What is the authenticity of the narration "kill him" instead of "accept him"?

The questioner : I contacted you, Shaykh, regarding this point because I have Ibn Asakir's *History of Damascus*, which narrates from many lost books. Do I study the chain of narration from Ibn Asakir himself to its end, or do I stop at the author who is known to have a book, from which Ibn Asakir narrates, and study from that author's book? I was studying the chain in Ibn Asakir's *History of Damascus* from its beginning, even if it was from an author's book, except in two or three narrations, one of which is this. I relied on the fact that Ibn 'Abd al-Barr narrates directly from the book of Asad ibn Musa, so I became confident that this exists in the book of Asad ibn Musa. Then I stopped searching for its chain from Ibn 'Abd al-Barr to Asad ibn Musa and began studying from Asad ibn Musa to its end.

The Shaykh : My brother, this statement is not acceptable. Do you think that every narration reported from Asad ibn Musa or others must necessarily be in the book of Asad ibn Musa?

The questioner : We cannot assert that everything attributed to Asad ibn Musa is in the book of Asad ibn Musa, but I gained some confidence regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's transmission, as he is trustworthy, from the book of Asad ibn Musa.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, this last question is the strongest. I wanted to speak, but this last question resolves the issue in my opinion. He says, "And Asad ibn Musa narrated, saying: So-and-so narrated to us." Does the narration of Asad ibn Musa imply that it is in his book? Look at the book *Al-Bida' wa al-Hawadith* by Ibn Wadhih; Asad ibn Musa is frequently narrated from there without any book, without anything. Do you understand? Therefore, it is not necessary that it be in the book.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi : This is a very important point.

The Shaykh : Now, regarding the book mentioned in the story of the fitnah of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), where he sent to the governor of Egypt: "If so-and-so comes to you, kill him" instead of "accept him." What is the value of this narration? Have you come across it?

The questioner : "Accept him"? I have not come across it!

The Shaykh : "Kill him"?

The questioner : "Kill him" came, meaning it is included in the content, but with the specific wording "kill him"?

The Shaykh : In history, it is mentioned that the original narration was "accept him," and it was distorted to cause fitnah as "kill him."

The questioner : It appeared to me from my research that 'Umar never wrote a book.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, did you just jump ahead? You said "accept him," I didn't know it. "Kill him," you knew it?

The questioner : I did not understand the question just now.

The Shaykh : 'Umar sent a letter to the governor of Egypt with a person he wanted to kill. According to what is in history, which needs filtering and purification, as you did, and may Allah reward you with good, the word "accept him" was distorted to "kill him." This is mentioned in some historical books we used to read in the past before turning to serving the Sunnah. When I asked you, you said you had not come across the narration "accept him," but only the narration "kill him." But finally, it seems you also denied the second narration. Is that so?

The questioner : Shaykh, I came across its meaning, but not with the exact wording "kill him." What was reported is that 'Umar was accused.

The Shaykh : Now the question is: is there a letter or not? Is there a letter sent from 'Umar to the governor of Egypt or not? Then, after that, can you say: as for the meaning, yes; but as for the wording, no?

The questioner : 'Umar ibn al-Khattab never wrote a letter.

The Shaykh : If that is the answer, then there is neither "accept him" nor "kill him."
Al-Halabi : Did you come across anything regarding this?

The questioner : He was accused of it. When the delegation from the Egyptians and Iraqis came to him and they reconciled with him on five points: that the exiled person is returned, the deprived person is given his rights, and so on. Then they returned to their homes. On the way, they discovered a man who would approach them and then run away, approaching them as if to say, "Take me," as in the narration. Here they stopped and captured him. As soon as they captured him, they asked him, "What is your news?" He said, "I have a letter from 'Umar to the governor of Egypt, sealed." They asked him to open it, and when they opened it, they found in it that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and so-and-so and so-and-so should be killed, and their beards shaved, as in some narrations, and such and such should be done. Here the delegation returned to Madinah and came to argue with 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) about this. 'Umar swore to them that he had never written a letter. They accused Marwan because they found his seal on it, as they say and claim, and because they also found a camel belonging to 'Umar with this man. So they said, "Either you wrote it, or your governor who carries your seal wrote it." Then the fitnah erupted. This is the summary of the narrations that were reported regarding this. However, I doubted the authenticity that this was sent from Marwan or from 'Umar or anyone else. What became more likely to me, or what I leaned toward, and I posited a possibility, is that they plotted this conspiracy on the way and wrote this letter and instructed this man to come and approach them as if to say, "Take me!"
Abu Yahya: I inferred this from the fact that this person's statement, in that he offered himself, and in that he offered himself, means that he was one of them.

The questioner : And I mentioned that there are other routes to Egypt other than the route these people took. So if he truly wanted to reach Egypt, he would have taken another route. Why did he come to expose himself to them?