazid initially refused to go, but was sent upon the insistence of Muawiya رضي الله عنه:

“وكان في هذا الجيش ابن عباس، وابن عمر، وابن الزبیر، وأبو أيوب الأنصاري…”

📖 Other historians:

• Subt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Miraat al-Zaman: Vol. 7, p. 105)
• Ibn al-Wardi (d. 749 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Tarikh Ibn al-Wardi: Vol. 1, p. 169)
• Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya: Vol. 8, p. 32)
• Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Tarikh Ibn Khaldun: p. 602)
• Badr al-Din Ayni (d. 855 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Umdat al-Qari: Vol. 14, p. 198)
• Ibn Taghri Bardi (d. 874 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Al-Nujum al-Zahira: Vol. 1, p. 176)
• Qastalani (d. 923 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Irshad al-Sari: Vol. 5, p. 84)
• Abdul Malik al-Asami (d. 1111 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Samt al-Nujum: Vol. 3, p. 116)
• Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan Bhopali (d. 1307 AH)
  Reference: (📚 Awn al-Bari: Vol. 3, p. 520)

⚠️ Research Warning

📌 Although all these historians mention the participation of several companions, however:

1. No narration is provided with an authentic chain of transmission.
2. Most have copied from earlier historians without verification.
3. Some mention that Yazid was sent as a punishment, which is not proven with an authentic chain.

✅ Summary of Research

📌 With an authentic chain, only the participation of two companions is proven:

• Our master Abu Ayyub al-Ansari رضي الله عنه
• Mahmood ibn al-Rabi’ (a minor companion) رضي الله عنه

📌 There is a strong possibility that Abu Shaybah Al-Khudri رضي الله عنه participated, but there is no chain of narration.

📌 The participation of other Companions is by no means proven with an authentic or good chain of narration.

📢 Final Conclusion:

From all these evidences and references, it becomes clear that:

“The attack on Constantinople under the leadership of Amir Yazid (d. 64 AH)” was the first attack by the Muslim Ummah — this is not proven.

However, only the participation of a few Companions in this army is proven with an authentic chain of narration.

All other statements are weak, without chains, or probable, and cannot be made a definite part of creed or history.

🕯️ Agreed Date of Death: Year 46 AH

According to the majority of the Imams of Hadith and historians, Sayyiduna Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid رضي الله عنهما died in the year 46 AH. The following statements testify to this:

✅ Testimony of the First Group of Muhaddithin

1. Imam Abu Ubaid al-Qasim ibn Salam (d. 224 AH)

📚 «سنة ست وأربعين توفي فيها عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد»

2. Imam Khalifa ibn Khayyat (d. 240 AH)

📚 «مات سنة ست وأربعين»

3. Imam Ya’qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi (d. 277 AH)

📚 «مات سنة ست وأربعين»

4. Imam Tabari (d. 310 AH)

📚 «فدس ابن أثال النصراني إليه شربة مسمومة… فقتلته»

⚠️ Warning: Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) considered this incident weak: 📚 «ولا يصح» 

5. Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH)

📚 «مات بحمص سنة ست وأربعين»

📚 «مات سنة ست وأربعين» 

6. Imam Hakim al-Kabir Nishapuri (d. 378 AH)

📚 «فمات بحمص سنة ست وأربعين» 

7. Imam Abu Sulayman Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Rubai (d. 379 AH)

📚 «سنة ست وأربعين فيها: مات عبد الرحمن بن خالد…» 

8. Imam Abu al-Qasim Ibn Manda (d. 470 AH)

📚 «وفيها مات عبد الرحمن بن خالد… وقيل: سُمَّ» 

🟩 Consensus Testimony: Admission of Imam Ibn Zubair

📚 «وَمَا اتَّفقُوا عَلَيْهِ فَلَا أذكر فِيهِ إِسْنَادًا…»

📌 Meaning: For deaths on which scholars have consensus, the chain is not mentioned

📚 «فيها مات عبد الرحمن بن خالد… قتله ابن أثال»

🟢 Conclusion: According to Imam Ibn Zubair (may Allah have mercy on him), consensus had been reached on the year “46 AH.”

✅ Historians and Muhaddithin who consistently mention 46 AH

9. Imam Ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH)

📚 «مات سنة ست وأربعين في خلافة معاوية»

10. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH)

📚 «فدس إليه عدي بن أثال شربة مسمومة فقتله بها، فمات بحمص»

11. Imam Imad al-Din al-Asbahani (d. 597 AH)

📚 «وفاة عبد الرحمن بن الوليد»

🔹 Researcher’s marginal note: «هو عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد»

12. Imam Ibn al-Athir (d. 630 AH)

📚 «انصرف عبد الرحمن… ومات»

📚 «ثم مرض… فمات… وذلك سنة سبع وأربعين»

⚠️ Warning: Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) declared this story false: 📚 «ولا يصح» [البداية والنهاية: ج8 ص31]

📚 Confirmation by Reliable Historians

13. Subt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH)

📚 «فسقاه ابن أثال النصراني شربةً مسمومةً، فمات»

14. Ibn al-Adim (d. 660 AH)

📚 «فمات بحمص سنة ست وأربعين»

15. Abu al-Fida (d. 732 AH)

📚 «سنة خمس وأربعين توفي عبد الرحمن…»

16. Imam Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH)

📚 «فيها توفي عبد الرحمن… على الأصح»

📚 «وقيل في سنة تسع وأربعين…»

🔴 Warning: This statement was mentioned only by Al-Dhahabi, which may be based on leniency.

❌ The anomalous and rejected statement of Waqidi

✖️ Waqidi (d. 207 AH)

📚 «أن عبد الرحمن مات سنة سبع وأربعين»

🔴 Commentary: Waqidi is a liar and his hadith is abandoned; his statement is against the consensus, therefore it is rejected.

📘 Other Imams who unanimously affirm the year 46 AH

17. Imam Zain al-Din Ibn al-Wardi (d. 749 AH)

📚 «وفيها توفي عبد الرحمن بن خالد…»

18. Imam Al-Yafi’i (d. 768 AH)

📚 «وفيها توفي عبد الرحمن بن خالد…»

19. Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH)

📚 «ومات وهو مسموم، رحمه الله»

⚠️ Also mentioned a famous incident which he himself called false: 📚 «ولا يصح» — [ایضاً]

20. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH)

📚 «سنة ست وأربعين… زاد أبو سليمان: قتله ابن أثال بالسم بحمص»

📚 Support from later historians and researchers

21. Imam Ibn Taghri Bardi (d. 874 AH)

📚 «وفيها توفي عبد الرحمن… وقيل سنة تسع وأربعين»

22. Imam Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali (d. 928 AH)

📚 «توفي مسموماً سنة خمس وأربعين من الهجرة»

23. Imam Al-Tayyib al-Hadrami (d. 947 AH)

📚 «توفي سنة ست وأربعين، رضي الله عنه»

📚 «وفيها: توفي عبد الرحمن…»

24. Imam Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 AH)

📚 «توفي عبد الرحمن… مسموماً على ما قيل»

25. Muhaddith Muhqiq Ahmad Shakir (d. 1377 AH)

📚 «يدل على أن الغزوة كانت سنة 46 لأن عبد الرحمن مات تلك السنة»

✅ Reasoned Proof of Consensus

📌 Imam Abu Sulayman Ibn Zubair (d. 379 AH): 📚 «فلا أذكر فيه إسنادًا… إلا فیما اختلفوا فیه»

➤ And he mentioned the death in 46 AH without a chain of narration

🔹 Meaning: Since there was no disagreement, the chain was not mentioned — that is, consensus is found.

🧾 Summary of the Matter

• More than twenty (20) Imams, Muhaddithin, historians, and researchers have explicitly stated that: The death of Sayyiduna Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (may Allah be pleased with them) occurred in 46 AH.
• Imam adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said decisively: 📚 «على الأصح»
• ➤ That is, this is the most correct opinion.

• Imam Ibn Zubair’s clarification: ➤ “For those whose death is agreed upon, their chain is not mentioned” ➤ and the mention of Abdur Rahman bin Khalid (may Allah be pleased with him) was without a chain —
  Reference: Tarikh Moulid al-Ulama: Vol. 1, p. 145

  ➤ so this is a clear proof of “Ijma” (consensus).

🚫 Refutation of Misleading Statements

✖️ Waqidi’s Rare Opinion: 47 AH

📚 «ذكر الواقدي… أن عبد الرحمن مات سنة سبع وأربعين»

⚠️ Commentary:

• Waqidi is a “liar” and “abandoned” narrator.
• His opinion is rejected and false because it contradicts the consensus of the majority.
• Imam Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) declared such reports weak: 📚 «ولا يصح» — [البداية والنهاية]

📛 Sanabli Sahib’s Mistake

• Sanabli Sahib presented the statement of a liar like Waqidi as evidence to prefer the year 47 AH➤ Reference:
• Reference: 📚 “A Research Study on the Allegations against Yazid bin Muawiya”: p.594
• Reference: 📚 “The First Attack on Constantinople…”: p.57

🔴 Objection:

• This style of reasoning is rejected by the scholars
• Presenting the statement of a liar against consensus is an academic betrayal

📘 Additional Benefit

Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi Al-Shaibani, may Allah preserve him:

📚 «وتوفي قبل الخمسين من الهجرة»

“Your death had already occurred before 50 AH”

“In the era of Yazid’s rule…”: p.45

🏁 Final Conclusion

• ✨ There is consensus and agreement among the Muhaddithin and historians on “death in the year 46 AH”
• ❌ The statement of 47 AH is not only rare but also narrated from a liar narrator (Waqidi)
• 🔒 Therefore: no possibility, interpretation, or delay can invalidate this consensus

❗ Investigative Review of Sanabli Sahib’s Doubts

📌 Sanabli Sahib’s Claim:

Sanabli Sahib says:

“Abdul Rahman bin Khalid’s various attacks took place in 44, 45, and 46 Hijri, and he was poisoned in 46 Hijri. Since Abu Ayyub Ansari’s (RA) death occurred in 52 Hijri, it is proven that Abdul Rahman’s attack was before Yazid’s army to Constantinople.”

🧭 Research Response and Refutation:

✅ The reality is:

• The attacks of 44H, 45H, and 46H were different summer and winter campaigns.
• They are not related to the army of Constantinople mentioned in Abu Dawood’s hadith.

📚 Statements of Historians:

1. 44H – Reached only Qaluniya:

   “غزا عبد الرحمن حتى بلغ قلونية”—

   Reference: Tarikh al-Ya’qubi: p.205
2. 45H – Reached Antioch:

   “وشتا بأرض الروم وبلغ أنطاكية”—

   Reference: Tarikh al-Ya’qubi: p.205
3. 46H – Winter campaign, no mention of Constantinople:

   “شتى المسلمون ببلاد الروم…”—

   Reference: Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya: vol.8 p.30

   ➤ Imam Tabari also reported differences regarding the appointment of the commander in this campaign.

   Reference: — [Tarikh al-Tabari: vol.5 p.227

⚠️ Warning:

• Sanabili Sahib did not mention any chain of narration for these attacks.
• Ya’qubi (d. 278-292H) statement is without chain and disconnected.
• Statements of Ibn Kathir and Tabari were also transmitted without chains.

🔴 While Sanabili Sahib himself states the principles:

“A mursal and disconnected narration is weak and not authentic”— [p.25, p.572, A Research Review of Allegations]

📌 Conclusion:

• The mentioned attacks did not occur on Constantinople.
• Connecting them with Abu Dawood’s hadith is scholarly betrayal and misunderstanding.

📌 Sanabli Sahib states:

“If we accept that Abdul Rahman was poisoned, then this will prove that his death occurred in 57 AH, because the story of the poison was narrated at the time of the crown prince’s consultation (57 AH).”

❌ Investigative Refutation:

1. 📚 Reality of the poisoned narration:

“أخبرني عمي… عن المدائني… عن أبي سهيل… أن معاوية لما أراد أن يستخلف يزيد… فسكت وأضمرها ودس ابن أثال فسقاه سما فمات”

🔴 Weakness of the chains:

• Unknown narrator
• Source is below Madaini, obscure and unknown
• This narration is nonsense, false, and a fabricated story by the Sabians

2. 📌 Time of the poison? 57 AH? ❌

📚 According to historians:

“The poisoned incident is from 46 or according to some 47 AH”

✔️ Imam Ibn Kathir states:

«ولا يصح»

3. 📌 Sanabli Sahib’s contradiction:

• On one hand he says:

  “The story of the poison is gossip, a fabricated story by the Sabians”

• Then he uses the same to argue that:

  “The narration of the poison proves the death occurred in 57 AH” ❗

🛑 If the incident itself is fabricated and false, then why is the date of death derived from it?

🧭 Correct Position:

• The poison-giving narration is weak, disconnected, and rejected
• The majority of historians have explicitly and with research reported the death in 46 AH
• Imam Dhahabiؒ said:

  «على الأصح»

  Reference: Tarikh al-Islam: Vol. 2, p. 389

  Third Doubt: “The Expedition of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid took place in 47 AH”

  📌 Sanabli Sahib’s Argument:

  Ibn Asakir narrated that in 47 AH “‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid” and “‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir” conducted an expedition on Cyprus or Rhodes➤

  Reference: 📘 Tarikh Dimashq: Vol. 34, pp. 328-329

  🔍 Investigative Refutation:

  1. 📚 This narration is the statement of Imam Layth ibn Sa‘d (d. 175 AH):

  “قال الليث: غزوة عبد الرحمن بن خالد إلى قبرس”

  “وقال: إلى رودس”

  Reference: Tarikh Dimashq: Vol. 34, pp. 328-329; Vol. 40, p. 501

  2. ⚠️ Contradiction in the narration:

  At one place “Cyprus” is mentioned

• At another place “رودس” is mentioned
• Both places are geographically distinct➤ therefore the statement is inconsistent

🚫 Weakness of the narration – according to Sanabli Sahib’s own principle:

• Layth ibn Sa‘d’s birth: 94 AH
• ‘Abd al-Rahman’s death: 46 AH➤ meaning he was born 48 years later, so his statement is:

Mursal (disconnected), Munqati‘ (broken), weak, and unproven

🧾 Sanabli Sahib’s own principle:

“If a narrator did not witness a certain era, the narration will be disconnected”

📌 Summary:

• The statement of Imam Laith bin Saad is weak, late, and unauthentic
• The argument for the expedition of 47 AH is based on this weak foundation
• The unanimous opinion of the Muhaddithin: death occurred in 46 AH itself

📌 Sanabli Sahib’s Argument:

According to Ibn Asakir, after the death of Sufyan bin Awf, Abdul Rahman bin Khalid was given the responsibility of the summer jihad➤ and since Sufyan died in 52 AH, it proves that Abdul Rahman was alive after 52 AH

🔍 Investigative Refutation:

1. 📚 This statement is attributed to Imam Khalifa bin Khayyat (d. 240 AH):

But Sanabli Sahib quoted this statement only through Ibn Asakir without the original book, while the investigator himself referenced the original source in the margin.

2. ⚠️ Defect in the Chain of Narrators:

• The narrator in the narration “Abu Imran Musa bin Zakariya al-Tustari” = very weak
• The one narrating from him “Ahmad bin Imran” = hidden (unknown status)

➤ This entire narration is severely weak in its chain.

📌 Further Commentary:

• Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him) also transmitted the same statement➤ but considered the death of Abdul Rahman bin Khalid to be in 46 AH
  Reference: — [Al-Isabah: Vol. 5, p. 28

✅ Clear Statement of Imam Khalifa bin Khayyat:

“وفيها مات عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد”

➤ Meaning, according to Imam Khalifa as well, the death occurred in 46 AH

🎯 The Main Mistake:

• Sanabili Sahib applied “the responsibility after Sufyan” to 52 AH
• But according to correct research:➤ this happened at an earlier occasion, not after 52 AH

📌 Sanabili Sahib’s Argument:

Ibn Sa’d narrated that Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdul Rahman bin Khalid, and other companions participated in the funeral prayer and burial of Maymunah (may Allah be pleased with her), and this event took place in 61 AH

🔍 Investigative Refutation:

1. ⚠️ Severe Weakness of the Chain:

• This narration is transmitted from the liar Al-Waqidi (Muhammad bin Umar)
• The second narrator “Abdullah bin Muharrir” = a narrator whose hadith is abandoned

📚 Hafiz Ibn Hajar:

Al-Waqidi = liar
Ibn Muharrir = abandoned

🔴 This narration is fabricated, concocted, and false

2. ❌ Contradiction of Sanabli Sahib:

• He himself states:

  “Al-Waqidi is a liar”

  Reference: — [📚 Investigative Review of Allegations: pp. 315, 515, 530
• But he uses the narration of the same Al-Waqidi to argue for death in 61 AH! ❗

📌 Statement of Al-Waqidi:

Abdur Rahman died in 47 AH➤ and then he himself says: he descended into the grave in 61 AH?🤦 This is an extreme contradiction and misunderstanding.

🛑 Complete invalidity of the narration

• Not only is the chain false, but the event is impossible
• Al-Waqidi himself is contradicting his earlier statement (death in 47 AH)

🕯️ Position of the scholars:

• Imam Dhahabi:

  “Maymunah’s death occurred in 51 AH, the statement of 61 AH is false”

  Reference: — [Al-Talkhis Al-Mustadrak: Vol. 4, p. 32
• Hafiz Ibn Hajar:
  Reference: “سنة إحدى وخمسين على الصحيح”— [Taqrib al-Tahdhib: No. 8688

✅ Summary of the discussion:

• All contradictory statements: 47, 52, 61 AH = weak, disconnected, or fabricated
• While more than 20 hadith scholars and historians have firmly preferred 46 AH

📚 Imam Dhahabi:

«على الأصح» —

📚 Imam Ibn Zabur:

“There is consensus on this, therefore the chain is not mentioned”

1️⃣ First attack on Constantinople: under Yazid (RA) or someone else’s leadership?

• Hadith of the Holy Prophet ﷺ:

  “The first army from my Ummah to attack the city of Caesar will be forgiven.” ➤ Some scholars (for example, Imam Mahlab) have taken this hadith as praise for Yazid bin Muawiya. ➤ But no hadith scholar or historian has proven with an authentic chain that Yazid was the first commander.

• ✅ It is proven with an authentic chain that: ➤ Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه participated in the conquest of Constantinople in 52 AH ➤ and at that time Yazid bin Muawiya was the commander of the army
  Reference: ➤ [📚 Sahih Bukhari, Tarikh Dimashq
• ❌ The participation of other companions (Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Husayn bin Ali, etc.) is reported through weak or unsourced narrations.

2️⃣ Consensus on the death of Sayyiduna Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid رضي الله عنه: 46 AH

• ✅ Statements of more than twenty Muhaddiths and historians:

  «مات سنة ست وأربعين»➤ Imam Abu Ubaid, Khalifa bin Khayyat, Ibn Hibban, Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Asakir, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Ibn Zubair, etc.

• 🔐 Proof of consensus:➤ Imam Ibn Zubair, may Allah have mercy on him, said that “those on whom there is agreement, their death is not mentioned with a chain of narration”➤ and he mentioned 46 AH without a chain.
• ⚠️ Denial and doubts of Sanabli Sahib:

  Sanabli Sahib suggested the possibility of the death of Abdul Rahman bin Khalid (رضي الله عنه) occurring in 47 AH, 52 AH, or 61 AH based on various weak, disconnected, or fabricated narrations.

• ❌ Refutation of these doubts:

  All statements are either narrated from a liar narrator (for example, Waqidi)

• or based on interruption, confusion, or chainless transmission
• According to Sanabli Sahib’s own principles, these narrations are not acceptable

✅ Final Conclusion:

1. The attack on “Constantinople” under the leadership of Yazid (رضي الله عنه) took place in 52 AH➤ only the participation of Abu Ayyub Ansari (رضي الله عنه) is proven with an authentic chain.
2. The death of “Sayyiduna Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (رضي الله عنه)” is unanimously agreed to have occurred in 46 AH➤ Imam Al-Dhahabi (رضي الله عنه) said: «على الأصح»➤ Imam Ibn Zubair (رضي الله عنه): “There is consensus on this”