the Companion regarding what he relates, how can it be said that he took it from the People of the Book, when the Companions were forbidden to believe them? The point is that disagreements of this kind—where the correct view cannot be determined and recounting the various opinions serves no benefit—are like knowing reports whose authenticity is unsupported by evidence, and similar matters.

As for “the first category,” in which the correct account can be established, this is possible in matters that people need to know, and all praise belongs to Allah. Works of Quranic exegesis, hadith, and accounts of military campaigns frequently contain reports attributed to our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and to other prophets, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon them, which authentic transmission refutes. Indeed, this occurs both in matters based on transmission and in matters that may be known through other means. The point is that Allah has provided evidence by which to distinguish authentic reports from others in matters needed for religion.

It is well known that most reports transmitted in Quranic exegesis resemble those transmitted in accounts of military campaigns and great battles. For this reason, Imam Ahmad said: “Three subjects have no chains of transmission: Quranic exegesis, accounts of great battles, and accounts of military campaigns.” Another version reads, “They have no basis,” meaning no chains of transmission. This is because most of their reports have incomplete chains, such as the accounts of military campaigns related by ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr, al-Shaʿbī, al-Zuhrī, Mūsā ibn ʿUqba, Ibn Ishāq, and those who came after them, such as Yahyā ibn Saʿīd al-Umawī, al-Walīd ibn Muslim, al-Wāqidī, and others like them.

The people most knowledgeable about the military campaigns are the people of Medina, followed by the people of Syria, then the people of Iraq. The people of Medina are the most knowledgeable about them because these campaigns took place