This doubt is based on what has been narrated by ‘Abdul Wahhab ibn Yahya ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair — from our teachers … he mentions:
أن عمرو بن العاص استشار ابنیه بعد الجمل إلى أي الفريقين يعمد فقال له عبد الله ابنه إن كنت لا بد فاعلا فإلى علي فقال له عمرو ثكلتك أمك إني إن أتيت علياً قال لي إنما أنت رجل من المسلمين وإن أتيت معاوية يخلطني بنفسه ويشركني في أمره فأتي معاوية
‘Amr ibn al ‘As sought counsel from his son, after Jamal, asking him which camp he should join. His son, ‘Abdullah said to him, “If you are going to do so, then join the camp of ‘Ali.”
‘Amr said, “May you perish! If I join ‘Ali, he would say to me, ‘You are just a man from the Muslims’. Whereas if I go to Muawiyah, he would draw me close and involve me in his matters. I will therefore go to Muawiyah.”
Another incident go as follows:
أن علي بن أبي طالب كتب إلى عمرو بن العاص فلما أتى عمراً الكتاب أقرأه معاوية الكتاب وقال قد ترى ما كتب إلى علي بن أبي طالب فإما أن ترضيني وإما أن ألحق به فقال له معاوية فما تريد قال أريد مصر مأكلة فجعلها له معاوية كما أراد فاتخذ عمرو بن العاص أربعة
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote to ‘Amr ibn al ‘As. When he received the letter, he read the letter to Muawiyah and then said, “You can see what ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib has written to me. So, either please me or I will join his camp.”
Muawiyah asked, “What is it you want?”
He replied, “I want Egypt as my personal pecking ground.”
Muawiyah handed it to him as he wished and ‘Amr ibn al ‘As took it as his territory.
This doubt can be answered in five ways:
The first incident has been recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh as follows with two chains of transmission:
Both chains of transmission are weak.
‘Abdul Wahhab ibn Yahya
The first chain has ‘Abdul Wahhab ibn Yahya ibn ‘Abbad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.
Furthermore, his teachers are unknown.
Ibrahim ibn al Jarrah
The second chain has Ibrahim ibn al Jarrah.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq
This is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar Abu Bakr al Muttalibi mawlahum al Madani. A dweller of Iraq. Imam of the Maghazi genre. Truthful but does tadlis. He has not specified having heard in this chain of transmission and his narrations are not accepted unless he specifies having heard.
The second incident has also been recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir as follows:
Abu ‘Abdullah al Balkhi narrated to us — from Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Ayub — Abu ‘Ali ibn Shadhan — from Ahmed ibn Ishaq ibn Nikhab — from Ibrahim ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali — Yahya ibn Sulaiman al Ju’fi. ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Ziyad narrated to me — from Abu al Sabbah al Ansari al Wasiti — from Abu Hisham al Rumani — from whom he narrates — from who said, “‘Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote to ‘Amr ibn al ‘As…”
This incident, like the previous one is weak since it has in its chain, ‘Abdul Ghafur Abu al Sabbah al Wasiti.
‘Abdul Ghafur Abu al Sabbah al Wasiti
In Ansab al Ashraf there is another chain which goes up to al Hassan al Basri who narrates it, but it is mursal. The chain is as follows:
Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al Dawraqi narrated to us — from Abu Dawood al Tayalisi — from Bashir ibn ‘Uqbah Abu ‘Aqil — from al Hassan who said:
لما كان من أمر علي ومعاوية ما كان دعا معاوية عمرو بن العاص إلى قتال علي فقال لا والله لا أظاهرك على قتاله حتى تطعمني مصر فأبی علیه فخرج مغضبا ثم إن معاوية ندم وقال رجل طلب إلي في شيء على هذه الحال فرددته فأجابه إلى ما سأل
‘Amr said, “No. By Allah, I will not lend you assistance in fighting him until you give me governorship of Egypt.”
Muawiyah refused and so, in anger, he left. Muawiyah then regretted and mused, “A man asked me for something in these precarious times and I refused him?”
He then gave him what he wanted.
Ibn Sa’d has the following:
Muaz ibn Muaz narrated to us — from Abu ‘Awn ibn al Hassan who said:
كان الحكمان أبو موسى وعمرو بن العاص وكان أحدهما يبتغي الدنيا والأخر يبتغي الآخرة
The two arbitrators were Abu Musa and ‘Amr ibn al ‘As. One had materialistic desires whilst the other desired the afterlife.
The chain to al Hassan al Basri is authentic, however he did not witness the incident. he was, at that time, still young in Madinah whilst Muawiyah was in Sham.
Al Hassan al Basri
Abu Zur’ah was asked:
لقي الحسن أحداً من البدريين قال رآهم رؤية رأي عثمان بن عفان وعلياً قلت سمع منهما حديثا قال لا وكان الحسن البصري يوم بويع العلي رضي الله عنه ابن أربع عشرة ورأى علياً بالمدينة ثم خرج علي إلى الكوفة والبصرة ولم يلقه الحسن بعد ذلك
“Did al Hassan meet any of the Badriyyin?”
He replied, “He saw them. He saw ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan and ‘Ali.”
“Did he narrate from them?”
He responded, “No. al Hassan al Basri was fourteen when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was given the pledge. He saw ‘Ali in Madinah. Then ‘Ali left for Kufah and Basrah after which al Hassan did not see him.”
The scholars have passed a ruling of weakness on the mursal narrations of al Hassan. Ibn Sa’d said:
وكان ما أسند من حديثه وروي عن من سمع منه فحسن حجة وما أرسل من الحديث فليس بحجة
Those narrations of his which have a full chain of transmission and he narrates from those whom he heard from, are upheld as worthy of evidence. However, his mursal narrations cannot be presented as evidence.
Ahmed ibn Hambal said:
ليس في المرسلات شيء أضعف من مرسلات الحسن وعطاء بن أبي رباح فإنهما كانا يأخذان عن كل أحد
Amongst the mursal narrations, there is none that are weaker than the mursal narrations of al Hassan and ‘Ataʾ ibn Abi Rabah. They would take from all and sundry.
Al ‘Iraqi said:
مراسيل الحسن عندهم شبه الريح
They deemed the mursal narrations of al Hassan like the wind.
Al ‘Ala’i said:
كثير التدليس وهو مكثر من الإرسال
He does much tadlis and narrated much with irsal.
‘Ali ibn al Madini said:
رأى الحسن أم سلمة ولم يسمع منها ولا من أبي موسى الأشعري
Al Hassan saw Umm Salamah but did not narrate from her. Neither did he hear from Abu Musa al Ash’ari.
From the above discussion we learn that al Hassan was not present at the exchange between ‘Amr ibn al ‘As and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma regarding which he narrates. We have already explained that fabrications regarding the Sahabah had become widespread during that tumultuous period; the period of fitnah. It is possible that al Hassan heard some of this and thinking it to be true, transmitted it as he heard it. Based on this the comment was then made of one of the arbitrators seeking material gain. The incident is in no way established.
The context of this narration suggests the character under discussion, who was an army general in the prime of his youth, has dreams of wealth and leadership to the extent that makes him oblivious of the hereafter in his old age.
This characterisation does not conform to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were nurtured by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and learnt from him disdain of material wealth and gains.
And to speak of ‘Amr! An eminent Sahabi and conqueror! Whose righteousness and faith was attested to by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself. When he appointed him as leader to the expedition of Dhat al Salasil he said to him:
يا عمرو اشدد عليك سلاحك وثيابك وائتني ففعلت فجئته وهو يتوضأ فصعد في البصر وصوبهوقال يا عمرو إني أريد أن أبعثك وجها فيسلمك الله ويغنمك وأزعب لك من المال زعبة صالحة قال قلت يا رسول الله إني لم أسلم رغبة في المال إنما أسلمت رغبة في الجهاد والكينونة معك قال يا عمرو نعما بالمال الصالح للرجل الصالح
“O ‘Amr collect your weapons and clothing and come to me.”
I came to him when he was performing ablution. He looked at me and approved.
He then said, “I sent for you, ‘Amr, to dispatch you on a matter in which Allah will keep you safe and grant you booty, and I shall make you an allotment from the spoil.”
I replied, “O Rasulullah! I did not accept Islam with the hopes of attainting wealth. I entered the fold of Islam with the intent of fighting in the path of Allah and to be in your company.”
He said, “How excellent is pure wealth for a pious man.”
If the inner condition of ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu contradicted his outer appearance, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would have undoubtedly informed his Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Besides, at the time when this alleged incident took place ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was already 80 somewhat years of age. The age where a person turns away from material things and does not wish to amass wealth even in permissible ways, forget doing so by spilling blood and in impermissible ways.
The life of ‘Amr bears testament to his character.
This is supported by his reaction to the killing of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. When he heard of the killing of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu he became frightfully alarmed and went to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with the news. The following appears in Musnad Ahmed from Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm — from his father who said:
لما قتل عمار بن ياسر دخل عمرو بن حزم على عمرو بن العاص فقال قتل عمار وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تقتله الفئة الباغية فقام عمرو بن العاص فزعا يرجع حتى دخل على معاوية فقال له معاوية ما شأنك قال قتل عمار فقال معاوية قد قتل عمار فماذا قال عمرو سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول تقتله الفئة الباغية فقال له معاوية دحضت في بولك أونحن قتلناه إنما قتله علي وأصحابه جاءوا به حتى ألقوه بين رماحنا أو قال بين سيوفنا
When ‘Ammar was killed, ‘Amr ibn Hazm came to ‘Amr ibn al ‘As and said, “‘Ammar has been killed and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had said, ‘The rebellious group will kill him.’”
Then ‘Amr ibn al ‘As stood up anxiously saying, “To Allah we belong and unto Him shall we return,” until he went to see Muawiyah.
Muawiyah said to him, “What is the matter with you?”
He said, “‘Ammar has been killed.”
Muawiyah said, “What is it if ‘Ammar was killed?”
‘Amr said, “I heard the Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘The rebellious group will kill ‘Ammar.’”
Then Muawiyah said to him, “You have slipped! Did we kill him? Rather, ‘Ali and his companions killed him. They brought him here and threw him between our arrows or swords.”
Question: Why did Muawiyah and ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma not pledge allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu after the killing of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu if they wanted to be on the truth?
Answer: They did not pledge allegiance to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu due to their inability to bring the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to justice just yet. On the other hand, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had opined to shelve the matter of putting the heads of ‘Uthman’s killers to the block considering the volatile climate and the large number of people involved. He wanted to quell the fitnah before attending to it.
‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu requested their pledge but they were disinclined to acquiesce to his request. He, thus, turned his full attention to them in order to solicit their pledge; however, they refused to accede and so ‘Ali had no choice but to confront them since they were, in his view, rebels to the office of caliphate. Thus, the Battle of Siffin came to be.
Whereas, they had conviction that they were championing the truth since they were seeking justice for the killing of ‘Uthman and acting in accordance to the Qur’anic injunction. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُوْمًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِۦ سُلْطَـٰنًا فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِّىْ ٱلْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُۥ كَُانَ مَنصُوْرًا
And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law].
Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was his cousin and the strongest heir to seek justice for his murder and the killers had joined the camp of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
They were also aware that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had instructed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to not give up the caliphate when the hypocrites want to snatch it from him. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also informed him that he would be killed unjustly.
The following appears in Musnad Ahmed:
يا عثمان إن الله مقمصك قميصا فإن أرادك المنافقون على ان تخلعه لهم فلا كرامة
O ‘Uthman, Allah is surely going to adorn you with a garment, if the hypocrites want from you that you remove it, then do not remove it.
Jubayr ibn Nufayr relates:
كنا معسکرين مع معاوية بعد قتل عثمان فقام کعب بن مرة البهزي فقال لولا شيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما قمت هذا المقام فلما سمع بذکر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أجلس الناس فقال بينما نحن عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذ مر عثمان بن عفان مرجلاً قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لتخرج فتنة من تحت قدمي أو من بين رجلي هذا هذا يومئذ ومن اتبعه على الهدی قال فقام ابن حوالة الأزدي من عند المنبر فقال إنك لصاحب هذا قال نعم قال والله إني لحاضر ذلك المجلس ولو علمت أن لي في الجيش مصدقة كنت أول من تكلم
We were with the army of Muawiyah after the murder of ‘Uthman. Ka’b ibn Murrah al Bahzi stood and addressed us saying, “Were it not for what I heard from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I would not have stood here.”
When they heard the mention of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the people sat down.
He continued, “Whilst we were by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan walked past. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘Civil strife will sprout from under my feet—or under my legs—this one and whoever follows him will be safe from it.’”
Ibn Hawalah al Azdi stood up by the pulpit and said, “Did you witness this?”
He said, “Yes.”
Ibn Hawalah said, “By Allah! I was present at that gathering and if I knew someone in this army would endorse me, I would have been the first to say it.”
In any case, when ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was killed, it was as though a lightning bolt had struck them. Since, how could they be the rebellious group whereas they were seeking justice for the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu were within the camp of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whom Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had branded hypocrites. Beyond this, they weren’t the ones who had begun the confrontation, rather it was ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who had come with the people of Iraq and ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is for these reasons that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu interpreted the hadith by saying, “They threw him onto our swords and spears.”
‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhu was hurt at the death of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and gave glad-tidings of hell-fire to the one who killed him and took his armor. On the authority he deemed the sin to be on the individual who killed him. Consider the following narration of Musnad Ahmed on the authority of Abu Ghadiyah who said:
قتل عمار بن ياسر فأخبر عمرو بن العاص قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول إن قاتله وسالبه في النار فقيل لعمرو فإنك هو ذا تقاتله قال إنما قال قاتله وسالبه
‘Ammar ibn Yasir was killed and ‘Amr ibn al ‘As was informed of it. He said, “I heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘The one who kills him and takes his armor in in the fire.’
It was said to ‘Amr, ‘Well you were the one to fight against him.’
He replied, ‘The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, the one who kills him and takes his armor.’”
In any case, the pain of his death remained with ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu; however he did not count himself responsible due to the aforementioned explanations. Perhaps this is what he was referring to when he said on his death bed, “Verily I have passed through three phases.” The first was the phase of disbelief, the second was the phase of Islam where he fought alongside and was in the company of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the third where he said, “Then we were given leadership roles in the light of which I am unable to know what is in store for me; will it be counted in my favour or against me.”
Thus, he was not convinced that he had erred; however, he was fearful that he may have committed an error in exercising his ijtihad. And Allah knows best.
The hadith establishes the praise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding both groups who were engaged in battle against each other. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also described them as two great groups. The narration of Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with regards to al Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as recorded by Sahih al Bukhari is as follows:
إن ابني هذا سيد ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين
This son of mine is a leader, perhaps Allah will bring about reconciliation at his hands between two great groups of the Muslims.
It is well known that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the leader of the other group with ‘Amr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as his advisor.
Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports, as recorded in Sahih Muslim:
تمرق مارقة في فرقة من الناس فيلي قتلهم أولى الطائفتين بالحق
A group will disaffiliate at a time of dissension among the people; the party, among two parties, which is closer to the truth, will fight them.
Thus, we see Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—who does not speak of his own whim—characterising them as two great groups who are both Muslims and from whom the closest to the truth will fight the Khawarij. This being the group of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
This fight between the two groups was a prophecy which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam foretold on the basis of divine revelation; it remains a sign of the truth of his prophethood.
How can it then be said that, ‘‘Amr fought to amass wealth or Muawiyah fought for leadership? Whereas Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam characterized their camp to be great and to be on the truth; the leader of which was Muawiyah with ‘Amr as his second in command?
How can anyone have the audacity to characterize a Companion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to have joined the camp of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu for paltry gains of this world instead of on the basis of true ijtihad? Notwithstanding the illegitimacy of the incident! Should we not be held to the principle of verification before amplification?
Attributing anything to anyone without true evidence is discrimination and injustice, what then of doing the same to a Sahabi!
Resected reader, if someone relates something evil to you regarding your senior or close friend without any evidence or with illegitimate evidence, will you accept it?
Any person of intellect will surely reject such accusations a thousand times over. How then can we accept it with regards to the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Is this justice?
Ask yourself this question, and ponder deeply over it.
 Ibn Muzahim: Waq’ah Siffin, pg. 38; Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, vol. 1 pg. 136.
 Ibn Hajar: Al Taqrib: 4265.
 Ibn Hibban: Al Thiqat, vol. 8 pg. 69.
 Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 46 pg. 170.
 Al Mizan, vol. 4 pg. 381.
 Ansab al Ashraf, vol. 1 pg. 320.
 Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, vol. 4 pg. 113.
 I.e. Omitting those who he heard from. [Translator]
 See, Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat al Kubra, vol. 7 pg. 157; Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi: Al Marasil, pg. 8; Jami’ al Tahsil, pg. 90 and 160; Tadreeb al Rawi, vol. 1 pg. 204.
 It has been narrated that ‘Ammar ibn Yasir came to ‘Amr ibn al ‘As on the day of Siffin and said to him:
يا عمرو بعت دينك بمصر تبا لك تبا طالما بغيت في الإسلام عوجاً
O ‘Amr, you have sold your faith in lieu of Egypt. Woe to you! What mischief and evils you have roused against Islam!
This has been narrated by al Tabari (vol. 3 pg. 98) from the chain of Mansur ibn Abi Nuwayrah — from Abu Mikhnaf — from Malik ibn A’yan al Juhani — from Zaid ibn Wahb al Juhani — from ‘Ammar ibn Yasir…
Ibn Mazahim has recorded it in Waq’ah Siffin pg. 261 from the chain of ‘Umar — from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Jundub — from Jundub ibn ‘Abdullah who said, “‘Ammar ibn Yasir stood at Siffin and said…”
Both of these chains of transmission are extremely weak. In the chain of al Tabari there is:
Mansur ibn Yaqub ibn Abu Nuwayrah
Abu Mikhnaf, Lut ibn Yahya
Malik ibn A’yan al Juhani
In the other chain there is:
Nasr ibn Muzahim, the author, who is Matruk (suspected of forgery).
‘Umar ibn Sa’d, his teacher, is also Matruk; as stated by Abu Hatim and previously discussed.
‘Abdur Rahman ibn Jundub
In Tabaqat ibn Sa’d (vol. 4 pg. 258) there is another chain which is also extremely weak. It is as follows:
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar narrated to us — from Mufaddal ibn Fudalah — Yazid ibn Abi Habib who said, ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar narrated to me — from ‘Abdul Wahid ibn Abi ‘Awn who said:
لما صار الأمر في يدي معاوية استكثر طعمة مصر لعمرو ما عاش ورأى عمرو أن الأمر كله قد صلح به وبتدبيره وعنائه وسعيه فيه وظن أن معاوية سيزيده الشام مع مصر فلم يفعل معاوية…
When the reins of leadership came into the hands of Muawiyah, ‘Amr’s longing for governing Egypt kept increasing. ‘Amr regarded the arbitration to be successful and to have played into the hands of Muawiyah due to his planning and effort. He, thus, thought Muawiyah would give him the Levant as well as Egypt. But Muawiyah did not do so.
This chain has two defects:
Yazid ibn Abi Habib and ‘Abdul Wahid ibn Abi ‘Awn
Both of these narrators, narrate from the Tabi’in; thus, irsal is found here. See, their bio-data in Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, vol. 18 pg. 463 and vol. 32 pg. 103.
 Musnad Ahmed, Hadith: 17802 and the wording is his; Al Bukhari: Al Adab al Mufrad, vol. 1 pg. 112; Al Tayalisi, Hadith: 1061; Abu Ya’la, Hadith: 7116; Ibn Hibban, Hadith: 3211. Al Hakim has authenticated it, vol. 2 vol. 3 and said, “It is according to the conditions of Muslim.” Al Dhahabi has concurred with him. Al Albani has authenticated it in Ghayat al Maram, vol. 1 pg. 454.
 Musnad Ahmed, vol. 29 pg. 317.
Note: The following appears in Sahih al Bukhari, vol. 1 pg. 97:
ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار
Poor ‘Ammar, the rebel group will kill him. He will be inviting them to Jannat and they will be inviting him to Jahannam.
Ibn Hajar comments:
فإن قيل كان قتله بصفين وهو مع علي والذين قتلوه مع معاوية وكان معه جماعة من الصحابة فكيف يجوز عليهم الدعاء إلى النار فالجواب أنهم كانوا ظانين أنهم يدعون إلى الجنة وهم مجتهدون لا لوم عليهم في اتباع ظنونهم فالمراد بالدعاء إلى الجنة الدعاء إلى سبيها وهو طاعة الإمام وكذلك كان عمار يدعوهم إلى طاعة علي وهو الإمام الواجب الطاعة إذ ذاك وكانوا هم يدعون إلى خلاف ذلك لكنهم معذورون للتأويل الذي ظهر لهم
If the question be asked, He was killed at Siffin whilst with the camp of ‘Ali. And those who killed him were with Muawiyah who also had a group of Sahabah with him. How could it then be said that they were inviting towards Jahannam?
Answer: They thought that they were inviting towards Jannat. They exercised their right of ijtihad and will not be censured for following their view. The meaning of inviting to Jannat is inviting towards the means in attaining Jannat, i.e. following the Imam whose obedience is binding. Similarly, ‘Ammar was calling them to this obedience whilst they were inviting towards something else, but, as mentioned, they are excused in this affair due to the interpretation they based their actions upon. See, Fath al Bari, vol. 1 pg. 542.
 Surah Isra: 33.
 Musnad Ahmed, vol. 29 pg. 608; Al Tabarani: al Mujam al Kabir, vol. 20 pg. 316. Al Albani said, “The chain of Ahmed is authentic according to the conditions of Muslim. See, al Silsilah al Sahihah, vol. 7 pg. 319.
 The narration which states he expressed joy at the death ‘Ammar is invalid and extremely weak (Batil Munkar). Ibn ‘Asakir has recorded it in Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 68 pg. 28 and Ibn al ‘Adi in Bughyat al Talab fi Tarikh Halab, vol. 10 pg. 4671. Both have recorded it — from Ibrahim ibn Dayzil — from Yahya ibn Sulaiman al Ju’fi — from Nasr ibn Muzahim— from ‘Amr ibn Shamr — from Jabir al Ju’fi who said:
سمعت الشعبي رجع الى حديثه عن الأحنف بن قيس قال ثم حمل عمار بن ياسر عليهم فحمل عليه ابن حوي السكسكي وأبو الغادية الفزاري قال فأما أبو الغادية فطعنه وأما ابن حوي فاحتز رأسه وقد كان ذو الكلاع سمع قبل عمرو بن العاص يقول قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعمار بن ياسر تقتلك الفئة الباغية وآخر شربة تشربها ضياح لبن فكان ذو الكلاع يقول لعمرو ويحك ما هذا يا عمرو، فيقول له عمرو أنه سيرجع الينا فأصيب عمار بعد ذي الكلاع مع علي وأصيب ذو الكلاع مع معاوية قبل ذلك فقال عمرو بن العاص لمعاوية والله يا معاوية ما أدري بقتل أيهما أنا أشد فرحا بقتل عمار أو ذي الكلاع والله لو بقي ذو الكلاع حتى يقتل عمار لمال بعامة أهل الشام ولأفسد علينا جندنا….الخ
I heard al Sha’bi—who narrated from the hadith al Ahnaf ibn Qais—saying, then ‘Ammar ibn Yasir attacked them whilst Ibn Huway al Saksaki and Abu al Ghadiyah attacked him. Abu al Ghadiyah speared him and Ibn Huway severed his head.
Dhu al Kala’ had heard ‘Amr ibn al ‘As narrating the hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wherein he addressed ‘Ammar ibn Yasir saying, “A rebellious group will kill you and the last drink you will have will be a drink of milk”.
Dhu al Kala’ used to say to ‘Amr, “Woe to you! What is this I see?”
‘Amr would respond, “‘Ammar will return to our camp.”
‘Ammar was killed whilst supporting ‘Ali and Dhu al Kala’ was killed before that whilst supporting Muawiyah.
‘Amr ibn al ‘As said to Muawiyah, “I do not know in whose death I find more joy, that of ‘Ammar or Dhu al Kala’. By Allah! Had Dhu al Kala’ survived until after ‘Ammar had been killed, he would have swayed the opinion of the people of the Levant and he would have corrupted our army…”
The chain of transmission for this narration is ruined. It has three defects:
Matruk (suspected of forgery). We have already discussed him.
A large number of scholars have deemed him a liar. We have already discussed him.
 Al Musnad, vol. 29 pg. 311. From the chain of ‘Affan — from Hammad ibn Salamah — from Abu Hafs and Kulthum ibn Jabr — from Abu Ghadiyah.
Kulthum ibn Jabr:
Truthful, makes mistakes. He is from the narrators of Muslim. See, Al Taqrib: 5653. Al Albani has deemed this chain authentic in al Sahihah, vol. 5 pg. 19.