neither in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections, nor in the Musnad works, nor in the books of military campaigns and biography, nor in any other source. Rather, the hadith specialists have clarified that the report is false: it does not possess a single sound and continuous chain. At best, it is traced back to an unknown transmitter whose reliability cannot be established, and no one but that person ever narrated it, despite the many motives and incentives that would normally lead people to circulate such a story. Hence they knew it was fabricated.

This opens a broad window onto the fact that Muslim scholars sift transmitted material, distinguishing between truth and falsehood. They cast aside fabrications—even when they contain great praises of their Prophet, his signs, or the virtues of his Companions and community—and they accept what is authentic, even if it may include some point that opponents could try to use against them.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī used to say: “The people of knowledge record what is in their favor and what is against them, whereas the people of whim record only what is in their favor.”

Among the items that fall into this category is the storybook “Campaigns of Ḥamzah,” which is popular among many uninformed Turks and others. It is absent from every scholarly work, and scholars unanimously concur—by reports that reach the level of mass transmission—that Ḥamzah did not take part in any expedition except—