الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله أما بعد.
A well-known hadith is frequently quoted concerning the conquest of Constantinople:
You will conquer Constantinople. The best commander is its commander and the best army is its army
This narration is commonly associated with Sultan Mehmed II (Mehmed al-Fātiḥ), who conquered Constantinople in 857 AH/1453 CE. However, before identifying the commander mentioned in the narration with a particular historical figure, it is necessary to first examine the authenticity of the hadith itself and then compare it with the authentic narrations concerning the conquest of Constantinople.
The Chain of Narration
The report is found in Musnad Ahmad ḥadīth no. 18957, vol. 31, p. 2871. Its chain is transmitted through:
- ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah
- Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb
- al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah al-Maʿāfirī
- ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Khathʿamī
- his father, Bishr ibn Rabīʿah al-Khathʿamī, or al-Ghanawī
- Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ
The Grading of Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ
Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ2: “The chain of transmission is weak due to the unknown status (jahālah) of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Khathʿamī. Al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah al-Maʿāfirī was the only narrator to transmit from him, and no declaration of his reliability is known from anyone other than Ibn Ḥibbān. Those who narrated from Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb also differed regarding this narrator’s name, his father’s name, and his lineage/tribal attribution. Abū Nuʿaym narrated it in Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥābah (no. 1155) through ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah, with this same chain of transmission. Al-Bukhārī also transmitted it in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/81) and al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr (p. 302), as did al-Bazzār (no. 1848, Zawāʾid) and Abū Nuʿaym in Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥābah (no. 1155), through Muḥammad ibn al-ʿAlāʾ → Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb, with the same report, except that in this route he is named ʿUbayd ibn Bishr al-Ghanawī. Al-Bukhārī also transmitted it in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/81) and al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr (2/306), through ʿAbdah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Khuzāʿī → Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb, with the same report. In this route he is named ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Ghanawī.”
The Grading of Shaykh al-Albānī
As for Shaykh al-Albānī3: “The hadith is weak, It was narrated by Aḥmad and by his son in his Zawāʾid (4/235), by Ibn Abī Khaythamah in al-Tārīkh (2/10/101 — Rabat manuscript), by al-Bukhārī in al-Tārīkh al-Ṣaghīr (p. 139), by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr (vol. 1/119/2), by Ibn Qāniʿ in al-Muʿjam (folio 15/2), by al-Ḥākim (4/422), by al-Khaṭīb in al-Talkhīṣ (91/1), and by Ibn ʿAsākir (16/223/2), all through Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb, who said: “Al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah narrated to me: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Ghanawī narrated to me: my father narrated to me, saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say…” and he mentioned the hadith. ʿAbd Allāh said: “Maslamah ibn ʿAbd al-Malik summoned me and asked me about this hadith. So I narrated it to him, and he then campaigned against Constantinople.” Al-Ḥākim said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic.” Al-Dhahabī agreed with him, and al-Khaṭīb said: “Zayd ibn al-Ḥubāb alone narrated it.” I say: Zayd is trustworthy, except that there is weakness in his narrations from al-Thawrī, and this report is not one of those. In al-Taqrīb it says: “Truthful, but he makes mistakes in his narrations from al-Thawrī.” As for ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Ghanawī, I did not find anyone who provided a biographical entry for him. They did, however, provide a biography for his namesake, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Khathʿamī. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned this latter narrator in Thiqāt Atbāʿ al-Tābiʿīn and said (2/150): “He was from the people of Kūfah. He narrated from Abū Zurʿah ibn ʿAmr ibn Jarīr, and Shuʿbah and al-Thawrī narrated from him.” Al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī also narrated from him. Thus, he is later than this al-Ghanawī and is therefore not the same person. What is strange is that Imām Aḥmad placed this hadith in the Musnad of Bishr ibn Suḥaym, thereby indicating that he regarded him as Bishr al-Ghanawī in this hadith. I did not find anyone who agreed with him on that. And Allah knows best. Likewise, in Aḥmad’s narration it appears as: “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Khathʿamī,” whereas in the narrations of the others it appears as: “al-Ghanawī.” Then I returned to Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿah by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar and found that he had given a lengthy biographical entry for this ʿAbd Allāh ibn Bishr al-Ghanawī. He mentioned the disagreement concerning his lineage/tribal attribution and also concerning his name, and he related the statements of the hadith scholars regarding this matter. He then inclined toward the view that this narrator was different from the trustworthy al-Khathʿamī from whom al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī narrated, and that Ibn Ḥibbān alone declared him trustworthy. And Allah knows best. In conclusion, the hadith is not authentic in my view, because I am not sufficiently confident in Ibn Ḥibbān’s declaration of this al-Ghanawī as trustworthy. He is different from al-Khathʿamī, as al-ʿAsqalānī [Ibn Ḥajar] also inclined to conclude.” And Allah knows best.”
As for Al-Hakim and al-Haythamī, considered this Hadith Sahih, but they both report from the different name which Shaykh Al-Albani and Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ are mentioning and clarifying. As for Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr he considered this hadith Hasan.
As so, we can clearly see Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ its clearly based on early scholarly work. But here is the twist, there is an Hadith in Sahih Muslim and in Tirmidhi where the conquer of Constantinople has been mentioned, and it provided a clear view about it. As regarding for the Hadith in Tirmidhi Which goes as follow:
Anas bin Malik said: “Constantinople will be conquered with the coming of the Hour.”
Abu Issa: Ghareeb, Al-Albani: Ṣaḥīḥ mawqūf4
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2239
As for the Hadith in Sahih Muslim
Abu Huraira reported Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) as saying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allaah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allaah will never forgive. A third (part of the army). which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allaah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) son of Mary would descend and would lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allaah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allaah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
Sahih Muslim 2897
The events described in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim do not correspond to the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II in 857 AH/1453 CE.
The Ottoman army which conquered Constantinople did not come forth from Medina to confront the Romans at al-Aʿmāq or Dābiq. Nor was the Ottoman conquest immediately followed by the emergence of al-Dajjāl and the descent of ʿĪsā ibn Maryam عليه السلام.
Rather, the conquest of 1453 was an Ottoman military siege involving a large army, artillery, naval forces and repeated assaults against the walls of Constantinople.
The conquest described in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, therefore, is a distinct conquest which had not occurred in 857 AH.
This also agrees with the statement authentically transmitted from Anas ibn Mālik رضي الله عنه:
“The conquest of Constantinople will be with the coming of the Hour.”
There are other narrations concerning the conquest of Constantinople, but I have mentioned only two here to illustrate an important point: the narration praising the commander and his army should not be interpreted in isolation from the other relevant hadith.
For instance, the authentic narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim explicitly places a conquest of Constantinople among the events preceding the emergence of al-Dajjāl, while the statement of Anas ibn Mālik in Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī likewise connects its conquest with the approach of the Last Hour.
This raises an important question: if these narrations describe a conquest connected to the events of the Last Hour, on what basis should the unspecified conquest in the disputed narration about the excellent commander and his army be understood as referring specifically to the Ottoman conquest of 1453?
This does not necessarily establish that all these narrations refer to the same conquest. However, it demonstrates why identifying Sultan Mehmed II as the intended commander should not be treated as an unquestionable conclusion.
What Does This Mean for the “Excellent Commander” Hadith?
The first is the authenticity of the narration:
“You will conquer Constantinople. What an excellent commander its commander will be, and what an excellent army that army will be.”
As demonstrated above, Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ judged this narration weak because of the disputed identity and unknown status of one of its narrators.
The second issue is the common claim that this narration specifically refers to Sultan Mehmed II and his Ottoman army.
If the narration itself is not authentically established according to these scholars, then it cannot be used with certainty as prophetic testimony that Sultan Mehmed II was the commander intended by the Prophet ﷺ. The mere historical fact that Mehmed II conquered Constantinople does not establish that he is necessarily the commander intended by a disputed narration.
This becomes even more significant when the authentic Sunnah explicitly describes another conquest of Constantinople which is still to occur. The army of that conquest comes from Medina, fights the Romans at al-Aʿmāq or Dābiq, and is described by the Prophet ﷺ as being from “the best people of the earth at that time.” They then conquer Constantinople shortly before the actual emergence of al-Dajjāl.
Therefore, there is no need to assume that every prophetic reference to the conquest of Constantinople must refer to the Ottoman conquest of 1453.
Rather, the authentic narrations themselves demonstrate that there is another conquest of Constantinople connected with the events of the end times.
As for the famous narration praising the commander and his army, its authenticity must first be established before it can be confidently applied to any particular historical individual.
And Allah knows best.
V1.0.1
– Translation mistake fixed.
– Added small clarifications.
Leave a Reply