Before we discuss this matter, we would like to uncover some facts that have been concealed for far too long from many people, including the knowledgeable. Firstly, generally the Shia have made falsehood their salient feature and gave it a religious coat with the name of Taqiyyah, to such an extent that they say:
لا إيمان لمن لا تقية له
They have slandered Muhammad al Baqir by falsely attributing this narration to him.
They boldly fabricated multiple lies about Sayyidina ‘Ali and the Ahlul Bayt radiya Llahu ‘anhum causing them much sorrow. These were the very people who considered them their leaders, which in itself caused them grief. One of their great biographers, al Kashshi, narrates from Ibn Sinan:
قال أبوعبد الله (ع) إنا أهل بيت صادقون لا نخلو من كذاب يكذب علينا ويسقط صدقنا بكذبه علينا عند الناس كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أصدق الناس لهجة وأصدق البرية كلها وكان مسيلمة يكذب عليه وكان أمير المؤمنين (ع) أصدق من برأ الله بعد رسول الله وكان الذي يكذب عليه ويعمل في تكذيب صدقه ويفتري على الله الكذب عبد الله بن سبأ لعنه الله وكان أبوعبد الله الحسين بن علي (ع) قد ابتلي بالمختار ثم ذكر أبوعبد الله الحارث الشامي وبنان فقال كانا يكذبان على علي بن الحسين (ع) ثم ذكر المغيرة بن سعيد وبزيعا والسرى وأبا الخطاب ومعمرا وبشارا الأشعري وحمزة اليزيدي وصائدا النهدي فقال لعنهم الله إنا لا نخلو من كذاب يكذب علينا كفانا الله مؤنة كل كذاب وأذاقهم الله حر الحديد
Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam said, “We belong to an honest family. However, there will always be a fabricator who spreads lies about us and hides our true statements from people with the lies he spreads about us. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the most truthful of people in speech and was the most honest amongst all creation, yet Musaylamah would spread lies about him. The Leader of the Believers ‘alayh al Salam was the most truthful person of Allah’s creation after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The person who would spread lies about him, try to alter his statements, and falsely attribute statements to Allah was ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. ‘Abdullah ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali was tested with al Mukhtar.” He then mentioned Abu ‘Abdullah al Harith al Shami and Bannan saying, “They used to attribute falsities to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam.” He then mentioned Mughirah ibn Sa’id, Bazi’, Sari, Abu al Khattab, Ma’mar, Bashshar al Ash’ari, Hamzah al Yazidi and Sa’id al Nahdi and said, “May Allah’s curse be upon them. We are never free from a liar that attributes lies to us. Allah is enough for us against every liar. May Allah give them a taste of the heat of iron.
Secondly, most of the narrators who mentioned the false claims and slanders, which led to the assassination of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the opening of the door of corruption amongst the Believers, were Shia. They blew things out of proportion, exaggerated the matter, and kindled the fire. Historians narrated random narrations from them without verification and evaluation. They did not differentiate fact from fib, right from wrong, and scrawny from plump. Historians and narrators took all of these fabricated narrations from them in order to call towards their falsehood, support their opinions, and realise their goals and motives.
Thirdly, they did not narrate these incidents from those who witnessed them. Instead, it was mere hearsay, fabrications, and falsehood. Many a time, the narrators related details about incidents that took place decades before they were even born. This will be explained later on.
Fourthly, the narrators along with their dishonesty, treachery, and invitation towards their school of thought showed bias when relating these narrations and incidents. They followed the group who blew into the ashes and kindled the fire of corruption. They strove and made a conscious effort to spread corruption using their pens and tongues, as their predecessors strove with their bodies and souls. Due to this, it is necessary for every author who wishes to understand the facts about accepting their narrations to exercise caution, with a vigilant eye, being sure to avoid doubtful matters. One should exercise caution concerning those narrations that are not supported by other narrations which have been related by reliable narrators who are not involved in fabrication in any way. It is for this reason that the narrations that have been narrated only by Abu Mikhnaf, al Waqidi, and the two al Kalbis are not considered when deducing and deriving rulings.
Unfortunately, they have been relied upon for narrations that relate incidents about the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—the supporters and guides of this Ummah. The former are the heirs of their predecessors, who were the heads of the rebels and transgressors. They were the servants of the materialistic Jews and fire worshippers or were deceived by them. Nonetheless, they followed their way and completely adopted their beliefs and ideologies. They treaded the path that was later known as the Goebbels Way [the summary of which was]:
Lie as much as you can until you yourself believe it to be true without hesitation, shame, and modesty.
It is amazing how much they lied, how ridiculous their statements were, and how bold they were when making them. We have made sure to mention only that which is factual and has been proven by clear evidence. We did not merely mention our assumptions, but rather considered only those sources considered trustworthy and reliable by the Shīʿah. The sources are listed below:
Muhsin al Amin mentions in his book, A’yan al Shia, under the title: Those amongst the Shia that wrote about expeditions, history and wars. He says:
أبومخنف لوط بن يحيى الأزدي الغامدي قال النجاشي من أصحاب الأخبار بالكوفة ووجههم وصنف كتبا كثيرة منها فتوح الشام العراق خراسان الجمل صفين النهر الغارات مقتل الحسين (ع) وغيرها وقال ابن النديم في الفهرست قرأت بخط أحمد بن الحارث البزاز قال العلماء أبومخنف بأمر العراق وأخبارها وفتوحها يزيد على غيره والمدائني بأمر خراسان والهند وفارس والواقدي بالحجاز والسيرة وقد اشتركوا في فتوح الشام واثنان من الثلالة شيعة أبومخنف والواقدي
Abu Mikhnaf, Lut ibn Yahya al Azdi al Ghamidi. Al Najashi says about him, “He was one of the narrators of Kufah and was also their representative. He wrote many books, some of which are Futuh al Sham, al ‘Iraq, Khurasan, al Jamal, Siffin, al Nahr, al Gharat, Maqtal al Hussain, etc.”
Ibn al Nadim says in al Fihrist, “I read in the handwriting of Ahmed ibn al Harith al Khazzaz that the scholars said, ‘Abu Mikhnaf narrates more than anyone else about the news and conquests of Iraq, al Mada’ini with regards to Khurasan, India, and Persia, and al Waqidi concerning Hijaz and Sirah. They all shared the credit of writing about the conquests of Syria.’” Two out of the three of them were Shia: Abu Mikhnaf and al Waqidi.”
As you know, al Najashi has mentioned him amongst those who authored books for the Shia. He has added the following to the list of books mentioned by al Muhsin: Kitab al Saqifah, Kitab al Shura, Kitab Qatl ‘Uthman, Kitab al Hakamayn, Maqtal Amir al Mu’minin, Qatl al Hussain, Maqtal Hujr ibn ‘Adi, Akhbar al Mukhtar, Akhbar al Zayyat, Akhbar Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Maqtal Muhammad, and other books besides these. As he mentioned that he was the most profound scholar of the narrators regarding Kufah and was also the representative. He would be content with his narrations. He has narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam.
Al Tusi mentions that his father was one of the companions of ‘Ali, as he mentions in his Rijal.
Al Qummi mentions him in his book, saying:
لوط بن يحيى بن سعيد بن مخنف بن سليم الأزدي شيخ أصحاب الأخبار بالكوفة ووجههم كما عن جش وتوفي سنة 157 يروي عن الصادق (ع) ويروي عنه هشام الكلبي وجده مخنف بن سليم صحابي شهد الجمل في أصحاب علي (ع) حاملا راية الأزد فاستشهد في تلك الوقعة سنة 36 وكان أبومخنف من أعاظم مؤرخي الشيعة ومع اشتهار تشيعه اعتمد عليه علماء السنة في النقل عنه كالطبري وابن الأثير وغيرهما وليعلم أن لأبي مخنف كتبا كثيرة في التاريخ والسير منها كتاب مقتل الحسين (ع) الذي نقل منه أعاظم العلماء المتقدمين واعتمدوا عليه
Lut ibn Yahya ibn Sa’id ibn Mikhnaf ibn Salim al Azdi was the senior narrator and representative in Kufah as reported from al Najashi. He died in the year 157 AH. He narrates from al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam and Hisham al Kalbi narrates from him. His grandfather, Mikhnaf ibn Salim, was a Companion who took part in the Battle of Jamal alongside ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam, holding the flag of the Azd. He was martyred in that battle, in 36 AH. Abu Mikhnaf was one of the greatest Shia Historians. Despite being a famous Shia, many Sunni scholars relied on his narrations, such as al Tabari, Ibn al Athir, and others. Abu Mikhnaf authored many books on history and biographies. One of these was the book Maqtal al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam, which many great scholars of the past have quoted from and relied upon.
As for the opinion of the Ahlus Sunnah about him, it has been narrated by Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah:
لوط بن يحيى أبومخنف أخباري تالف لا يوثق به تركه أبوحاتم وغيره وقال الدارقطني ضعيف وقال يحيى بن معين ليس بثقة وقال مرة ليس بشيء وقال ابن عدي شيعي محترق صاحب أخبارهم قلت روى عن الصعقي بن زهير وجابر الجعفي ومجالد وروى عنه المدائني وعبد الرحمن بن مغراء ومات قبل السبعين ومائة وقال أبوعبيد الآجري سألت أبا حاتم عنه فنفض يداه وقال أحد يسأل عن هذا وذكره العقيلي في الضعفاء
Lut ibn Yahya, Abu Mikhnaf: A worthless Akhbari, unreliable. Abu Hatim and others have discarded him [suspecting him of forgery].
Daraqutni says, “He is da’if.”
Yahya ibn Ma’in says, “He is not reliable.”
In another instance he said, “He is nothing.”
Ibn ‘Adi says: He is an extremist Shia, reporter of their narrations.
I say: He narrates from al Sa’qi ibn Zuhayr, Jabir al Ju’fi, and Mujalid. Al Mada’ini and ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Maghra’ have narrated from him. He died before 170 AH.
Abu ‘Ubaid al Ajurri says, “When I asked Abu Hatim about him, he shook his hand and said, ‘Does anyone ask about him?’”
Al ‘Uqayli includes him amongst the weak narrators.
Al Dhahabi mentions a similar text in his al Mizan.
Al Dhahabi mentions the same in al Muntaqa quoting from Ibn Taymiyyah’s al Minhaj, under the chapter of those who are known for lying. After mentioning him, he includes the report of Ash-hab ibn al ‘Aziz al Qaisi, who says:
سئل مالك رضي الله عنه عن الرافضة فقال لا تكلمهم ولا ترو عنهم فانهم يكذبون وعن حرملة بن يحيى أنه قال سمعت الشافعي رضي الله عنه يقول لم أر أحدا أشهد بالزور من الرافضة وعن مؤمل بن إهاب الربعي أنه قال سمعت يزيد بن هارون يقول يكتب عن كل مبتدع إذا لم يكن داعية إلا الرافضة فانهم يكذبون وعن محمد بن سعيد الأصفهاني أنه قال سمعت شريك بن عبد الله النخعي يقول أحمل العلم عن كل من لقيته إلا الرافضة فانهم يضعون الحديث ويتخذونه حديثا وعن أبي معاوية أنه قال سمعت الأعمش يقول أدركت الناس وما يسمونهم إلا الكذابين (يعني الروافض) ثم قال نقلا عن شيخ الإسلام ومن تأمل كتب الجرح والتعديل رأى المعروف عن مصنفيها بالكذب في الشيعة أكثر منهم في جميع الطوائف والرافضة يقرون بالكذب حيث يقولون بالتقية
Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu was asked about the Rafidah, so he replied, “Do not speak to them nor narrate from them as they lie.”
It has been narrated from Harmalah ibn Yahya that he said, “I heard al Shafi’i radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying, ‘I never saw anyone more brazen in false testimonies than the Rafidah.’”
It is narrated from Mu’ammal ibn Ihab al Rib’i that he said, “I heard Yazid ibn Harun saying, ‘[Information attained] from any innovator can be written as long as he does not call towards it, except for the Rafidah, as they lie.’”
It is narrated from Muhammad ibn Sa’id al Asfahani that he said, “I heard Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Nakha’i saying, ‘Attain knowledge from whoever you meet except the Rafidah, as they fabricate narrations then consider them as [authentic] narrations.’”
It has narrated from Abu Muawiyah that he said, “I heard al A’mash saying, ‘I met some people who were called nothing but liars; meaning the Rawafid.’ He then mentioned on the authority of Sheikh al Islam, ‘Whoever researches the books of Criticism and Praise will find that most of the scholars that are known by authors for fabricating belong to the Shia sect more than any other sect… The Rafidah attest to lying as they believe in [the doctrine of] Taqiyyah.’”
These are the opinions the scholars, who specialize in the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil (hadith narrator criticism) and in the science of evaluation of narrators, maintain about Abu Mikhnaf. These are the statement of the Scholars, Huffaz and Muhaddithin regarding relying on them.
The gist of what we have said is that both parties, the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah as well as the Shia, agree that Abu Mikhnaf was an unreliable, untrustworthy Shia. As for al Qummi’s statement, “Despite being a famous Shia, many Sunni scholars relied on his narrations, such as al Tabari…” it is nothing but a lie as per the habit of his people. This is because it is well known to those who have researched al Tabari that he has neither written everything that he considered authentic in his Tarikh, nor does he claim that all that he quoted is authentic. He explicitly mentions this in the foreword of his book:
فما يكن في كتابي هذا من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه أو يستشنعه سامعه من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها في الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة فليعلم أنه لم يؤت في ذلك من قبلنا وإنما أتي من قبل بعض ناقليه إلينا وأنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا
Some of the narrations that lay in this book of mine which I have sourced from those of the past would be unacceptable and appalling to one reading or listening to it as it cannot be reconciled nor does it hold any intrinsic correct meaning. Know well, that such narrations do not emanate from us, it is from those whom we have narrated from. We have merely quoted them as they were transmitted to us.
As for Ibn al Athir, he has also mentioned in the foreword of his book that he quotes from al Tabari and transmits from him the narrations that he himself quotes from others:
أني قد جمعت في كتابي هذا ما لم يجتمع في كتاب واحد ومن تأمله علم صحة ذلك فابتدأت بالتاريخ الكبير الذي صنفه الإمام أبوجعفر الطبري إذ هو الكتاب المعول عند الكافة عليه والمرجوع عند الاختلاف إليه فاخذت ما فيه من جميع تراجمه لم أخل بترجمة واحدة منها
In this book of mine, I have compiled points that have never before been compiled in a single book. Whoever ponders over it will know that to be true. I began with al Tarikh al Kabir of Imam Abu Jafar al Tabari, as it is the book that is depended on by the one who considers it sufficient for him and that which is referred to when there is any dispute. I copied all of its titles without leaving a single one out.
This is the reality of Abu Mikhnaf and the reality of al Tabari and Ibn al Athir considering him reliable.
As for al Waqidi, al Muhsin al Shia mentions about him:
ومحمد بن عمر الواقدي قال ابن النديم كان يتشيع حسن المذهب يلزم التقية وهو الذي روى أن عليا عليه السلام كان من معجزات النبي (ص) كالعصا لموسى (ص) وإحياء الموتى لعيسى بن مريم عليه السلام وغير ذلك من الأخبار عالما بالمغازي والسير والفتوح والأخبار خلف 600 قمطر كتبا كل قمطر حمل رجلين وقبل ذلك بيع له كتب بألفي دينار وكان له غلامان مملوكان يكتبان الليل والنهار له التاريخ الكبير المغازي المبعث أخبار مكة فتوح الشام فتوح العراق الجمل مقتل الحسين عليه السلام السيرة الى غير ذلك من الكتب الكثيرة في السير والتاريخ
As for Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi, Ibn al Nadim says [about him], “He would observe Shia tendencies; sound in religion. He strongly observed Taqiyyah. He is the one who narrates that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam was a miracle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam just as the staff was the miracle of Musa ‘alayh al Salam and reviving the dead the miracle of ‘Isa ibn Maryam ‘alayh al Salam. [He narrated] other narrations as well. He possessed knowledge of war, expeditions, conquests, and narrations. He left behind six hundred bookshelves; each bookshelf had to be carried by two men, and before that, some of his books were sold for two thousand gold coins. He had two slaves that would write day and night. He has written al Tarikh al Kabir, al Maghazi, al Mab’ath, Akhbar Makkah, Futuh al Sham, Futuh al ‘Iraq, al Jamal, Maqtal al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam, al Sirah, and many other biographies and books on history.
Al Qummi mentions:
أبوعبد الله محمد بن عمر بن واقد المدني كان إماما عالما له التصانيف والمغازي وفتوح الأمصار وله كتاب الردة وغير ذلك كان من أقدم مؤرخي الإسلام وكتاب مغازيه له مقدمة وشروح باللغة الانجليزية يروي عنه كتابه محمد بن سعد وجماعة من الأعيان وكان الواقدي مع ما ذكرناه من سعة علمه وكثرة حفظه لا يحفظ القرآن ثم روى عن المأمون أنه قال للواقدي أريد أن تصلي الجمعة غدا بالناس قال فامتنع قال لا بد من ذلك فقال لا والله يا أمير المؤمنين ما أحفظ سورة الجمعة حتى يبلغ النصف منها فإذا حفظه بدأ بالنصف الثاني فإذا حفظ النصف الثاني نسي الأول فأتعب المأمون وتعس فقال لعلي بن صالح يا علي احفظه أنت فذكر أنه مثل المأمون لم يقدر على أن يحفظه فقال المأمون اذهب فصل بهم واقرأ أي صورة شئت وروى عن غسان قال صليت خلف الواقدي صلاة الجمعة فقرأ إن هذا لفي الصحف الأولى صحف عيسى وموسى… كان يتشيع حسن المذهب يلزم التقية وهو الذي روى أن عليا عليه السلام كان من معجزات النبي (ص) كالعصا لموسى (ص) وإحياء الموتى لعيسى بن مريم عليه السلام وغير ذلك من الأخبار
Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn Waqid al Madani was an Imam and Scholar. He wrote books about wars and conquests. He also wrote Kitab al Riddah and other books. He is amongst the first historians in the history of Islam. His Kitab al Maghazi has an English foreword and commentaries. Muhammad ibn Sa’d and a group of people narrate his book from him…
Despite what we have mentioned of the knowledge and memory that he possessed, al Waqidi could not memorise the Qur’an. It has been narrated from al Ma’mun that he said to al Waqidi, “I want you to lead the people in Friday prayer tomorrow.” He refused, however al Ma’mun said, “You must do so.”
He then said, “No, O Leader of the Believers. I have not memorised Surah al Jumu’ah.” He had memorised half of it. When he [al-Ma’mun] helped him memorise, he began with the second half. However, by the time he was done memorising the second half, he forgot the first half.
Al Ma’mun became upset, so he said to ‘Ali ibn Salih, “O ‘Ali, you should help him memorise it.” It is mentioned that he too, like al Ma’mun, did not manage to make him memorise it. Al Ma’mun then said, “Go and recite whichever Surah you wish.”
It is narrated from Ghassan that he said, “I performed the Friday Prayer behind al Waqidi, and he recited:
إن هذا لفي الصحف الأولى صحف عيسى وموسى
Indeed, this was mentioned in previous scriptures; the scriptures of ‘Isa and Musa [instead of the scriptures of Ibrahim and Musa].
He would observe Shia tendencies; sound in religion. He strongly observed Taqiyyah. He is the one who narrates that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam was a miracle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam just as the staff was the miracle of Musa ‘alayh al Salam and reviving the dead the miracle of ‘Isa ibn Maryam ‘alayh al Salam.
Al Khuwanasari also mentions him in his book and gives him the title of al Imam al ‘Allam (the knowledgeable leader).
The statements of the experts on biographies and specialists of Jarh wa Ta’dil amongst the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah are mentioned below.
Ibn Hibban says:
كان يروي عن الثقات مقلوبا وعن الأثبات معضلات… وكان أحمد بن حنبل يكذبه…وكان يقول المديني الواقدي يضع الحديث
He would narrate from reliable scholars but change the meaning and mentioned mysterious narrations on the authority of authentic narrators.
Ahmed ibn Hambal considered him a liar.
Al Madini would say, “Al Waqidi fabricates hadith.”
Al Dhahabi says:
مجمع على تركه وقال النسائي: كان يضع الحديث
It is agreed that he be abandoned as a narrator [due to being suspected of forgery].
Al Nasa’i says, “He would fabricate hadith.”
As for Ibn Hajar, he has gathered the opinions of the scholars about him:
Ibn Hajar thereafter related an incident, which indicates his audacity to lie and deceive:
حدثنا عمرو الناقد قال قلت للواقدي تحفظ عن الثوري عن ابن خيثم عن عبد الرحمن بن نبهان عن عبد الرحمن بن حسان بن ثابت عن أبيه في لعن زوارات القبور فقال حدثنا سفيان فقلت أمله علي فأملاه علي بالمسند فقال حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن ثوبان فقلت الحمد لله الذي أوقعك أنت تعرف أنساب الجن و مثل هذا يخفى
‘Amr al Naqid narrated to us that he said to al Waqidi, “Have you memorised from al Thawri the hadith that he narrates from Ibn Khaytham, who narrates from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Nabhan from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Hassan ibn Thabit, who narrates from his father about the curse upon those women who visit the graveyard?”
He said, “Sufyan narrated it to us.”
I said to him, “Dictate it to me,” so he did so with the entire chain.
He said, “‘Abdur Rahman ibn Thawban narrated to us.”
So, I said, “All praise be to Allah, Who defeated you. You know the lineage of the jinn yet this is unknown to you?”
This is al Waqidi and this is his position in the opinion of many great scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. Despite what can be considered to be slight Shia leanings, the Shia attempt to claim him as one of their own is unfounded.
As for Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib and his son, Hisham, Muhsin al Amin has mentioned them in Tabaqat al Mu’arrikhin min al Shia.
Ibn al Nadim al Shia has also mentioned them in his al Fihrist.
Al Najashi also mentions Hisham ibn Muhammad in the following statement:
هشام بن محمد بن السائب بن بشير بن زيد من عمرو بن الحارث بن عبد الحارث بن عزى بن امرئ القيس عامر بن النعمان بن عامر بن عبد ود بن عوف بن كنانة بن عوف بن زيد اللات رفيده بن ثور بن كلب بن وبرة المنذر الناسب العالم بالأيام المشهور بالفضل والعلم وكان يختص بمذهبنا وله الحديث المشهور وقال اعتللت علة عظيمة نسيت علمي فجلست إلى جعفر بن محمد عليه السلام فسقاني العلم في الكأس فعاد إلى علمي وكان أبو عبد الله عليه السلام يقربه ويدينه ويبسطه وله كتب كثيرة منها كتاب مثالب ثقيف كتاب مثالب بني أمية كتاب مقتل عثمان كتاب مقتل أمير المؤمنين كتاب حجر بن عدي كتاب الحكمين كتاب مقتل الحسين عليه السلام كتاب أخبار محمد بن الحنفية وغيرها
Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib ibn Bashir ibn Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Harith ibn ‘Uzza, ibn Imra’ al Qais ‘Ᾱmir ibn al No’man ibn ‘Ᾱmir ibn ‘Abd Wudd ibn ‘Awf ibn Kinanah ibn ‘Awf ibn Zaid al Lat Rufaydah ibn Thawr ibn Kalb ibn Wabarah al Mundhir. The genealogist, with knowledge of history. He was well known for his virtue and knowledge and specialised in our sect. He narrated the [following] famous narration. He said, “I became so ill that I forgot and lost all my knowledge. I then sat in the company of Jafar ibn Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam. He granted me knowledge in a single cup thus causing all of my knowledge to return to me.” Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam considered him close, included him in his intimate gatherings and pleased him. He had written many books, amongst which some are; Kitab Mathalib Thaqif, Kitab Mathalib Bani Umayyah, Kitab Maqtal ‘Uthman, Kitab Maqtal Amir al Mu’minin, Kitab Hujr ibn ‘Adi, Kitab al Hakamayn, Kitab Maqtal al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam, Kitab Akhbar Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. He had written other books besides these as well.
A Shia scholar of biography, ‘Abbas al Qummi, mentioned them in the following statement:
الكلبي النسابة ويقال له ابن الكلبي أيضا أبو المنذر هشام بن أبي النضر محمد بن السائب بن بشر الكلبي الكوفي كان من أعلم الناس بعلم الأنساب وقد أخذ بعض الأنساب عن أبيه أبي النضر محمد بن السائب الذي كان من أصحاب الباقر والصادق عليهم السلام وأخذ أبو النضر نسب قريش عن أبي صالح عن عقيل بن أبي طالب قال ابن قتيبة وكان جده بشر وبنوه السائب وعبيد الرحمن شهدوا الجمل وصفين مع علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وقتل السائب مع مصعب بن الزبير وشهد محمد بن السائب الكلبي الجماجم مع ابن الأشعث وكان نسابا عالما بالتفسير وتوفي بالكوفة وعن السمعاني أنه قال في ترجمة محمد بن السائب أنه صاحب التفسير كان من أهل الكوفة قائل بالرجعة وابنه هشام ذا نسب عال وفي التشيع غال وفي الرجال الكبير هشام بن محمد بن السائب أبو المنذر الناسب العالم المشهور بالفضل والعلم العارف بالأيام كان مختصا بمذهبنا قال اعتللت علة عظيمة نسيت علمي فجئت إلى جعفر بن محمد (ع) فسقاني العلم في كأس فعاد إلي علمي وكان أبو عبد الله (ع) يقربه ويدنيه وينشطه قلت حكى المعاني وغيره عن قوة حفظه أنه حفظ القرآن في ثلاثة أيام وأنا أقول لا بدع في ذلك فإن من سقاه الصادق (ع) العلم في كأس يحفظ القرآن بأقل من ثلاثة أيام توفي سنة 206 أو 204
Al Kalbi, the Genealogist. He is also called Ibn al Kalbi, Abu al Mundhir Hisham ibn Abi al Nadr Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib ibn Bishr al Kalbi al Kufi. He was amongst the greatest genealogists. He learnt some of this from his father, Abu al Nadr Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib, who was amongst the Companions of al Baqir and al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam. Abu al Nadr learnt about the ancestry of Quraysh from Abu Salih who learnt it from ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib.
Ibn Qatadah says, “His grandfather was Bishr, whose sons were al Sa’ib and ‘Ubaidur Rahman. They participated in the Battles of al Jamal and Siffin alongside ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam. Al Sa’ib was martyred along with Mus’ab ibn al Zubair. Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi participated in al Jamajim with Ibn al Ash’ath. He was a great genealogist and possessed knowledge of Exegesis. He passed away in Kufah.”
It has been narrated from al Sam’ani that he mentioned under the discussion of Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib that he possessed knowledge of Exegesis. He was amongst the people of Kufah and he was of the opinion of Raj’ah. His son, Hisham, was of noble descent and was an extremist Shia.
It is mentioned in al Rijal al Kabir that Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib Abu al Mundhir, the great, Genealogist and scholar who was known for his expertise and knowledge, and had knowledge of historic events, was an expert in our [Shia]school of thought. He said, “I became so ill that I lost all of my knowledge. I then came to Jafar ibn Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam. He granted me knowledge in a single cup, thus causing all of my knowledge to return to me.”
Abu ‘Abdullah would keep him close, consider him one of his close-knit companions and would encourage him. I said, “He explained the meanings [of words] as well as other things.”
The fact that he memorised the Qur’an in three days proves that he had a very strong memory. I say, “That is nothing strange. In fact, one whom al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam grants knowledge to in a single cup can memorise the Qur’an in less than three days.”
He passed away either in the year 206 or 204 AH.
I say that this is enough to expose the true state of Hisham and his father, Muhammad, and proves that they were from a family that strictly practiced Shi’ism for generations.
As for what some have said, Imam Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani quoted their statements when he mentioned Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib:
This is the reality of the man and this is his status. These are the opinions of the scholars about him. These are his fabrications and lies that led him to this belief.
As for al Kalbi, he has authored a book about the allegations against the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, as Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli narrated in his book Minhaj al Karamah.
Ibn Taymiyyah has criticised him and has quoted the statements of knowledgeable seniors about him:
هشام الكلبي وهو من أكذب الناس وهو شيعي يروى عن أبيه وعن أبي مخنف لوط بن يحيى وكلاهما متروك كذاب وقال الإمام أحمد ما ظننت أن أحدا يحدث عنه إنما هو صاحب سمر ونسب وقال الدارقطني هو متروك وقال ابن عدي هشام الكلبي الغالب عليه الأسمار ولا أعرف له في المسند شيئا وأبوه أيضا كذاب ساقط وقال زائدة والليث وسليمان والتميمي هو كذاب وقال يحيى ليس بشيء كذاب ساقط وقال ابن حبان وضوح الكذب فيه أظهر من أن يحتاج إلى الإغراق في وصفه
Hisham al Kalbi: he was one of the greatest liars and he is a Shia who narrates from his father and from Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya—who are both matruk and kadhdhabs (liars). Imam Ahmed said, “I do not think there is anyone who narrates from him. He is a mere talebearer and fabricator.” Al Daraqutni said that he is matruk.
Ibn ‘Adi said, “Tales have overpowered Hisham al Kalbi. I do not know of any reliable narration from him. His father is also a corrupted liar.”
Za’idah, Layth, and Sulaiman al Tamimi agree that he is a liar.
Yahya said, “He is nothing. [He is] a corrupted liar.”
Ibn Hibban said, “His falsehood is so apparent that it need not be mentioned when describing him.”
These four are those who the historians depend upon when relating the narrations and tragic events that took place during the time of Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and when describing the battles that took place between Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who demanded justice for Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu—that qisas be taken immediately—up until the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the events and consequences that followed. They gave it a special coat of paint and exaggerated it in order to promote the Saba’iyyah and their beliefs from the onset of history, after they deceived many people in the name of love for the Ahlul Bayt. They opened a new door for the attack and reproach of the honourable, righteous Companions of Prophet Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and caused negligence to enter the people in matters of their religion. This was all introduced by none other than ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ and his supporters. None besides them laid down and constructed its foundation and principles. It is for this reason that we discussed these people before mentioning the incidents and accusations so that the worth of the narrations can be recognised through their narrators. Moreover, so that it is known that every incident and narration that has only been related by the Saba’iyyah and the Shia cannot be relied on or considered.
After mentioning these important matters, we would like to say that the Saba’iyyah plotted to divide the Believers, destroy Islam, and attack the Islamic Khilafah.
Firstly, they accomplished this by spreading Jewish beliefs and the ways of others amongst the Believers, and then by spreading the false statements that were supposedly made by the rulers and governors. We therefore repeat the statement of Jarir al Tabari that we had mentioned in the discussion of the Saba’iyyah, to expose the reality of their claims against the third Rightly Guided Khalifah of the Prophet of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and to show that Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was popular for his nobility and forbearance. He was the generous, honourable, bashful son of the daughter of the paternal aunt of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the husband of two of his daughters. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his family, as well as Sayyidina ‘Ali and his children radiya Llahu ‘anhum praised him. We will mention his statement so that it can be known how conspiracies were hatched against him, and how the winds of trials were blown in his direction and who orchestrated all of this. Al Tabari says:
كان عبد الله بن سبأ يهوديا من أهل صنعاء أمه سوداء فأسلم زمان عثمان ثم تنقل في بلدان المسلمين يحاول ضلالتهم فبدأ بالحجاز ثم البصرة ثم الكوفة ثم الشام فلم يقدر على ما يريد عند أحد من أهل الشام فأخرجوه حتى أتى مصر فاعتمر فيهم فقال لهم فيما يقول لعجب ممن يزعم أن عيسى يرجع ويكذب بأن محمدا يرجع وقد قال الله عز وجل إِنَّ الَّذِيْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ لَرَادُّكَ إِلىٰ مَعَادٍ فمحمد أحق بالرجوع من عيسى قال فقبل ذلك عنه ووضع لهم الرجعة فتكلموا فيها ثم قال لهم بعد ذلك أنه كان ألف نبي ولكل نبي وصي وكان علي وصي محمد ثم قال محمد خاتم الأنبياء وعلي خاتم الأوصياء ثم قال بعد ذلك من أظلم ممن لم يجز وصية رسول الله ﷺ وتناول أمر الأمة ثم قال لهم بعد ذلك أوصى رسول الله ﷺ فانهضوا في هذا الأمر فحركوه وابدأوا بالطعن على أمرائكم وأظهروا الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر وجعلوا يكتبون إلى الأمصار بكتب يضعونها في ولاتهم ويكاتبهم إخوانهم بمثل ذلك ويكتب أهل كل مصر منهم إلى مصر آخر بما يصنعون فيقرأه أولئك في أمصارهم وهؤلاء في أمصارهم حتى تناولوا بذلك المدينة وأوسعوا الأرض إذاعة يريدون غير ما يظهرون ويسرون فيقول أهل كل مصر إنا لفي عافية مما ابتلى به هؤلاء إلا أهل المدينة فإنهم جاءهم ذلك عن جميع الأمصار فقالوا إنا لفي عافية مما فيه الناس وجامعه محمد وطلحة من هذا المكان قالوا فأتوا عثمان فقالوا يا أمير المؤمنين أيأتيك عن الناس الذي يأتينا قال لا والله ما جاءني إلا السلامة قالوا فإنا قد أتانا وأخبروه بالذي أسقطوا إليهم قال فأنتم شركائي وشهود المؤمنين فأشيروا علي قالوا نشير عليك أن تبعث رجالا ممن تثق بهم إلى الأمصار حتى يرجعوا إليك بأخبارهم فدعى محمد بن مسلمة وأرسله إلى الكوفة وأرسل أسامة بن زيد إلى البصرة وأرسل عمار بن ياسر إلى مصر وأرسل عبد الله بن عمر إلى الشام وفرق رجالا سواهم فرجعوا جميعا قبل عمار فقال أيها الناس ما أنكرنا شيئا ولا أنكره أعلام المسلمين ولا عوامهم قالوا جميعا الأمر أمر المسلمين إلا أن أمرائهم يقسطون بينهم ويقومون عليهم واستبطأ الناس عمارا حتى ظنوا أنه قد اغتيل فلم يفجأهم إلا كتاب من عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح يخبرهم أن عمارا قد استماله قوم مصر وقد انقطعوا إليه منهم عبد الله بن السوداء وسودان بن حمران وكنانة بن بشر
‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was a Jew from San’a’ whose mother was a black woman. He accepted Islam during the era of ‘Uthman, then began to move around the lands of the Believers trying to misguide them. He first began with Hijaz then Basrah, Kufah, and Syria. He was unable to have his way with anyone amongst the people of Syria, and they eventually exiled him. He then travelled to Egypt and lived there.
One of the things he said to them was, “How strange is he who believes that ‘Isa will return but denies that Muhammad will return, whereas Allah has said, ‘Indeed, [O Muhammad], He who imposed upon you the Qur’an will take you back to a place of return.’ Muhammad is more deserving to return than ‘Isa.” This was accepted from him, the doctrine of Raj’ah was established in their minds and they began discussing it.
After that, he told them that there were one thousand Prophets and each Prophet had a deputy and ‘Ali was the deputy of Muhammad. He said, “Muhammad is the Seal of all Prophets and ‘Ali is the seal of all deputies.” After that he said, “Who is more unjust than the one who does not practice upon the advice of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and pounces on the deputy of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and seizes control over the matters of the Ummah?” He then said to them, “Indeed, ‘Uthman took control unjustly. This [‘Ali] is the deputy of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, so rise up in this matter and raise awareness to it. Begin by reviling your leaders and openly call towards goodness and prohibit evil, for indeed this will attract people. Then call them to support this matter.”
He spread out his preachers and wrote to those who spread corruption in different cities, and they too wrote to him. They secretly called towards their cause and they openly commanded good and prohibited evil. They began writing to different cities about faults that they falsely attributed to their leaders. They would write to their brothers about this and the people of those cities would write to other cities about what they were doing. The people of this city and that city would read these letters until eventually this news reached Madinah. They spanned the earth trying to publicise this, with motives besides what they made apparent and hiding that which was not evident. The inhabitants of each city would say, “We have been saved from what these [people of this city] have been afflicted with,” except the people of Madinah as this news only came to them from the rest of the cities. They therefore said, “We have been saved from what everyone has been afflicted with.”
Muhammad and Talhah [narrate the same until this point.] From here onwards, they say, “They came to ‘Uthman and said, ‘O Leader of the Believers, does the news that reaches us from the people reach you too?’
He said, ‘No, by Allah, only news of their peace has reached me.’
They said, ‘Some news has indeed come to us,’ and they informed him of the news that reached them.
He said, ‘You are my partners and witnesses over the Believers, so advise me!’
They said, ‘We advise you to send men that you trust to these cities, so that they may bring information to you about them.’ So, he called Muhammad ibn Maslamah and sent him to Kufah. He sent Usamah ibn Zaid to Basrah, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir to Egypt, and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar to Syria, and sent other men besides them.
They all returned before ‘Ammar and said, ‘O people, neither did we, nor the high-ranking Believers, nor the ordinary Believers find anything wrong.’ All of them said that the affairs were in the hands of the Believers and that their leaders would deal with them with justice and look after them. The people found that ‘Ammar delayed to such an extent that they thought that he was abducted. They were uninformed until a letter from ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh came to them informing them that ‘Ammar had been inclined towards the people of Egypt and that they sent towards him from amongst them ‘Abdullah ibn al Sawda’, Khalid ibn Muljam, Sawdan ibn Hamran, and Kinanah ibn Bishr.
To give complete benefit, we will mention the reaction of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum that al Tabari mentioned:
ثم كتب عثمان إلى أهل الأمصار أما بعد فإني آخذ العمال بموافاتي في كل موسم وقد سلطت الأمة منذ وليت على الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر فلا يرفع علي شيء ولا على أحد من عمالي إلا أعطيته وليس لي ولعيالي حق قبل الرعية إلا متروك لهم وقد رفع إلي أهل المدينة أن أقواما يشتمون وآخرون يضربون فيأمن ضرب سرا وشتم سرا من ادعى شيئا من ذلك فليواف الموسم فليأخذ بحقه حيث كان مني أو من عمالي أو تصدقوا فإن الله يجزي المتصدقين فلما قرئ في الأمصار أبكى الناس ودعوا لعثمان وقالوا إن الأمة لتمخض بشر وبعث إلى عمال الأمصار فقدموا عليه عبد الله بن عامر ومعاوية وعبد الله بن سعد وأدخل معهم في المشورة سعيدا وعمرا فقال ويحكم ما هذه الشكاية وما هذا الإذاعة إن والله لخائف أن تكونوا مصدوقا عليكم وما يعصب هذا إلا بي فقالوا ألم تبعث ألم نرجع إليك الخبر عن القوم ألم يرجعوا ولم يشافههم أحد بشيء لا والله ما صدقوا ولا بروا ولا نعلم لهذا الأمر أصلا وما كنت لتأخذ به أحدا فيقيمك على شيء وما هي إلا إذاعة لا يحل الأخذ بها ولا الانتهاء إليها قال فأشيروا علي فقال سعيد بن العاص هذا أمر مصنوع يصنع في السر فيلقى به غير ذو المعرفة فيخبر به فيتحدث به في مجالسهم قال فما دواء ذلك قال طلب هؤلاء القوم ثم قتل هؤلاء الذين يخرج هذا من عندهم وقال عبد الله بن سعد خذ من الناس الذي عليهم إذا أعطيتهم الذي لهم فإنه خير من أن تدعهم قال معاوية قد وليتني فوليت قوما لا يأتيك عنهم إلا الخير والرجلان أعلم بناحيتيهما قال فالرأي قال حسن الأدب قال فما ترى يا عمرو قال أرى أنك قد لنت لهم وتراخيت عنهم وزدتهم على ما كان يصنع عمر فأرى أن تلزم طريقة صاحبيك فتشد في موضع الشدة وتلين في موضع اللين إن الشدة نتبغي لمن لا يألو الناس شرا واللين لمن يخلف الناس بالنصح وقد فرشتهما جميعا اللين وقام عثمان فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وقال كل ما أشرتم به علي قد سمعت ولكل أمر باب يؤتى منه إن هذا الأمر الذي يخاف على هذه الأمة كائن وأن بابه الذي يغلق عليه فيكفكف به اللين والمؤاتاة والمتابعة إلا في حدود الله تعالى ذكره التي لا يستطيع أحد أن يبادى بعيب أحدها فإن سده شيء فرفق فذلك والله ليفتحن وليست لأحد علي حجة حق وقد علم الله أني لم آل الناس خيرا ولا نفسي ووالله إن رحى الفتنة لدائرة فطوبى لعثمان إن مات ولم يحركها كفكفوا الناس وهبوا لهم حقوقهم واغتفروا بهم وإذا تعوطيت حقوق الله فلا تدهنوا فيها
‘Uthman then wrote to the people of various cities, “I appoint governors after communicating throughout the year. Indeed, since I came into power, I have encouraged the Ummah to command good and forbid evil. No request was made to me or any of my governors except that I fulfilled it. Neither myself nor my family had a right to something before the people except that it was left for their sake. The people of Madinah have complained to me that some people are being insulted and others beaten, so all those who have been beaten in seclusion and insulted in secrecy; whoever [amongst you] claims [that he has experienced] any of this, let him attend the Hajj and let him take his right from me or my governors wherever he may be, or he may forgo it with the intention of charity for indeed Allah rewards the charitable.”
When this was read in the cities, it caused the people to cry and pray for ‘Uthman. They said, “Indeed the people intend evil.” It was sent to the governors of various cities so ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ᾱmir, Muawiyah, and ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d came to him. Sa’id and ‘Umar were also included in the discussion.
He [‘Uthman] said, “What are these complaints and this proclamation? By Allah, I fear that they might have spoken the truth about you and this will only make things difficult upon me.”
They replied, “Did you not send [people]? Did we not return them to you with good news from the people? Did they not return having no complaints with them? Nay, by Allah, they were not truthful or righteous and we do not know of any base for these claims. If you were to consider any one of them, you would realise that it was nothing besides a claim that would not be lawful to consider and would not be able to be traced.”
He [‘Uthman] said, “So give me your counsel.”
Sa’id ibn al ‘As said, “This is a matter which has been conspired in secrecy. Unknown people have spread it and mentioned it in their gatherings.”
‘Uthman asked, “What is the solution to this?”
Sa’id said, “Finding and killing the people who started this.”
‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d said, “Take from the people the rights that they owe you after you have fulfilled the rights you owe them as this is better than leaving them.”
Muawiyah said, “You made me the ruler of a people about whom nothing but good will reach you and these two men are more aware of their areas.”
‘Uthman said, “What is your opinion?”
Muawiyah said, “Good etiquette.”
‘Uthman asked, “What is your opinion, O ‘Amr?”
‘Amr answered, “I feel you have been lenient with them and gentler towards them than ‘Umar was, so I think that you should adhere to the ways of your two Companions and be stern where need be and gentle where need be. Indeed, sternness is needed for those who stop at nothing to spread evil amongst people, and gentleness is needed for those who succeed the people with goodness. However, you have dealt with both of them leniently.”
‘Uthman stood up, praised and glorified Allah and the declared, “I have heard whatever you have suggested to me. Every matter has a door that it comes from. The matter that is feared for this Ummah will surely come to be. [In the effort to keep its door closed,] kindness, favours, and compliance are being held back. [This of course refers to compliance in other matters] besides the limits set by Allah that none can find any defect in. If there were anything that could keep closed its door that is currently closed, it would be kindness. By Allah, it will surely be opened at a time when none will be able to charge me for not fulfilling a right. Indeed, Allah knows that I stopped at nothing, not even for myself, to benefit the people. By Allah, the wheel of corruption is turning, so glad tidings be for ‘Uthman if he is able to die without causing it to move. The people have been controlled, granted their rights, and pardoned. Once the rights of Allah are fulfilled, do not foil them.”
As for the conspiracies they hatched against Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the allegations they made against him to ruin the Islamic Empire, they were mentioned and rejected by Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu one after the other in his sermon that all historians mention. [It is mentioned] that he praised Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and then said:
إن هؤلاء ذكروا أمورا قد علموا منها مثل الذي علمتم إلا أنهم زعموا أنهم يذاكرونها ليوجبوها علي عند من لا يعلم وقالوا أتم الصلاة في السفر وكانت لا تتم ألا وإني قدمت بلدا فيه أهلي فأتممت لهذين الأمرين أو كذلك قالوا اللهم نعم وقالوا وحميت حمى وإني والله ما حميت حمى قبلي والله ما حموا شيئا لأحد ما حموا إلا ما غلب عليه أهل المدينة ثم لم يمنعوا من رعية أحد أو اقتصروا لصدقات المسلمين يحمونها لئلا يكون بين من يليها وبين أحد تنازع ما منعوا ولا نحوا منها أحد إلا من ساق درهما وما لي من بعير غير راحلتين وما لي ناغية ولا راغية وإني قد وليت وإني أكثر العرب بعيرا وشاة فما اليوم شاة ولا بعير غير بعيرين لحجي أكذلك قالوا اللهم نعم وقالوا كان القرآن كتبا فتركها إلا واحدا ألا وإن القرآن واحد جاء من عند واحد وإنما أنا في ذلك تابع لهؤلاء أكذلك قالوا نعم وسألوه أن يقتلهم وقالوا إني رددت الحكم وقد سيره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والحكم مكي سيره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مكة إلى الطائف ثم رده رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سيره ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رده أكذلك قالوا اللهم نعم وقالوا استعملت الأحداث ولم أستعمل إلا مجتمعا محتملا مرضيا وهؤلاء أهل عملهم فسلوهم عنه وهؤلاء أهل بلده ولقد ولى من قبلي أحدث منهم وقيل في ذلك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أشد ما قيل لي في استعماله أسامة أكذاك قالوا اللهم نعم يعيبون للناس ما لا يفسرون وقالوا إني أعطيت ابن أبي سرح ما أفاء الله عليه وإني إنما نفلته خمس ما أفاء الله عليه من الخمس فكان مائة ألف وقد أنفذ مثل ذلك أبو بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما فزعم الجند أنهم يكرهون ذلك فرددته عليهم وليس ذاك لهم أكذاك قالوا نعم وقالوا أني أحب أهل بيتي وأعطهم فأما حبي فإنه لم يمل معهم على جور بل أحمل الحقوق عليهم وأما إعطاؤهم فإني أعطيهم من مالي ولا أستحل أموال المسلمين لنفسي ولا لأحد من الناس ولقد كنت أعطي العطية الكبيرة الرغيبة من صلب مالي أزمان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما وأنا يومئذ شحيح حريص أفحين أتيت على أسنان أهل بيتي وفنى عمري وودعت الذي لي في أهلي قال الملحدون ما قالوا وإني والله ما حملت على مصر من الأمصار فضلا فيجوز ذلك لمن قاله ولقد رددته عليهم وما قدم علي إلا الأخماس ولا يحل لي منها شيء فولي المسلمون وضعها في أهلها دوني ولا يتلف من مال الله بفلس فما فوقه وما أتبلغ منه ما آكل إلا من مالي وقالوا أعطيت الأرض رجالا وإن هذه الأرضين شاركهم فيها المهاجرون والأنصار أيام افتتحت فمن أقام بمكان من هذه الفتوح فهو أسوة أهله ومن رجع إلى أهله لم يذهب ذلك ما حوى الله فنظرت في الذي يصيبهم مما أفاء الله عليهم فبعته لهم بأمرهم من رجال أهل عقار ببلاد العرب فنقلت إليهم نصيبهم فهو في أيديهم دوني وكان عثمان قد قسم ماله وأرضه في بني أمية وجعل ولده كبعض من يعطى فبدأ ببني أبي العاص فأعطى آل الحكم رجالهم عشرة آلاف عشرة آلاف فأخذوا مائة ألف وأعطى بني عثمان مثل ذلك وقسم في بني العاص وفي بني العيص وفي بني حرب ولانت حاشية عثمان لأولئك الطوائف وأبى المسلمون إلا قتلهم وأبى إلا تركهم فذهبوا ورجعوا إلى بلادهم على أن يغزوهم مع الحجاج كالحجاج فتكاتبوا وقالوا موعدكم ضواحى المدينة في شوال
“These people have raised certain objections against me. They know the reality as you know it; yet, they think that discussing them will impose them upon me in the eyes of the ignorant.
They claim that I offer complete salah during journey whereas it was not offered complete before. Verily, I came to a city in which resides my family, and therefore I performed complete salah for these two reasons. Is it not so?”
The people replied, “O Allah, yes.”
“They claimed that I restricted the use of the pasture lands and this was not done before. By Allah, I did not restrict the use of the pasture lands. By Allah, they did not allocate anything for anyone, except what the people of Madinah assumed. They did not forbid grazing rights to anyone. It was only used for the alms of the Muslims, to guard them, lest there be a dispute between anyone and the official in charge of the alms tax. They did not prevent or bar anyone from there, except one who attempted to bribe them.
I now have only two riding camels. I do not possess any other livestock. When I assumed the caliphate, I possessed the largest number of camels and sheep in Arabia. Today, not a single one of those sheep or camels are left, besides two camels for my Hajj. Is this true?”
They replied, “O Allah, yes.”
“They claim that the Qur’an was in few manuscripts. He discarded them and compiled them into one manuscript. Listen, the Qur’an is one and it came from One [Allah]. In this, I only followed the practice of my predecessors. Is this not true?”
They said, “O Allah, yes,” and asked him to kill them.
“They said I recalled Hakam whereas Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam exiled him. Hakam is a resident of Makkah. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam banished him from Makkah to Ta’if and then returned him. So, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the one to banish him and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was the one to recall him. Is this not true?”
They replied, “O Allah, yes.”
“They claim that I appointed youngsters [as governors] whereas I only appointed those who are popular, capable, and pleasing. These are the residents under them, so ask them about the governors and here are the residents of his city. Those before me appointed younger men. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was criticised more severely than me in his appointment of Usamah. Is this not true?”
They replied, “O Allah, yes. They raise objections they cannot prove.”
“They say that I gave Ibn Abi Sarh what Allah gave him dominance over. The truth is that I only awarded him a fifth of a fifth of that which Allah gave him dominance over which is one hundred thousand. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma had allowed this practice. The army did not like this, hence I returned it to them whereas it was not their right. Is this not true?”
They said, “O Allah, yes.”
“They say that I love my household and favour them. My love for them did not spur me on to oppression. Rather, I fulfil their rights. With regards to favouring them, I give them from my wealth and do not regard the wealth of the Muslims permissible for myself or for any person. I had given considerable plentiful gifts from the core of my wealth during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma whereas at the time, I was rapacious, desirous. Now, when I have grown old and my lifespan is depleting, I placed what I possess among my family, and the heretics begin criticising me! By Allah, I have not acquired any wealth in any of the cities allowing criticism towards me. I have returned the [public] wealth to them. Only the fifth [of the booty] comes to me and none of that is permissible for me. The Muslims distribute it to eligible recipients without me taking anything. Therefore, not a penny of the wealth of Allah was squandered. I only survive on my wealth.
They say that I awarded land to certain individuals. The truth is that these lands were shared by the Muhajirin and Ansar when they were conquered. Whoever resides in any conquered land is an owner of the land. Those who returned to their family [in Arabia], that [land owned by them in other areas] was not transferred. I thus deliberated in the share of the spoils they own and sold it for them with their consent to men who own land in Arabia and transferred their share to them. Presently, it is in their possession, not mine.”
‘Uthman had distributed his wealth and land among the Banu Umayyah. He gave his children an equal share to everyone. He began with the sons of Abu al ‘As and gave the family of Hakam, their men, 10 000 each. They took 100 000 altogether. He gave the sons of ‘Uthman a similar sum. He distributed wealth among the sons of al ‘As, the sons of al ‘Is, and the sons of Harb.
‘Uthman treated those provocateurs mildly. The Muslims demanded their execution but he demanded they be spared. They left and returned to their respective lands, but conspired to fight them [the people of Madinah] with the pilgrims in the garb of pilgrims. They wrote to each other to gather in the precincts of Madinah in Shawwal.
ولما كان شوال سنة 35هـ خرج أهل مصر في أربع رفاق على أربعة أمراء المقلل يقول ستمائة والمكثر يقول ألف على الرفاق عبد الرحمن بن عديس البلوي وكنانة بن بشر والليثي وسودان بن حمران السكوني وقتيرة بن فلان السكوني وعلى القوم جميعاً الغافقي بن حرب العكي ولم يجترئوا أن يعلموا الناس بخروجهم إلى الحرب وإنما خرجوا كالحجاج ومعهم ابن السوداء وخرج أهل الكوفة في أربع رفاق وعلى الرفاق زيد بن صوحان العبدي والأشتر النخعي وزياد بن النضر الحارثي وعبد الله بن الأصم أحد بني عامر بن صعصعة وعددهم كعدد أهل مصر وعليهم جميعاً عمرو بن الأصم وخرج أهل البصرة في أربع رفاق وعلى الرفاق حكيم بن جبلة العبدي وزريح بن عباد العبدي وبشر بن شريح الحطم بن ضبيعة القيسي وابن المحرش بن عبد عمرو الحنفي وعددهم كعدد أهل مصر وأميرهم جميعاً حرقوص بن زهير السعدي سوى من تلاحق بهم من الناس فأما أهل مصر فإنهم كانوا يشتهون علياً وأما أهل البصرة فإنهم كانوا يشتهون طلحة وأما أهل الكوفة فإنهم كانوا يشتهون الزبير فخرجوا وهم على الخروج جميع وفي الناس شتى لا يشك في كل فرقة إلا أن الفلج معها وأن أمرها سيتم دون الآخرين فخرجوا حتى إذا كانوا من المدينة على ثلاث تقدم ناس من أهل البصرة فنزلوا ذا خشب وناس من أهل الكوفة فنزلوا الأعوص وجاءهم ناس من أهل مصر وتركوا عامتهم بذي المروة ومشى فيما بين أهل مصر وأهل البصرة زياد بن النضر وعبد الله بن الأصم وقالا لا تعجلوا ولا تعجلونا حتى ندخل لكم المدينة ونرتاد فإنه بلغنا أنهم قد عسكروا لنا فوالله إن كان أهل المدينة قد خافونا واستحلوا قتالنا ولم يعلموا علمنا فهم إذا علموا علمنا أشد وإن أمرنا هذا لباطل وإن لم يستحلوا قتالنا ووجدنا الذي بلغنا باطلاً لنرجعن إليكم بالخبر قالوا اذهبا فدخل الرجلان فلقيا أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعلياً وطلحة والزبير وقالا إنما نأتم هذا البيت ونستعفي هذا الوالي من بعض عمالنا ما جئنا إلا لذلك بالدخول واستأذناهم للناس بالدخول فكلهم أبى ونهى وقال بيضُ ما يفرخن فرجعا إليهم فاجتمع من أهل مصر نفر فأتوا علياً ومن أهل البصرة نفر فأتوا طلحة ومن أهل الكوفة نفر فأتوا الزبير وقال كل فريق منهم إن بايعوا صاحبنا وإلا كدناهم وفرقنا جماعتهم ثم كررنا حتى نبغتهم فأتى المصريون علياً وهو عسكر عند أحجار الزيت عليه حلة أفواف معتم بشقيقة حمراء يمانية متقلد السيف ليس عليه قميص وقد سرح الحسن إلى عثمان فيمن اجتمع إليه فالحسن جالس عند عثمان وعليّ عند أحجار الزيت فسلم عليه المصريون وعرضوا له فصاح بهم واطردهم وقال لقد علم الصالحون أن جيش ذي المروة وذي خشب ملعونون على لسان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فارجعوا لا صحبكم الله قالوا نعم فانصرفوا من عنده على ذلك وأتى البصريون طلحة وهو في جماعة أخرى إلى جنب عليّ وقد أرسل ابنيه إلى عثمان فسلم البصريون عليه وعرّضوا له فصاح بهم واطّردهم وقال لقد علم المؤمنون أن جيش ذي المروة وذي خُشب والأعوص ملعونون على لسان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وأتى الكوفيون الزبير وهو في جماعة أخرى وقد سرّح ابنه عبد الله إلى عثمان فسلموا عليه وعرضوا له فصاح بهم واطردهم وقال لقد علم المسلمون أن جيش ذي المروة وذي خشب والأعوص ملعونون على لسان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فخرج القوم وأروهم إنهم يرجعون فانفشّوا عن ذي خشب والأعوص حتى انتهوا إلى عساكرهم وهي ثلاث مراحل كي يفترق أهل المدينة ثم يكرا راجعين فافترق أهل المدينة لخروجهم فلما بلغ القوم عساكرهم كّروا بهم فبغتوهم فلم يفجأ أهل المدينة إلا والتكبير في نواحي المدينة فنزلوا في مواضع عساكرهم وأحاطوا بعثمان وقالوا من كفّ يده فهو آمنٌ وصلى عثمان بالناس أيامًا ولزم الناس بيوتهم ولم يمنعوا أحدًا من كلام فأتاهم الناس فكلموهم وفيهم عليٌّ فقال ما ردكم بعد ذهابكم ورجوعكم عن رأيكم قالوا أخذنا مع بريد كتابًا بقتلنا وأتاهم طلحة فقال البصريون مثل ذلك وأتاهم الزبير فقال الكوفيون مثل ذلك وقال الكوفيون والبصريون فنحن ننصر إخواننا ونمنعهم جميعًا كأنما كانوا على ميعاد فقال لهم عليٌّ كيف علمتم يا أهل الكوفة ويا أهل البصرة بما لقي أهل مصر وقد سرتم مراحل ثم طويتم نحونا هذا والله أمرٌ أبرم بالمدينة قالوا فضعوه على ما شئتم لا حاجة لنا في هذا الرجل ليعتزلنا
As Shawwal, 35 AH, entered, the people of Egypt left in four caravans under four leaders. There were between a minimum of 600 and a maximum of 1 000 men in each caravan. They were led by ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Udays al Balawi, Kinanah ibn Bishr al Laythi, Sawdan ibn Humran al Sakuni, and Qutayrah ibn Fulan al Sakuni. The ringleader was al Ghafiqi ibn Harb al ‘Akki. They lacked the courage to notify the people of their departure for war, hence they left in the guise of pilgrims. Ibn al Sawda’ was with them.
The people of Kufah left in four caravans led by Zaid ibn Suhan al ‘Abdi, al Ashtar al Nakha’i, Ziyad ibn al Nadr al Harithi, and ‘Abdullah ibn al Asamm—one of the men of Banu ‘Amir ibn Sa’sa’ah. Their numbers were similar to the Egyptians. Their ringleader was ‘Amr ibn al Asamm.
The people of Basrah departed in four caravans led by Hukaym ibn Jabalah al ‘Abdi, Zurayh ibn ‘Ibad al ‘Abdi, Bishr ibn Shurayh al Hatam ibn Dabi’ah al Qaisi, and Ibn al Muhrish ibn ‘Abd ‘Amr al Hanafi. Their numbers were similar to the Egyptians. Their ringleader was Hurqus ibn Zuhayr al Sa’di. This is besides those people who joined them enroute.
The Egyptians desired ‘Ali, the Basrans wanted Talhah, while the Kufans sought Zubair. They departed. All of them departed with the intention of rebellion, although holding diverse views. Each group was convinced of his victory and the realisation of his intention, to the exclusion of others. When they were at a distance of three [stations from Madinah], the people from Basrah arrived and alighted at Dhu Khashab, while the Kufans alighted at al A’was. Few Egyptians came to them and left the masses at Dhu al Marwah.
Ziyad ibn al Nadr and ‘Abdullah ibn al Asamm walked between the Egyptians and Basrans announcing, “Do not be hasty and do not rush us until we enter Madinah for you and explore, for news reached us that they have prepared an army for us. By Allah, if the people of Madinah fear us and consider fighting us permissible without knowing what we know, then when they learn the reality, they will be sterner and this plan of ours will fail. If they do not consider fighting us permissible and we find that the news that reached us is false, we will certainly return to you with information.” The people allowed them to go.
The two men entered and met the wives of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali, Talhah, and Zubair. They said, “We are only intending this House and request this Khalifah exemption from some of our governors. We have only come for this.” They then sought permission from them for the people to enter. All of them [the Sahabah] refused and denied saying, “An egg which has not hatched.”
The two returned to the rebels. A group of Egyptians gathered and approached ‘Ali, a group of Basrans gathered and approached Talhah, while a group of Kufans gathered and approached Zubair. Each group said, “They must pledge allegiance to our man, otherwise, we will conspire against them and disunite them. We will then return and converge upon them unexpectedly.”
The Egyptians approached ‘Ali while he was among an army at Ahjar al Zayt wearing a fine embroidered decorated garment, sporting a red Yemeni turban, armed with a sword. He was not wearing a throbe. He had sent Hassan to ‘Uthman among those who gathered by him. Hassan was seated by ‘Uthman whereas ‘Ali was at Ahjar al Zayt. The Egyptians greeted ‘Ali and presented the case to him. He shouted at them and chased them away scolding, “The righteous know well that the army of Dhu al Marwah and Dhu Khashab are accursed on the tongue of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Return! May Allah not accompany you.” They agreed and went away from him.
The Basrans approached Talhah who was with another group next to ‘Ali. He had sent his two sons to ‘Uthman. The Basrans greeted him and presented their case to him. He admonished them and chased them away shouting, “The believers know that the army of Dhu al Marwah, Dhu Khashab, and al A’was are accursed on the tongue of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
The Kufans approached Zubair who was in another army. He had sent his son ‘Abdullah to ‘Uthman. The Kufans greeted him and presented their case to him. He shouted at them and chased them away scolding, “The Muslims know that the army of Dhu al Marwah, Dhu Khashab, and al A’was are accursed on the tongue of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”
The rebels left and showed them that they are returning. They departed from Dhu Khashab and al A’was until they reached their armies, just three stations away, so the people of Madinah might disperse, and they may make a sudden return.
The people of Madinah dispersed when they saw them leaving. When the rebels reached their armies, they returned with them and entered unexpectedly. The people of Madinah were caught unaware with shouts of takbir around Madinah. They alighted in the stations of their armies and surrounded ‘Uthman. They announced, “Whoever withholds his hand is safe.” ‘Uthman led the people in salah for a few days and people remained at home, without stopping anyone from speaking.
People came to the rebels and spoke to them. Among them was ‘Ali who said, “What brought you back after your departure and made you change your mind?”
They said, “We seized a letter, sent with the rider, to kill us.”
Talhah came to them and the Basrans gave a similar reply. Zubair came to them and the Kufans provided the same answer. The Kufans and Basrans said, “We are assisting our brothers and defending them all.” As if all this was decided.
‘Ali questioned them, “How did you, O people of Kufah and O people of Basrah, come to know of what the Egyptians experienced whereas you travelled few stations and they returned in our direction. This, by Allah, is an issue concluded in Madinah.”
They said, “Leave it as you please. We do not have any need for this man. He should leave us.”
فحاصروا بيته محاصرة شديدة وجاء علي وأهل بيته وطلحة والزبير مع أبنائهم للدفاع عنه فقال مخاطبا إياهم يا أهل المدينة أستودعكم الله وأسأله أن يحسن عليكم الخلافة من بعدي إني والله لا أدخل على أحد بعد يومي هذا حتى يقضي الله في قضاه ولأدعن هؤلاء وراء بابي غير معطيهم شيئا يتخذونه عليكم دخلا في دين الله أو دنيا حتى يكون الله عز وجل الصانع في ذلك ما أحب وأمر أهل المدينة بالرجوع وأقسم عليهم فرجعوا إلا الحسن ومحمد بن طلحة وابن الزبير وأشباها لهم فجعلوا بالباب عن أمر آبائهم وثاب إليهم ناس كثير ولزم عثمان الدار
“O people of Madinah, I hand you over to Allah and beseech Him to ease Caliphate for you after me. Certainly, I, by Allah, will not enter anyone’s house after this day until Allah finalises His decision regarding me. I will certainly leave these rebels behind my door, without giving them anything they may use against you in the Din of Allah or this world, until Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—does as He wishes in this situation.”
He commanded the people of Madinah on oath to return. They thus all returned besides Hassan, Muhammad ibn Talhah, Ibn al Zubair, and their like. They guarded the door at the command of their fathers. Many people attacked them whereas ‘Uthman remained at home.
حصر عثمان اثنين وعشرين يوما ثم أحرقوا الباب وفي الدار أناس كثير فيهم عبد الله بن الزبير ومروان فقالوا ائذن لنا فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عهد إلي عهدا فأنا صابر عليه وإن القوم لم يحرقوا باب الدار إلا وهم يطلبون ما هو أعظم منه فأحرج على رجل يستقتل ويقاتل وخرج الناس كلهم ودعا بالمصحف يقرأ فيه والحسن عنده فقال إن أباك الآن لفي أمر عظيم فأقسمت عليك لما خرجت وأمر عثمان أبا كرب رجلا من همدان وآخر من الأنصار أن يقوما على باب بيت المال وليس فيه إلا غرارتان من ورق فلما أطفئت النار بعدما ناوشهم ابن الزبير ومروان وتوعد محمد بن أبي بكر ابن الزبير ومروان فلما دخل على عثمان هربا ودخلوا عليه فمنهم من يجؤه بنعل سيفه وآخر يلكزه وجاءه رجل بمشاقص معه فوجأه في ترقوته فسال الدم على المصحف وهم على ذلك يهابون في قتله وكان كبيرا وغشي عليه ودخل آخرون فلما رأوه مغشيا عليه جروا برجله فصاحت نائلة وبناته وجاء التجيبي مخترطا سيفه ليضعه في بطنه فوقته نائلة فقطع يدها واتكأ بالسيف عليه في صدره وقتل عثمان رضي الله عنه قبل غروب الشمس ونادى مناد ما يحل دمه ويحرج ماله فانتهبوا كل شيء ثم تبادروا بيت المال فألقى الرجلان المفاتيح ونجوا وقالوا الهرب هذا ما طلب القوم وذكر محمد بن عمر أن عبد الرحمن بن عبد العزيز حدثه عن عبد الرحمن بن محمد أن محمد بن أبي بكر تسور على عثمان من دار عمرو بن حزم ومعه كنانة بن بشر بن عتاب وسودان بن حمران وعمرو بن الحمق فوجدوا عثمان عند امرأته نائلة وهو يقرأ المصحف في سورة البقرة فتقدمهم محمد بن أبي بكر فأخذ بلحية عثمان فقال قد أخزاك الله يا نعثل فقال عثمان ليس بنعثل ولكني عبد الله وأمير المؤمنين قال محمد ما أغنى عنك معاوية وفلان وفلان وفلان فقال عثمان يا ابن أخي دع عنك لحيتي فما كان أبوك ليقبض على ما قبضت عليه فقال محمد لو رآك أبي تعمل هذه الأعمال أنكرها عليك وما أريد بك أشد من قبضي على لحيتك قال عثمان أستنصر الله عليك وأستعين به ثم طعن جبينه بمشقص في يده ورفع كنانة بن بشر مشاقص كانت في يده فوجأ بها في أصل أذن عثمان فمضت حتى دخلت في حلقه ثم علاه بالسيف حتى قتله فقال عبد الرحمن سمعت أبا عون يقول ضرب كنانة بن بشر جبينه ومقدم رأسه بعمود حديد فخر لجبينه فضربه سودان بن حمران المرادي بعدما خر لجبينه فقتله قال محمد بن عمر حدثني عبد الرحمن بن أبي الزناد عن عبد الرحمن بن الحارث قال الذي قتله كنانة بن بشر بن عتاب التجيبي وكانت امرأة منظور بن سيار الفزاري تقول خرجنا إلى الحج وما علمنا لعثمان بقتل حتى إذا كنا بالعرج سمعنا رجلا يتغنى تحت الليل ألا إن خير الناس بعد ثلاثة قتيل التجيبي الذي جاء من مصر قال وأما عمرو بن الحمق فوثب على عثمان فجلس على صدره وبه رمق فطعنه تسع طعنات قال عمرو فأما ثلاث منهن فإني طعنتهن إياه لله وأما ست فإني طعنتهن إياه لما كان في صدري عليه
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was besieged 22 days. Thereafter, the rebels burnt down the door. In the house were many men, including ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair and Marwan. They told him, “Allow us [to repel the rebels].”
He said, “Indeed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made a covenant with me and I am patiently adhering to it. The rebels did not burn down the door, except that they intend something graver. I forbid every man from risking his life or fighting.”
‘Uthman commanded Abu Karb, a man from Hamdan, and another Ansari to stand by the door of the treasury which housed only two sacks of silver coins.
The fire was extinguished. Ibn al Zubair and Marwan engaged in a skirmish with them and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr threatened Ibn al Zubair and Marwan. When he entered ‘Uthman’s presence, the two departed. The rebels entered his house. One began poking him with the tip of his sword while the other punched him. A man came with a dagger and stabbed him in his collarbone causing the blood to squirt on the Mushaf. They feared killing him, as it was a grave matter. ‘Uthman fell unconscious.
Others then entered. When they saw him unconscious, they dragged him by his leg. Na’ilah and his daughters shouted. Just then, al Tujibi came with his sword unsheathed to slash his stomach, but Na’ilah stopped him so he cut her [fingers] off. He then leaned upon the sword on the chest of ‘Uthman and killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu before sunset.
Someone called out, “How is it that his blood is permissible but his wealth forbidden?!” They thus looted everything and proceeded to the treasury. The two men [guarding the treasury] threw the keys and fled to safety. The people shouted, “Run,” and this is what they wanted.
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar mentioned that ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz narrated to him—from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muhammad: Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr scaled the wall of ‘Amr ibn Hazm and got into ‘Uthman’s house. With him were Kinanah ibn Bishr ibn ‘Itab, Sawdan ibn Humran, and ‘Amr ibn al Humq. They found ‘Uthman by his wife Na’ilah reciting Surah al Baqarah from the Mushaf. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr went forward and caught hold of ‘Uthman’s beard shouting, “Allah disgraced you, O Na’thal (old man)!”
‘Uthman submitted, “I am not an old man. Rather, I am the servant of Allah and the leader of the believers.”
Muhammad shouted, “Muawiyah and the others did not avail you.”
‘Uthman said, “O son of my brother, leave my beard alone. Your father would not have grabbed what you are grabbing.”
Muhammad shouted, “Had my father seen you doing these actions, he would have disapproved of them for you. What I intend to do to you is far more severe than grabbing your beard.”
‘Uthman said, “I seek Allah’s support against you and seek His help.” Muhammad then stabbed ‘Uthman’s forehead with a dagger in his hand. Kinanah ibn Bishr lifted the dagger in his hand and stabbed him at the root of ‘Uthman’s ear. It went through until it pierced his throat. He then attacked him with a sword and killed him.
‘Abdur Rahman said that he heard Abu ‘Awn saying: Kinanah ibn Bishr struck his forehead and the front portion of his head with an iron pole causing him to fall down on his forehead. Sawdan ibn Humran al Muradi attacked him after he fell down and killed him.
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar says: ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi al Zinad reported to me—from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Harith who said: The one who killed him was Kinanah ibn Bishr ibn ‘Itab al Tujibi. The wife of Manzur ibn Sayyar al Fazari would report: We left for Hajj. We never knew anything of ‘Uthman’s murder until we were at al ‘Araj, where we heard a person singing in the dark:
Harken, the best person after three has been killed by al Tujibi who came from Egypt.
With regards to ‘Amr ibn al Humq, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest while the latter had a spark of life and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr says, “With regards to three of them, I stabbed him for Allah. The other six, I stabbed him as my chest was on him.”
This is the incident which we condensed from Tarikh al Tabari and Muruj al Dhahab of al Mas’udi, the Shia, without changing or altering any word. This is how the Saba’iyyah were successful in disuniting the word of the Muslims and planting discord and conflict among them, which will not terminate till the Day of Qiyamah as Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu notified while addressing al Ashtar and others:
فوالله إن قتلتموني لا تتحابون بعدي أبدا ولا تصلون جميعا بعدي أبدا ولا تقاتلون بعدي جميعا أبدا
By Allah, if you kill me, you will never attain mutual love after me, you will never pray with unity after me, and you will never fight with unity after me.
This is what transpired.
We have quoted many reports on this issue as it has a direct connection with this topic, i.e., the criticism the Saba’iyyah exploited to overturn the state structure. It is as appears below, in the words of one of their descendants. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli states:
وأما عثمان فإنه ولى أمور المسلمين من لا يصلح للولاية حتى ظهر من بعضهم الفسوق ومن بعضهم الخيانة وقسم الولايات بين أقاربه وعوتب على ذلك مرارا فلم يرجع واستعمل الوليد بن عقبة حتى ظهر منه شرب الخمر وصلى بالناس وهو سكران واستعمل سعيد بن العاص على الكوفة فظهر منه ما أدى إلى أن أخرجه أهل الكوفة منها وولى عبد الله بن أبي سرح مصر حتى تظلم منه أهلها وكاتبه أن يستمر على ولايته سرا خلاف ما كتب إليه جهرا وأمره بقتل محمد بن أبي بكر وولى معاوية الشام فأحدث من الفتن ما أحدث وولى عبد الله بن عامر العراق ففعل من المناكير ما فعل وولى مروان أمره وألقى إليه مقاليد أموره ودفع إليه خاتمه فحدث من ذلك قتل عثمان وحدث الفتنة بين الأمة ما حدث وكان يؤثر أهله بالأموال الكثيرة من بيت مال المسلمين حتى إنه دفع إلى أربعة نفر من قريش زوجهم بناته أربعمائة ألف دينار ودفع إلى مروان ألف ألف دينار وكان ابن مسعود يطعن عليه ويكفره ولما حكم ضربه حتى مات وضرب عمارا حتى صار [به] فتق وقد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله عمار جلدة بين عيني تقتله الفئة الباغية لا أنالهم الله شفاعتي يوم القيامة وكان عمار يطعن عليه
وطرد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله الحكم بن أبي العاص عم عثمان عن المدينة ومعه مروان فلم يزل طريدا هو وابنه في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وأبي بكر وعمر فلما ولي عثمان آواه ورده إلى المدينة وجعل مروان كاتبه وصاحب تدبيره مع أن الله تعالى قال لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّوْنَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللهَ وَرَسُوْلَهُ الآية
ونفى أبا ذر إلى ربذة وضربه ضربا وجيعا مع أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قال في حقه ما أقلت الغبراء ولا أظلت الخضراء على ذي لهجة أصدق من أبي ذر وقال صلى الله عليه وآله إن الله أوحى إلي أنه يحب أربعة من أصحابي وأمرني بهم قيل له من هم يا رسول الله قال علي عليه السلام سيدهم وسلمان ومقداد وأبو ذر
وضيع حدود الله فلم يحد عبيد الله بن عمر حين قتل الهرمزان مولى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بعد إسلامه وكان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يطلب عبيد الله لإقامة القصاص عليه فلحق بمعاوية وأراد أن يعطل حد الضرب في الوليد بن عقبة حتى حده أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وقال لا يبطل حد الله وأنا حاضر وزاد الأذان يوم الجمعة وهو بدعة وصار سنة الآن وخالفه المسلمون كلهم حتى قتل
‘Uthman appointed incompetent individuals over the affairs of Muslims—men who were guilty of transgression and breach of trust. He distributed official posts among his relatives and was blamed for this a number of times, yet failed to desist. He appointed Walid ibn ‘Uqbah who was guilty of drinking liquor and leading the people in prayer while intoxicated. He appointed Sa’id ibn al ‘As over Kufah who perpetrated such crimes that led to his expulsion by the people of Kufah. He appointed ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh over Egypt who oppressively subjugated the residents. He wrote to him privately to continue his governorship, contrary to what he wrote to him publicly. He ordered him to execute Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. He appointed Muawiyah over Sham, who initiated many fitnahs. He appointed ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir over Iraq who committed many evils. He appointed Marwan over his affairs, giving him unrestricted authority, and handing his ring over to him. This led to the assassination of ‘Uthman and the fitnah between the Ummah.
He would favour his family members with plenty wealth from the Muslim treasury to the extent that he gave four men of Quraysh, to whom he married his daughters, four hundred thousand gold coins and he favoured Marwan with a million gold coins.
Ibn Mas’ud would criticise and excommunicate him, so he ordered the lashing of the former who eventually succumbed to the lashing. He beat ‘Ammar, leaving him with raptures. The Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated, “‘Ammar is a skin between my eyes. The rebellious party will kill him. Allah will not award them my intercession on the Day of Qiyamah.” ‘Ammar would also criticise him.
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam exiled Hakam ibn Abi al ‘As, the uncle of ‘Uthman, from Madinah with his son, Marwan. He and his son remained in exile during the lifetime of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar. As soon as ‘Uthman became khalifah, he awarded him sanctuary and returned him to Madinah and appointed Marwan his scribe and manager. Whereas Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declares:
لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّوْنَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللهَ وَرَسُوْلَهُ
You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger.
He banished Abu Dharr to Rabadhah and gave him a painful flogging whereas the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said in his favour, “The earth has not carried and the sky has not shaded anyone more truthful than Abu Dharr.”
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated, “Allah informed me that he loves four of my Companions and commanded me to love them.”
“Who are they, O Messenger O Allah,” he was asked.
“‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam their leader, Salman, Miqdad, and Abu Dharr.”
He ruined the hudud of Allah. He did not mete out the hadd on ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar who killed al Hurmuzan, the freed slave of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam, despite the man embracing Islam. Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam demanded the imposition of qisas upon ‘Ubaidullah, who fled to Muawiyah.
He intended to ruin the hadd of lashing for Walid ibn ‘Uqbah but Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam lashed him announcing, “The hadd of Allah will not be quashed as long as I am present.”
He added an Adhan on the Day of Jumu’ah, whereas it is a bid’ah (innovation), and it is practiced till today. All the Muslims opposed him until he was killed.
This is the estate of the Saba’iyyah, which the Shia seized and inherited from their forefathers. This is one proof that the Shia of today do not establish their creed and base their principles, except on the foundations laid by the Saba’iyyah. They have no connection to the first (original) Shia, the genuine partisans of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his children, neither closely nor remotely, as we will soon highlight at the right place, Allah willing.
These allegations which they level, some of which the Saba’iyyah concocted, Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu had answered them at the time as we previously quoted from al Tabari and others. Few of them had no existence at that time. The luminaries and predecessors of this Ummah and the scholars and authorities of the Ahlus Sunnah have embarked on a mission to refute all these lies, by listing each allegation and refuting it with established principles and manifest evidences. The likes of Ibn Taymiyyah; his student, al Dhahabi, who condensed his book; Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Arabi, and other scholars—men who were masters of ‘aqidah and exceptional Jurists.
In the mainland of India and Pakistan, plenty undertook this mission, led by Hakim al Dihlawi Wali Allah Sahib in Hujjat Allah al Balighah, Qurrat al ‘Aynayn fi Tafdil al Sheikhayn, and Izalat al Khafa’ ‘an Khilafat al Khulafa’ and his son ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Dihlawi whose book has been condensed by the junior al Alusi and plenty others. Yet, the Shia are hell-bent on falsehood. They persist upon it and promote it to deceive the simple-minded and negligent.
Nonetheless, since we began discussing the Saba’iyyah, their ideologies, the sects that branched out from the Shia, their history, and their adoption of Saba’iyyah ideologies—and not the ideologies of the primary Shia—we wish to discuss these allegations and refute them, more importantly with our signature approach. We quote evidence from Shia books, intending thereby the pleasure of Allah, to guard the arena of Islam and to defend the Companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam whom we love due to our Nabi’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam love for them and their love for him. We anticipate acceptance and seek ability from Allah.
ونقم الناس على عثمان بعد ولايته بست سنين وتكلم فيه من تكلم وقالوا آثر القربى
Let us analyse the reality of this allegation and criticism. Is dividing official posts among his relatives a reality or is this from the plethora of lies concocted by the Saba’iyyah to incite people against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The Shia cast the same allegation to this day, to support the Saba’iyyah in their rebellion, exposing their allegiance and loyalty to them.
وكان لعثمان على اليمن يعلى بن أمية التميمي وعلى مكة عبد الله بن عمرو الحضرمي وعلى همذان جرير بن عبد الله البجلي وعلى الطائف القاسم بن ربيعة الثقفي وعلى الكوفة أبو موسى الأشعري وعلى البصرة عبد الله بن عامر الكريز وعلى مصر عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح وعلى الشام معاوية بن أبي سفيان بن حرب
‘Uthman appointed Ya’la ibn Umayyah al Tamimi over Yemen, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr al Hadrami over Makkah, Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah al Bajali over Hamdhan, Qasim ibn Rabi’ah al Thaqafi over Ta’if, Abu Musa al Ash’ari over Kufah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir al Kurayz over Basrah, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh over Egypt, and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan ibn Harb over Sham.
Al Tabari and Ibn al Athir listed the names of the remaining officials who assumed governorship and high posts. They write:
وعلى حمص عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد وعلى قنسرين حبيب بن مسلمة وعلى الأردن أبو الأعور السلمي وعلى فلسطين علقمة بن حكم الكنعاني وعلى البحر عبد الله بن قيس الفزاري وعلى القضاء (الشام) أبو الدرداء وعلى الخراج جابر بن فلان المزني وعلى حربها القعقاع بن عمرو وعلى قرقيسياء جرير بن عبد الله البجلي وعلى آذربيجان الأشعث بن قيس الكندي وعلى حلوان عتيبة بن النهاس وعلى ماه مالك بن حبيب وعلى الري سعيد بن قيس وعلى أصبهان السائب بن الأقرع وعلى ماسبذان حبيش وعلى بيت المال عقبة بن عامر وعلى القضاء زيد بن ثابت
‘Abdur Rahman ibn Khalid ibn al Walid over Hims, Habib ibn Maslamah over Qinnasrin, Abu al A’war al Sulami over Jordan, ‘Alqamah ibn Hakam al Kan’ani over Palestine, ‘Abdullah ibn Qais al Fazari over al Bahr, Abu al Darda’ as judge (in Sham), Jabir ibn Fulan al Muzani over Kharaj (collecting tax), al Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr over the army, Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah over Qarqaisa’, Ash’ath ibn Qais al Kindi over Azerbaijan, ‘Utaybah ibn al Nahhas over Halawan, Malik ibn Habib over Mah, Sa’id ibn Qais over al Rayy, Sa’ib ibn al Aqra’ over Asbahan, Hubaysh over Masbadhan, ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir as treasurer, and Zaid ibn Thabit as judge.
His deputy in Hajj one year was ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the final year was ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as mentioned by al Yaqubi in his al Tarikh. Ibn Sa’d in his al Tabaqat, Ibn Kathir and Ibn al Athir in their respective history books, Ibn ‘Abdul Barr in al Isti’ab, and others concur.
The lies of the Saba’iyyah—who announced and are proud of being Saba’iyyah—as well as the undeveloped inheritors of their ideologies and accusations, disguised under the name Shia, out of fear of being exposed, become manifest by the first glance at this list.
These are the official posts and these are the governors; the posts and those seated at the posts, attested to by history and the Shia themselves.
The high posts of the State were:
These are the six high posts of State, none of which were occupied by the Banu Umayyah or the relatives of ‘Uthman. May Allah be pleased with him and the rest of the Sahabah.
Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not appoint him to this post, except as deputy of his brother Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, who was appointed by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam over Tayma’ just as he appointed his father, Abu Sufyan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, over Najran.
Only two remain, viz. ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Kurayz.
Appropriate to mention is that ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not from the Banu Umayyah. He is from the Banu ‘Amir. However, the wetnurse who suckled ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the mother of ‘Abdullah. This is the reality of the relationship [foster brothers].
Now, was the appointment of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Kurayz and add to him ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d—from the plenty governors—an area to criticise ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu?
Is it impermissible in the Shari’ah for the Khalifah or Amir to appoint any of his relatives whom he deems suitable to an official post—just on the basis that he is from his relatives, tribe, or family? Has the Qur’an and Sunnah highlighted this? Has any of the Sahabah, Ahlul Bayt, or ‘Ali and his children radiya Llahu ‘anhum asserted this? Is this even an accusation?
If this is a criticism, then it may be targeted at Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu all the more. During his Caliphate, he appointed Quthum ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Makkah and ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma over Yemen. He appointed ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma over Basrah, and his stepson, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, over Egypt. He appointed his son-in-law and nephew Ja’d ibn al Hubayrah over Khorasan, and Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah over the armies. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma served as his deputy of Hajj in 36 AH; Quthum ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu was his deputy in 37 AH, and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma again in 38 AH.
How do the Shia have the right to object to Sayyidina ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu appointment of his relatives when he did not even appoint many as we proved, whereas they have only appointed Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as the wasi (deputy) of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam due to his relation to him, and they did not specify Imamah to his children except on the basis of them being his children?
وعار عليك إذا فعلت عظيم
The censure against you, if you do, is colossal.
Thereafter, had the discussion not been lengthy, we would have proven that ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu practice was closer to the Sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam than those who succeeded him. Moreover, none of the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam objected to his practice and governors, not even others of the Banu Hashim, besides them, nor the inhabitants of the cities. The posts to which these governors were appointed are established in history.
This is all the Saba’iyyah to the contemporary Shia murmur about. This is the reality. These are the facts. This is the great allegation and gigantic criticism which the Saba’iyyah levelled aforetime and the Shia level nowadays.
Finally, allow us to cite what al Dhahabi mentioned in al Muntaqa as an answer to these (villains):
إن نواب علي قد خانوه وعصوه أكثر مما خان عمال عثمان له وعصوه وذهب بعضهم إلى معاوية وقد ولى علي رضي الله عنه زياد بن أبي سفيان أبا عبيد الله بن زياد قاتل الحسين وولى الأشتر وولى محمد بن أبي بكر ومعاوية خير من هؤلاء كلهم ومن العجب أن الشيعة ينكرون على عثمان ما يدعون أن عليا كان أبلغ فيه من عثمان فيقولون إن عثمان ولى أقاربه من بني أمية وعلي ولى أقاربه من قبل أبيه وأمه كعبد الله وعبيد الله ابني عمه العباس وقثم بن العباس وثمامة بن العباس وولى علي مصر ربيبه محمد بن أبي بكر الذي رباه في حجره وولد أخته أم هانئ ثم إن الإمامية تدعي أن عليا نص على أولاده في الخلافة … ومن المعلوم أنه إن كان تولية الأولاد أقرب إلى الإنكار من تولية بني العم … وإذا ادعي لعلي العصمة ونحوها مما يقطع عنه ألسنة الطاعنين كان ما يدعى لعثمان من الاجتهاد الذي يقطع ألسنة الطاعنين أقرب إلى المعقول والمنقول وأما عثمان فله أسوة في استعمال بني أمية بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقد استعمل عتاب بن أسيد الأموي على مكة وأبا سفيان على نجران واستعمل خالد بن سعيد بن العاص حتى إنه استعمل الوليد بن عقبة…
فيقول عثمان أنا لم أستعمل إلا من استعمله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومن جنسهم ومن قبيلتهم وكذلك أبو بكر وعمر بعده فقد ولى أبو بكر يزيد بن أبي سفيان بن حرب في فتوح الشام وأقره عمر ثم ولى عمر بعده أخاه معاوية وهذا النقل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في استعمال هؤلاء ثابت مشهور عنه بل متواتر عند أهل العلم فكان الاحتجاج على جواز الاستعمال من بني أمية بالنص الثابت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أظهر عند كل عاقل من دعوى كون الخلافة في واحد معين من بني هاشم بالنص لأن هذا كذب باتفاق أهل العلم بالنقل وذاك صدق باتفاق أهل العلم بالنقل وأما بنو هاشم فلم يستعمل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم منهم إلا عليا على اليمن وجعفر على غزوة مؤتة مع مولاه زيد وابن رواحة
Certainly, ‘Ali’s governors deceived and disobeyed him more than ‘Uthman’s governors. Some of them even joined Muawiyah. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had appointed Ziyad ibn Sufyan, the father of ‘Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad—the murderer of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He appointed al Ashtar and he appointed Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. Muawiyah is far superior to all of these individuals.
Shockingly, the Shia criticise ‘Uthman for what they claim ‘Ali practiced more frequently than ‘Uthman. They say that ‘Uthman appointed his relatives from the Banu Umayyah whereas ‘Ali appointed his relatives from his father’s and mother’s side, like ‘Abdullah and ‘Ubaidullah—the sons of his paternal uncle ‘Abbas, Quthum ibn al ‘Abbas, and Thumamah ibn al ‘Abbas. ‘Ali appointed his stepson Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr—whom he nurtured in his home—as well as the child of his sister Umm Hani’. Moreover, the Imamiyyah claim that ‘Ali affirmed the names of his children to assume Caliphate. It is known that appointing one’s offspring is a greater magnet of criticism than appointing one’s cousins.
When infallibility and the like are claimed for ‘Ali—which quiet the tongues of the critics against him—then the ijtihad claimed for ‘Uthman which ought to quiet the tongues of the critics is more sensible and closer to divine text. ‘Uthman has a model for appointing the Banu Umayyah in the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—who appointed ‘Attab ibn Usayd al Umawi over Makkah and Abu Sufyan over Najran. He also acquired the services of Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al ‘As and Walid ibn ‘Uqbah.
‘Uthman is saying: I have not appointed except those whom the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed, from their tribe. Likewise, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after him. Abu Bakr had appointed Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan ibn Harb in the conquest of Syria and ‘Umar maintained this. ‘Umar thereafter appointed his brother, Muawiyah. This transmission of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointing these persons is established and popular; in fact, mutawatir according to the learned.
Citing as evidence, for the permissibility of acquiring the services of the Banu Umayyah, the established nass (authentic textual evidence) from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is more manifest to every intelligent human than the claim of Caliphate being confined to one specific individual of the Banu Hashim by nass. This is because the latter is a despicable lie by the consensus of the scholars of hadith, while the former is a glaring truth by the consensus of the scholars of hadith. As for the Banu Hashim, the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not appoint except ‘Ali over Yemen and Jafar in the Battle of Mu’tah along with his freed slave, Zaid, and Ibn Rawahah.
وأما توليته الوليد بن عقبة على الكوفة فليس فيه شيء لأن الوليد كان من أعيان قريش وكان من رجال قريش ظرفا وحلما وشجاعة وأدبا وكان شاعرا شريفا
As regards his appointment of Walid ibn ‘Uqbah over Kufah, there is nothing wrong in this as Walid was from the notables of Quraysh. He was from the respectable gentlemen of Quraysh in generosity, tolerance, bravery, and culture. Moreover, he was a poet, noble.
Moreover, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself appointed him to collect the Zakat of the Banu al Mustaliq. He embraced Islam on the Day of the Conquest and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent him to collect the Zakat of the Banu al Mustaliq.
Concerning Sa’id ibn al ‘As, let us cite here what al Khatib Muhibb al Din wrote on the footnotes of al Muntaqa min Minhaj al Sunnah:
كان سعيد بن العاص في الدروة العالية من فصحاء قريش وندبه عثمان عند كتابة القرآن فأقيمت عربية القرآن على لسانه لأنه كان أشبههم لهجة برسول لله صلى الله عليه وسلم وبلغ من صدق إيمانه أن قال له عمر يوما أنا لم أقتل أباك وإنما قتلت خالي العاص بن هشام فقال له سعيد ولو قتلته لكنت على الحق وكان على الباطل وسعيد بن العاص هو فاتح طبرستان وغزا جرجان وكان في عسكره حذيفة وغيره من كبار الصحابة وحسبه شرفا ما رواه عبد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب أن امرأة جاءت إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ببردة فقالت إني نذرت أن أعطي هذه البردة لأكرم العرب فقال لها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أعطيها لهذا الغلام وهو واقف (وكان هذا الغلام هو سعيد بن العاص المجاهد الفاتح الذي يعير الرافضي أمير المؤمنين عثمان بأنه ولاه الكوفة) فإن لم تكن إقامة القرآن على لسان سعيد بن العاص مفخرة عند الرافضة فشهادة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم له بأنه أكرم العرب من أعظم مفاخر الدنيا والدين إلا أن له عيبا وهو أنه أحد الذين أخرجوا إيران من المجوسية إلى الإسلام بتسجيل التاريخ له أنه فاتح طبرستان وقائد كبار الصحابة في غزو جرجان وأحاديثه في صحيح مسلم وسنن النسائي وجامع الترمذي ولكن الرافضة لا تعبأ بصحيح مسلم ولا بجميع دواوين السنة المحمدية ما دامت مكتفية بأكاذيب كتابهم الذي يسمونه الكافي ومن مفاخر سعيد بن العاص التي يموت الرافضة بسببها كمدا وحنقا ما أخرجه الطبراني من طريق محمد بن قانع بن جبير بن مطعم عن أبيه عن جده قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عاد سعيد بن العاص فرأيته يكمده بخرقة وأراد بعضهم أن يصرف هذه المنقبة إلى جد سعيد بن العاص وهو أيضا يسمي سعيد بن العاص لكن ذلك لا يمكن أن يكون إلا في مكة قبل الهجرة وجد سعيد بن العاص مشرك فإن صح أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فعل ذلك بجد سعيد بن العاص الأموي وهو مشرك فيكون ذلك من باب المودة في القربى لأنهما من بني عبد مناف وسب الرافضة للأمويين من بني عبد مناف في جاهليتهم وإسلامهم ينافي ما كان يحتج إليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أسباب المودة في القربى التي تقدم الكلام عليها لمناسبة ما كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يبادل به أبا سفيان في الجاهلية من أسباب هذه المودة العائلية وعلى ذكر حديث البردة التي نذرت إحدى الصحابيات أن تعطيها لأكرم العرب فأمرها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تعطيها لسعيد بن العاص وكان غلاما بعد فإن هذا الحديث من أعلام النبوة وقد اكتشف النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بنور الوحي الإلهي أن سعيدا سيكون أكرم العرب روى ابن أبي خيثمة من طريق يحيى بن سعيد قال قدم محمد بن عقيل بن أبي طالب على أبيه فقال له من أشرف الناس قال أنا وابن أمي وحسبك بسعيد بن العاص وقال معاوية كريم قريش سعيد بن العاص وكان مشهورا بالكرم والبر حتى كان إذا سأله السائل وليس عنده ما يعطيه كتب له بما يريد أن يعطيه مسطورا فلما مات كان عليه ثمانون ألف دينار فوفاها عنه ولده عمرو الأشدق … وهذا هو الأموي الذي يعير الرافضي أمير المؤمنين عثمان بأنه ولاه الكوفة مات سعيد بن العاص في قصره بالعقيق سنة 53
Sa’id ibn al ‘As was stationed at the summit of the eloquent Arabs. ‘Uthman selected him to write the Qur’an. The Arabic of the Qur’an was thus established on his tongue as he enjoyed the closest accent to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from them.
The sincerity of his iman reached the level that ‘Umar told him one day, “I did not kill your father. I only killed my uncle, al ‘As ibn Hisham.”
Sa’id responded, “Had you killed him, you would be upon truth while he was upon falsehood.”
Sa’id ibn al ‘As is the Conqueror of Tabaristan and attacked Jurjan. In his army were Hudhayfah and other senior Sahabah. Sufficient nobility for him is the report by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al Khattab that a woman approached the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with a garment and submitted, “I vowed to give this garment to the noblest (most magnanimous) Arab.”
The Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded her, “Award it to this lad.” He was seated. (This lad was Sa’id ibn al ‘As, the Warrior, the Conqueror, against whom the Rafidi is blaming Amir al Mu’minin ‘Uthman for appointing him governor of Kufah.)
If the establishment of the Qur’an on the tongue of Sa’id ibn al ‘As is not a privilege according to the Rafidah, then the Nabi’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam testimony of him being the noblest (most magnanimous) Arab is one of the greatest accolades of honour in a worldly and religious sense. Except that he has a flaw. He is one of those who snatched Iran from the Fire worshippers to Islam with history bearing testimony in his favour as the Conqueror of Tabaristan and the chief commander of the Sahabah in the Battle of Jurjan.
His ahadith appear in Sahih Muslim, Sunan al Nasa’i, and Jami’ al Tirmidhi. However, the Rafidah attach no importance to Sahih Muslim, nor to any of the compilations of the Sunnah Muhammadiyyah. They are satisfied with the lies of their book named al Kafi.
One of the honours of Sa’id ibn al ‘As—due to which the Rafidah die with fury, grief, and resentment—is the report documented by al Tabarani through the chain of Muhammad ibn Qani’ ibn Jubayr ibn Mut’im – from his father – from his grandfather who reports: I saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam visiting Sa’id ibn al ‘As. I saw him covering him with a cloth.”
Some wish to apply this accolade to the grandfather of Sa’id ibn al ‘As—who is also named Sa’id ibn al ‘As—whereas that is impossible to happen except in Makkah prior to Hijrah, whereas the grandfather of Sa’id ibn al ‘As is a polytheist. If it is accurate that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did this with the grandfather of Sa’id ibn al ‘As al Umawi while he was a polytheist, then this is from the chapter of showing love to relatives for both are from the Banu ‘Abd Manaf. The Rafidah’s cursing of the Umayyads from the Banu ‘Abd Manaf during Ignorance and Islam negates what the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sought as a reason for showing love to relatives, which was discussed earlier like the Nabi’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam fair dealing with Abu Sufyan during Ignorance owing to this family love.
Upon mention of the hadith of the garment which one of the female Companions vowed to give to the noblest (most magnanimous) Arab and the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded her to give it to Sa’id ibn al ‘As whereas he was a lad at the time. This hadith is one of the signs of Nubuwwah. The Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam divulged through divine revelation that Sa’id will soon become the noblest (most magnanimous) of Arabs.
Ibn Abi Khaythamah reports through the chain of Yahya ibn Sa’id who said: Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib came to his father and asked, “Who is the noblest (most magnanimous) of people.”
He replied, “I and the son of my mother. And sufficient for you is Sa’id ibn al ‘As.”
Muawiyah said, “The noblest (most magnanimous) man of Quraysh is Sa’id ibn al ‘As.”
He was renowned for generosity and kindness to the extent that if any beggar asked him for something when he had nothing to give, he would write what he intended giving him. At his demise, he owed 80 000 gold coins which were fulfilled by his son ‘Amr al Ashdaq on his behalf.
Let us add to this that he would favour Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu with gifts and the latter would accept his gifts as mentioned by Ibn Sa’d in his al Tabaqat:
و قدم سعيد بن العاص المدينة وافدا على عثمان فبعث إلى وجوه المهاجرين و الأنصار بصلات و كسى و بعث إلى علي ابن أبي طالب أيضا فقبل ما بعث إليه
خطب أم كلثوم بنت علي من فاطمة التي كانت زوجة عمر بن الخطاب فأجابت إلى ذلك
Return your vision, do you see any breaks? Then return your vision twice again. Your vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.
Marvel at the respectability of the governors of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the generosity of the Umawi family, as penned by al Dhahabi and others:
خطب سعيد بن العاص أم كلثوم بنت علي بعد عمر و بعث لها بمائة ألف فدخل عليها أخوها الحسين و قال لا تزوجيه فقال الحسن أنا أزوجه و اعتدوا لذلك فحضروا فقال سعيد و أين أبو عبد الله فقال الحسن سأكفيك قال فلعل أبا عبد الله كره هذا قال نعم قال لا أدخل في شيء يكرهه و رجع و لم يأخذ من المال شيئا
Hassan said, “I will marry her to him,” and they prepared for them. Both parties gathered.
Sa’id asked in surprise, “Where is Abu ‘Abdullah (Hussain)?”
Hassan replied, “Do not worry, I will suffice for you.”
“It seems as if Abu ‘Abdullah dislikes this,” Sa’id suggested.
“Yes,” replied Hassan.
Upon this, Sa’id said, “I will not enter into something he dislikes.”
Consequently, he returned and did not take any of the wealth back.
As regards ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir, ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu governor over Iraq, sufficient honour for him is:
أتي به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم و هو صغير فقال هذا يشبهنا وجعل يتفل عليه ويعوذه وجعل عبد الله يبتلع ريق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إنه المسقي فكان لا يعالج أرضا إلا ظهر له الماء … فكان كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
During his infancy, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir was brought to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (in the 7th year after hijrah at the occasion of ‘Umrat al Qada’.) Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam remarked, “He resembles us.” He then placed his blessed saliva in the infant’s mouth and begged Allah for the infant’s protection. ‘Abdullah swallowed the saliva of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam further commented that he will be a finder of water. Consequently, ‘Abdullah would not tread upon any land except that water would appear for him. Thus, he was as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prophesised.
Ibn Sa’d adds that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated:
هذا ابننا وهو أشبهكم بنا
This is our son and he resembles us the most from all of you.
His paternal grandmother is the paternal aunt of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; Umm Hakim bint ‘Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim.
وكان ابن عامر رجلا سخيا شجاعا وصولا لقومه ولقرابته محببا فيهم رحيما
Ibn ‘Amir was munificent, heroic, a maintainer of relations with his people and relatives, beloved to them, and a compassionate gentleman.
وولاه بلاد فارس و كان عمره خمس وعشرين سنة فافتتح خراسان كلها وأطراف فارس وسجستان وكرمان وزابلستان إلخ
He (‘Uthman) appointed him governor over the land of Persia when he was at the age of 25. He conquered the entire Khorasan, the outlying areas of the Persian dominion, Sijistan, Kirman, and Zabilistan.
كما أرسل العساكر إلى كل من قومس ونسا وابرشهر وجام وطوس واسفرائين وسرخس ومرو وبوشنج وزرنج
Just as he sent armies to Qumis, Nasa, Abarshahr, Jam, Tus, Isfara’in, Sarkhas, Marw, Bushanj, and Zarnaj.
وقتل كسرى في ولايته
Kisra was killed during his reign.
وأرسل العساكر إلى الكاريان والفيشجان وناشب وبهرات وبيهق وطخارستان وجوزجان والفاريان والطالقان وبلخ وخوارزم وبادغيس وأصبهان وحلوان
He sent armies to al Kariyan, al Fayshajan, Nashib, Bahrat, Bayhaq, Takharistan, Juzjan, al Fariyan, al Taliqan, Balkh, Khawarizm, Badaghis, Asbahan, and Halawan
وافتتحت هذه البلدان كلها تحت أشرافه وبأيدي عساكره
All these cities were conquered by his commanders and at the hands of his armies.
وهو أول من اتخذ الحياض بعرفة و أجرى إليها العين و سقى الناس الماء فذاك جار إلى اليوم
He is the first to construct ponds in ‘Arafah. He sourced water from a spring to these ponds and gave water to the people. This continues up to this day.
Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding this:
إن له من الحسنات و المحبة في قلوب الناس ما لا ينكر
He has numerous virtuous deeds to his name and secured love in the hearts of people which cannot be denied.
Where do the Shia, from the first to the last of them, have a governor like him in Jihad, wars, conquests, gifts, presents, kindness to people, and humanitarian work?
With regards to Marwan who has been critiqued extensively. Allow us to shed some detail on him as he has remained the target of several criticisms and the focus of reproach of the Saba’iyyah of before and all the sects of the Shia.
Majority of the criticisms against him like cursing ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, usurping the fifth of Africa, his father been cast into exile while he was with him, writing the alleged letter ordering the killing of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, and other reports have only been reported on the authority of al Waqidi, Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi, his son Hisham, or Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya. We have mentioned the status of all these narrators—they are from the remaining Saba’iyyah and Shia—coupled with inqita’ (missing link/s) in their chains as they narrate from people they did not meet or hear from directly. Owing to this, reports through their chains without corroborations should not be considered, like al Tabari and Ibn Sa’d who narrate only from al Waqidi. Al Baladhuri in Ansab al Ashraf narrates from Hisham al Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf. Other historians narrate from them. Owing to this, Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Arabi, Ibn Hajar al Haythami, Ibn Taymiyyah, al Dhahabi, and others have stated:
إن أكثر الأخبار في ذلك مختلقة ولم يصح منه شيء
Majority of the reports on this issue are fabricated. None of them are authentic.
The masters of hadith have stated about fabricated narrations that majority of the reports condemning Muawiyah, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As, and the Banu Umayyah as well as the reports censuring Walid and Marwan ibn al Hakam are fabricated, tales concocted by liars, deceits of the Shia who have made their religion dishonesty and given falsehood a station of purity. Al Mulla ‘Ali al Qari states this in his book al Mawdu’at. Have a look at al Asrar al Marfu’ah fi al Akhbar al Mawdu’ah, al Manar al Munif fi al Sahih wa al Saqim of Ibn al Qayyim and other books.
This is a set of condemnation. There is another set which have been refuted by the historians themselves just as they refuted the fabricated letters attributed to Marwan alleging that he wrote and stamped them with ‘Uthman’s stamp, as the stamp was in his care. They declare that this is a lie against the Sahabah.
إنما كتبت مزورة عليهم كما كتبوا من جهة علي وطلحة والزبير كتبا مزورة عليهم
This was fabricated in their names just as letters were fabricated in the name of ‘Ali, Talhah, and Zubair.
Ibn Khaldun writes:
فانصرفوا قليلا ثم رجعوا و قد لبسوا بكتاب مدلس يزعمون أنهم لقوه في يد حامله إلى عامل مصر بأن يقتلهم وحلف عثمان على ذلك فقالوا مكنا من مروان فإنه كاتبك فحلف مروان فقال ليس في الحكم أكثر من هذا
The rebels departed and then shortly returned with a devious letter which they claimed they found in the hand of its carrier to the governor of Egypt stating that he should kill them all. ‘Uthman swore upon oath that he had no knowledge of the letter.
They said, “Allow us to punish Marwan, for he is your scribe.”
Marwan swore that he did not write it.
Before this, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu had announced the forging of these letters, with understanding and foresight. We quoted his words in the beginning:
كيف علمتم يا أهل الكوفة ويا أهل البصرة بما لقي أهل مصر وقد سرتم مراحل ثم طويتم نحونا هذا والله أمر أبرم بالمدينة قالوا فضعوه على ما شئتم لا حاجة لنا في هذا الرجل ليعتزلنا
‘Ali questioned them, “How did you, O people of Kufah and O people of Basrah, come to know of what the Egyptians experienced whereas you travelled few stations while they returned in our direction. This, by Allah, is an issue concluded in Madinah.”
They said, “Leave it as you please. We do not have any need for this man. He should leave us.
This is from the angle of analysis of the text. Intellectually, is it understandable that an individual like this can be a scribe for Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu while none of the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhu object to it, not even ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu—carrier of the flag of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on the Day of Khaybar, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas radiya Llahu ‘anhu—one of the ten promised Jannat and the Conqueror of Iran, Zubair—Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam cousin and special disciple, Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu—who defended Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the arrows of the polytheists of Makkah like a shield, and other notable and distinguished Sahabah? The criticism they concocted is not articulated by any of the distinguished and senior Sahabah.
Moreover, is it possible for Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to intercede before their father to release him the day he was captive in his hand? This is mentioned by the Shia themselves. They say:
أخذ مروان بن الحكم أسيرا فاستشفع له الحسن والحسين عليهما السلام إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فكلم فيه فخلى سبيله
These three individuals, viz. ‘Ali and his two sons Hassan and Hussain, are infallible according to the Shia and ‘Ali is God according to the Saba’iyyah. Does a God accept an intercession and release a man who has the qualities the Shia depict him with, falsely and misleadingly?
كان الحسن والحسين يصليان خلف مروان بن الحكم فقالوا لأحدهما (أي لموسى أو لجعفر) ما كان أبوك يصلي إذا رجع إلى البيت فقال والله لا ما كان يزيد على صلاة
He answered, “By Allah, no. He would not read more than one salah.”
Ibn Kathir documents something similar in his Tarikh.
Imam al Bukhari writes in his Tarikh on the authority of Shurahbil ibn Sa’d who affirms:
رأيت الحسن والحسين يصليان خلف مروان
Can anyone have any misgivings and doubts after this that all these allegations are false and fabricated? There have absolutely no authenticity. Had they possessed any trace of authenticity, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his household’s interaction with them would not be as portrayed in the books of the Shia.
One of the incidents is that ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah, titled Zayn al ‘Abidin—the fourth infallible Imam according to the Shia—took a loan of 6 000 gold coins and 100 000 silver coins from Marwan. On his deathbed, the latter bequeathed to his son, ‘Abdul Malik, not to take back from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah any portion of the loan.
Moreover, the daughter of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Ramlah, married the son of Marwan, and this marriage is documented by many genealogists.
كانت رملة بنت علي عند أبي الهياج الهاشمي واسمه عبد الله بن سفيان بن أبي الحارث بن عبد المطلب ولدت له وقد انقرض ولد سفيان بن الحارث ثم خلف عليها معاوية بن مروان بن الحكم
Ramlah bint ‘Ali was married to Abu al Hayyaj al Hashimi, ‘Abdullah ibn Sufyan ibn Abi al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib. She bore a child for him. However, the progeny of Sufyan ibn al Harith did not survive. Muawiyah ibn Marwan ibn al Hakam married her after her husband’s demise.
Likewise, Zainab bint al Hassan al Muthanna was married to the grandson of Marwan, Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik. This Zainab is the product of both sides; she is Hassani from her father’s side and Hussaini from her mother’s side as her mother was Fatimah bint al Hussain ibn ‘Ali.
A number of genealogists have recorded this marriage.
و كانت زينب بنت الحسن بن الحسن بن علي عند الوليد بن عبد الملك بن مروان و هو خليفة
Moreover, Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik married another Hashimi ‘Alawi girl who is also a product of both sides. She is Nafisah bint Zaid ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, a granddaughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Nafisah’s mother was Lubabah bint ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib. A famous Shia Genealogist has documented this marriage:
و كان لزيد ابنة اسمها نفيسة خرجت إلى الوليد بن عبد الملك بن مروان فولدت منه
Zaid had a daughter, Nafisah. She went to Walid ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan and had children with him (after marrying him).
There are many other marriages which the genealogists have documented.
These are historical testimonies and acknowledgements of the Shia themselves that Fatimid and ‘Alawi girls would marry the sons and grandsons of Marwan. If Marwan was as the haters describe him and as the fabricators concoct, then how are the two reconcilable? What explanation is suitable?
The answer known to the unbiased immediately is that there were no such things except what the Saba’iyyah, the sons of Jews, and those who tread their path concocted. Otherwise, is it sensible for the children of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to marry their daughters off to the sons and grandsons of Marwan, if Marwan was as bad as he is portrayed?
As regards to the Saba’iyyah and their ilk’s accusation that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would favour his family with plenty wealth from the Bayt al Mal, this is totally unsubstantiated. Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu answered the Saba’iyyah that day, as we previously quoted:
وأما إعطاؤهم فإني أعطيهم من مالي ولا أستحل أموال المسلمين لنفسي ولا لأحد من الناس ولقد كنت أعطي العطية الكبيرة الرغيبة من صلب مالي أزمان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما وأنا يومئذ شحيح حريص أفحين أتيت على أسنان أهل بيتي وفنى عمري وودعت الذي لي في أهلي
With regards to giving them, I give them from my wealth and do not regard the wealth of the Muslims permissible for myself or for any person. I had given considerable plentiful gifts from the core of my wealth during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma whereas at the time, I was rapacious, desirous. Now, when I have grown old and my lifespan is depleting, I placed what I possess among my family, and the heretics begin criticising me! By Allah, I have not acquired any wealth in any of the cities allowing criticism towards me. I have returned the [public] wealth to them. Only the fifth comes to me and none of that is permissible for me. The Muslims distribute it to eligible recipients without me taking anything. Therefore, not a penny of the wealth of Allah was squandered. I only survive on my wealth.
‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu opposition acknowledged this after he said to them:
وإني قد وليت وإني أكثر العرب بعيرا وشاة فما اليوم شاة ولا بعير غير بعيرين لحجي أكذلك قالوا اللهم نعم
When I assumed the caliphate, I possessed the largest number of camels and sheep in Arabia. Today, not a single one of those sheep or camels are left [in my possession], besides two camels for my Hajj. Is this true?”
They replied, “O Allah, yes.”
Moreover, whatever else appears after this is nothing but the concoctions of the Saba’iyyah who are bent upon repeating lies and persisting upon falsehood to create rancour and malice for the relatives and in-laws of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and against the comrades, students, and beloveds of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Beneficial to mention that the narrators of these aspects are the very narrators to attribute falsehood to the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, pronouncing it emphatically and boldly. In fact, they concoct and fabricate from al Waqidi and Lut ibn Yahya Abu Mikhnaf al Shia, not from any of the reliable narrators of the Sunnah. We discussed the criticism against these narrators in the beginning of the discussion. Their false, fabricated narrations should not be considered at all.
Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not commit any crime, neither at the beginning of his rule, nor at the end. The Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not commit any crime. Beware of considering any false report!
عمل أمير المؤمنين عثمان ثنتي عشرة سنة لا ينكرون من إمارته شيئا حتى جاء فسقة فداهن والله في أمره أهل المدينة
Amir al Mu’minin ruled for twelve years. No aspect of his leadership was questionable or objectionable. Until the transgressors appeared on the scene. By Allah, the residents of Madinah were duped in his matter.
Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Usamah ibn Zaid, and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhum testified that there was no problem. Rather, it is only the conspiracy hatched by ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, Khalid ibn Muljam, Sawdan ibn Humran, Kinanah ibn Bishr and others. They gathered around them people, who bore grudges and who sought an official post but did not obtain it, as well as jealous men, who manifested their ailment. Lack of din, weak conviction, and preferring the world over the Hereafter incited them to perpetrate this.
Salubrious to highlight is that Sawdan ibn Humran and Khalid ibn Muljam were those very same individuals at whom Sayyidina ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu, during his caliphate, gazed and turned away from three times. When asked the reason for this, he said:
إني عنهم لمتردد وما مر بي قوم من العرب أكره إليه منهم
I have reservations regarding them. No tribe of the Arab ever crossed my path more detestable to me than them.
As regards to him lashing Ibn Mas’ud and ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and banishing Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Rabadhah, this is not authentically established. These are nothing but lies and defamations. Yes, he did differ with Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu on uniting the people on a single Mushaf. Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu opposed him but the Ummah, all without exception, headed by the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam agree with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. His Mushaf has remained in circulation among Muslims ever since. It is not reported from reliable narrators that he beat Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu to death. Not even the Saba’iyyah mentioned this in any of their abundant charges against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
As for the case of ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, all that it comprised of as documented by the historians is that he and ‘Abbas ibn ‘Utbah ibn Abi Lahab had a disagreement. ‘Uthman disciplined both of them. He did not have any personal issue with ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Consequently, Amir al Mu’minin ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu along with those he sent to investigate the situation of the Muslims and uncover the affairs, as previously mentioned.
Yes, the Saba’iyyah abused his existence in Egypt and gathered around him and tried to manipulate him to gain his favour. As soon as he reached Madinah, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu reprimanded him for his inclination to the Saba’iyyah with the words:
يا أبا اليقظان قذفت ابن أبي لهب قذفك … وغضبت على أن أخذت لك بحقك وله بحقه اللهم قد وهبت ما بيني وبين أمتي من مظلمة اللهم إني متقرب إليك بإقامة حدودك في كل أحد ولا أبالي
O Abu al Yaqzan! You slandered Ibn Abi Lahab and you were upset for me giving you your right and him his. O Allah, I have forgiven all oppressions between me and the Ummah. O Allah, I seek Your proximity by establishing Your hudud on every [guilty] one, and I do not care.
As regards the matter of Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, allow us to quote the text from Tarikh Ibn Khaldun to expose the reality. The author mentions the criticism of the Saba’iyyah against Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to change the ruling of the Muslims and exposes the reality of this criticism:
وكان مما أنكروه على عثمان إخراج أبي ذر من الشام ومن المدينة إلى الربذة وكان الذي دعا إلى ذلك شدة الورع من أبي ذر و حمله الناس على شدائد الأمور والزهد في الدنيا وأنه لا ينبغي لأحد أن يكون عنده أكثر من قوت يومه ويأخذ بالظاهر في ذم الادخار بكنز الذهب والفضة وكان ابن سبأ يأتيه فيغريه بمعاوية ويعيب قوله المال مال الله ويوهم أن في ذلك احتجانه للمال وصرفه على المسلمين حتى عتب أبو ذر معاوية فاستعتب له وقال سأقول مال المسلمين وأتى ابن سبأ إلى أبي الدرداء وعبادة بن الصامت بمثل ذلك فدفعوه وجاء به عبادة إلى معاوية وقال هذا الذي بعث عليك أبا ذر ولما كثر ذلك على معاوية شكاه إلى عثمان فاستقدمه وقال له ما لأهل الشام يشكون منك فأخبره فقال يا أبا ذر لا يمكن حمل الناس على الزهد وإنما علي أن أقضي بينهم بحكم الله وأرغبهم في الاقتصاد فقال أبو ذر لا نرضى من الأغنياء حتى يبذلوا المعروف ويحسنوا للجيران والإخوان ويصلوا القرابة فقال له كعب الأحبار من أدى الفريضة فقد قضى ما عليه فضربه أبو ذر فشجه وقال يا ابن اليهودية ما أنت وهذا فاستوهب عثمان من كعب شجته فوهبه ثم استأذن أبو ذر عثمان في الخروج من المدينة وقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرني بالخروج منها إذا بلغ البناء سلعا فأذن له ونزل بالربذة وبنى بها مسجدا وأقطعه عثمان صرمة من الإبل وأعطاه مملوكين وأجرى عليه رزقا وكان يتعاهد المدينة فعد أولئك الرهط خروج أبي ذر فيما ينقمونه على عثمان
Amongst the issues they raised against ‘Uthman was him exiling Abu Dharr firstly from Syria then from Madinah to Rabadhah. What caused this to happen was Abu Dharr’s extreme piety and the fact that he would encourage the people to practice upon the harsher rulings in certain matters and to adopt abstinence from the world. He also opined that it was not appropriate for anyone to have more than a day’s food with him. He took the apparent meaning of the dislike of hoarding as it being disliked to keep any gold and silver.
Ibn Saba’ would come to him and incite him against Muawiyah and would find fault with the latter’s statement, “The wealth is Allah’s wealth.” He would give the impression that through this he implied him hoarding the wealth instead of spending it on the Believers. This made Abu Dharr displeased with Muawiyah, so he intended to scold him and said, “I will say [that this is] the wealth of the Believers.”
Ibn Saba’ went to Abu al Darda’ and ‘Ubadah ibn al Samit with the same information; however, they chased him away. ‘Ubadah took him to Muawiyah and said, “He is the one who caused Abu Dharr to come to you.”
Abu Dharr informed him.
‘Uthman said, “O Abu Dharr! It is not correct to coerce people to abstinence. I only have the right to judge between them with the command of Allah and encourage them to adopt moderation.”
Abu Dharr said, “We are not happy with the affluent until they spend their wealth, treat the neighbours and brothers with kindness, and join family ties.”
Ka’b al Ahbar said to him, “Whoever pays the obligatory Zakat has fulfilled his obligation.”
Abu Dharr struck Ka’b leaving him with a gash to his head and shouted, “O son of a Jewess! What do you know about this?”
‘Uthman pleaded with Ka’b to forgive his head gash and he forgave Abu Dharr.
Abu Dharr then sought permission from ‘Uthman to leave Madinah saying, “Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam certainly commanded me to leave from here when the buildings reach Sil’.”
‘Uthman acceded to his request. He thus settled in Rabadhah where he built a Masjid. ‘Uthman gave him a few camels as well as two servants, and stipulated a stipend for him. He would visit Madinah regularly.
This report establishes a number of significant points:
Ten complete points
Another point to highlight is that Rabadhah was not far from Madinah. The distance between the two was only 3 miles. Yaqut says:
وكانت في أحسن منزل في طريق المدينة
It was the best station enroute to Madinah.
Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Arabi affirms this:
وأما نفيه أبا ذر إلى الربذة فلم يفعل
He did not expel Abu Dharr to Rabadhah.
Al Dhahabi quotes the statement of Hassan al Basri rahimahu Llah:
معاذ الله أن يكون أخرجه عثمان
A similar report is narrated from Abu Dharr’s wife who confirmed
والله ما سير عثمان أبا ذر إلى ربذة
As for him not taking qisas from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar for killing Hurmuzan. Firstly, it is surprising that the Shia level this allegation, who claim to be supporters and partisans of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. How far are they from this, when they criticise all those who sought qisas from the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu?
Secondly, it is established that Hurmuzan was one of those who planned the murder and assassination of Sayyidina al Faruq al A’zam radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Allow ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to relate the details of the morning of ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder. He says:
مررت بأبي لؤلؤة عشي أمس ومعه جفينة والهرمزان وهم نجي فلما رهقتهم ثاروا وسقط منهم خنجر له رأسان نصابه في وسطه فانظروا بأي شيء قتل وقد تخلل أهل المسجد وخرج في طلبه رجل من بني تميم فرجع إليهم التميمي وقد كان ألظ بأبي لؤلؤة منصرفه عن عمر حتى أخذه فقتله وجاء بالخنجر الذي وصفه عبد الرحمن
“I passed by Abu Lu’lu’ah the night before. Jafinah and Hurmuzan were with him in secret discussion. As I approached them, they jumped up and fell from them a dagger with two blades with the handle in the middle. See with what he [‘Umar] was stabbed.”
He [Abu Lu’lu’ah] moved through the worshippers in the Masjid. A man from the Banu Tamim went after him. The Tamimi returned after pursuing Abu Lu’lu’ah fleeing from ‘Umar. He seized him and killed him and brought the dagger. It was as described by ‘Abdur Rahman.
Thirdly, al Qumadhban ibn al Hurmuzan forgave him and pardoned him for killing his father. Here is the text as reported by Abu al Mansur:
القماذبان يحدث عن قتل أبيه قال سمعت كانت العجم بالمدينة يستروح بعضها إلى بعض فمر فيروز بأبي ومعه خنجر له رأسان فتناوله منه وقال ما تصنع بهذا في هذه البلاد فقال ابس به فرآه رجل فلما أصيب عمر قال رأيت هذا مع الهرمزان دفعه إلى فيروز فأقبل عبيد الله فقتله فلما ولي عثمان دعاني فأمكنني منه ثم قال يا بني هذا قاتل أبيك وأنت أولى به منا فاذهب فاقتله فخرجت به وما في الأرض أحد إلا ومعي غير أنهم يطلبون إلي فيه فقلت لهم ألي قتله قالوا نعم وسبوا عبيد الله فقلت ألكم أن تمنعوه قالوا لا وسبوه فتركته لله ولهم فاحتملوني فوالله ما بلغت المنزل إلا على رؤوس الرجال وأكفهم
Al Qumadhban narrates the killing of his father saying: I heard that the non-Arabs in Madinah would spend the evening with one another. Fayruz passed by my dad holding a dagger with two blades. My father took it from him questioning him, “What are you doing with this in this city?”
He said, “I like having it.”
Now a man saw him, and when ‘Umar was stabbed, he said, “I saw this with Hurmuzan who gave it to Fayruz.”
‘Ubaidullah thus came and killed him.
After ‘Uthman assumed caliphate, he summoned me and allowed me to take retribution from him [‘Ubaidullah] saying, “O son, this is the killer of your father and you have more right over him than us. Go and kill him.”
I left with him and there was none on earth except with me, save that they interceded before me regarding him. I asked them, “Do I have the right to kill him?”
They answered, “Yes,” and they took ‘Ubaidullah captive.
I asked, “Do you have the right to prevent it?”
“No,” they said and they had him in captivity.
I then released him for the pleasure of Allah and to appease them. They thus carried me. By Allah, I never reached my house except by men carrying me on their heads and shoulders.
Fourthly, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu paid the diyah (blood money) from his own wealth.
قال عثمان أنا وليه وقد جعلتها دية واحتملتها في مالي
Does this leave any scope for a person to condemn or a critic to criticise?
As regards the issue of the second Adhan of Jumu’ah, the Saba’iyyah did not object to this. This is the additions of their elders. We ask them, “Did ‘Ali remove this Adhan when he assumed Caliphate?”
The fact is that he did not remove it his whole Caliphate. Why did he adopt silence upon this evil, had it been evil? And if this is a valid criticism, why is it levelled against ‘Uthman only, and not ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma?
Al Dhahabi explains:
وأما زيادات الأذان الثاني يوم الجمعة فعلي ممن وافق على ذلك في خلافته ولم يزله وإبطال هذا كان أهون عليه من عزل معاوية وغيره من قتالهم فإن قيل إن الناس لا يوافقونه على إزالة الأذان قلنا فهذا دليل على أن الناس وافقوا عثمان على الاستحباب حتى مثل عمار وسهل بن حنيف والسابقين وإن اختلفوا فهي من مسائل الاجتهاد
As regards the addition of the second Adhan on Friday, ‘Ali is one of those who agreed with this in his Caliphate and did not remove it. Disallowing this was easier for him than dismissing Muawiyah and other aspects like fighting them. If someone claims that people would not agree with him for removing the Adhan, we would say: This is proof that all the people agreed with ‘Uthman of it being favoured, even ‘Ammar and Sahl ibn Hunayf and the early Sahabah. If they differed, it is a matter of ijtihad.
These are the allegations and accusations the Shia levelled against the oppressed Amir al Mu’minin ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They incited the people against him and killed him deceptively and deviously, rebelliously and defiantly after ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Talhah, Zubair, Zaid ibn Thabit, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurairah, ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair and many others intended to defend him and fight to protect him.
Sayyidina Zaid ibn Thabit al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to him and submitted, “Here are the Ansar at the door announcing, ‘If you wish, we will become the Helpers of Allah again.’ Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu responded:
لا حاجة لي في ذلك كفوا
I do not have any need for this. Hold your hands!”
The Shia Mu’tazili Ibn Abi al Hadid has mentioned this:
ومانعهم الحسن بن علي وعبد الله بن الزبير ومحمد بن طلحة ومروان وسعيد بن العاص وجماعة معهم من أبناء الأنصار فزجرهم عثمان وقال أنتم في حل من نصرتي فأبوا
Hassan ibn ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, Muhammad ibn Talhah, Marwan, Sa’id ibn al ‘As, and others from the sons of the Ansar put up resistance to them [the rebels]. ‘Uthman rebuked them [the helpers] saying, “You are not obligated to assist me.” They [the helpers] refused [to leave].
He also writes:
نهى علي أهل مصر وغيرهم عن قتل عثمان قبل قتله مرارا نابذهم بيده وبلسانه وبأولاده
The Shia Historian al Mas’udi has given a more detailed account which we presented aforetime. We will repeat his text at the end as it serves as a reminder for those who take heed. Indeed, in this is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present [in mind].
فلما بلغ عليًّا أنهم يريدون قتله بعث بابنيه الحسن والحسين مع مواليه بالسلاح إلى بابه لنصرته وأمرهم أن يمنعوه منهم وبعث الزبير ابنه عبد الله وبعث طلحة ابنه محمدًا وأكثر أبناء الصحابة أرسلهم آباؤهم اقتداء بمن ذكرنا فصدُّوهم عن الدار فرمى من وصفنا بالسهام واشتبك القوم وجرح الحسن وشج قنبر وجرح محمد بن طلحة فخشي القوم أن يتعصب بنو هاشم وبنو أمية فتركوا القوم في القتال على الباب ومضى نفر منهم إلى دار قوم من الأنصار فتسوروا عليها وكان ممن وصل إليه محمد بن أبي بكر ورجلان آخران وعند عثمان زوجته وأهلُه ومواليه مشاغيل بالقتال فأخذ محمد بن أبي بكر بلحيته فقال يا محمد والله لو رآك أبوك لساءه مكانك فتراخت يده وخرج عن الدار ودخل رجلان فوجداه فقتلاه وكان المصحف بين يديه يقرأ فيه فصعدت امرأته فصرخت وقالت قد قتل أمير المؤمنين فدخل الحسن والحسين ومن كان معهما من بني أمية فوجدوه قد فاضت نفسه رضي الله عنه فبكوا فبلغ ذلك عليًّا وطلحة والزبير وسعدًا وغيرهم من المهاجرين والأنصار فاسترجع القوم ودخل عليّ الدار وهو كالواله الحزين وقال لابنيه كيف قتل أمير المؤمنين وأنتما على الباب ولَطَمَ الحسن وضرب صدر الحسين وشتم محمد بن طلحة ولعن عبد الله بن الزبير
When news reached ‘Ali that they [the rebels] intend to kill him [‘Uthman], he sent his sons Hassan and Hussain with his freed slaves together with weapons to his [‘Uthman’s] door to assist him and commanded them to defend ‘Uthman from the rebels. Zubair sent his son ‘Abdullah. Talhah sent his son Muhammad. Majority of the sons of the Ansar were sent by their fathers in emulation of whom we mentioned and they barred the rebels from the house. Those described above were shot at with arrows and the rebels engaged in war. Hassan was injured, Qumbur received a gash to his head, and Muhammad ibn Talhah was wounded. The rebels feared that the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah will form a coalition. They thus left a group to fight at the door while another group from the rebels proceeded to the dwellings of a tribe of the Ansar and scaled the wall.
Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and two other men were among those who reached them. ‘Uthman’s wife was with him whereas his family and freed slaves were all engaged in fighting. Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr grabbed his beard. ‘Uthman said, “O Muhammad, by Allah, if your father sees you, your station would displease him greatly.” Muhammad thus withdrew his hand and left the house.
Two men entered the house, located him and killed him—whereas the Mushaf was before him, which he was reciting. His wife climbed the roof and announced, “Amir al Mu’minin has been killed.” Hassan and Hussain and those of the Banu Umayyah who were with them entered and found that his soul had departed; may Allah be pleased with him. They sobbed. News reached ‘Ali, Talhah, Zubair, Sa’d, and other Muhajirin and Ansar. All of them recited istirja’ (to Allah we belong and to Him is our return).
‘Ali entered the house, devastated and grief-stricken. He said to his sons, “How was Amir al Mu’minin killed whereas you were at the door?” He slapped Hassan and punched Hussain in the chest. He reproached Muhammad ibn Talhah and cursed ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.
لقد أسمعت لو ناديت حيا
ولكن لا حياة لمن تنادى
You would have made the living hear if you shouted
But there is no life in those assembled.
We conclude this chapter with a hadith documented by al Bukhari:
عن أنس رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صعد أحدًا وأبو بكر وعمر وعثمان فرجف بهم فضربه برجله فقال اثبت أحد فإنما عليك نبي وصديق وشهيدان
Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam climbed Uhud in the company of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. The mountain began to tremble. He stomped it and proclaimed, “Remain firm, Uhud! Only a Nabi, a Siddiq, and two martyrs are upon you.”
Another hadith reported by al Bukhari and Muslim contains the following:
عن أبي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه قال كنت مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في حائط من حيطان المدينة فجاء رجل فاستفتح فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم افتح له وبشّره بالجنة ففتحت له فإذا أبو بكر فبشرته بما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فحمد الله ثم جاء رجل فاستفتح فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم افتح له وبشّره بالجنة ففتحت له فإذا عمر فأخبرته بما قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فحمد الله ثم استفتح رجل فقال لي افتح له وبشّره بالجنة على بلوى تصيبه فإذا عثمان فأخبرته بما قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فحمد الله ثم قال الله المستعان
Abu Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports: I was with the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in one of the orchards of Madinah. A man came and sought permission to enter. The Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Open and give him glad tidings of Jannat.” I opened for him and saw Abu Bakr so I gave him glad tidings of what Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said. He praised Allah.
Another man came and sought permission to enter. The Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Open and give him glad tidings of Jannat.” I opened for him and saw ‘Umar. I informed him of what the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said. He praised Allah.
Thereafter, another man sought permission to enter. He told me, “Open for him and give him glad tidings of Jannat after a calamity befalls him.” I found ‘Uthman and informed him of what the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said. He praised Allah and said, “Allah is the One from Whom help is sought.”
The last hadith is reported by al Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah from Murrah ibn Ka’b who says:
سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذكر الفتن فقرّبهما فمر رجل مقنع في ثوب فقال هذا يومئذ على الهدى فقمت إليه فإذا هو عثمان بن عفان قال فأقبلت عليه بوجهه أي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت هذا فقال نعم
I heard Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam speaking about the trials and informing of their imminence. A man passed by with his face covered in a cloth. He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “This man will be on guidance on that day.”
I went up to him and found it to be ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. I turned his face to the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and affirmed, “This man.”
“Yes,” he confirmed.
This is Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the tongue of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is the status he enjoys. Yet, this is what the Saba’iyyah and misled perpetrated against him. These are the adorned criticisms they fabricated to overturn the structure of the Islamic Guided State, to inject the poison of fitnah between the Muslims, to turn them away from correct Islamic beliefs, to turn them away at the highest level by the killing of Amir al Mu’minin and the Khalifah of the Muslims, and to disunite the united group and Ummah shown mercy. They went a step further thereafter by sowing the seeds of discord between the Muslims, kindling the fire of war between them, and inciting fitnahs and enmity. Thereafter, distancing them from correct Islamic beliefs, brainwashing them with infiltrated Jewish beliefs, and un-Islamic ideologies. They were successful in the second level practically as well, in sowing the seeds of discord between the Muslims and inciting infighting so they turn away from Jihad in the path of Allah [against the enemies] and are occupied with fighting one another—in-fighting between groups and sects after the mill spun against the harbours of disbelief and the lands of shirk and idolators.
We summarised in the previous chapter what the practical outcome was. The Islamic lands—which had extended widely in ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu era after the extension of al Faruq and al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhuma—remained the same during ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu era. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu began complaining and sighing:
أوصيكم عباد الله بتقوى الله فإنها خير ما تواصى به العباد وخير عواقب الأمور عند الله وقد فتح باب الحرب بينكم وبين أهل القبلة
I enjoin you, O servants of Allah, to fear Allah as it is the best aspect servants can mutually enjoin and the most impressive outcome by Allah. The door of war has opened between you and the Muslims.
Instead of the Muslims focusing on the enemies of Allah, the enemies of His Messenger, and the enemies of this Ummah, their swords were intertwined with one another. This is exactly what the malicious Jews desired. And this is exactly what transpired to which we are drawing attention.
 Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 257-258.
 A’yan al Shia, pg. 127. [Al Waqidi being a Shia is a claim without proof. None of the early experts of transmitter biographies, despite pointing out his unreliability, ever made such an accusation. Translator’s note]
 Al Najashi: Fihrist Asma’ Musannifi al Shia.
 Rijal al Hilli, pg. 282.
 Al Kuna wa al Alqab, 1/148-149.
 Lisan al Mizan 4/492-493.
 Al Dhahabi: Mizan al I’tidal, 2/360.
 Al Dhahabi: al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 21-23, al Matba’ah al Salafiyyah, Cairo.
 Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 1/5, foreword of the book, Beirut.
 Ibn al Athir: al Kamil, 1/5, foreword.
 A’yan al Shia, the first discussion, part one, pg. 127.
 Al Kuna wa al Alqab, 3/230-232.
 Rawdat al Jannat, 7/268.
 Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Majruhin, 2/284, Deccan.
 Al Dhahabi: al Mughni, 2/619.
 Imam Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 9/363-368, he mentioned it concisely; al Dhahabi: Mizan al I’tidal, 3/110.
 A’yan al Shia, 1/127-128.
 Rijal al Najashi, pg. 305-306.
 Rijal Ibn Abi Dawood al Hilli, pg. 312.
 Ibid, pg. 368-369.
 Rijal al Tusi, pg. 289.
 Ibid, pg. 136.
 A’yan al Shia, 1/59.
 Al Kuna wa al Alqab, 3/94-96.
 Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, pg. 178-181.
 Mizan al I’tidal, pg. 304-305.
 Minhaj al Karamah fi Ithbat al Imamah, pg. 58, which has been written in the margin of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Minhaj al Sunnah.
 Minhaj al Sunnah, 3/19.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/98-99.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/99-100.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/102, 103.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/103-105.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/126.
 The innocence of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr with regard to the murder of ‘Uthman
The one who killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an Egyptian man. The reports do not clearly state his name, but they say that he was originally from the tribe of Sadus and was black skinned. He was nicknamed Jabalah because of the blackness of his skin, and he was also known as al Mawt al Aswad (the Black Death). Muhibb al Din al Khatib was of the view that the killer was ‘Abd-Allah ibn Saba’ himself, as he said:
It is proven that Ibn Saba’ was with the Egyptian rebels when they came from al Fustat to Madinah, and in all similar events he was keen to work behind the scenes.
Perhaps al Mawt al Aswad was a nickname that he wanted to hide behind in order to continue his plots to destroy Islam. [Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, quoted from Fitnat Maqtal ‘Uthman, 1/207] What supports this is the fact that Ibn Saba’ was also black skinned. It is narrated in a sahih report that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu described him as evil and black skinned. [Lisan al Mizan, 3/209]
As for the accusation that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu with his arrow head, this is false. There are weak reports which mention that, as well as texts which are regarded as odd because they contradict the sahih report which states that the killer was an Egyptian man. Dr. Yahya al Yahya lists a number of reasons why Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is innocent in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, including the following:
(a) Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha went out to Basrah to demand retaliation for the killing of ‘Uthman. If her brother had been one of them, she would not have grieved for him when he was killed later on when learning of his death.
(b) ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu cursed the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and disavowed them, which implies that he did not let them become close to him and did not appoint them to any position. But he appointed Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu as governor of Egypt. If Muhammad had been one of them, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not have done that.
(c) The report narrated by Ibn ‘Asakir with his isnad from Muhammad ibn Talhah ibn Musarrif who said:
I heard Kinanah the freed slave of Safiyyah bint Huyayy say, “I was present when ‘Uthman was killed and I was fourteen years old (at that time).” She said, “Was Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr involved in his killing at all?” He said, “Allah forbid. He entered upon him and ‘Uthman said, ‘O son of my brother, you cannot be the one who kills me;’ then he went out, and he was not involved in his killing at all.” [Marwiyyat Abi Mikhnaf fi Tarikh al Tabari, p. 243]
This is supported by the report narrated by khalifah ibn Khayyat and al Tabari with isnad whose men are trustworthy, from Hassan al Basri—who was one of those who were present on the day of the siege [Marwiyyat Abi Mikhnaf fi Tarikh al Tabari, p. 244; Tahdhib al Kamal, 6/97]—which says that Ibn Abi Bakr took hold of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu beard and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “You are holding me in a way that your father would not do.” Then he went out and left him. [Marwiyyat Abi Mikhnaf, p. 244]
Thus, it is clear that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was innocent in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, just as the wolf was innocent of the blood of Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam. It is also clear that the reason for this accusation was that he had entered upon him before the murder took place. [Fitnat Maqtal ‘Uthman, 1/209] Ibn Kathir rahimahu Llah stated that when ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu spoke to him, he felt ashamed and went back, and he regretted his actions and covered his face, and he tried to defend him, but to no avail. [Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 7/193]
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/131,132.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/118.
 Surah al Mujadalah: 22.
 Minhaj al Karamah, as quoted in Minhaj al Sunnah, pg. 66, 67.
 Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/173,174.
 Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/176.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/147,148; Ibn al Athir: al Kamil, 3/95. Some of these names appear in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah.
 Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/176.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, 1/157.
 Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/161.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 4/130; al Bidayah, 7/24.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, 1/62, under the heading: governors of Rasulullah; Mus’ab al Zubairi: Nasab Quraysh, Abu Jafar al Baghdadi: Kitab al Muhabbar, pg. 126, under the heading: governors of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/179.
 Muruj al Dhahab.
 Muruj al Dhahab, 2/351; Minhaj al Sunnah; al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim.
 Al Muntaqa, pg. 382-383.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 11/143.
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 11/142; Kitab al Muhabbar, pg. 126.
 Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al Sunnah, pg. 375-376, marginal notes.
 Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/21.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/86.
 Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/295.
 Al Isti’ab, 2/351, al Isabah, 3/160; Usd al Ghabah, 3/191.
 Al Tabaqat, 5/31.
 Kitab Mus’ab ibn al Zubair, pg. 148-149.
 Al Tabaqat, 5/32; al Isti’ab, 2/352; Nasab Quraysh, pg. 149.
 Usd al Ghabah, 3/119; al Tabaqat, 5/33.
 Al Yaqubi al Shia: Kitab al Buldan, pg. 40 – 45.
 Al Isti’ab, 2/352.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, 1/141,158.
 Tarikh Khalifah ibn Khayyat, 1/141,158.
 Al Tabaqat, 5/34; Usd al Ghabah, 3/191; al Bidayah, 8/88.
 Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 3/189–190.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 100; al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, pg. 68; Minhaj al Sunnah, 3/196; al Muntaqa, pg. 395; al Tuhfah al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, pg. 311, India print.
 Al Shia wa al Sunnah.
 Al Mawdu’at, pg. 106.
 Al Asrar al Marfu’ah fi al Akhbar al Mawdu’ah, pg. 377, Beirut print.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 7/175.
 Muqaddamah Ibn Khaldun, section 30 regarding him assuming the post, pg. 215.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/105.
 Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 123, in one of his sermons in which he taught salutations upon the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Bihar al Anwar, 10/139.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/258.
 Al Tarikh al Saghir.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/249, 9/105.
 Nasab Quraysh, pg. 45, the list of the children of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib; Ibn Hazm: Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 87, list of Marwan’s offspring.
 Jamal al Din ibn ‘Inabah: ‘Umdat al Talib fi Ansab Al Abi Talib, pg. 70, the offspring of Zaid ibn al Hassan; al Tabaqat, 5/34.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/103.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/103; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah.
 Al Tarikh al Saghir, pg. 32, those who died during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/99; Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, pg. 138, the beginning of the slander against ‘Uthman.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 111.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 4/86.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/99.
 Tarikh Dimashq, 7/429.
 Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, 2/139.
 Footnotes of al Muntaqa, pg. 380.
 Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 73.
 Al Muntaqa, pg. 396, Egypt print.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/42.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/43-44.
 Tarikh al Tabari, 5/43-44.
 Al Muntaqa, pg. 399.
 Ansab al Ashraf, 5/73.
 Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 1/197, the siege against ‘Uthman and preventing him from water.
 Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 3/449, the very people who pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr pledged allegiance to me.
 Muruj al Dhahab, 2/344-345.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3686.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3693; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2403.
 Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3704; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith: 111. Al Tirmidhi labelled the hadith sahih.
 Extremely sad indeed is that men who claim to be linked to the Ahlus Sunnah are affected by the Saba’iyyah claims, which are plenty and oft-repeated. They failed to differentiate between truth and falsehood and allowed their pens to transmit these fallacies and delusions without investigating the lies and deceptions of the Saba’iyyah and without analysing authentic from inauthentic. They thus wrote and spoke loads of falsehood. They are far distanced from the truth and accuracy, despite their attribution to knowledge and religious leadership.
 Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 367, Beirut.