Is the killer of Ammar ibn Yasir going to hell?

This article is adapted from an article written by Shaykh Irshadul Athari and published in the magazine “I’tisam” n 10 march 2007

It is attributed to the Prophet (saw) that he said about Ammar ibn Yasir: ‘The killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials (sword, shield…) will be in hell’

It is also narrated that Ammar was martyred at the battle of Siffin and his killer was Abu Ghadiyah (“Musnad Ahmad” and “Isabah” v 4 p 14, and others)

Abu Ghadiyah is not only a Sahabi, but he is among those who gave pledge of allegiance at the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah, as mentioned by Muhammad ibn Habib Al-Baghdadi in his ‘Muhbir’ (p296-296). Hafiz Az-Zahabi also said: ‘It is said that he witnessed Al-Hudaybiyah.’ (‘Sayr’ v 2 p 544)

And the Prophet (saw) said about those who witnessed Badr and Hudaybiyah that the fire will not touch them, in Muslim v 2 p 303 and Ahmad v 3 p 250:

‘None of the people who gave allegiance under the tree will enter the fire if Allah wills (Insha Allah)’

Also he (saw) said in Ahmad v 3 p 396-362:

‘None of those present at Badr and Hudaybiyah will enter the fire’

Allamah Albani mentioned this narration in his ‘As-Silsilah As-Sahihah’ n 216, v 5 p 191. This narration opposes the narration: ‘The killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in fire’ that Shaykh Albani also put in his ‘Sahihah’ n 2008, v 5 p 18.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said that the battles between the Sahabah are based on Ijtihad and Ta’weel and the one who is right will have two rewards (and the mistaken will have a single reward), when this is the case of normal Mujtahid, then Sahabah deserve this more. (‘Isabah’ v 4 p 148)

But Shaykh Albani believes that this rule is general and when there is a Qat’i (certain) proof, then it will be an exception to this general rule.

But this is a clear mistake from Shaykh Albani because the narration telling that none of those present at Badr and Hudaybiyah will go to hell is Qat’i and Rajih while the authenticity of the Hadith: ‘The killer of Ammar…’ is questionable.

Shaykh Albani mentioned this narration with three Isnads:

1) Reported by Imam Abu Muhammad Al-Makhlad in his ‘Thalatu Majalis minal Amali’ with Layth from Mujahid from Abdullah ibn ‘Amr. Shaykh Albani himself said that this Hadith is weak because of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym: “There is inqita’ (disconnection) in it”. The Sanad is disconnected. Ibn Abi ‘Asim also reported this narration with the way of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym in his “Al-Ahad wal Mathani” (v 2 p 102, Tabarani in his “Kabeer”, ibn ‘Asakir)

2) This is also narrated by Hakim with Sanad: ‘AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak narrated to us: Al-Mu’tamar ibn Sulayman from his father from Mujahid (“Mustadrak” v 3 p 387). Imam Hakim wrote: “’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is alone in narrating this and he is Thiqah Mamun (trustworthy integer). If that Sanad is Mahfuz (preserved), then it will be upon the conditions of the two Shaykhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)”.

Only Al-Bukhari narrated from ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, and not Imam Muslim, so it is upon conditions of Al-Bukhari only. Without doubts, ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is Thiqah but he opposed a group and Imam Hakim pointed to this: “People only narrated this from Mu’tamar from Layth from Mujahid”

Among other narrators who narrated contrary to ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, there is ‘Abbas ibn Waleed Al-Namrosi as in “Al-Ahad wal Mathani” (v 2 p 102, n 803) but the Muhaqiq of this book declared the Layth of this Sanad to be Layth ibn Sa’d, and this is wrong as he is Layth ibn Abi Sulaym.

Also among this group opposing ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak, we have Imam Al-Musaddad as reported by Hafiz ibn Hajar in his “Al-Matalib Al-‘Aliyah” (p 35, p 165 n 4415) who quoted from Al-Musaddad’s Musnad.

Also we have Salih ibn Hatim and ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali as reported by ibn ‘Asakir (v 43 p 426-474)

So the narration of these four is Rajih (preponderant) and that of ’AbdurRahman ibnul Mubarak is Marjuh. Moreover there is in this narration Sulayman ibn Taymi who is a Mudallis and he reported with “’An” (from). An-Nasa’i, ibn Ma’in and others have declared him to be a Mudallis (“Tarikh ibn Ma’in” from narration of Ad-Dawri n 3600, “Tabaqat Al-Mudallisin” 22), Hafiz ibn Hajar placed him in second category.

