2. Narrations in this regard whose isnad is not authentic

The shortcomings that have been narrated with weak chains, which indicate that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu justified their rebellion against him because of them, include:

The beating of ‘Ammar ibn Yasir

I have not come across any narration, with a sahih chain, which indicates that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu beat ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, nor that they justified their rebellion against him because of that.

It is narrated from Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha that she said:

أن مما عتب الخارجون على عثمان ضربه بالسوط والعصا فلعل المقصود ما أشيع من ضربه عمارا منها

Among the things that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman criticised him for was his striking with a whip and a stick.^[1] Perhaps what is meant is the rumour that he beat ‘Ammar with it.

It has been reported, through a weak chain, that Sa’d and ‘Ammar sent to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum saying, “Come to us, for we want to mention to you some things you have innovated or have committed.” ‘Uthman excused himself from coming due to some work he was busy with, and ordered them to leave. He stipulated a date in order to prepare for their dispute. Sa’d returned but ‘Ammar refused. Then ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu messenger attacked him and beat him. When they gathered with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they said to him, “We want to take revenge from you for hitting ‘Ammar.”

He explained to them the incident that he had not ordered him to be hit, but that his messenger attacked him without his permission. Then he swore an oath that he neither ordered nor approved it, and said, “This is my hand for ‘Ammar, so let him take revenge.”^[2]

This is what has been transmitted regarding the beating of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Its chain is weak. Even if we assume that it is authentic and that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did beat ‘Ammar, this is not a flaw from either of them. We testify that they both are in Jannat and that they are among the greatest of Allah’s pious friends. A friend of Allah may commit something that merits Shar’i punishment, so how about a legal penalty?

‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu struck Ubayy ibn Ka’b with a whip when he saw people walking behind him. He exclaimed, “What is this, O Amir al Mu’minin?”

‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained, “This is humiliation for the follower and a trial for the followed.”^[3]

If ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu disciplined ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then he was either correct in his punishment, or ‘Ammar repented from that which he was punished for, or he expiated for ‘Ammar through penal punishment or other penalties, or through his great good deeds, etc.

Alternatively, it can be said that he was wronged in general, then the statement about ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the same as the statement about him, and even more so, for ‘Uthman is better than him and more deserving of forgiveness and mercy.

At times, the Imam may exercise his ijtihad (independent judgement) in imposing punishment and be rewarded for it. ‘Ammar exercised ijtihad in what he did, and he is not sinful for it; rather, he will be rewarded for his ijtihad.^[4]

Thus, it is evident that it is not authentic that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu beat ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, nor that the rebels justified rebelling against him because of that. The most that can be said is that it is narrated through a weak chain that ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu messenger struck ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu without his knowledge, and that he clarified that he did not instruct the messenger to do that, and that he was displeased with his action. He even asked ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu to take revenge from him as a waiver, thus avoiding conflict.

Even if it is assumed that he struck him without ijtihad from his side, there are many ways for forgiveness, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was among the Companions most deserving of it.^[5] This does not justify attacking him or rebelling against him, let alone killing him.

As for what is reported that fifty of the Muhajirin and Ansar gathered and wrote down ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu innovations and their grievances in a letter. They said to ‘Ammar, “Take this letter to ‘Uthman so he can read it, perhaps he will retract from the evils.” They warned him that if he did not retract, they would depose him and replace him with someone else. Furthermore, ‘Uthman threw away the letter after reading it. ‘Ammar said to him, “Do not throw away the letter, but look into it, for it is the letter from the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. By Allah, I am your well-wisher and I fear for you.”

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “You have lied, O son of Sumayyah.”

Then he ordered his servants to beat him until he fell on his side and fainted. ‘Uthman stood up and trampled on his stomach and private parts until he developed a hernia. He fainted for the duration of four Salahs, which he made up after gaining consciousness. He wore a pair of trunks under his clothes. He was the first to wear trousers due to the hernia. The Banu Makhzum were angry with him and said, “By Allah, if ‘Ammar dies from this, we will kill a great person from the Banu Umayyah—meaning ‘Uthman.” ‘Ammar remained indoors until the unrest erupted.^[6]

I did not find any chain for all of this, to reveal its degree of authenticity. The one who mentioned these details is al Muhibb al Tabari, who passed away in 694 AH. He did not attribute it to anyone, rather, he criticised its authenticity, saying, “The context of this story is not correct.” He then mentioned some of the content of the weak narration mentioned above, wherein ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu offered ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu to take revenge from him. Thereafter he stated:

وهذا من أبلغ ما يكون في الإنصاف وأنه روي أن عمارا رضي عن عثمان لما أنصفه بحسن الاعتذار

This is one of the highest forms of justice. It has been narrated that ‘Ammar was satisfied with ‘Uthman when he treated him justly with a good apology.

Furthermore, he said:

فما بال أهل البدعة لا يرضون وما مثله فيه إلا كما يقال رضي الخصمان ولم يرض القاضي

So why are the innovators not satisfied? This is similar to what is said, “The two opponents are pleased, but the judge is not.”

For ‘Ammar’s satisfaction with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, he used Abu Hurairah’s narration as evidence, wherein he mentioned that when ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was besieged and denied water, ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to them:

سبحان الله قد اشترى بئر رومة وتمنعونه ماءها خلوا سبيل الماء

Glory be to Allah! He bought the well of Rumah and you are denying him its water. Clear the way for the water.

Then he came to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and asked him to send water to him. He then ordered for a water skin.^[7]

Ibn al ‘Arabi mentioned:

أنه مما نقم على عثمان ضربه عمارا حتى فتق أمعاءه ثم قال إن ذلك زور وإفك ولو فتق أمعاءه ما عاش أبدا إن العلماء اعتذروا عن ذلك بوجوه لا ينبغي أن يشتغل بها لأنها مبنية على باطل ولا يبنى حق على باطل وعلى الإنسان أن لا يذهب الزمان في مماشاة الجهال لأن ذلك لا آخر له

Among the things that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was taken to task for was that he beat ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu until his intestines were split open.^[8] [Then he said,] This is a lie^[9] and a slander. If his intestines had been torn open, he would not have lived [thereafter]. The scholars have offered excuses for this, but these should not be given any attention because they are based on falsehood, and truth cannot be built on falsehood. A person should not waste time in tagging along with the ignorant, because there is no end to that.^[10]

By Allah, he spoke the truth, because the (claim of) the attack on ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is baseless. However, since there are those who promote falsehood among the common people, and among them are the naïve ones who cannot distinguish the authentic from the false, it is incumbent upon the people of truth and knowledge to expose this falsehood, so that people may strengthen their immunity from accepting their falsehood, so that their affair may be exposed and made clear, and the falsehood of their belief may be made clear to the people, both the learned and the ignorant.

Al Tabari narrated through a weak chain that a person asked Sa’id ibn al Musayyab about the reason that prompted ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu to rebel against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He said:

كان بينه وبين عباس بن عتبة بن أبي لهب كلام فضربهما عثمان فأورث ذاك بين آل عمار وآل عتبة شرا حتى اليوم وكنى عما ضربا عليه وفيه

There was some dispute between him and ‘Abbas ibn ‘Utbah ibn Abi Lahab, and ‘Uthman struck them both. That created ill-feelings between the family of ‘Ammar and the family of ‘Utbah that continues to this day. He also alluded to the reason for which they were struck.^[11]

This narration, as I mentioned, has a weak chain and is not suitable to be used as evidence. There is no consideration to what it mentions regarding ‘Ammar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu rebellion against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, nor to ‘Uthman’s striking ‘Ammar, nor to the reason for this striking.

NEXT⇒ 3. What is well known about this, but without an isnad

^[1] Narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed in Ahmed ibn Hanbal: Fada’il al Sahabah, 1/452, its isnad is weak as it contains ‘Abdul Malik ibn ‘Umair, who became confused, and the narrator’s narration from him does not clarify whether it was before or after his confusion, and it contains a mu’an’an narration of ‘Abdul Malik who is a mudallis; al Hafiz listed him in the third category of mudallisin. As for the narration that the disgruntled person is Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, it is not authentic and its isnad is weak.

^[2] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/220-222, the isnad contains Hussain ibn ‘Abdur Rahman, who became confused, and the narrator from him is Hussain ibn Numair, who narrated from him after his confusion and he was also accused of nasb, and it includes Juhaym al Fahri, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban, 4/119.

^[3] Sunan al Darimi, 1/132-133, its isnad contains Sulaim ibn Hanzalah, for whom I could not find any biography, and Harun ibn ‘Antarah, regarding whom al Hafiz said in al Taqrib, “There is nothing wrong with him.” Al Mizzi mentioned in Tahdhib al Kamal, 30/100, Mu’assasat al Risalah print, that he narrated from Sulaim ibn Hanzalah al Bakri, for whom I could not find a biography either.

^[4] Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/255-256.

^[5] See some of these ways for forgiveness in Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/205-238.

^[6] Al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/85.

^[7] Al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/85, he did not mention any isnad for this hadith of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and I did not find it in any other source.

^[8] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 76.

^[9] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 77.

^[10] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 78-79.

^[11] Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/399, the isnad includes Shu’ayb ibn Ibrahim, who narrates things that are prejudiced against the pious predecessors, and Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi, whom many Imams deemed to be da’if.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents