وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الدَّارِمِيُّ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا نُعَيْمٍ، وَذَكَرَ الْمُعَلَّى بْنَ عُرْفَانَ، فَقَالَ: قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو وَائِلٍ، قَالَ: خَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ بِصِفِّينَ. فَقَالَ أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ: أَتُرَاهُ بُعِثَ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ؟
Translation: ʿAbd Allāh al-Dārimī says he heard Abū Nuʿaym discuss al-Muʿallā b. ʿIrfān. The latter attributed to Abū Wāʾil the claim that Ibn Masʿūd came out to them at Ṣiffīn. Abū Nuʿaym challenged it: “Do you suppose he was raised after death?”
Ibn Masʿūd died before the battle of Ṣiffīn. Al-Nawawī points to that chronology. The specific report fails because the attributed person could not have appeared at that later event, not merely because the narrative seems unusual.
Alongside the chronological refutation, al-Nawawī records a specific adverse assessment of al-Muʿallā b. ʿIrfān from al-Bukhārī and al-Nasāʾī; al-Bukhārī describes his material as «مُنْكَرُ الْحَدِيثِ». Reports place Ibn Masʿūd’s death in **32 AH or 33 AH**, whereas Ṣiffīn occurred later during ʿAlī’s caliphate. The attribution of Ibn Masʿūd’s presence at that battle is therefore impossible regardless of which of these death dates is adopted. The technical criticism concerns **al-Muʿallā’s transmission**, not the probity of Abū Wāʾil or Ibn Masʿūd.