Incident of Mi‘rāj and the Story of the Chief Priest: Detailed Analysis of Chain and Authenticity
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah, Volume 3 – Usūl, Takhrīj al-Riwāyāt and Their Rulings, Page 222❖ Question:
In Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Volume 3, Page 216 (under Sūrah Banī Isrā’īl), the following story is mentioned in connection with the Mi‘rāj (Ascension) of the Prophet ﷺ:
“The chief priest of Bayt al-Maqdis, who was highly respected in the Roman emperor’s court, immediately declared that the Prophet’s claim was absolutely true. He said he knew of that night because he attempted to lock the mosque doors as per his custom but failed to shut one of them. Multiple men and even carpenters tried, but the door would not move, as if a mountain were in the way. In the morning, a rope mark was found in a nearby rock, indicating that an animal had been tied there overnight. He concluded: ‘This place must have remained open for a Prophet who offered prayer here last night.’”
The questioner asks:
Is this story authentic, ḥasan, or weak according to your scholarly opinion? Please provide a clear fatwā with evidence.
(Questioner: Abū Ibrāhīm Khurram Irshād Muḥammadī, Dawlatnagar)
❖ Scholarly Response:
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ‘alā Rasūlillāh. Ammā ba‘d:
This story is found in Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, attributed to Imām Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī in his book Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah, through the following chain:
"From Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurẓī who said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent Dihyah al-Kalbī to Caesar…”
(See Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Vol 4, Pg 115 under al-Isrā’, with commentary: “Fā’idah Ḥasanah Jalīlah”)
However, this narration is very weak and rejected (mardūd), for the following reasons:
✦ 1. The Presence of Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wāqidī in the Chain
Imām al-Shāfiʿī said:
“The books of al-Wāqidī are lies.”
(al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl 8/21 – Authentic chain)
Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal:
“Al-Wāqidī would distort aḥādīth and falsely attribute narrations to other narrators.”
Imām Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh:
“He is among those who fabricate aḥādīth.”
(al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl 8/21)
Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:
“His narrations are not to be written; he is nothing.”
Imām al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, al-Nasā’ī, and others:
Declared him: “Mat-rūk al-ḥadīth” (abandoned in ḥadīth)
(See: al-Ḍuʿafāʾ by al-Bukhārī: 344, al-Kunā by Muslim: 65, al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl 8/21, al-Ḍuʿafāʾ by al-Nasā’ī: 531)
Imām al-Nasā’ī said:
“The four known fabricators who lied upon the Prophet ﷺ are:
① Ibn Abī Yaḥyā (Madinah)
② al-Wāqidī (Baghdād)
③ Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (Khurāsān)
④ Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd al-Maṣlūb (Shām)”
(al-Ḍuʿafāʾ Pg 265, Risālah Ṣaghīrah)
Imām Ibn Ḥibbān, in al-Majrūḥīn (2/290), also issued severe criticism.
Imām ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī:
“Al-Wāqidī fabricates chains (isnāds).”
(Tārīkh Baghdād 3/16, T#939 – Authentic chain)
✔ A few scholars have attempted to defend al-Wāqidī, but their opinions are rejected in light of the overwhelming consensus of ḥadīth masters.
Al-Haythamī and Ibn al-Mulaqqin confirm:
“The majority declared him weak.”
(Majmaʿ al-Zawā’id 3/255, al-Badr al-Munīr 5/324)
✦ 2. The Narration Is Absent from Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah of Abū Nuʿaym
This particular story is not found in Abū Nuʿaym's Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah.
Nor is any authentic chain from Abū Nuʿaym to al-Wāqidī traceable.
Thus, it is unsourced and baseless.✦ 3. Presence of Another Weak Narrator: Abū Ḥafṣ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Madanī
❖ Declared weak (ḍaʿīf) by:
- al-Dhahabī in Talkhīṣ al-Mustadrak (1/495, Ḥadīth 1820)
- Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (#4934)
✦ 4. Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Qurẓī – the Narration Is Mursal (Disconnected)
Since Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb was a Tābiʿī, this narration is mursal, which further weakens its authenticity.
Conclusion of Research:
✔ The narration is extremely weak and rejected.
✔ It is not permissible to mention or propagate such a story without verifying its chain of transmission (isnād).
✔ Even though Ibn Kathīr recorded it, he did provide partial sanad, indicating its weakness.
His comment: “Fā’idah Ḥasanah Jalīlah” is not sufficient to override the established weaknesses in the chain.
Difference Between Ibn Kathīr and al-Suyūṭī:
- Ibn Kathīr: Mentioned part of the chain to hint at its weakness.
- al-Suyūṭī: Omitted the entire chain except Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb and attributed it directly to Abū Nuʿaym without isnād.
(Ref: al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-Kubrā, Vol 1, Pgs 169–171)
Final Verdict:
Any narration must be evaluated from original sources with proper verification before being cited as evidence or rejected.
Do not be misled by unsourced references, especially from al-Suyūṭī or similar works that do not provide proper isnād.
وما علينا إلا البلاغ
🗓 29 Rajab 1433 AH / 20 June 2012 CE
ھٰذَا مَا عِندِي، وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
