- "The banner of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) was white, and his flag was black." It was recorded by al-Tirmidhī (no. 1681), Ibn Mājah (2/189), al-Ḥākim (2/105), and al-Khaṭīb in "al-Tārīkh" (14/332) from Yaḥyá ibn Isḥāq al-Sayliḥīnī, who reported from Yazīd ibn Ḥayyān, who informed me from Abū Majlaz Lāḥiq ibn Ḥumayd from Ibn ʿAbbās as a marfūʿ ḥadīth. Al-Tirmidhī said: "A good and rare ḥadīth." And I say: Rather, it is good due to other evidence, for this Ibn Ḥayyān—who is the brother of Muqātil ibn Ḥayyān—is truthful but makes mistakes, as the ḥāfiẓ said. Al-Dhahabī remarked in "al-Talkhīṣ," critiquing al-Ḥākim, who mentioned it as a witness: "I say: Yazīd is weak." The witness for the ḥadīth is what was narrated by Sharīk from ʿAmmār al-Dahnī from Abū al-Zubayr from Jābir (raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu): "That the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) entered Mecca on the day of the conquest and his banner was white." It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd (1/405), al-Nasāʾī (2/30), Ibn Mājah, and also al-Tirmidhī (1679), and al-Ḥākim said: "Authentic according to the conditions of Muslim." I say: Al-Dhahabī approved it, or so it appears in "his Talkhīṣ," and what al-Ḥākim said is questionable, for Sharīk—who is Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī—was not relied upon by Muslim, who only narrated from him when paired with others or in follow-up, and he was also poor in memory. Thus, his ḥadīth is considered good in supporting evidence, as here, for it supports the first part of the ḥadīth. Supporting the second part of it is the ḥadīth of Abū Yaʿqūb al-Thaqafī who said: Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd—freedman of Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim—told me: Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim sent me to al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib to ask him about the flag of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), what was it? He said: