Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
➊
When the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was constructing the Prophet’s Mosque, raw bricks were prepared near the mosque. These bricks were so heavy that a single person could barely lift one brick.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was also carrying bricks along with the other noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in).
The Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in) said, “You should not trouble yourself; we are sufficient for this work.” Thus, ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was bringing two bricks at a time.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) asked, “Why are you carrying two bricks?” He replied, “I am bringing one brick for my share and the other for your share.”
As Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written, referencing Jami‘ Ma‘mar.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/701)
Furthermore, another response from ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) is also narrated, that he was enduring this hardship to gain greater reward from Allah, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written, referencing Mustakhraj Abi Nu‘aym.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/702)
Upon this, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), with mixed feelings of happiness and sorrow, said:
“‘Ammar will be martyred at the hands of a rebellious group.”
We will clarify this statement later. However, from this hadith, Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) wants to establish that Muslims themselves should build mosques, and that helping in their construction by carrying stones is such a meritorious act that its reward cannot be estimated.

➋
It appears that when writing his commentary on Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar had before him a copy of Bukhari in which the statement regarding ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu)—that a rebellious group will kill you—was omitted.
This is why he felt the need to write a separate note about it.
He writes under the heading “Benefits” that the hadith containing the statement about the killing of ‘Ammar has been narrated by a group of Companions.
In Sahih Muslim, Qatadah ibn Nu‘man (radi Allahu anhu) and Umm Salamah (radi Allahu anha) have narrated it.
Then, in Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu) and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (radi Allahu anhu) have narrated it, and in Sunan al-Nasa’i as well.
‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (radi Allahu anhu), Hudhayfah (radi Allahu anhu), Abu Rafi‘ (radi Allahu anhu), Khuzaymah ibn Thabit (radi Allahu anhu), Amir Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu), ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (radi Allahu anhu), Abu al-Yasar (radi Allahu anhu), and even ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) himself have narrated this statement, as transmitted by Imam Tabarani (rahimahullah). Most of these chains are authentic (sahih) or good (hasan).
And in this hadith, there is mention of a prophecy which is among the signs of Prophethood, and its fulfillment occurred exactly as the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) foretold. Also, this hadith contains a clear mention of the virtues of ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu), and it is a refutation of the Nawasib who claim that ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) was not upon the truth in his military campaigns.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/702)

➌
In light of this hadith, some scholars refer to Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) and his companions as “rebels” (baghi).
In this regard, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) has presented a decisive discussion in his work “Minhaj al-Sunnah.”
We present its summary: ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) believed that Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) was obliged to obey and pledge allegiance to the caliph, because there can only be one caliph for the Muslims, and these people were outside the obedience of the caliph and were avoiding an obligatory matter by withholding their pledge, and they also had some influence and power.
On this basis, it was necessary to fight them until they accepted obedience and joined the Muslim community. Meanwhile, the party of Amir Mu‘awiyah believed that they were not obliged to obey or pledge allegiance to him.
If war was waged against them on this basis, they would be the oppressed, because, by consensus of the Muslims, ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) was martyred unjustly and aggressively, and the killers of ‘Uthman were present in ‘Ali’s camp and had influence among them.
If they were to pledge allegiance to this caliph, the killers of ‘Uthman would oppress them, and ‘Ali would not be able to stop them, just as he was unable to defend ‘Uthman.
They said that allegiance is obligatory to a caliph who can do justice with them.
Among those who joined the factions, there were also some ignorant people who held bad opinions about both ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu), even though neither of these elders had any connection with them.
Some of them believed that ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) had ordered the killing of ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu).
‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) said that he neither killed him, nor was he pleased with his killing, nor did he cooperate with the killers.
‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) was truthful in this statement, but some of his supporters and opponents participated in this propaganda.
His supporters would criticize ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu), saying that he truly deserved to be killed and that ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) had rightfully ordered his killing, while the opponents’ aim was to spread such things to defame ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu), claiming that he had assisted in the killing of an oppressed caliph.
On what basis should such a person be obeyed? The hadith states that ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) will be killed by a rebellious group.
There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding this hadith.
Some have criticized this hadith, but this is not correct, because this hadith is present in Sahih Muslim and in some manuscripts of Sahih Bukhari. Meanwhile, some have interpreted “rebellious” (baghiyah) to mean the group seeking retribution for ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu).
This interpretation is also incorrect.
What is apparent from the statement of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is based on reality. However, the fact that ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was killed by a rebellious group does not necessitate disbelief (kufr) or hypocrisy (nifaq) for that group, as Allah the Exalted says:
﴿ وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّـهِ ۚ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ ﴿٩﴾ إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ ﴾
“If two groups of the believers fight each other, make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight the one that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah. If it returns, then make peace between them with justice and be equitable. Indeed, Allah loves those who are equitable. The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your brothers, and fear Allah so that you may receive mercy.” (al-Hujurat: 49/9)
In this noble verse, Allah the Exalted has declared them believers despite their fighting and rebellion, and even though fighting the rebellious group is commanded, they are still considered believers. Therefore, rebellion, oppression, and transgression do not expel even the common people from faith, nor do they make them deserving of curse. If someone from the best generations commits such an act, how could he be expelled from faith?
In reality, a rebel, oppressor, transgressor, or sinner is of two types: one who is mistaken in interpretation (mu’awwil) and one who is not.
A mu’awwil mujtahid refers to those scholars of knowledge and religion who exercise ijtihad in religious matters.
Sometimes, one scholar considers something lawful while another considers it unlawful, as has happened in issues such as drinks, certain types of usury, temporary marriage (nikah mut‘ah), and marriage for the purpose of making a woman lawful (tahlil marriage).
Such differences existed even among the early generations.
These are mu’awwil mujtahids.
One of the parties is in error, and Allah the Exalted forgives errors.
However, making a wrong decision despite knowing the correct ruling is oppression, and insisting upon it is wickedness (fisq), and declaring something lawful after knowing its prohibition is disbelief (kufr).
Rebellion should also be judged by this principle. Thus, if the rebel is a mujtahid and mu’awwil, meaning he does not know that he is a rebel but believes himself to be upon the truth, then the application of “rebel” to him does not make him deserving of the sin of rebellion.
Those who permit fighting against mu’awwil rebels do so to remove their aggression and oppression, not as a punishment.
They say that such people are just (‘adil), not wicked (fasiq).
Just as a child, an insane person, a forgetful person, an unconscious person, or a sleeping person is prevented from causing harm, so too should they be prevented.
If rebellion is due to interpretation, it is still a sin, and the punishment for a sin can be removed by repentance, good deeds, and trials and tribulations, etc.
Moreover, this hadith does not explicitly state that the “rebellious group” necessarily refers to Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) and his companions.
It is possible that it refers specifically to the group that attacked and martyred ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu), and that was a faction within the army of Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu). Those who were pleased with the killing of ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) will also be included in this list, because such people were present in his army.
However, those individuals who were not pleased with the killing of ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) will not be included in this warning, as ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radi Allahu anhu) also did not approve of it.
It is also narrated from Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) that he interpreted this hadith by saying that the killer of ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) is the one who brought him to the battlefield.
‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) replied to this interpretation by saying that, in that case, we would also be the killers of Hamzah (radi Allahu anhu), because it appears that they did not consider themselves the killers of ‘Ammar, nor did they consider themselves rebels.
Therefore, if someone can apparently be considered a rebel based on outward circumstances, but he does not consider himself a rebel, he should be regarded as a mistaken mu’awwil.

➍
In this hadith, it is stated that ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was inviting them to Paradise, while they were calling him to Hellfire.
There is a difficulty here: ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was martyred at Siffin while he was with ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu), and those who killed him were in the camp of Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu), among whom were also some noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in).
How, then, could it be that they were calling him to Hellfire? Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has answered that they were, according to their own understanding, inviting people to Paradise. Since the matter was one of ijtihad, they are not to be blamed for following their own opinions.
Inviting to Paradise means inviting to the causes that lead to Paradise, and that is obedience to and allegiance to the Imam.
‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was inviting people to obey the Imam, i.e., ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu), which at that time was obligatory, and his opponents, due to their ijtihad, were inviting to the opposite.
But they are to be considered excused due to their interpretation and ijtihad.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/701)

➎
Some have thought that the statement “he will be killed by a rebellious group” applies to the group of Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu), and their explanation is that this act was committed by them as an ijtihadi error. However, the next statement, “he was inviting them to Paradise and they were calling him to the Fire,” does not refer to Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) and his group, but is a separate sentence.
It refers to another matter: that his situation with the polytheists of Mecca was also pitiable—they inflicted mountains of hardship upon him, even his mother was martyred, while ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) was inviting those polytheists to Paradise and the polytheists of Quraysh were calling him to Hellfire.
However, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) is not satisfied with this explanation, because the wording of the hadith does not support it; rather, what is meant are the killers of ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu) from among the people of Syria.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/702)
And Allah knows best.

➏
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) was very sensitive regarding the disputes among the Companions.
Once he was asked, “What do you say about ‘Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu)?” He replied:
“I say good about them. May Allah have mercy on them all.”
(al-Sunnah lil-Khallal, hadith 460)
In fact, ‘Allamah Dhahabi (rahimahullah) has reported that he disliked even discussing and debating the famous hadith about ‘Ammar (radi Allahu anhu)—“He will be killed by a rebellious group”—meaning, he would narrate the hadith but disliked further discussion on it.
(al-Siyar: 1/421)

Hadith Commentary:

The virtues and circumstances of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (radi Allahu anhu) have already been mentioned earlier. Here, the reference is to the Battle of Siffin, in which he was among the companions of Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu), and in 35 AH, he was martyred there at the age of 93. Out of compassion and love, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) cleaned the dust from his head; from this, his great virtue is established, and the objective of the chapter is also proven.

Hadith Commentary:
Some of the predecessors held the view that the moisture from ablution (wudu) water should not be dried, and similarly, the traces of jihad (such as dust and dirt) should be left on one's body. Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has dispelled this "misconception" by mentioning that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wiped the dust from the head of Ammar bin Yasir radi Allahu anhu. From this, it is understood that there is no harm in removing the traces of jihad for the sake of cleanliness, and likewise, it is permissible to wipe the face and hands after ablution.