, whom a number of scholars have judged weak. As noted above, his report has been transmitted with inconsistencies in both its chain of transmission and its wording. This shows that it has not been reliably preserved.

Third, it has no chain in which direct hearing is established throughout. Rather, it contains weaknesses and inconsistencies that leave open the possibility of a break in the chain or poor retention.

Fourth, Anas was living in Basra. When Muʿāwiyah came to Medina, no one known to us mentioned that Anas was with him. Indeed, it appears that he was not.

Fifth, assuming this incident occurred, it took place in Medina, whereas its narrator, Anas, was in Basra. It was also the kind of incident that people would have had ample interest and reason to transmit. Yet it is known that neither Anas’s associates, who were well known for keeping his company, nor the people of Medina transmitted it. Rather, what is transmitted from Anas and the people of Medina is the opposite, while the person transmitting this report belongs to neither group.

(Sixth, had Muʿāwiyah resumed reciting the basmalah aloud at the beginning of al-Fātihah and the surah, this practice of his would also have been known among the people of Syria who kept his company. Yet no one has transmitted this from Muʿāwiyah. Rather, all the Syrians—their caliphs and their scholars—held that it should not be recited aloud. Indeed, al-Awzāʿī’s position on it was the same as Mālik’s: it should be recited neither silently nor aloud. Thus, when a scholar carefully considers these and similar points,