✿ Verification of the Narration Involving Wahiyah ibn Khalifah and Its Chain Status ✿
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah – Volume 3 – Principles, Hadith Authentication, and Their Rulings – Page 262
It is reported that Wahiyah ibn Khalifah al-Kalbī (رضي الله عنه) was sent by the Prophet ﷺ as a messenger to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, carrying the blessed letter of the Prophet ﷺ. When Wahiyah reached Heraclius, he gathered Arab merchants in Syria, including Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb and other polytheists from Makkah. Heraclius then questioned them about the Prophet ﷺ, as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and other reliable sources.
One narration adds that Abū Sufyān, still a non-Muslim at the time, tried to belittle the Prophet ﷺ in the eyes of Heraclius and said:
“He claims that he left Makkah at night, reached your mosque (Bayt al-Maqdis), and returned before morning.”
Upon hearing this, a high-ranking Christian priest (possibly the archbishop of Jerusalem), present in the court of Heraclius, exclaimed:
“This is true! I know that night very well…”
The narration continues with a detailed story about how the church door refused to close that night, indicating a miraculous visit.
This version appears in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (Maktabah Islāmiyyah, Vol. 3, pp. 215–216), quoting Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah by Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī.
Is this narration authentic according to the principles of Hadith and the science of narrators (ʿIlm al-Rijāl)?
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد
Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) quoted this report incompletely, attributing it to Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah of Abū Nuʿaym, but did not provide a full chain of narration.
See: Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, with taḥqīq by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī (Vol. 4, p. 115)
The full sanad (chain) for this narration could not be found in any available printed edition of Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah or other reliable works.
However, Ibn Kathīr’s partial chain includes known problematic narrators. Below is a detailed evaluation:
Critically Weak (Severely Discredited)
al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn, p. 310
Conclusion: Any isnād involving al-Wāqidī is extremely weak, even fabricated (mawḍūʿ).
Also weak according to the majority
Reliable Tābiʿī
However, this narration is mursal (i.e., a tābiʿī narrates from the Prophet ﷺ without mentioning a Companion), which according to strong scholarly opinion renders it weak.
See:
The sanad from Abū Nuʿaym to al-Wāqidī is not provided by Ibn Kathīr, and could possibly contain unknown or discredited narrators.
The narration regarding the church doors in Bayt al-Maqdis remaining open due to the Prophet ﷺ’s miraculous night journey, as quoted in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, is extremely weak and unreliable due to:
Thus, it is impermissible to narrate this report without explicitly highlighting its weakness.
✔ This narration is shadīd al-ḍuʿf (severely weak) and mardūd (rejected).
✔ Any ḥadīth or historical report that includes al-Wāqidī is unacceptable in hadith authentication.
✔ Mursal narrations, especially from lesser-known narrators, are not ḥujjah (evidence).
✔ The true and reliable version of the incident with Heraclius is what’s found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
وما علينا إلا البلاغ
(26 June 2010)
هٰذَا مَا عِنْدِي وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah – Volume 3 – Principles, Hadith Authentication, and Their Rulings – Page 262❖ Question
It is reported that Wahiyah ibn Khalifah al-Kalbī (رضي الله عنه) was sent by the Prophet ﷺ as a messenger to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, carrying the blessed letter of the Prophet ﷺ. When Wahiyah reached Heraclius, he gathered Arab merchants in Syria, including Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb and other polytheists from Makkah. Heraclius then questioned them about the Prophet ﷺ, as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and other reliable sources.
One narration adds that Abū Sufyān, still a non-Muslim at the time, tried to belittle the Prophet ﷺ in the eyes of Heraclius and said:
“He claims that he left Makkah at night, reached your mosque (Bayt al-Maqdis), and returned before morning.”
Upon hearing this, a high-ranking Christian priest (possibly the archbishop of Jerusalem), present in the court of Heraclius, exclaimed:
“This is true! I know that night very well…”
The narration continues with a detailed story about how the church door refused to close that night, indicating a miraculous visit.
This version appears in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (Maktabah Islāmiyyah, Vol. 3, pp. 215–216), quoting Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah by Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī.
Is this narration authentic according to the principles of Hadith and the science of narrators (ʿIlm al-Rijāl)?
❖ Answer
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد
✦ Status of the Narration in Question
Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) quoted this report incompletely, attributing it to Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah of Abū Nuʿaym, but did not provide a full chain of narration.
See: Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, with taḥqīq by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī (Vol. 4, p. 115)The full sanad (chain) for this narration could not be found in any available printed edition of Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah or other reliable works.
However, Ibn Kathīr’s partial chain includes known problematic narrators. Below is a detailed evaluation:
✦ Reasons for Weakness in the Chain
➊ Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Wāqidī (الواقدي)
Critically Weak (Severely Discredited)- Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī:
“Weak according to the majority.”
Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, Vol. 3, p. 255
- Ibn al-Mulaqqin:
“The majority weakened him. Al-Rāzī and al-Nasāʾī considered him a fabricator.”
al-Badr al-Munīr, Vol. 5, p. 324
- Imām al-Bukhārī:
“Matrūk al-Ḥadīth (abandoned in ḥadīth)”
Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (Verified): 344
“Aḥmad declared him a liar.”
al-Kāmil by Ibn ʿAdī, Vol. 6, p. 2245
- Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal:
“He used to forge chains by assigning ḥadīth from one narrator to another falsely.”
“The worst kind; I consider him a forger.”
al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, Vol. 8, p. 21
- Imām al-Shāfiʿī:
“The books of al-Wāqidī are lies.”
al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, Vol. 8, p. 21
- Imām al-Nasāʾī listed al-Wāqidī as one of the four major fabricators of ḥadīth:
- Ibn Abī Yaḥyā (Madīnah)
- al-Wāqidī (Baghdad)
- Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (Khurasān)
- Muḥammad ibn al-Saʿīd (Shām)
al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn, p. 310 Conclusion: Any isnād involving al-Wāqidī is extremely weak, even fabricated (mawḍūʿ).➋ ʿUmar ibn ʿAbdullāh Mawlā Ghufrah
Also weak according to the majority- Ibn Ḥajar:
“Weak, and used to report disconnected (mursal) narrations.”
Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, no. 4934
- al-Dhahabī:
“Weak.”
Talkhīṣ al-Mustadrak, Vol. 1, p. 495 (Hadith 1820)
➌ Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurazī
Reliable TābiʿīHowever, this narration is mursal (i.e., a tābiʿī narrates from the Prophet ﷺ without mentioning a Companion), which according to strong scholarly opinion renders it weak.
See:- Muqaddimah Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, p. 20 (Dār al-Salām ed.)
- al-ʿIlal al-Ṣaghīr of al-Tirmidhī, pp. 896–897
➍ Chain from Abū Nuʿaym to al-Wāqidī is Unknown
The sanad from Abū Nuʿaym to al-Wāqidī is not provided by Ibn Kathīr, and could possibly contain unknown or discredited narrators.❖ Final Verdict
The narration regarding the church doors in Bayt al-Maqdis remaining open due to the Prophet ﷺ’s miraculous night journey, as quoted in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, is extremely weak and unreliable due to:- Inclusion of Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Wāqidī, a known fabricator
- Presence of other weak narrators
- Being mursal and disconnected
- Incomplete and untraceable sanad in source books
Thus, it is impermissible to narrate this report without explicitly highlighting its weakness. Summary Points
✔ This narration is shadīd al-ḍuʿf (severely weak) and mardūd (rejected).
✔ Any ḥadīth or historical report that includes al-Wāqidī is unacceptable in hadith authentication.
✔ Mursal narrations, especially from lesser-known narrators, are not ḥujjah (evidence).
✔ The true and reliable version of the incident with Heraclius is what’s found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
وما علينا إلا البلاغ
(26 June 2010)هٰذَا مَا عِنْدِي وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
