His Killing and His Killer

Yawm al Dar (the Day of the House) and the killing of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan
November 17, 2025
Miscellaneous aspects of the Fitnah
November 18, 2025
Yawm al Dar (the Day of the House) and the killing of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan
November 17, 2025
Miscellaneous aspects of the Fitnah
November 18, 2025
Show all
Table of Contents
  1. His Killing and His Killer
    1. 1. The manner of his killing
    2. 2. The date of his killing
      1. Determining the month
      2. Determining the day of the month
      3. Determining the day of the week
      4. Determining the time of his killing
    3. 3. His age at the time of his martyrdom
    4. 4. His killer
    5. 5. His funeral, Salah upon him, and burial
▲

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

His Killing and His Killer

 

1. The manner of his killing

The siege continued until Friday morning, 12 Dhu al Hijjah 35 AH.[1]

At this time, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was sitting in his house with a very large[2] number[3] of Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and others, seeking to defend him and protect him from the assault of the besiegers, including al Hasan ibn ‘Ali[4], ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar,[5]‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair,[6] ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Rabi’ah[7], Muhammad ibn Hatib, Marwan ibn al Hakam,[8] Kathir ibn al Salt,[9] Na’ilah bint al Farafisah,[10] Kinanah—the freed slave of Safiyyah,[11] and some men from Banu ‘Adi ibn Suraqah and Ibn Muti’.[12]

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered them to go out and forbade them from defending him, but they persisted in doing so, as mentioned above. Finally, he was able to convince them, so they left the house. He was left alone with the besiegers, leaving only ‘Uthman and his family in the house. There was no defender between him and the besiegers,[13] no protector from the people, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu opened the door of the house.7

Now, will the people fear their Khalifah and refrain from harming him, thus dispelling all resentment due to the enormity of the situation? Or will they be earnest in their zeal, deviating from the path of truth, believing his killing to be a religious duty, and thus kill him thinking they are doing good? We will leave the explanation of this to the authentic narrations, which will reveal the true nature of the people, the nature of their entry into the house, and what they did to him. These narrations will recount the events of those crucial moments, the memory of which has not been erased through the ages until today, i.e., for nearly fourteen centuries.

After those who wanted to defend him left, he opened the Qur’an in front of him and began to read from it.[14] At that time, he was fasting.[15]

A man from the besiegers—whose name is not mentioned in the narrations—entered upon him. When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw him, he said to him:

 

بيني وبينك كتاب الله

Between me and you, is the Book of Allah.[16]

 

The man left him and left the room.[17] He had just turned back when another man from the Banu Sadus, known as al Mawt al Aswad (the Black Death), entered. He strangled him before striking him with the sword. He said:

 

والله ما رأيت شيئا ألين من خناقه لقد رأيت خنقته حتى رأيت نفسه مثل الجان تردد في جسده

By Allah, I have never seen anything softer than his strangulation. I strangled him until I saw his soul swirling through his body like a jinn.[18]

 

Then he struck him with the sword, but ‘Uthman blocked it with his hand and it got cut. The narrator is uncertain as to whether it was severed or not.

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:

 

أما والله إنها لأول كف خطت المفصل

By Allah, it was the first hand that wrote the Mufassal (short surahs of the Qur’an).[19]

 

This is because he was one of the scribes of revelation, and he was the first to write the Qur’an as dictated by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He was killed while the Qur’an was in front of him.[20] As a result of the cut hand, blood splattered on the Qur’an he was reading from, and fell on the words of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

 

فَسَيَكۡفِيكَهُمُ ٱللَّهُۚ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلۡعَلِيمُ

And Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing.[21],[22]

 

Another narration states: The first to strike him was a man called Ruman al Yamani, who struck him with a mace.[23] When they entered by him to kill him, he read the poem:

أرى الموت لا يبقي عزيزا

ولم يدع لعاد ملاذا في البلاد ومرتقى

I see that death does not spare a noble person, and did not leave any refuge or ascent for the people of ‘Ad in the land.

 

He also said:

يبيت أهل الحصن والحصن مغلق

ويأتي الجبال في شماريخها العلى

The inhabitants of the fortress spend the night while the fortress is closed, and the mountains come to him with their lofty peaks[24].[25]

 

When they surrounded him, his wife, Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, said:

 

إن تقتلوه أو تدعوه فقد كان يحيي الليل بركعة يجمع فيها القرآن

Whether you kill him or spare him, he would spend the night awake reciting the entire Qur’an in one rak’ah.[26]

 

When his killer—al Mawt al Aswad—had finished killing him, he raised his hand or stretched it out in the house, saying:

 

أنا قاتل نعثل

I am the killer of Na’thal.[27]

 

His killing was brutal, so much so that whenever Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu remembered what was done to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he would weep until he sobbed, saying, “Hah hah.”[28]

Regarding this, Sa’id ibn Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:

 

لو أن أحدا ارفضّ للذي صنعتم بعثمان لكان محقوقا أن يرفضّ

By Allah, if anyone had rejected[29] what you did to ‘Uthman, he would have had the right to reject it.[30]

 

2. The date of his killing

There is almost unanimity among the historians upon the year in which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was killed. There is no disagreement that it was in 35 AH, except for what was narrated by Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah, that it was in 36 AH,[31] which is an anomalous view, contrary to consensus.

Those who hold the first opinion are a large group, including:

  • ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthman (d. 96 AH).[32]
  • ‘Amir ibn Sharahil al Sha’bi (d. 100 AH).[33]
  • Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar (d. 117 AH).[34]
  • Qatadah ibn Di’amah al Sadusi (d. 110 AH).[35]
  • Makhramah ibn Sulaiman al Walibi (d. 130 AH).[36]
  • ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib (d. 140 AH).[37]
  • Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 150 AH).[38]
  • Abu Ma’shar (d. 170 AH).[39]
  • Yazid ibn ‘Ubaidah.[40]
  • Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi (d. around 170 AH).[41]
  • Al Layth ibn Sa’d (d. 175 AH).[42]
  • Hisham ibn al Kalbi (d. 204 AH).[43]
  • Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi (d. 207 AH).[44]
  • Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim al Zuhri (d. 208 AH).[45]
  • Abu Nuaim al Fadl ibn Dukayn (d. 218 AH).[46]
  • Abu ‘Umar al Darir (d. 220 AH).[47]
  • Khalifah ibn Khayyat (d. 240 AH).[48]
  • ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali (d. 249 AH).[49]
  • Al Zubair ibn Bakkar (d. 256 AH).[50]
  • Ya’qub ibn Sufyan al Fasawi (d. 277 AH).[51]

 

Determining the month

There is also no difference of opinion among historians regarding the month in which he was killed, which is Dhu al Hijjah.[52] However, they differed regarding the day, hour, and other details.

 

Determining the day of the month

There are eight different views regarding this, limited from the eighth to the twenty-eighth of Dhu al Hijjah. The following is a detailed account of these views:

First view: Al Waqidi said: Eight nights of Dhu al Hijjah passed, meaning (the Day of al Tarwiyah), 08/12/35 AH.[53]

Second view: This is narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr. Khalifah ibn Khayyat mentioned it using a form of the verb that denotes weakness, that it was the Day of Sacrifice (i.e., the Day of ‘Id al Adha), 10/12/35 AH.[54]

Third view: This was authentically reported from Abu ‘Uthman al Nahdi.[55] ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali and Ya’qub al Fasawi[56] also held this view. Al Zuhri[57] narrated it using the form: ‘some people claim’ that it was during the middle of the days of Tashriq, which is the twelfth day of Dhu al Hijjah, 12/12/35 AH.[58]

Fourth view: This was narrated by al Layth ibn Sa’d[59] that it was at the completion of the Hajj, which is the fourth day from the Days of Sacrifice,[60] i.e. 13/12/35 AH.

Fifth view: Abu Nuaim al Fadl ibn Dukayn[61] said that it was when sixteen days were left of Dhu al Hijjah, i.e. 13 or 14/12/35 AH.

Sixth view: He also held this view[62] that it was when thirteen days remained of Dhu al Hijjah, i.e. 17/ 12/35 AH.

Seventh view: Eighteen nights passed of Dhu al Hijjah; 18/12/35 AH. This was the view of:

  • Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar.[63]
  • Al Sha’bi.[64]
  • Makhramah ibn Sulaiman al Walibi.[65]
  • Muhammad ibn Ishaq.[66]
  • Abu Ma’shar.[67]
  • Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi, from his sheikhs.[68]
  • Ibrahim ibn Sa’d al Zuhri.[69]
  • Hisham ibn al Kalbi.[70]
  • Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah al Zubairi.
  • Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Sa’d al Zuhri.[71]
  • Al Tabari attributed it to the majority.[72]
  • Al Muhibb al Tabari mentioned it in al Riyad al Nadirah.[73]

 

Eighth view: Ibn al Athir[74] mentioned (using a form of the verb that denotes weakness) that it was two nights before the end of Dhu al Hijjah, 27-28/12/35 AH.

Preference: To me, the most preferable of these views is the third view, which states that he was martyred during the middle of the days of Tashriq (12/12/35 AH), due to the authenticity of its transmission from Abu ‘Uthman al Nahdi, who was a contemporary of the incident. The other statements have no authentic chain. All the chains that are narrated are weak, and some of them were transmitted by those who did not witness the incident.

 

Determining the day of the week

As for determining the day of the week on which he was killed, there are three views:

First view: It was on Friday. This was stated by:

  • Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar.[75]
  • Makhramah ibn Sulaiman al Walibi.[76]
  • Abu Ma’shar.[77]
  • Hisham ibn al Kalbi.[78]
  • Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi.[79]
  • Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah al Zubairi.[80]
  • Khalifah ibn Khayyat al ‘Asfari.[81]
  • Abu Sulaiman ibn Zabar.[82]

Second view: It was a Monday. This has been narrated from Ibn Ishaq.[83]

Third view: It was a Wednesday, as narrated by Ibn Ishaq.[84]

Preference: The most likely of these three views, according to me, which is the view of the majority, is Friday, because it is the majority view, and no stronger view contradicts it. It also conforms with astronomical calculations, as it indicates that the twelfth of Dhu al Hijjah in 35 AH corresponds to a Friday.[85] This strengthens the view that his martyrdom was on the twelfth of Dhu al Hijjah.

 

Determining the time of his killing

There are two views regarding the time of his killing:

First view: It was in the morning or late morning. This was the view of:

  • Al Sha’bi.[86]
  • Makhramah ibn Sulaiman al Walibi.[87]
  • Ibn Ishaq.[88]
  • Hisham ibn al Kalbi.[89]
  • Al Fasawi.[90]
  • Al Tabari narrated it from others.[91]
  • Some of them said, “It was late morning.”[92]

Second view: It was in the late afternoon (‘Asr time). This was the view of Abu Sulaiman ibn Zabar.[93]

Preference: The most likely of these two opinions, according to me, is that it was in the morning, as the majority say, and it has not been contradicted by anything stronger.

 

3. His age at the time of his martyrdom

I have not come across a narration with a sahih chain specifying ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu age at the time of his martyrdom. All that I have found on this matter are conflicting and different views.

The differences of opinions on this matter are ancient, to the point that al Tabari said:

 

اختلف السلف قبلنا في قدر مدة حياته

The predecessors before us differed regarding the length of his life.[94]

 

After collecting the various views on this matter, I came up with fifteen views, which are as follows, arranged from the weakest to the strongest:

  1. Sixty-three years. This is narrated by Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi from his sheikhs.[95]
  2. Seventy-odd. This is the view of Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i.[96]
  3. Seventy-five. This is the view of Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi[97] and Muhammad ibn Ishaq[98]. Al Bukhari narrated it from some of them.[99]
  4. Eighty years. Ibn Ishaq narrated it from some scholars.[100]
  5. Eighty-odd years. This was the view of Muhammad ibn Ya’la.[101]
  6. Over eighty years. This is mentioned by Abu Zur’ah.[102]
  7. Between eighty and ninety. This is the view of al Zuhri.[103]
  8. Eighty-one years. This is the view of ‘Uthman, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah,[104] and Abu Sulaiman ibn Zabar.[105]
  9. Eighty-two years. This is the view of the majority, including: Abu al Miqdam, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al Makhzumi,[106] Zaid,[107] Abu ‘Amr al Darir,[108] ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr al Umawi,[109] Yahya ibn Bukayr,[110] al Zubair ibn Bakkar,[111] and Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi, who claimed consensus on this, saying, “There are no differences of opinion among them that he was killed when he was eighty-two years old.”[112] Al Tabari preferred this view over others.[113] Ibn al Athir was certain of this.[114]
  10. Eighty-two years and a few months. Al Waqidi narrated it from Salih ibn Kaysan.[115]
  11. Eighty-six years. This is the view of Qatadah.[116]
  12. Eighty-eight or eighty-nine years. This was reported from Qatadah[117] with doubt in this view.
  13. Eighty-eight or ninety years. This was reported from Qatadah, also with doubt.[118]
  14. Ninety years. Ibn al Athir[119] narrated this with a form of the verb that denotes weakness.
  15. Ninety-three years. This was the view of Ibn Ishaq.[120]

Preference: The preferred view according to me, is the ninth view and other views that fall within this range which state that his age at the time of his martyrdom was eighty-two years, based on three reasons.

  1. He was born in the sixth year after the Year of the Elephants[121] and was martyred in 35 AH.[122] Comparing the year of his birth with the year of his martyrdom supports this view.[123]
  2. Four of the fifteen views fall within this view and do not contradict it. This does not concur with any of the other opinions.
  3. It is the view of the majority and no stronger view contradicts it.

 

4. His killer

Several people have been accused of directly killing ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Many narrations have been transmitted about it, some of which are acceptable and most of which are weak and rejected. In authentic narrations, it is mentioned that he was a black man from Egypt,[124] but they differ in specifying him.

According to one narration, he was called Himar.[125] In another narration, he is Jabalah.[126] And in a third narration, he is Jabalah ibn al Ayham.[127] The source of these three narrations is one, namely Kinanah,[128] Safiyyah’s freed slave. Narrators from him differed. Muhammad ibn Talhah ibn Musarrif narrated the first and third narrations from him while Zuhayr ibn Muawiyah narrated the second narration from him. Zuhayr is a thiqah and hafiz narrator, while Muhammad is a saduq (truthful) narrator who would make mistakes. Thus, this narration of Zuhayr is preserved. Therefore, Muhammad’s first narration becomes shadh (anomalous) because it contradicts a more reliable narration.

It is possible that the word Himar is a misprint from Jabalah, due to the similarity of the two hand-writings in the ancient writing style, as they would often omit the dots.

As for his third narration, the ruling, whether it is a mistake or not, cannot be generalised, as he agreed with Zuhayr in some respects and added the father’s name.

The addition of a thiqah narrator is acceptable, but Muhammad’s mistakes and lapses in accuracy exclude him from the list of those whose additions are acceptable, especially since the results of his addition are rejected in several respects. His addition identifies the killer as Jabalah ibn al Ayham, and no one is known by this name except al Ghassani, the king of the Ghassanids, who was from Greater Syria,[129] whereas the three narrations unanimously agree that the killer was from Egypt.

This addition also indicates that Jabalah is the name of the killer, while it is understood from the three narrations that it is not a name, but rather a nickname given to him due to the darkness of his skin. This is understood from the statement of Kinanah:

 

رجل من أهل مصر يقال له جبلة … أي الرجل الأسود

A man from the people of Egypt called Jabalah… meaning the black man.[130]

 

Considering that the man who entered upon ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and strangled him was black, as the narrator said, “He strangled him, then strangled him again before he struck him with the sword,”[131] this indicates that this man was the killer, the one called Jabalah, because he was black-skinned; and because the narrator’s statement, “Before he struck him with the sword,” is clear evidence that he was the one who struck him with the sword.

If this connection is correct, it reveals the lineage of this killer, as the narrator made it clear that he was from the Banu Sadus. This increases the error of the addition of al Ayham, because Jabalah ibn al Ayham al Ghassani was from the Ghassanids,[132] and this killer was from the Banu Sadus.

In conclusion, the killer of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an Egyptian man. The narrations did not reveal his name, but they indicated that he was originally from the Banu Sadus, black-skinned, and was nicknamed Jabalah because of the blackness of his skin. He was also nicknamed the Black Death. I have not come across any biography that possesses these characteristics.

Muhibb al Din al Khatib believed that the killer was ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, saying:

 

ومن الثابت أن ابن سبأ كان مع ثوار مصر عند مجيئهم من الفسطاط إلى المدينة وهو في كل الأدوار التي مثلها كان شديد الحرص على أن يعمل من وراء ستار فلعل (الموت الأسود) اسم مستعار له أراد أن يرمز به إليه ليتمكن من مواصلة دسائسه لهدم الإسلام

It is established that Ibn Saba’ was with the Egyptian revolutionaries when they came from Fustat to Madinah. He was involved in all the roles they played. He was extremely zealous to work behind the scenes. Perhaps the pseudonym (the Black Death) was intended to symbolise him, enabling him to continue his plots to destroy Islam.[133]

 

His view may be supported by the fact that Ibn Saba’ was black-skinned. It is authentically reported that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu described him as evil and black-skinned, when, referring to Ibn Saba’, he said, “The evil black one.”[134] He is considered one of the people of Egypt, as his thoughts penetrated some of its people. He stayed there until the end of his life, and he came with its people.[135] The two nicknames given to the killer coincide with his famous nickname (Ibn al Sawda’), as these three nicknames reflect his skin colour, which is black. The nickname given to the killer (Jabalah) is the name of a Yemeni Jewish man.[136] It has been reported that Ibn Saba’ was a Yemeni Jew.[137]

There is no truth to the accusations against Kinanah ibn Bishr al Tujibi al Kindi, a man from the Banu ‘Abdul Dar called Nahran al Asbahi, Abu ‘Amr ibn Budayl al Khuza’i, Sawdan ibn Ruman al Muradi, a man from Banu Asad ibn Khuzaymah called Raman, Sawdan ibn Hamran, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al Siddiq, and ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhum of killing ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

All of these were narrated with da’if chains, the flaws of which are explained in the section on studying chains.[138] Their texts are also anomalous, as they contradict the authentic narration, which indicates that the killer was an Egyptian man called Jabalah due to his black skin.

As for the accusation against Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr,[139] it should be added to what was already mentioned above that a narration with a sahih chain has been reported that exonerates him of this accusation and reveals the reason for this accusation. It is narrated to us by an eyewitness, i.e. Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, who was present on the Day of the House and saw the murderer. Muhammad ibn Talhah asked him if Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr had spilled any of ‘Uthman’s blood. He said:

 

معاذ الله دخل عليه فقال له عثمان يا ابن أخي لست بصاحبي وكلمه بكلام فخرج ولم يند بشيء من دمه

Allah forbid. He entered his presence so ‘Uthman said to him, “O my nephew, you are not my companion [i.e. killer],” and spoke some words to him. He [Muhammad] left without spilling any of his blood.[140]

 

According to another sahih narration, Kinanah said:

 

لم يند محمد بن أبي بكر من دم عثمان بشيء فقال له محمد بن طلحة فلم قيل إنه قتله قال معاذ الله أن يكون قتله إنما دخل عليه فقال له عثمان …

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr did not spill any blood of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Muhammad ibn Talhah asked him, “Then why is it claimed that he killed him?”

He replied, “Allah forbid that he killed him. He only entered upon him, and ‘Uthman said to him…”[141]

 

With these two sahih narrations, we learn that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al Siddiq was innocent of ‘Uthman’s blood, just as the wolf was innocent of Yusuf’s ‘alayh al Salam blood. It also clarifies that the reason for his accusation was that he entered upon him before the murder.

Ibn Kathir rahimahu Llah states:

 

أنه لما كلمه عثمان استحيى ورجع وتندم وغطى وجهه وحاجز دونه فلم تفد محاجزته

When ‘Uthman spoke to him, he felt ashamed, turned back, regretted it, covered his face, and prevented others from entering, but his prevention did not help.[142]

 

5. His funeral, Salah upon him, and burial

Nothing authentic has been reported regarding Salat al Janazah for ‘Uthman, his funeral, and his burial, except for a few weak narrations, some of which strengthen each other. Among the narrations that strengthen each other is that which states that Salat al Janazah was performed for him,[143] that Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir was among those who carried his bier and walked in his funeral procession,[144] and that he was buried on a plot in Madinah called Hash Kawkab.[145] Hash Kawkab is an orchard[146] near Baqi’ al Gharqad.[147]

This is the information that is authentically reported in these three aspects. As for the weak narrations that have been narrated about this, they sometimes agree and sometimes conflict.

There is a difference of opinion about whether the Salat al Janazah was being prohibited. Very weak narrations have been narrated that state that the Ansar were prevented from the Salat al Janazah.[148] Among them were Aslam ibn Bajrah al Sa’idi and Abu Hayyah al Mazini.[149]

According to another weak narration, he remained for two nights and a day without Salat al Janazah being performed for him, and that Abu Hudhayfah said:

 

ادفنوه فقد صلى الله عليه وملائكته وفي لفظ آخر إن تمنعوا الصلاة عليه فقد صلى الله عليه وملائكته

Bury him, for Allah and His angels have performed Salah upon him.

According to another version: If you prevent Salah upon him, Allah and His angels have already performed Salah upon him.[150]

 

Ibn ‘Asakir narrates that when he was killed, he remained unburied for three days, until a caller called out to them, “Bury him, but do not perform Salah upon him, for Allah has prayed upon him.”[151] Ibn al Athir and ‘Awanah mentioned the prevention of Salah upon him using verbs that denote weakness.[152] In a narration of Saif, it is stated that no one prevented anyone from performing Salah upon him, and that Marwan performed Salat al Janazah upon him.[153]

These narrations that prove that Salah was prevented upon him, and some of which prove that Salah was not performed for him—as mentioned above—are extremely weak in terms of their chains. In addition to the weakness of their chains, their texts are also objectionable.

It has been proven—as mentioned above—in the sahih narration that Salat al Janazah was performed upon him. In fact, some slightly weak narrations detail the names of those who performed Salat al Janazah upon him, and they are: Jubayr ibn Mut’im,[154] Hakim ibn Hizam,[155] Huwaytib ibn ‘Abdul ‘Uzza,[156] al Zubair ibn al ‘Awwam,[157] Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir—as mentioned above, Marwan ibn al Hakam,[158] al Miswar ibn Makhramah,[159] Niyar al Aslami, Abu Juhayfah ibn Hudhayfah al ‘Adawi,[160] Na’ilah bint al Farafisah al Kalbiyyah—his wife, and Umm al Banin bint ‘Uyaynah ibn Hisn ibn Hudhayfah ibn Badr al Fazariyyah.[161]

Another weak narration states that he was placed on his bed in the house, while people came to perform Salat al Janazah upon him. A man made a covenant with Allah that if he were able to slap ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu face, he would slap him. He entered as if he wanted to perform Salat al Janazah upon him, and found seclusion, so he lifted the cloth from his face, slapped his face, and covered it. Thereafter, his right hand became paralysed.[162]

There is no doubt that the circumstances surrounding his funeral, Salat al Janazah, and burial were extremely critical, as those who had revolted against him were surrounding the house, in addition that Salat al Janazah upon him was performed at night.

This clearly clarifies the excuse of those who were in Madinah at the time who did not perform Salat al Janazah upon him, assuming the authenticity of the narrations that establish this.

There are no narrations that state that any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum refrained from performing Salat al Janazah upon him, except for what was narrated with a da’if chain about some of the Ansar. In addition to the weakness of the chain, the narration is ambiguous regarding the names of those who refused to perform Salat al Janazah upon him. It only names two people. Its weak chain is sufficient for its rebuttal.

Likewise, this does not indicate that no one performed Salat al Janazah upon him except those named in the narrations. Therefore, there is no denying that the leading Companions such as ‘Ali, Talhah, al Zubair, and others radiya Llahu ‘anhum performed Salat al Janazah upon him.

 

NEXT⇒ Miscellaneous aspects of the Fitnah

[1]  The date of his killing will be determined in the following section.

[2]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, with a sahih isnad.

[3]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, through Ibn Sirin from Sulayt ibn Sulayt, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71, through Ibn Sirin, without mentioning Sulayt, the isnad is thus interrupted because Ibn Sirin was not a contemporary of the incident; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, from the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, with a sahih isnad, see the appendix, Hadith: 11; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/227, from the narration of al Hasan al Basri, its isnad contains Abu ‘Ubaidah, who was declared da’if by several scholars, thus, the narration is hasan li ghayrihi.

[4]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/78 (with al Isabah), from the narration of Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175, with a hasan isnad; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, through Ibn Sirin from Sulayt ibn Sulayt, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 396, from the narration of Nafi’.

[5]  Sa’id ibn Mansur: Al Sunan, 2/336; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/204; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 69-70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 402-403, all of them through ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Rabi’ah, its isnad is sahih; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71, through Ibn Sirin without mentioning Sulayt, thus, the isnad is interrupted because Ibn Sirin did not witness the incident; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 396, through Nafi’; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 397-398, with a hasan isnad.

[6]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/78 (with al Isabah); Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175, from the narration of Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, with a hasan isnad; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71, through Ibn Sirin without mentioning Sulayt. Thus, the isnad is interrupted because Ibn Sirin did not witness the incident; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 399-400, with a sahih isnad.

[7]  Sa’id ibn Mansur: Al Sunan, 2/336, Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/204; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 69-70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 402-403, all of them through ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Rabi’ah, its isnad is sahih.

[8]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/78 (with al Isabah); Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175, through Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, with a hasan isnad; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71, through Ibn Sirin without mentioning Sulayt, thus, the isnad is interrupted because Ibn Sirin did not witness the incident; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70, Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 399-400, with a sahih isnad.

[9]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/75; al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 390, all of them through Abu ‘Alqamah, from Kathir ibn al Salt, its isnad is da’if because Abu ‘Alqamah is unknown; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 67, from ‘Awanah ibn al Hakam, who said, “We have been informed that Kathir ibn al Salt, this isnad is da’if, due to the ambiguity of ‘Awanah’s sheikh; al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/180-181; al Lalaka’i: Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah Wa al Jama’ah (manuscript); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 391, all of them from ‘Abdul Malik ibn ‘Umair, from Kathir ibn al Salt, its isnad is da’if due to Ismail ibn Ibrahim. With the combination of these isnads, the narration rises to the level of hasan li ghayrihi.

[10]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/76; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 44, Abu Nuaim: Hilyat al Awliya’, 1/57; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/42; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 228, with a sahih isnad to Ibn Sirin, and Ibn Sirin did not witness the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/76; Abu Nuaim: Hilyat al Awliya’, 1/57, with a sahih isnad to Anas ibn Sirink, Anas did not witness the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

[11]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/78 (with al Isabah); Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175, from the narration of Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, with a hasan isnad; ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/958-959; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/83-84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 417-418, its isnad is hasan.

[12]  Sa’id ibn Mansur: Al Sunan, 2/339, Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/204; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 69-70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 402-403, all of them through ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir ibn Rabi’ah, its isnad is sahih.

[13]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 399-400, narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, with a sahih isnad. Footnote 7 next page…

[14]7 Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70-75; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 389-391, narrated by Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar, Nafi’ did not meet ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu; Khalifah: Al Tarikh, pg. 174, narrated by Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, with a sahih isnad; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/66.

Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70-75; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 389-391, narrated by Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar and Nafi’ did not meet ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu; Khalifah: Al Tarikh, pg. 174, narrated by Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd with a reliable isnad; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/66; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383-384, narrated by Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd al Ansari with a sahih isnad.

[15]  Al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali, pg. 1164; al Lalaka’i: Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah (manuscript); Abu Nuaim, as mentioned by Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 391; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 390, from the narration of Nafi’, from Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, with an isnad that contains Abu Jafar al Razi, who is truthful but has a poor memory; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/75; ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Musnad Ahmed, 2/7, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, from the narration of Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, with an isnad that contains Umm Hilal who is unknown, and Ziyad ibn ‘Abdullah for whom I have not found any authenticity.

[16]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383-384, from the narration of Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, with a sahih isnad.

[17]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174, from the narration of Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, with a sahih isnad.

[18]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174, from the narration of Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, with a sahih isnad.

[19]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383-384, from the narration of Abu Sa’id, with a sahih isnad.

[20]  ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Musnad Ahmed, 1/388-389, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/490; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 393; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali, pg. 164; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 64; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/67-68, al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232. Ahmed Shakir graded its isnad sahih. It contains Muslim Abu Sa’id, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. This passage is supported by what was mentioned previously, that he was struck while the Qur’an was in front of him, as narrated by Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/83-84, from Abu Sa’id.

[21]  Surah al Baqarah: 137.

[22]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 420, from ‘Abdullah ibn Shaqiq, who was a contemporary of the incident. According to this narration, Abu Harith saw this blood on the Qur’an. The isnad is sahih. Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 419, from Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, with an isnad that includes someone who is not trustworthy; and from Muaz ibn Muaz, pg. 420, wherein he said that he saw traces of blood on this verse in ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Qur’an. Khalifah ibn Khayyat states in al Tarikh, pg. 175, “And in a narration other than of Abu Sa’id…” Then he mentioned its meaning. With the combination of these isnads, the narration rises to the level of hasan li ghayrihi.

[23]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, with a sahih isnad to ‘Abdullah ibn Shaqiq, who was a contemporary of the incident. Al sawlajan refers to a crooked or bent stick. (Al Fayruzabadi: Al Qamus al Muhit, 1/204; Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 2/310.)

[24]  Shamarikh refers to its peak. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 3/31.)

[25]  Ibn Abi al Dunya: Al Muhtadirin (manuscript) (as mentioned in the footnote to Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 407), from Muslim ibn Banak, with a hasan isnad. See the appendix, Hadith: 53.

[26]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/76; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 44; Abu Nuaim: Al Hilyah, 1/57; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 228; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/42, from Muhammad ibn Sirin, the isnad to him is sahih, except that he was not contemporary of the incident; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/76; Abu Nuaim: Al Hilyah, 1/57; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 227-228, from Anas ibn Sirin, the isnad to him is sahih, except that he did not witness the incident; Abu Sa’id ibn al A’rabi: Al Mu’jam (manuscript), as in the footnotes of Tarikh Dimashq; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 228, from Ayyub al Sakhtiyani, its isnad includes Bakr ibn Farqad, who is unknown, and his narration from his sheikh, ‘Abdul Wahhab, is not established whether it was before his becoming confused or after it. With all these isnads, the narration may rise to the level of hasan li ghayrihi.

[27]  ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/958-959; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/83-84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 417-418, from Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, with a hasan isnad.

[28]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/81; Sa’id ibn Mansur: Al Sunan, 2/335, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, with a sahih isnad.

[29]  Irfadda: moved from his place. (Fath al Bari, 7/176. I did not find this expression in Ibn al Athir: Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar, nor in Mukhtar al Sihah.)

[30]  Sahih al Bukhari, Fath al Bari, 7/176, 178; 12/315); Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/79, Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/205; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176-177; Ahmed ibn Hanbal: Fada’il al Sahabah, 1/278; al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 485-486, ​​from Qais ibn Abi Hazim, from Sa’id radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

[31]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415.

[32]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 528.

[33]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[34]  Al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/73; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[35]  Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 66.

[36]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[37]  Musnad Ahmed, 2/11, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it to be da’if; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 526, 528-529, 531; Ibn al Athir, Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[38]  Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530-531.

[39]  Musnad Ahmed, 2/10, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it to be da’if; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 204, 209-230.

[40]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 529.

[41]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[42]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[43]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[44]  Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 197.

[45]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 201.

[46]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[47]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530.

[48]  Al Tarikh, pg. 176.

[49]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[50]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532.

[51]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530.

[52]  Al Tabari reported consensus on this in Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415. Ibn Qutaybah quoted from al Waqidi that there is no disagreement on this matter. (Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 197.)

[53]  Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 197.

[54]  Al Tarikh, pg. 177.

[55]  Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/230; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/79; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176; Musnad Ahmed, 2/10, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it to be sahih; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 526; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/73.

[56]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[57]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[58]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[59]  Al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/73; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[60]  Al Fayruzabadi: Al Qamus al Muhit, 2/70; Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 4/449.

[61]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[62]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[63]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[64]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[65]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530.

[66]  Musnad Ahmed, 2/10, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it to be da’if.

[67]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[68]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 201.

[69]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[70]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[71]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 201.

[72]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415.

[73]  Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/73.

[74]  Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[75]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[76]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/ 417.

[77]  Musnad Ahmed, 2/10, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it to be da’if.

[78]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/ 417.

[79]  Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 197; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.

[80]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/ 415.

[81]  Al Tarikh, pg. 176.

[82]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533.

[83]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 529-530.

[84]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533.

[85]  Refer to the built-in calendar program in Munassiq al Kalimat Sakhr (Sakhr Word Co-ordinator).

[86]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[87]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[88]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530.

[89]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[90]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533.

[91]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/416.

[92]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533, from Abu Sulaiman ibn Zabar; Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415, from Abu Ya’qub Zaid.

[93]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533.

[94]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[95]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/418.

[96]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 534.

[97]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/418.

[98]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 530.

[99]  Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/84.

[100]  Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535-536; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/75-76.

[101]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 534.

[102]  Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/596; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535.

[103]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 534.

[104]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[105]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533-534.

[106]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 177; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535.

[107]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415.

[108]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 531.

[109]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3,77, through al Waqidi.

[110]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535.

[111]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532.

[112]  Al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/76.

[113]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/417.

[114]  Usd al Ghabah, 3/491.

[115]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/418.

[116]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 177; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/418; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/76; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/491.

[117]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 535.

[118]  Ahmed: Al Musnad, 2/10-11, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/418.

[119]  Usd al Ghabah, 3/491.

[120]  Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 82.

[121]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/70 (with al Isabah).

[122]  This was mentioned previously in the section on determining the date of his murder.

[123]  The Hijrah took place 53 years after the Year of the Elephant. After adding this number to the year of his murder in the Hijri calendar (i.e. 35), we obtain that the year of his murder was 88 years after the Year of the Elephant (53 + 35 = 88). Since his year of birth was the 6th year from the Year of the Elephant, thus, by subtracting six years from 88 years (88 – 6 = 82), we reach this result.

[124]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 176, from al Hasan al Basri; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/206, from Jundub al Khayr, with an isnad that is hasan li ghayrihi; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/83-84; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 417-418, from Kinanah, with a sahih isnad; ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Sunan, 2/958-959, with a hasan isnad.

[125]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 175.

[126]  Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 7/237.

[127]  Asad ibn Musa, as mentioned in al Isti’ab, 3/349 (with al Isabah).

[128]  His biography is found in al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/378; Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 372; Ibn Kathir: Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/65; Abu al Faraj al Isfahani: Al Aghani, pg. 15/157; Ibn Manzur, Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, 5/368.

[129]  His biography is found in al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/378; Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 372; Ibn Kathir: Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/65; Abu al Faraj al Isfahani: Al Aghani, pg. 15/157; Ibn Manzur: Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq, 5/368.

[130]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/83-84, from Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, with a hasan isnad.

[131]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383, with a sahih isnad to Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, regarding whom there is difference of opinion about his companionship.

[132]  See his biography in al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 3/532.

[133]  Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 141, footnote: 201.

[134]  Narrated by Abu Ishaq al Fazari, as in Lisan al Mizan, 3/290, from Suwaid ibn Ghafalah, with a sahih isnad.

[135]  Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 141, footnote: 201.

[136]  Yaqut mentioned that Jabalah was the name of a Yemeni Jew who sold pottery. (Mu’jam al Buldan, 2/107.)

[137]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/340-341, through Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi: ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was a Jew from the people of San’a’; his mother was black…, its isnad is da’if.

[138]  Refer to the original book of the author, volume two, section on Modern Studies.

[139]  Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al Siddiq, Abu al Qasim. He saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He was killed in the year 38 AH. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would praise him. (Ibn Hajar: Al Taqrib, 5764.) Al Hafiz mentioned him among the second type in al Isabah, those born during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime. (Al Isabah, 3/472.)

[140]  Narrated by Asad ibn Musa (as in Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 3/349, with al Isabah), with a hasan isnad to Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah.

[141]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174, from al Hasan al Basri, with a sahih isnad to al Hasan al Basri.

[142]  Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 7/193-194.

[143]  Abu Zur’ah: Al Tarikh, pg. 187, with an interrupted or mu’dal (confusing/problematic) isnad; Ibn Sa’d: through three chains of transmission: 1. Al Tabaqat, 3/78-79. This isnad is interrupted and very weak due to al Waqidi. 2. Al Tabaqat, 3/79. This isnad is very weak due to Abu Malik al Nakha’i. 3. Al Tabaqat, 3/78. This isnad is very weak due al Waqidi and Musa ibn Muhammad al Tamimi. Al Waqidi is matruk (rejected), and Musa is munkar al hadith (unacceptable in hadith). Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/413, with a very weak isnad due to al Waqidi, and it is interrupted; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 533, from Ibn Ishaq; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 177; al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/78-79, with a da’if isnad; Musnad Ahmed, 2/11, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, with a sahih isnad to Qatadah, but Qatadah did not meet ‘Uthman; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/79, its narrators are same as that of Sheikhayn except for al Rabi’ ibn Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir, who was not authenticated by anyone other than Ibn Hibban.

[144]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 3/79, its narrators are same as that of Sheikhayn except for al Rabi’ ibn Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir, who was not authenticated by anyone other than Ibn Hibban. This was also reported by al Zubair ibn Bakkar (Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532); al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/78-79, and it contains weakness. This narration strengthens the previous one, but it is not strengthened by it.

[145]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/77-79; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532, 538, 539, 542-543, from Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir, with an isnad whose narrators are the same as that of Sheikhayn except for al Rabi’ ibn Abi Malik, whom Ibn Hibban deemed to be thiqah; al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/78-79; Abu Nuaim: Ma’rifat al Sahabah, 1/259-260; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 72-73; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 542-543, all of them through ‘Abdul Malik ibn al Majishun, from Malik ibn Anas, there is weakness in its isnad. With these two isnads, the narration rises to the level of hasan li ghayrihi. Ibn al Athir mentioned that he was buried in Hash Kawkab. (Usd al Ghabah, 3/491.)

[146]  Al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/79.

[147]  This orchard was included in al Baqi’. Today, it is located on its northwestern side, specifically opposite the southwestern Awqaf building No. 2.

[148]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/413-414, its isnad is very weak due to al Waqidi and it also includes an unknown narrator.

[149]  Also, from the narration of al Waqidi.

[150]  Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 65.

[151]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 542.

[152]  Usd al Ghabah, 3/491.

[153]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 538.

[154]  Abu Zur’ah: Al Tarikh, pg. 187, with an interrupted or problematic isnad.

[155]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 177, without any isnad; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/78, with a very weak isnad, which includes al Waqidi and Musa ibn Muhammad al Tamimi, both of whom are rejected; al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/79-78.

[156]  Al Tabarani: Al Mu’jam al Kabir, 1/78-79.

[157]  Musnad Ahmed, 2/11, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, with a sahih isnad to Qatadah, however, Qatadah did not meet ‘Uthman, thus, it is interrupted; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/79, its narrators are the same as that of Sheikhayn except for al Rabi’ ibn Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. This was mentioned by al Zubair ibn Bakkar. (Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532.)

[158]  Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/415, through Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi.

[159]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 542. Khalifah ibn Khayyat mentioned it without any isnad, with the wording “it is said”. (Al Tarikh, pg. 177.)

[160]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/78, with a very weak isnad, due to al Waqidi, who is rejected, and Musa ibn Muhammad al Tamimi, whose is unacceptable in hadith.

[161]  This was mentioned by al Zubair ibn Bakkar, without any isnad. (Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 532.)

[162]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 458, women’s section, pg. 411, through al Bukhari, it contains ‘Isa ibn Minhal, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban.