There is a Narration which is present in Saheeh Bukhari, and it states

447 – حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ بْنُ مُخْتَارٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدٌ الحَذَّاءُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، قَالَ لِي ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَلِابْنِهِ عَلِيٍّ: انْطَلِقَا إِلَى أَبِي سَعِيدٍ فَاسْمَعَا مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ، فَانْطَلَقْنَا فَإِذَا هُوَ فِي حَائِطٍ يُصْلِحُهُ، فَأَخَذَ رِدَاءَهُ فَاحْتَبَى، ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يُحَدِّثُنَا حَتَّى أَتَى ذِكْرُ بِنَاءِ المَسْجِدِ، فَقَالَ: كُنَّا نَحْمِلُ لَبِنَةً لَبِنَةً وَعَمَّارٌ لَبِنَتَيْنِ لَبِنَتَيْنِ، فَرَآهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَيَنْفُضُ التُّرَابَ عَنْهُ، وَيَقُولُ: «وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ، تَقْتُلُهُ الفِئَةُ البَاغِيَةُ، يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الجَنَّةِ، وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ» قَالَ: يَقُولُ عَمَّارٌ: أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الفِتَنِ “

Ibn Abbas said to me and to his son Ali, “Go to Abu Sa’eed and listen to what he narrates.” So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his garment, wore it and sat down and started narrating until the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, “We were carrying one brick at a time while Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet – peace be upon him – saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, ‘Woe onto `Ammar. He will he killed by the transgressive group. He will be inviting them to Paradise and they will invite him to Hellfire.’ Ammar said, ‘I seek refuge with Allah from affliction.’”(1)

Now, this Narration causes a lot of problems for Nasibis, and they try to create doubts in this Narration. I came across a Nasibi website which tried to create controversy about this Narration, and what they said can be concluded in the points

1- That This part { He will be inviting them to Paradise and they will invite him to Hellfire} is not present in Saheeh Bukhari. And it was later that This got into Saheeh Bukhari. 

2- One of the Narrators, Khalid ul Hatha, narrated it in different forms. 

First of all, Let us clarify that This Narration in its total form, is not just present in Saheeh Bukhari, rather it was also present in Saheeh Ibn Hibban (2). Also, Ahmad bin Hanbal noted down this Narration in totality in His Musnad Ahmad(3).

Now, The Question is, whether it is present in Saheeh Bukhari or not. We know for sure that it is present in Saheeh Bukhari published by many publishers (4).  So if we presume that it was actually not present, but got quoted down later, this would simple mean that present day copy of Saheeh Bukhari is tempered; and if it is said on the contrary that this present day copy is not tempered, the entire effort on part of Nasibis get wasted. This is a choice Nasibis have to make. What do they want? 

However, Most beloved Scholar of Nasibis, Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah writes that 

وَأَمَّا الْحَدِيثُ الَّذِي فِيهِ «أَنَّ عَمَّارًا تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ» فَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ قَدْ طَعَنَ فِيهِ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ؛ لَكِنْ رَوَاهُ مُسْلِمٌ فِي صَحِيحِهِ وَهُوَ فِي بَعْضِ نُسَخِ الْبُخَارِيِّ

And the Narration that Ammar would be killed by Transgressor party, some of people of knowledge have criticized it, but it has been narrated by Muslim in His Saheeh, and is present in Some Copies of Bukhari (5)

So the main issue is, that certain versions of Saheeh Bukhari had this, and others were lacking it. Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah further clarifies

وَرَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ 4 (2)) .، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ (3) “.
، لَكِنْ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنَ النُّسَخِ لَا يُذْكَرُ الْحَدِيثُ بِتَمَامِهِ، بَلْ فِيهَا: ” «وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ» “. وَلَكِنْ لَا يَخْتَلِفُ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ بِالْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةَ هِيَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ.
قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ: ” قَدْ رَوَاهُ غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ عَنْ خَالِدٍ الْحَذَّاءِ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا – “. وَظَنَّ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ أَنَّ الْبُخَارِيَّ لَمْ يَذْكُرِ الزِّيَادَةَ، وَاعْتَذَرَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةَ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهَا أَبُو سَعِيدٍ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، وَلَكِنْ حَدَّثَهُ بِهَا أَصْحَابُهُ، مِثْلُ أَبِي قَتَادَةَ

And Bukhari narrated it from Ikrama from Abu Sa’eed, but in a lot of versions, this Narration is not mentioned in its complete form, rather it has “Woe onto Ammar, He will call them to Paradise and They will call him to Hell. But there is no disagreement in Those people who have knowledge about Hadeeth that This extra part is “part” in This Narration. Abu Bakr Behqi and others stated: “Many people have narrated from Khalid-ul-Hatha from Ikrama from Ibn Abbas”. And Behqi presumted that Bukhari did not mention this extra part, and gave him excuse that Abu Sa’eed did not hear it from Prophet, but rather it was narrated to him by other Companions like Abu Qatada (6)

So Ibn Taimiyyah clarified that this part is included in that Narration. And He actually accepted that Bukhari had mentioned this in His Saheeh (7). This actually gives a huge blow to those who want to prove that this portion of Narration is not a part of it. But again, He talked about different versions of Saheeh Bukhari. So let us see which version had it, and which did not. 

Ibn Hajr explains this in his Fath-ul-Bari, 1/572

 وَيُمْكِنُ حَمْلُهُ عَلَى أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ كُفَّارُ قُرَيْشٍ كَمَا صَرَّحَ بِهِ بعض الشُّرَّاح لَكِن وَقع فِي رِوَايَة بن السَّكَنِ وَكَرِيمَةَ وَغَيْرِهِمَا وَكَذَا ثَبَتَ فِي نُسْخَةِ الصَّغَانِيِّ الَّتِي ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ قَابَلَهَا عَلَى نُسْخَةِ الْفَرَبْرِيِّ الَّتِي بِخَطِّهِ زِيَادَةٌ تُوَضِّحُ الْمُرَادَ وَتُفْصِحُ بِأَنَّ الضَّمِيرَ يَعُودُ عَلَى قَتَلَتِهِ وَهُمْ أَهْلُ الشَّامِ وَلَفْظُهُ وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ يَدْعُوهُمْ الْحَدِيثَ

And it is possible that “They will call him to fire” means disbelievers of Quraish, as has been explained by some of Those who explained. But what is written in Narration of Ibn Sakkan, Karima and others, and similarly proven in version of Saghani who had compared it with Hand written version of Farbari; that explains that it turns to His killing, and they were People of Syria, and the words of Narration are: Woe onto Ammar, He will be killed by Transgressor party, He will call……

So Ibn Hajr tells us that The copy of Ibn Sakkan had the Narration in total form. His name was Abu Ali Saeed bin Uthman, and he had narrated His version from Mohammad bin Yousaf Farbari. And Farbari had take Saheeh from Bukhari twice,which gave him edge over others. 

Apart from Ibn Sakkan, He also mentioned Saghani, who had hand written version of Farbari too, and had compared His version with that of Farbari. Salafi Scholar, Ahmad bin Faris al-Saloom counted this as an advantage for the version of Saghani, also known as Nuskha-tu-Baghdadia (8).

Let me add that Hafiz Sharf-ud-Deen Younoni had also included This part in His Famous Nuskha-tu-Younoniyya of Saheeh Bukhari(9). 

Also, those who did say that this extra part was not present in Saheeh Bukhari, like Hafiz Ibn Hajr and Qatalani, they believed that it was Bukhari who tempered the Narration(10). This means they accepted that Narration was actually narrated in totality by the narrators, including Khalid-ul-Hatha. 

Now We examine if it was Khalid who was narrating it differently as claimed by Nasibis? From Bukhari, we have seen that He had narrated this Narration to two people, Abdul Aziz bin Mukhtar and Abdul Wahab. And both had narrated the narration in totality as discussed early. Apart from them, Mahboob bin Hasan (11), Yazeed bin Zura’i (12) and Wahab bin Baqiyya (13) narrated this Narration from Khalid-ul-Hatha in totality. So there are 5 people narrating in totality. However, Sho’ba also narrated  from Khalid-ul-Hatha as mentioned in Musnad Ahmad (14), and it just mentions the part which states that A’mmar would be killed by transgressors.  But how can the blame be put on Khalid-ul-Hatha here? Because it can be Sho’ba as well. Why not to say that it was done by Sho’ba? Sho’ba did narrate this narration from another chain leading to Abu Saeed(15), and it also had just this part that A’mmar would be killed by Transgressors. May be He was trusting just this part and skipped the rest? So again, how can it be said with certainty that It was done by Khalid? Of course it can not be said.

Nasibis claimed that This Narration is Mutawatir, and so why to trust Narration of Khalid-ul-Hatha. Now, here we have two issues. First of all, their own scholars have accepted it like Ibn Hibban, Ahmad bin Hanbal(and authenticated by Sheikh Shoaib-ul-Arnawut), even Ibn Taimiyyah, and that is if we ignore narration of Bukhari. Secondly, Salafis most beloved Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah rejected that it is Mutawatir. He states in Minhaj-us-Sunnah, 7/51

وَقَدِ احْتَجُّوا بِقَوْلِهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: ” «تَقْتُلُ عَمَّارًا الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ» ” وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ خَبَرُ وَاحِدٍ أَوِ اثْنَيْنِ أَوْ ثَلَاثَةٍ وَنَحْوِهِمْ، وَلَيْسَ هَذَا مُتَوَاتِرًا

And They argued with Narration that (A’mmar would be killed by Transgressors), and This Narration is a single report or stated twice or thrice, and it is not Mutawatir

Of course, Nasibis are most welcome to ridicule their own Sheikh-ul-Islam 

Also, Authentic Narration suggests that This Narration was also narrated on different occasion. For example, There is a Narration from Umm Salma (r.a) which mentions the occasion of Khandaq (16) as well, where as the Narration we talked about speaks of time of Building of Mosque. So it is possible that the wordings narrated on both occasion are different. 

Let us Summarize our discussion

1- There is difference between different versions of Bukhari as accepted by Ibn Taimiyya, Ibn hajr and Qastalani. Some versions had This Narration in its total form as discussed.

2- Great Scholars like Ibn hajr and Qastalani stated that Bukhari had tempered the Narration. They did not accuse any Narrator for this. 

3- Even if we ignore Bukhari, We have this Narration in Musnad Ahmad and Saheeh Ibn Hibban. 

4- Ibn Taimiyyah accepted that Scholars of Hadeeth are unanimous that “extra part” is part of Narration 



1- Saheeh Bukhari, 1/97

2- Saheeh Ibn Hibban, Researched by Sheikh Shoaib al-Arnawut, , 15/553-554; and Researcher of the book termed the Chain Authentic on terms set by Bukhari

3- Musnad Ahmad, , 10/286, with research of Sheikh Hamza Ahmad Zain, and researcher termed the Narration having Authentic Chain. Though Sheikh Shoaib in His research upon Musnad Ahmad, 18/368, termed the Narration as Authentic, but did not give verdict on one of the narrators named Mahboob bin Hasan. However, Imam Ahmad had clarified that He is Truthful, and so His Narrations were noted down in His Musnad (Mu’soaat Aqwaal Imam Ahmad, 3/252, Narrator 2304). Also, Sheikh Albani termed His Chains as Hasan, and said that He is Hasan-ul-Hadeeth (Good in Narrations) {SilSila Ahadeeth Saheehiyya, 5/181}

4- Please refer to Saheeh Bukhari published by different publishers, for example, This narration is present on page 69 in The version published by Maktaba-tur-Rushd, Riyadh, in 1427 Hijri; and there are “No Brackets” around any words. Also, it is present on page 121 in version published by Dar Ibn Kathir in year 1423 hijri, and no brackets are present. 

5- al Fatawa al-Kubra, 3/456

6- Minhaj-us-Sunnah, 4/415-416

7- For example, He writes in his Majm’o al-Fatawa, 4/437

كَمَا رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي صَحِيحِهِ عَنْ خَالِدٍ الْحَذَّاءِ {عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ قَالَ: قَالَ لِي ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَلِابْنِهِ عَلِيٍّ: انْطَلِقَا إلَى أَبِي سَعِيدٍ وَاسْمَعَا مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ فَانْطَلَقْنَا فَإِذَا هُوَ فِي حَائِطٍ يُصْلِحُهُ فَأَخَذَ رِدَاءَهُ فَاحْتَبَى بِهِ ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يُحَدِّثُنَا حَتَّى إذَا أَتَى عَلِيٌّ ذَكَرَ بِنَاءَ الْمَسْجِدِ فَقَالَ: كُنَّا نَحْمِلُ لَبِنَةً لَبِنَةً وَعَمَّارٌ لَبِنَتَيْنِ لَبِنَتَيْنِ فَرَآهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجَعَلَ يَنْفُضُ التُّرَابَ عَنْهُ وَيَقُولُ: وَيْحَ عَمَّارُ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ يَدْعُوهُمْ إلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إلَى النَّارِ قَالَ: يَقُولُ عَمَّارٌ: أَعُوذُ بِاَللَّهِ مِنْ الْفِتَنِ} .

Now, it can be clearly seen that He stated that Bukhari narrated in His Saheeh from Khalid-ul-Hadtha….. and He mentioned the entire Narration 

8- Please refer to His article on this subject named: نسخة الإمام الصغاني من صحيح البخاري وقيمتها العلمية 

He wrote about different versions of Bukhari like

a) version of Abu Zaid Marozi>Farbari>Bukhari

b) Version of Abu Mohammad Aseeli> Abu Zaid Marozi>Farbari>Bukhari

 c)Version of Abu Sahl Hafsi>Kashmehini>Farbari>Bukhari

d) Version of Abu Dhar who collected it from Three people, Kashmehini, Mustamli, Hamwi

e)Version of Younoniyya

He mentions that the last two were collected by Compilers from work of others. Let us remind that We mentioned Version of Ibn Sakkan, who got it from Farbari as well. After This He writes

إلا أن أحدا من أصحاب هذه النسخ لم يتيسر له الاطلاع على أصل الفربري الذي كان يحدث منه، اللهم إلا الحافظ الصغاني الذي اطلع على هذا الأصل وقابل عليه نسخته، ولذلك فإن نسخة الصغاني تعتبر من أعلى النسخ إسنادا وإن كان صاحبها متأخر الوفاة

None of These people had access to the original manuscript of Farbari from whom they were narrating, except that of Hafidh Saghani who had access to the original version, and compared His version with copy of Farbari. And for this version of Saghani is more reliable in regards to chain and that He was the last one to die

He also wrote 

نسخة الصغاني من صحيح البخاري تسمى: النسخة البغدادية، لأنه ضبطها هناك وتلقاها بالإسناد عن أصحاب أبي الوقت السجزي عنه، عن الداودي، عن الحمويي، عن الفربري، عن البخاري، وهذا أشهر أسانيد صحيح البخاري في بغداد، بل هو أشهر أسانيد البخاري في الأثبات والمعاجم، وهي كذلك من أصح النسخ، ذلك لأنه قابلها على نسخة الفربري الأصل، التي هي بخط الفربري، وأثبت ما في نسخة الفربري من تهميشات وزيادات وسؤالات.

Version of Saghani of Saheeh Bukhari, also named Version of Baghdadiyya, because He noted it down there, and got it from Companions of Abu Waqt> Dawardi> Hamwi>Farbari>Bukhari. And this is the most famous Chain of Bukhari in Baghdaad, rather it is most famous Chain for Bukhari in terms of literature, and it is like that most authentic version as He compared it with original version of Farbari, which was in Hand writing of Farbari, and it is most proven in regards to what was the version of Farbari in Footnotes, Extra parts and Questions

9- This version has been published by Dar-Tooq-un-Nijat, 1422 Hijri. Hafiz Younoni had access to different versions of Saheeh Bukhari and compared around 8 versions, including versions of Abu Dhar Harwi, Aseeli, Ibn Asaakar, Ibn-ul-Waqt, Kushmahini, Hamwi, Mustamli, Karimia. And He mentioned This Narration on Vol 1, page 97; and he mentions that This part ( Woe onto `Ammar. He will he killed by the transgressive group) has not been mentioned by Abu Dhar and Aseeli. He did not mention it for others.  

And one of the proofs is, that When Ibn Asaakar mentioned This Narration in His Tareekh Damishq, 43/413; He narrated it in complete form, and attributed it to Bukhari. 

ويقول ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار قال فجعل عمار يقول أعوذ بالرحمن من الفتن رواه البخاري

10- As regard to statement of Ibn Hajr, I had written about this before, and it can be read HERE. You can read this link for details, however, let me share some part of What Ibn Hajr said. He wrote

قلت : ويظهر لي أن البخاري حذفها عمدا وذلك لنكتة خفية ، وهي أن أبا سعيد الخدري اعترف أنه لم يسمع هذه الزيادة من النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم

I say: What is apparent to me is,that Bukhari intentionally removed this part, and there is a fine point in it, and that is, Abu Sa’eed accepted that He did not hear this part from Prophet (asws)

As regards to Qastalani, He wrote in Irshaad-us-Saari, 1/442

لكن وقع في رواية ابن السكن وكريمة وغيرهما، وثبت في نسخة الصغاني المقابلة على نسخة الفربري التي بخطه: ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم، والفئة: هم أهل الشام وهذه الزيادة حذفها المؤلّف لنكتة وهي أن أبا سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه لم يسمعها من النبي -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- كما بين ذلك في رواية البزار من طريق داود بن أبي هند عن أبي نضرة عن أبي سعيد رضي الله عنه، ولفظه قال أبو سعيد: فحدّثني أصحابي ولم أسمعه من النبي -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- أنه قال: “يا ابن سمية تقتلك الفئة الباغية” وإسناده على شرط مسلم لا المؤلّف

But it is written in Ibn Sakkan and Karimiyya and others, and it is noted down in Copy of Saghani who had compared it with hand written copy of Farbari (ويح عمار تقتله الفئة الباغية يدعوهم ) And the transgressors were people of Syria. And this extra part has been removed by Author due to the reason that Abu Saeed did not hear it from Prophet as is clear in Narration of Bazar with chain to Abu Saeed who stated that Sahabi told me, and I did not hear from Prophet…And this chain is Authentic on terms of Imam Muslim, but not the of Author, i.e, Bukhari

11- Musnad Ahmad, 18/367

12- Saheeh ibn Hibban, 15/553-554

13- Saheeh Ibn Hibban, 15/554-555

14- Musnad Ahmad, 17/257. And the Chain is like this

11166 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لِعَمَّارٍ: ” تَقْتُلُهُ (2) الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ ”

15- Musnad Ahmad, 17/319; and The Chain is like this

11221 – حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ، حَدَّثَنَا  شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ  عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هِشَامٍ  ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لِعَمَّارٍ: ” تَقْتُلُكَ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ ”

So the Chain is Sho’ba> Amr bin Dinar>Abu Hisham>Abu Saeed

16- Musnad Ahmad, 44/83; and it states

26482 – حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عَدِيٍّ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَوْنٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ أُمِّهِ، عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ، قَالَتْ: مَا نَسِيتُ قَوْلَهُ يَوْمَ الْخَنْدَقِ وَهُوَ يُعَاطِيهِمُ (3) اللَّبَنَ، وَقَدْ اغْبَرَّ شَعْرُ صَدْرِهِ، وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: ” اللهُمَّ إِنَّ (4) الْخَيْرَ خَيْرُ الْآخِرَهْ فَاغْفِرْ لِلْأَنْصَارِ وَالْمُهَاجِرَهْ ” قَالَ: فَرَأَى عَمَّارًا، فَقَالَ: ” وَيْحَهُ ابْنُ سُمَيَّةَ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ ”

Umm Salma states that I cannot forget day of Khandaq when He (asws) was giving stones and His Chest Hair were covered with dust, and he said: O Allah! betterment is betterment of Last world, Forgive Ansaar and Muhajirs, and Then He saw Ammar and said: Woe unto Ammar, He will be killed by transgressor party

Sheikh Arnawut has termed the Chain Authentic on terms set by Imam Muslim

Sheikh Arnawut also mentions in His research upon Musnad Ahmad, 17/54

قلنا: لا مانع من أنه صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قد قالها عند بناء المسجد، ويوم الخندق، فقد ورد ذكر يوم الخندق من حديث أم سلمة أيضاً بإسناد صحيح كما سيرد 6/289.

We say: There is no prohibition that He had said it while building Mosque and Day of Khaiber, and Day of Khandaq is mentioned with Authentic chain in Narration of Umm Salma