3) The third Sanad of this narration is: “’Afan ibn Muslim, he said: Hammad ibn Salamah informed us, he said: Abu Hafs and Kulthum ibn Jibr from Abu Ghadiyah”. Reported in “Musnad Ahmad” (v 4 194) Ibn Sa’d (v 3 p 260).

Shaykh Albani said about this Hadith in his “Sahihah” (v 5 p 19): “The Sanad is authentic, its men are Thiqah from men of Muslim.” The Muhaqiq of “Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah” said similarly but this is not correct. Hafiz Az-Zahabi said about this narration: “There is Inqita’ in its Isnad” (“Sayr” v 2 p 544)

This saying of Allamah Az-Zahabi is correct because Kukthum ibn Jibr narrated from Abu Ghadiyah the details of the martyrdom of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, then the words are: “Amr ibnul ‘As was informed about this and he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) that the killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in hell”

Who narrated this to ‘Amr ibnul ‘As and reported this from him, and it is clear that it is neither Abu Ghadiyah nor Kulthum ibn Jibr. Kulthum narrates from Abu Ghadiyah, Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Anas but not from ‘Amr ibnul ‘As. There is difference about ‘Amr ibn ‘As’ death. Hakim and ibn Abdil Barr said that the most correct is 43. This is also the saying of ibn Yunus (“Tahzib” v 8 p 57). People of knowledge know that ibn Yunus’ saying is more correct about the people of Egypt. Kulthum ibn Jibr died in 130. So if he died being more than 87 years old, then hearing this from ‘Amr is possible, else not. This is probably the reason why Az-Zahabi declared its Isnad to be Munqati’.

This is also narrated through another Sanad from ‘Amr ibnul ‘As by ibn ‘Asakir (v 43 p 473), but there are unknown and criticized narrators in it.

Also this opposes the narration of “Sahih Muslim”: ‘None of the people who gave allegiance under the tree will enter the fire if Allah wills (Insha Allah)’. So this is why the narration of Muslim is Rajih.

The status of witnessing narrations

There are some Shawahid to this Hadith, but they are all weak and Shaykh Albani did not mention them:

First Shahid: From ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibnul ‘As: The Prophet (saw) said to ‘Ammar: “The transgressor group (Al-Fiatul Baghiyah) will kill you and your killer will be in the fire.” (“Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah” v 35 p 173 n 4419, ibn Asakir v 43 p 774). This is extremely weak as Amr ibn Malik Ar-Rasibi is weak and his teacher Yusuf ibn Atiyah is Matruk (“Taqrib” p 396-568)

Second Shahid: Hafiz Az-Zahabi mentioned in “Sayr” (v 1 p 42) from Hadith via ‘Uthman: “Abu ‘Awannah with his Isnad and Abu Ya’la from Hadith: Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Bahili narrated to us, Yahya ibn ‘Isa narrated to us, Al-‘Amash narrated to us, Zayd ibn Wahb…” with words: “The transgressor group will kill you and his killer will be in the fire”

Az-Zahabi did not mention the Sanad of Abu ‘Awanah, but the Sanad of Abu Ya’la is mentioned. It is in “Musnad Kabeer” and “Mu’jam” n 283 of Imam Abu Ya’la. Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned it in “Al-Matalib” (n 4423, v 35 p 183) from “Musnad Kabeer” only.

First, the Sanad in Musnad Abu Ya’la is as such: “Al-Fadl ibn Sikin narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ar-Ramli narrated to us: Yahya ibn ‘Isa Ar-Ramli narrated to us, Al-A’mash narrated to us…”

Imam Ibn Ma’in declared Al-Fadl ibn Sikin to be a liar (“Lisan” v 4 p 441). Shaykh Irshadul Haqq could not find Tawthiq for Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ar-Ramli that Az-Zahabi wrote as Al-Bahili.

At-Tabarani in his “Sagheer” (v 1 p 187) mentioned a follower (Mutabi’) for Ahmad ibn Muhammad, and he is Ahmad ibn Budayl, and he is Saduq. His teacher Yahya ibn ‘Isa Ar-Ramli is criticized (Mutakalam fihi).

Secondly, the words: “his killer will be in the fire” are not present in words of Abu Ya’la and At-Tabarani. Allamah Al-Haythami also quoted this narration in his “Majma’ Az-Zawaid” v 7 p 242) from Abu Ya’la and At-Tabarani and these words are not present in it, so Az-Zahabi erred in adding these words in this narration.

So in conclusion, this narration is weak, and Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari detailed in his book “Mushajarat As-Sahabah or Salaf ka Mawqif” that we should restrain from criticizing the Sahabah concerning their disputes, and their fights were based on Ijtihad.

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his family, companions and those who follow them

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan