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

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

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

 

Some books, whose narrations are not supported by any chain, report some isolated narrations with several shortcomings that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman used to justify their rebellion. The lack of chain casts doubt on their authenticity, and perhaps they were issued by enemies of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Among these shortcomings are:

 

a. Failure to implement the hadd[1] on ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar

The earliest person to mention this among the faults attributed to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was al Muhibb al Tabari, who did not mention any chain for it. Al Muhibb al Tabari^[2] was from amongst the latter scholars, who passed away in 694 AH.

Then Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, who died in 726 AH followed him. In his book, Minhaj al Istiqamah fi Ithbat al Imamah, he said the following about ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

إنه ضيع حدود الله فلم يقتل عبيد الله بن عمر حين قتل الهرمزان مولى أمير المؤمنين بعد إسلامه

He neglected the hudud of Allah, for he did not implement the death penalty on ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar when he killed al Hurmuzan—the freed slave of Amir al Mu’minin—after he had embraced Islam.^[3]

 

Before presenting the discussion of al Muhibb and Ibn Taymiyyah regarding this shortcoming attributed to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, I would like to point out that what I have quoted from al Muhibb does not prove that the rebels criticised ‘Uthman for this and that they justified their rebellion because of it. The most that can be established from al Muhibb’s discussion is that this actually happened, without being certain about its perpetrators or their era. It is possible that it happened hundreds of years after the fitnah.

Not implementing the hadd of executing ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar is not considered a shortcoming in ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because the daughter of Abu Lu’lu’ah is a daughter of a Magian and falls under him, and retaliatory punishment does not apply for her. The same applies to Jufaynah, for he was a Christian from the people of al Hirah. He was accused of participating in the murder of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu because of the similarity between him and Abu Lu’lu’ah.

It was mentioned to ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar that he was seen in the presence of al Hurmuzan when ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was killed, so he was accused of involvement and collaboration with Abu Lu’lu’ah. A group of Imams believe that one who assists in the murder of the just Imam should be killed. In fact, many jurists have made retaliatory punishment obligatory for both the commander and the commanded.

‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar reasoned for this, saying that ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu informed him that he saw Abu Lu’lu’ah, al Hurmuzan, and Jufaynah entering a place to consult, and with them was a two-headed dagger with the handle in the middle. ‘Umar was killed that morning. ‘Uthman summoned ‘Abdur Rahman and asked him about it. He said, “Look at the knife. If it has two ends, then I believe the people had agreed to kill him.”

They examined it and found it to be just as ‘Abdur Rahman had described. Therefore, ‘Uthman allowed the killing by ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar, believing that retaliatory punishment was not obligatory or he had doubts about it—he did not believe in its obligation based on doubt.^[4]

If this had been proven to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the doubt was removed, then too, his failure to kill him (as a retaliatory punishment) was justified, for the fear that his killing would spark great unrest. A group of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not believe in his killing, to the point that ‘Amr ibn al ‘As said to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

قتل أمير المؤمنين بالأمس ويقتل ابنه اليوم لا والله لا يكون هذا أبدا

The Amir al Mu’minin was killed yesterday, and his son is being killed today? By Allah, this will never happen.

 

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:

 

أمره إلي وسأرضي أهل الهرمزان عنه

Leave his matter to me. I will satisfy the family of al Hurmuzan on his behalf.^[5]

 

This calmed the unrest that had nearly erupted.^[6]

Al Hurmuzan had no guardians, thus, his guardian was the ruler. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was capable of paying the blood money for the family of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, given the debt borne by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which was eighty thousand. He ordered his family to pay his debt from the wealth of his agnates, the Banu ‘Adi and the Quraysh. No one could bear the debt. Blood money is borne by the agnates. If he helped with ‘Umar’s debt through the blood money, this would be one of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtues for which he should be praised.

The treasury was abundant during ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu time, and he would give people much more than this amount. So, how could he not give this amount to the family of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu?^[7]

If al Hurmuzan was among those who aided in the killing of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he was among those who caused mischief and warring parties on earth, and therefore he must be killed. Even if it were assumed that he was innocent, whose killing would be forbidden, ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar had an interpretation that made it permissible to kill him, and his suspicion was clear. This suspicion would avert the death penalty from him, just as in the case of Usamah ibn Zaid, when he killed a man after he had said ‘la ilaha illa Allah’ because he believed that this statement did not protect him. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam punished him verbally but did not implement the death penalty on him because he had an interpretation.

Therefore, a mujtahid may use this suspicion to prohibit the obligation of qisas,^[8] because the rulings of qisas involve many rules derived through ijtihad.^[9] Thus, if his assistance in the killing of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is proven, then the death penalty is obligatory for the Imam to implement.

‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar acted unilaterally^[10] by killing him, whereas killing him was the responsibility of the Khalifah, not ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu sons. However, the Imam may pardon the one who acts unilaterally.^[11]

Al Hurmuzan’s blood was protected before his participation in the conspiracy to kill ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He was one of the Persians whom Khosrow had delegated to fight against the Muslims. The Muslims captured him and brought him to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whereupon he portrayed his conversion to Islam. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu showed him mercy and set him free, and he became a freed slave of the Muslims.

When ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma that you and your father wanted to increase the number of heretics in Madinah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma replied:

 

إن شئت أن نقتلهم

If you wish, we can kill them.

 

Here is Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, who was more knowledgeable than ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar and much more religious and superior. He asked ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu permission for him to kill all the heretics of the Persians who were in Madinah, as they were accused of corruption. He believed such a thing was permissible. How could ‘Ubaidullah not believe it was permissible to kill al Hurmuzan, who was accused of participating in the plot to assassinate the Khalifah?

Perhaps the reason some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum refused to kill ‘Ubaidullah was that they had doubts about al Hurmuzan’s protection. Was he among the aggressors who deserved to be exiled? Or was he among the participants in the murder of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu who deserved to be killed?

Jurists have differences of opinion regarding involvement in murder, when some directly commit the crime but others do not. It has been said that retaliatory punishment is only on the direct perpetrator, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Others have said that if the cause is strong, then retaliatory punishment is due on both the direct perpetrator and the cause, such as the coercer and the coerced, and witnesses to adultery and qisas if they retract and say, “We did it intentionally.” This is the view of the majority, such as Malik, al Shafi’i, and Ahmed.

Ibn Taymiyyah states:

 

وإذا كان الهرمزان ممن أعان على قتل عمر جاز قتله في أحد القولين قصاصا وعمر هو القائل في المقتول لو تمالأ عليه أهل صنعاء لأقدتهم به

If al Hurmuzan was among those who aided in the murder of ‘Umar, it is permissible to kill him in retaliation according to one of two opinions. ‘Umar is the one who said regarding the murdered person, “If the people of San’a’ conspired against him, I would retaliate against them.”^[12]

 

Likewise, people have also disagreed over the death penalty for an Imam’s killer, whether he should be punished by hadd or by qisas. Some have said that he should be killed as a hadd just as a murderer is killed in war as a hadd, because killing the Imam entails widespread corruption, greater than the corruption of highway robbers. Thus, their killer is fighting against Allah and His Prophet, spreading corruption throughout the land.

Furthermore, al Hurmuzan had no guardians seeking his blood money; his guardian was the ruler. The ruler has the right to kill his killer or pardon him in exchange for blood money, lest the rights of Muslims be lost. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu pardoned his killer and deemed it appropriate to give the blood money to the family of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, due to ‘Umar’s debt, as a form of assistance to his family. This is one of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu virtues, for which he is praised and not criticised, as previously mentioned.

Blood money belongs to the Muslims. The ruler has the right to spend it on appropriate expenditures, and to leave it to the family of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which is part of what they are entitled to from the Muslims.

In any case, it was a matter of ijtihad, therefore, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu should not be criticised for what he did based on his own ijtihad.^[13]

As for ‘Ubaidullah’s fear that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu might implement the death penalty on him after ‘Uthman’s murder, this is not true. There is no authentic chain for this in the sources I have seen. This cannot be expected from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because the ruling on this issue was passed on the protection of his blood, and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not expected to consider it permissible to overturn it. Furthermore, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not the guardian of the murdered person. The guardian of the murdered person did not seek retaliation because there was no guardian. After ‘Uthman’s pardon and his ruling to spare his life, there is nothing that would justify his killing. Ibn Taymiyyah did not know of any differences of opinion among the Muslims regarding this matter.

Can the blood of the third Khalifah, who was promised Jannat and a Companion of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, be permissible, because he did not implement the hadd on a man who killed a person whose iman was questionable and who was accused of hypocrisy, waging war against Allah and His Messenger, and spreading corruption on earth?

It is well known that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was one of the most abstinent of people about shedding blood and one of the most patient when his dignity was attacked and towards those who sought to shed his blood, as will be discussed later. He refused to fight those who rebelled against him, knowing that they wanted to kill him and that he was right and they were wrong. He also rejected the offers of his supporters, all out of fear that he could be the first to succeed Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, from amongst his Ummah, with the sword and shedding blood.

Thus, this exposes the invalidity of the accusation that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu permitted the shedding of Muslim blood by not implementing the hadd of Allah, as claimed by some people.^[14]

 

b. Losing the ring

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wore a ring of gold or silver. The stone of the ring was towards his palm. “Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah” was engraved on it. People began to adopt a similar ring. When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saw that they had adopted it, he threw it away and said, “I will never wear it again.” Thereafter, he wore a silver ring, and people adopted silver rings.

The wearing of this ring was inherited by the Khalifas after him, i.e., Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, until it fell into the well of Aris.^[15]

Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu explains the story of how it got lost and the search for it, saying:

 

إن عثمان جلس على بئر أريس فأخرج الخاتم فجعل يعبث به فسقط فاختلفنا ثلاثة أيام مع عثمان ننزح البئر فلم نجده

‘Uthman sat by the well of Aris, took out his ring, and began to fiddle with it. It fell down. We went back and forth^[16] for three days with ‘Uthman, trying to drain the well, yet we did not find it.^[17]

 

In a narration by Muslim,^[18] it is stated that the one who dropped the ring was Mu’ayqib.^[19]

The narrations of Ibn Sa’d and al Nasa’i reveal the date when the ring was lost, that it had been in ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu hand for six years. That is, it occurred six years after ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu assumed the Caliphate.

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar states:

 

قال بعض العلماء كان في خاتمه من السر شيء مما كان في خاتم سليمان عليه السلام لأن سليمان لما فقد خاتمه ذهب ملكه وعثمان لما فقد خاتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم انتقض عليه الأمر وخرج عليه الخارجون وكان ذلك مبدأ الفتنة التي أفضت إلى قتله واتصلت إلى آخر الزمان

Some scholars say: There was something secret in his ring like what was in the ring of Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam, because when Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam lost his ring, his kingdom was lost. When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu lost the ring of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his rule collapsed and rebels rebelled against him. This was the beginning of the fitnah that led to his murder and continued until the end of time.^[20]

 

All of this requires authentic evidence; otherwise, there is no point or benefit in it, because the Caliphate of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not end by the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rather, eminent Khalifas succeeded him, led by ‘Ali, then Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

I have not come across a single authentic narration indicating that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman criticised him for this and justified their rebellion against him because of it.

There is nothing in losing the ring of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that warrants rebellion against the Imam, let alone his murder—if it is true that they justified their rebellion against him because of losing the ring. Otherwise, as mentioned above, I have not found any evidence for this.

 

c. Returning al Hakam and his son Marwan to Madinah

It has not been proven that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu justified their rebellion against him because of this. It has only been mentioned in some later books. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli, who died in 726 AH, mentioned it.

Ibn Taymiyyah narrated from him that he said:

 

وطرد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الحكم بن أبي العاص عم عثمان من المدينة ومعه ابنه مروان فلم يزل هو وابنه طريدين في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر فلما ولي عثمان آواه ورده إلى المدينة وجعل مروان كاتبه وصاحب تدبيره مع أن الله قال لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expelled al Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As, the uncle of ‘Uthman, from Madinah, along with his son Marwan. He and his son remained exiled during the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar. When ‘Uthman came into power, he sheltered him and returned him to Madinah, making Marwan his secretary and administrator, even though Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said, “You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger.”^[21],[22]

 

Ibn Taymiyyah responded to him in several ways, the most important of which are:

• Many scholars have questioned the authenticity of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam banishment of al Hakam, saying: He left of his own free will and the incident of his banishment has no known chain.
• If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam expelled al Hakam, it was not from Madinah, as al Hilli claimed, but rather from Makkah, because the Tulaqa’^[23] did not reside in Madinah during the lifetime of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Had he expelled him from Madinah, he would have sent him to Makkah, and none of the Tulaqa’, including al Hakam, emigrated to Madinah.
• Marwan was, during the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, a young child at the early age of discernment, either seven years old or a little younger or older. He had no sin for which he would have been banished.
• If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam punished a person by banishment, it is not necessary for him to remain in exile forever, as this is not known for any sin. There is no sin in the Shari’ah for which the perpetrator remains in permanent exile. The maximum prescribed exile is one year, which is the exile of the adulterer and the effeminate person until he repents from his effeminacy.

Therefore, if the ruler’s punishment is for a sin until he repents, then if he repents, the punishment is dropped from him. If it is for a past sin, then it is a matter of ijtihad for which no amount has been prescribed and no time has been set.

If that is the case, then the exile was at the end of the Hijrah, thus, its period was not long during the era of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. However, when ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the Khalifah, its period lengthened. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu had previously interceded for ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when the death penalty was due on him due his apostasy. ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu intercession was accepted for him and he pledged allegiance to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Then, how could his intercession not be accepted in this ruling?

In fact, scholars have narrated that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu requested the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam permission to bring him back and permission was granted. His sin was less than that of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, and ‘Abdullah’s story is well known. As for the story of al Hakam, most of those who mention it only mention it in a mursal^[24] form. It has been mentioned by historians, who often lie in their narrations and whose transmissions are rarely free of additions or omissions. Thus, there was no authentic narration that would warrant criticising someone lower than ‘Uthman.^[25]

 

It is clear from the above mentioned that the accusation against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu came later and that it has not been proven to be from those who rebelled against him. Rather, it came from some of his enemies after his martyrdom.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s detailed response to this has been presented, leaving no doubt in the heart of any sincere seeker of the truth.

 

d. The exile of Abu Dharr

Among the matters for which I have not found any chain and which are well known that the rebels used to justify their revolt against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the alleged expulsion of Abu Dharr from Madinah to al Rabadhah.

This is because Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu left Madinah for Greater Syria, in accordance with the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instruction to leave it when the construction reached Sal’, as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him:

 

إذا بلغ البناء سلعا فاخرج منها أي من المدينة

When the construction reaches Sal’, then leave it, i.e., Madinah.^[26]

 

According to some narrations, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam specified the direction to which he should leave by pointing with his hand toward Greater Syria.^[27]

This narration has a sahih chain till Muhammad ibn Sirin, but he did not meet Abu Dharr. He was born around 33 AH,^[28] the same year in which Abu Dharr passed away.^[29] However, this narration is the strongest in this chapter, despite its weaknesses. It is the only narration that explains the reason for Abu Dharr’s relocation from Madinah to Greater Syria. In Greater Syria, Abu Dharr held a solitary opinion regarding wealth, unlike the rest of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. He believed that it was not permissible for a Muslim to accumulate any wealth.

Ibn ‘Abdul Barr states:

 

وردت عن أبي ذر آثار كثيرة تدل على أنه كان يذهب إلى أن كل مال مجموع يفضل عن القوت وسداد العيش فهو كنز يذم فاعله وأن آية الوعيد نزلت في ذلك

Many narrations have been transmitted from Abu Dharr indicating that he believed that any accumulated wealth in excess of food and livelihood is hoarding, its perpetrator is rebuked, and that the verse of warning was revealed regarding this.^[30]

 

The verse of warning is:

 

وَٱلَّذِينَ يَكۡنِزُونَ ٱلذَّهَبَ وَٱلۡفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ فَبَشِّرۡهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٖ

And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, give them tidings of a painful punishment.^[31]

 

All the other Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum disagreed with him. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr states:

 

وخالفه جمهور الصحابة ومن بعدهم وحملوا الوعيد على مانعي الزكاة وأصح ما تمسكوا به حديث طلحة وغيره في قصة الأعرابي حيث قال هل عليّ غيرها قال لا إلا أن تطوع

The majority of the Companions and those who came after them disagreed with him and applied the warning to those who withhold Zakat. The most authentic narration which they cite as evidence is the hadith of Talhah and others in the story of the Bedouin, where he said, “Do I have to give anything else?”

He [the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] replied, “No, unless you give voluntarily.”^[32]

 

Some scholars believe that what Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu used as evidence was at the initial stages, and they cited as evidence the verse:

ﯳ ﯴ ﯵ ﯶ ﯷ

And they ask you what they should spend. Say, “The excess (beyond needs).”^[33]

 

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned:

 

أن وجوب إنفاق ما فضل على الكفاية كان في أول الأمر ثم نسخ ونقل عن ابن عبد البر أن الجمهور على أن الكنز المذموم ما لم تؤد زكاته ويشهد له حديث أبي هريرة مرفوعا إذا أديت زكاة مالك فقد أديت ما عليك فذكر بعض ما تقدم من الطرق ثم قال ولم يخالف في ذلك إلا طائفة من أهل الزهد كأبي ذر

The obligation to spend what was in excess of what is sufficient was during the initial stages, then it was abrogated. He quoted from Ibn ‘Abdul Barr that the vast majority of scholars are of the view that the blameworthy treasure is that from which Zakat has not been discharged. This is supported by the marfu’ hadith^[34] of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “If you pay the Zakat on your wealth, you have paid what is due upon you.”

He mentioned some of the chains mentioned above, then said, “Only a group of ascetics, such as Abu Dharr, disagreed with this.”^[35]

 

It appears that Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was unaware of the abrogating verse. Regarding this, Aws states:

 

كان أبو ذر يسمع الحديث من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيه الشدة ثم يخرج إلى قومه ثم يرخص فيه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلا يسمع الرخصة ويتعلق بالأمر الأول

Abu Dharr would hear a hadith from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which contained strictness, then he would go out to his people. Then the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would grant concession in that matter, but he would not hear the concession and thus hold on to the first command.^[36]

 

This demonstrates the intensity of his eagerness and his haste to convey the hadith to the people. Perhaps Aws is referring to his view on this issue. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best.

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam explicitly stated that there is no Zakat on less than five awsuq,^[37] nor on less than five camels, nor on less than five ounces.^[38]

Al Hafiz states:

 

ومفهوم الحديث أن ما زاد على الخمس ففيه صدقة ومقتضاه أن كل مال أخرجت منه الصدقة فلا وعيد على صاحبه فلا يسمى ما يفضل بعد إخراجه الصدقة كنزا وقال ابن رشيد فإن ما دون الخمس لا تجب فيه الزكاة وقد عفي عن الحق فيه فليس بكنز قطعا والله قد أثنى على فاعل الزكاة ومن أثنى عليه في واجب حق المال لم يلحقه ذم من جهة ما أثنى عليه فيه وهو المال ثم عقب الحافظ بقوله ويتخلص أن يقال ما لم تجب فيه الصدقة لا يسمى كنزا لأنه معفو عنه فليكن ما أخرجت منه الزكاة كذلك لأنه عفي عنه بإخراج ما وجب منه فلا يسمى كنزا

The meaning of the hadith is that whatever exceeds one-fifth, there is Zakat due on it. Its implication is that any wealth from which Zakat has been given, there is no warning to its owner. Thus, what remains after Zakat has been given will not be called hoarding. Ibn Rashid^[39] said, “Zakat is not due on less than one-fifth, and one is absolved of his responsibility in that. Thus, it is certainly not hoarding. Allah has praised the one who discharges Zakat, and whoever is praised for his obligatory duty of wealth cannot be rebuked for the same thing that he is being praised for, which is wealth.”

Al Hafiz then commented by saying: It can be concluded by saying that anything on which Zakat is not obligatory cannot be called hoarding, because it is pardoned. Therefore, that from which Zakat is discharged should also be likewise, because a person is absolved by discharging what is obligatory from it, so it is not called hoarding.^[40]

 

Abu Dharr’s return to Madinah

In Greater Syria, a dispute arose between Abu Dharr and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma regarding this matter. Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu used to say that the verse, “And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, give them tidings of a painful punishment,”^[41] was revealed regarding the People of the Book, while Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu believed it was revealed regarding the Muslims and the People of the Book.

It is reported that Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu believed that any wealth that remained with its owner, whether he discharged its Zakat or not, was hoarding, for which he would be punished. He did not believe in saving anything at all. As for Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he disagreed with Abu Dharr and believed that if Zakat is discharged, then there is no punishment for it.^[42]

The rest of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and scholars who came after them hold the same view that what is meant by hoarding in the verse is that on which Zakat is not discharged. If it does not reach five awsuq, or reaches it and its Zakat is discharged, then it is not hoarding according to the Shari’ah, and there is no punishment for its accumulator.^[43]

Ibn ‘Abdul Barr said:

 

وخالفه جمهور الصحابة ومن بعدهم وحملوا الوعيد على مانعي الزكاة وأصح ما تمسكوا به حديث طلحة وغيره في قصة الأعرابي حيث قال هل عليّ غيرها قال لا إلا أن تطوع

The majority of the Companions and those who came after them disagreed with him and applied the warning to those who withhold Zakat. The most authentic narration which they cite as evidence is the hadith of Talhah and others in the story of the Bedouin, where he said, “Do I have to give anything else?” He [the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] replied, “No, unless you give voluntarily.”^[44]

 

Al Hafiz preferred the view that this was the case in the initial stages. Ibn Battal proved this through the verse:

 

ﯳ ﯴ ﯵ ﯶ ﯷ

And they ask you what they should spend. Say, “The excess (beyond needs).”^[45]

 

That is, what is in excess of that which is sufficient. This was obligatory initially, but was then abrogated.^[46]

Following this disagreement, Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, mentioning what had happened between him and Abu Dharr. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent a letter to Abu Dharr asking him to come to Madinah to prevent strife^[47] and to live with him there.^[48]

When Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu arrived in Madinah, he went to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and said to him:

 

أخفتني فوالله لو أمرتني أن أتعلق بعروة قتب حتى أموت لفعلت

You scared me. By Allah, if you ordered me to cling to the rope of a saddlebag until I die, I would have done so.^[49]

 

Abu Dharr feared that ‘Uthman would consider him to be one of the Khawarij, whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam described as having shaved heads. Therefore, he removed his turban from his head and said:

 

إني والله يا أمير المؤمنين ما أنا منهم ولا أدركهم ولو أمرتني أن أعض على عرقوبتي قتب لعضضت عليها حتى يأتيني الموت وأنا عاض عليها

By Allah, O Amir al Mu’minin, I am not one of them, nor will I ever reach them. If you ordered me to bite my shanks, I would bite them until death comes to me while I am still biting them.^[50]

 

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied to him:

 

صدقت يا أبا ذر إنما أرسلنا إليك لخير لتجاورنا بالمدينة

You have spoken the truth, Abu Dharr. We sent for you for good only, so that you may live close to us in Madinah.

 

However, Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had been instructed by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to leave Madinah when the constructions reach Sal’. He left when the construction reached Sal’ to Greater Syria, as mentioned above. When he was returned to Madinah, he would have to leave Madinah, even if it were to a place other than Greater Syria. Therefore, he said to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

لا حاجة لي في ذاك إيذن لي في الربذة

I have no need for that. Permit me to stay in al Rabadhah.^[51]

 

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:

 

نعم ونأمر لك بنعم من نعم الصدقة تغدو عليك وتروح فتصيب من رسلها

Yes, and we will order for you some of the livestock of charity to come to you in the morning and evening, so that you may receive its milk.

 

Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:

 

لا حاجة لنا في ذاك يكفي أبا ذر صرمته

We have no need for that. Abu Dharr’s flock is sufficient for him.

 

He then left.

In another narration, it is mentioned that when he arrived in Madinah, the people crowded around him so much that it was as if they had never seen him before. He mentioned this to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as if complaining to him about it. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:

 

إن شئت تنحيت فكنت قريبا

If you wish, you can move away and be close by.

 

This is what made him settle in al Rabadhah. When he was asked about the reason for his residence at al Rabadhah, he mentioned this incident and said:

 

ولو أمروا علي حبشيا لسمعت ولأطعت

If they had appointed an Abyssinian over me, I would have listened and obeyed.^[52]

 

This is the truth, beyond doubt. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not banish Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rather, he sought his permission and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu granted it. However, ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu enemies were spreading rumours that he banished him. Therefore, when Ghalib al Qattan asked al Hasan al Basri:

 

عثمان أخرج أبا ذر

Did ‘Uthman expel Abu Dharr?

 

Al Hasan replied:

 

لا معاذ الله

No, Allah forbid.^[53]

 

Everything that has been narrated about ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu banishing him to al Rabadhah is narrated through da’if chains that are not free from extreme flaws, along with its text being objectionable due to its contradiction with sahih and hasan narrations, which indicate that Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sought permission to go to al Rabadhah and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu granted him permission.^[54]

In fact, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent for him in Greater Syria so that he could live close to him in Madinah. When he returned from Greater Syria, he said to him, “We sent for you for good only, so that you may live close to us in Madinah.”^[55] He also said to him, “Stay with me, and the camels will be brought to you in the morning and evening.”^[56] Would someone who says this to him banish him?

His banishment was only mentioned in a narration of Ibn Sa’d, which contains Buraydah ibn Sufyan al Aslami, regarding whom al Hafiz Ibn Hajar said:

 

ليس بالقوي

He is not strong.

 

Can a da’if narration be accepted and preferred over sahih and hasan narrations?

This incident was exploited in the most abhorrent manner. The rumour was spread that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu banished Abu Dharr to al Rabadhah, and that this was something that he was blamed for by the rebels. I have not come across anything that indicates that he was blamed for this by those who rebelled against him, or that they justified rebelling against him because of it. The earliest to mention this is Ibn al ‘Arabi, who passed away in the year 542 AH.^[57] Then al Muhibb al Tabari (d. 694 AH) responded to this slander.^[58]

Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli (d. 726 AH) criticised ‘Uthman for this and added that ‘Uthman had severely beaten Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.^[59] Ibn Taymiyyah responded to this with a comprehensive and powerful refutation.^[60]

The predecessors of this Ummah knew this truth. When al Hasan al Basri was asked, “Did ‘Uthman expel Abu Dharr?”

He replied, “No, Allah forbid.”^[61]

Whenever Ibn Sirin was told that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu had chased Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu out, he would be greatly distressed and say:

 

هو خرج من قبل نفسه ولم يسيره عثمان

He left of his own accord; ‘Uthman did not chase him.^[62]

 

It has been mentioned in a narration with a sahih chain that when Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw the large number of people around him, he feared unrest. He mentioned this to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as if seeking his permission to leave.

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him:

 

إن شئت تنحيت فكنت قريبا

If you wish, you can move away and be close by.

 

 

NEXT⇒ The Instigators of the Fitnah and its Inception

---

^[1]  Hadd, plural hudud: a punishment stated in the Shari’ah for encroaching on the limits set by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.

^[2]  Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/87, 100.

^[3]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah, 6/276.

^[4]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/280.

^[5]  It will be mentioned later that al Hurmuzan had no guardians seeking his blood money.

^[6]  Al Muhibb at-Tabari: Al Riyad an-Nadirah, 3/87, 100.

^[7]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/281.

^[8]  Qisas is a principle in the Shari’ah that deals with retaliation, similar to the principle of ‘an eye for an eye.’

^[9]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/281.

^[10]  Ifta’ata: He acted alone and oppressively. (Al Muzhir fi ‘Ulum al Lughah, 2/220.)

^[11]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/284.

^[12]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/280.

^[13]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/277-282.

^[14]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/284.

^[15]  Sahih Muslim, 3/1656. Aris (with a fathah on the hamzah) is a well-known well near Masjid Quba in Madinah. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 6/6.)

^[16]  Meaning: going and returning, going down the well and coming out from it. Ibn Sa’d’s narration has it as, “We searched for it with ‘Uthman for three days, yet we could not find it.” (Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 10/329.)

^[17]  Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 10/328.

^[18]  Sahih Muslim, 3/1656.

^[19]  Mu’ayqib ibn Abi Fatimah al Dawsi, an ally of the Banu ‘Abd Shams, one of the first to emigrate. He made the two emigrations and participated in battles. He was in charge of the treasury for ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and passed away during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman or ‘Ali. (Al Taqrib, pg. 6825.) He was responsible for ‘Uthman’s ring. (Ibn Hajar: Al Isabah, 3/451.)

^[20]  Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 10/328.

^[21]  Surah al Mujadilah: 22.

^[22]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/265-269.

^[23]  Tulaqa’ are individuals who were given amnesty by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after the conquest of Makkah.

^[24]  A mursal hadith is when a transmitter cites someone or the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without actually having met him.

^[25]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/267.

^[26]  Al Hakim: Al Mustadrak, 3/344, through ‘Abdullah ibn al Samit — from Umm Dharr — from Abu Dharr, al Hakim deemed it sahih, but al Dhahabi maintained silence about it; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/226-227; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1037, both through Ibn Sirin — from Abu Dharr; al Dhahabi reported it from Zaid ibn Khalid al Juhani — from Abu Dharr; al Hafiz Ibn Hajar reported it from Abu Ya’la — from Zaid ibn Wahb — from Abu Dharr (al Fath, 3/274), and maintained silence about it; I did not find it in the printed version of Musnad Abi Ya’la, so perhaps it is in al Kabir or it is in al Saghir but was not printed; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/94.

^[27]  This came in the narration of Ibn Sirin. The narration of Zaid ibn Wahb has an explicit text stating, “So travel to Greater Syria.” It is regarding this that Abu Dharr said:

 

فلما بلغ البناء سلعا قدمت الشام فسكنت بها

When the building reached Sal’, I came to Greater Syria and settled there.

 

^[28]  Al Mizzi states that he was born two years before the end of the Caliphate of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. (Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/1209.)

^[29]  Ibn Hajar: Taqrib al Tahdhib, Hadith: 8087.

^[30]  Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 3/273. I did not find this statement of Ibn ‘Abdul Barr in his book al Isti’ab.

^[31]  Surah al Tawbah: 34.

^[32]  Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 3/273.

^[33]  Surah al Baqarah: 219.

^[34]  A marfu’ hadith is a narration elevated to the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as opposed to a mawquf hadith, which is a narration raised to a Sahabi, and a mursal hadith, which is attributed to a Tabi’i.

^[35]  Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 3/273.

^[36]  Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 3/273.

^[37]  Wasaq, plural awsuq: a historical Islamic unit of weight and volume.

^[38]  Sahih Muslim, 2/673.

^[39]  Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn Rashid al Fahri al Sabti was born in 657 AH and passed away in 721 AH. He wrote a book: Tarjuman al Tarajim ‘ala Abwab al Bukhari, in which he elaborated at length but did not complete it. (Ibn Hajar: Al Durar al Kaminah, 4/229-231.)

^[40]  Fath al Bari, 3/272.

^[41]  Surah al Tawbah: 34.

^[42]  Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 3/271; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/226; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1073-1038, its isnad is sahih.

^[43]  Fath al Bari, 3/273.

^[44]  Fath al Bari, 3/273.

^[45]  Surah al Baqarah: 219.

^[46]  Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 3/271; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/226; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1073-1038, its isnad is sahih.

^[47]  Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 3/271; Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 4/226; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1073-1038, its isnad is sahih.

^[48]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1036-1037, its isnad is hasan.

^[49]  ‘Abdur Razzaq: Al Musannaf, 11/332; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/225, its isnad is sahih.

^[50]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/232; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1035-1036, its isnad is sahih.

^[51]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1036-1037, its isnad is hasan.

^[52]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/226; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1036-1037, its isnad is sahih.

^[53]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1036-1037, its isnad is sahih.

^[54]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1036-1037, its isnad is hasan.

^[55]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 4/226-227, its isnad is sahih till Ibn Sirin who was born in 33 AH and did not witness the fitnah.

^[56]  Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 76, response on pg. 85-88.

^[57]  Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 76, response on pg. 85-88.

^[58]  Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/83, response on 3/94.

^[59]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/183.

^[60]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/271, 355.

^[61]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1037, its isnad is sahih.

^[62]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, pg. 1037, its isnad is sahih.