Glimpses into the life of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan
November 13, 20252. Narrations in this regard whose isnad is not authentic
November 14, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Justifications for the revolt against ‘Uthman
Preface
Before delving into the details of the fitnah, I wish to present a closer look at what the sources and references contain regarding the justifications used by those who revolted against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If these justifications, which have become so widespread amongst people, are examined, they can be divided into three categories, in terms of the authenticity and the inaccuracy of it being used by the rebels.
- Shortcomings which are authentically reported as a justification used by those who revolted against him, or they criticised him only.
- Shortcomings which are not authentically reported as a justification used by those who revolted against him. These appear in narrations with weak chains.
- Shortcomings for which I have found no chain and are prevalent in the sources and latter references about the incident, stating that those who revolted against him used these shortcomings as a justification for their revolt.
These shortcomings—in all three forms—are such that some are falsely attributed to him and some are actually his virtues, which hateful hearts have twisted into vices. The rest are matters in which only those with corrupt intentions and those aiming to justify falsehood which they want to enforce, would find fault in.
Hereunder follows a detailed discussion on each of the three categories and the justifications that flow from them.
1. Shortcomings which are authentically reported as justifications used by those who revolted against him or they criticised him for it
a. He did not participate in the Battle of Badr
The Battle of Badr took place in the second year of Hijrah. It occurred when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam encouraged his Companions to go out and attack a trade caravan belonging to the Quraysh. He hastened with those Companions who were ready without waiting for the Companions who resided on the outskirts due to his swift departure.[1]
It so happened that Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was ill and bedridden and in urgent need of someone to care for her and attend to her needs. The best person suited for this was her husband, because a wife is not fully at ease except with her husband. For all these reasons, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed her husband, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to stay in Madinah by her side to care for her. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam even assigned him a share of the spoils from the Battle of Badr. ‘Uthman asked, “And my reward, O Messenger of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala?”
He replied, “Your reward (is assured).”[2]
Thus, it becomes clear that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not attend the Battle of Badr; however, it was as if he had, since the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave him a share in its spoils and reward.
The Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum were well aware of this. It is not authentically reported that any of them reproached him for missing Badr; and this remained the case. Until the fountains of the fitnah burst open and those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu began to search for things they could present to the public as justification for their rebellion against him. Thus, they criticised him for not participating in the Battle of Badr.
However, only the most ignorant of people would be deceived by this. As for those with insight, they know that his absence from this battle was only by the instruction of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Those who participated in the Battle of Badr only attained that great reward due to them carrying out the instructions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Thus, the one who stayed behind by his instruction and the one who participated by his instruction are equal.
Based on this, al Zuhri[3], ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair[4], Musa ibn ‘Uqbah[5], and Ibn Ishaq[6], amongst others[7], list him among the participants of Badr.
When someone[8] came to Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma asking him whether ‘Uthman had participated in Badr, he replied that he had not. The questioner exclaimed, “Allahu Akbar”, feeling joy and gloating over ‘Uthman. Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma called him over and explained that ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu absence from this battle was not of his own choice, rather, it was due to the instruction of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and thus cannot be considered a criticism. He said to him, “The reason for his absence from Badr is that he was married to the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who was sick. Therefore, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him, “You will have the reward and the share of a man who participated in Badr.”[9]
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not stay behind from the Battle of Badr out of desire to avoid reward, nor out of cowardice or fear, but rather out of religious commitment and obedience to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
The call to arms—as mentioned earlier—was not general. Because of this, many of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were in the outlying areas did not participate in Badr, as well as those who were not present at the moment of departure due to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam haste, fearing that the caravan might escape before they had a chance to seize it. Thus, not participating in Badr is not a flaw in any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not instruct to stay behind in Madinah, then how could it be considered a flaw in one who stayed behind due to the instruction of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?
What exposes the invalidity of their justification for rebelling against him based on his absence from Badr is that they did not criticise the rest of those who were unable to join the battle, even if there were valid excuses. Certainly ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu excuse is stronger than theirs. No such criticism has been reported to us, which confirms that these people were merely seeking pretexts to pave the way for rebellion against the Khalifah.
Staying behind from participating in any of the military campaigns of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam due to a valid excuse, despite having an earnest desire to participate, is not considered an issue when he is a well-wisher for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala clarified this when He stated:
لَّيۡسَ عَلَى ٱلضُّعَفَآءِ وَلَا عَلَى ٱلۡمَرۡضَىٰ وَلَا عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ مَا يُنفِقُونَ حَرَجٌ إِذَا نَصَحُواْ لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦۚ مَا عَلَى ٱلۡمُحۡسِنِينَ مِن سَبِيلٖۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٞ رَّحِيمٞ وَلَا عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ إِذَا مَآ أَتَوۡكَ لِتَحۡمِلَهُمۡ قُلۡتَ لَآ أَجِدُ مَآ أَحۡمِلُكُمۡ عَلَيۡهِ تَوَلَّواْ وَّأَعۡيُنُهُمۡ تَفِيضُ مِنَ ٱلدَّمۡعِ حَزَنًا أَلَّا يَجِدُواْ مَا يُنفِقُونَ
There is not upon the weak or upon the ill or upon those who do not find anything to spend any discomfort (i.e., guilt) when they are sincere to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. There is not upon the doers of good any cause [for blame]. And Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is Forgiving and Merciful. Nor [is there blame] upon those who, when they came to you for you to take them along, you said, “I can find nothing upon which to carry you.” They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to spend (for the cause of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala).[10]
Thus, there is no cause for their blame, rather Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had testified to their goodness.
As for those who sought permission from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to stay behind, whilst being financially and physically able, without any valid excuse, and they were satisfied to be from those who stayed behind; those are the sinful ones whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had punished by sealing their hearts. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states:
إِنَّمَا ٱلسَّبِيلُ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ يَسۡتَـٔۡذِنُونَكَ وَهُمۡ أَغۡنِيَآءُۚ رَضُواْ بِأَن يَكُونُواْ مَعَ ٱلۡخَوَالِفِ وَطَبَعَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمۡ فَهُمۡ لَا يَعۡلَمُونَ
The cause (for blame) is only upon those who ask permission of you while they are rich. They are satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and Allah has sealed over their hearts, so they do not know.[11]
Whoever stays behind from one of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam military expeditions, by his instruction, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam allots a share for him in the spoils and in reward, such a person is even more deserving of being excused than one who stayed behind due to lack of ability or means.
Even if he had made a mistake and stayed back from the Battle of Badr without an excuse, that still would not justify executing him in cold blood, nor would it justify rebelling against him while he is the Khalifah!
If ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was truly sinful for staying behind from Badr, then why did the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not reprimand him for it? Are these people who criticise him for this reason more knowledgeable about the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala than the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? They are the scum of society. They have no companionship (with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), nor any virtue, and were never known for any goodness. Were it not for the fitnah, they would have never been known or mentioned.
Abu Nuaim states:
وإن طعن عليه بتغيبه عن بدر وعن بيعة الرضوان قيل له الغيبة التي يستحق بها العيب هو أن يقصد مخالفة الرسول لأن الفضل الذي جازه أهل بدر في شهود بدر طاعة الرسول ومتابعته ولو لا طاعة الرسول ومتابعته لكان كل من شهد بدرا من الكفار كان لهم الفضل والشرف وإنما الطاعة التي بلغت بهم الفضيلة وهو كان خرج فيمن خرج فرده الرسول للقيام على ابنته فكان في أجل فرض لطاعته لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتخليفه وقد ضرب له بسهمه وأجره فشاركهم في الغنيمة والفضل والأجر ولطاعته لله ورسوله وانقياده لهما
If someone criticises him (‘Uthman) for being absent from Badr or from the Pledge of al Ridwan, it should be said to him: The type of absence that deserves criticism is when a person intends to disobey the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, for the virtue attained by the participants of Badr came from obeying and following the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Were it not for obedience and following the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then even the disbelievers who attended Badr would have had virtue and honour. But it was obedience that brought them such excellence. ‘Uthman had set out with those who went (to Badr), but the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent him back to take care for his ailing daughter. So, he fulfilled a noble duty by obeying the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and staying behind. He was even granted a portion of the spoils and the reward, thus he shared with his Companions in the spoils, the virtue, as well as the reward; due to his obedience to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his submission to them.[12]
b. He fled from the battlefield on the Day of Uhud
Among these shortcomings is his fleeing from the Battle of Uhud, which took place in the month of Shawwal, 3 AH, between the Muslims and the polytheists near Mount Uhud, located to the north of Madinah.
The Muslims were victorious in the early part of the battle and had killed several of the polytheists. Regarding this, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala states:
وَلَقَدۡ صَدَقَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَعۡدَهُۥٓ إِذۡ تَحُسُّونَهُم بِإِذۡنِهِۦۖ
And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing them (i.e., the enemy) by His permission.[13]
As a result of some fighters disobeying the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instruction, the Muslims lost their positions and began fighting without coordination. They were unable to distinguish one another, and they fell into loss. Many of them fled the battlefield, while some withdrew to the side without continuing the fight, whilst others, however, chose death over life and fought until they were martyred.[14]
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentioned the incident of those who fled and His pardon of them, saying:
إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ تَوَلَّوۡاْ مِنكُمۡ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡتَقَى ٱلۡجَمۡعَانِ إِنَّمَا ٱسۡتَزَلَّهُمُ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنُ بِبَعۡضِ مَا كَسَبُواْۖ وَلَقَدۡ عَفَا ٱللَّهُ عَنۡهُمۡۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٞ
Indeed, those of you who turned back on the day the two armies met [at Uhud] – it was Shaitan who caused them to slip because of some [blame] they had earned. But Allah has already forgiven them. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.[15]
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala made it clear that he had forgiven all those who fled on the Day of Uhud. Included among them were individuals of lesser merit and precedence than ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. How then could he not be among those forgiven, considering his virtue, early acceptance of Islam, and multitude of righteous deeds?[16]
However, those who rebelled against him paid no heed to this divine pardon. Instead, they publicly proclaimed and circulated that they held a grudge against him for fleeing on the Day of Uhud. All this clearly indicates that their justification was not the justification of a diligent scholar who had erred, nor that of an overzealous but misguided individual. Rather, it was the justification of a deviant and mischief-maker, seeking any justification for his mischief.
Otherwise, why would they criticise him for a matter which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had pardoned and granted forgiveness? Why would they spread this amongst the Muslims regarding the one in charge of their affairs, the commander of the faithful, the Khalifah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?
Furthermore, his fleeing on the Day of Uhud does not legitimise his killing. How could it, when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had already forgiven him? Had he truly deserved punishment, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would not have refrained from carrying out his punishment, nor would the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum have unanimously pledged allegiance of Caliphate to him.
The Companions saw nothing in his conduct at Uhud that warranted hesitation in pledging allegiance to him, after Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had pardoned him and all those who had fled. Rather, they recognised in his many other achievements that which made him deserving of the highest office of the state, i.e., the Caliphate.
Those who rebelled against him were merely seeking justification for causing the fitnah, revolt, and killing of the Khalifah. They clung to this incident and to other similar flimsy justifications to support their cause.
This clearly reveals that Shaitan had overwhelmed them, causing them to forget the remembrance of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala[17], beautifying their actions to them and leading them astray from the true path, whilst being under the illusion that they were rightly guided.
When that rebel[18] asked Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma regarding ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whether he fled on the Day of Uhud, Ibn ‘Umar attested that he fled. The rebel exclaimed, “Allahu Akbar” out of enmity towards ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma said to him, “Come, let me inform you and clarify what you have asked me. As for his fleeing on the Day of Uhud, I bear testimony that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pardoned and forgave him … Now, go with what you have received.”[19]
c. He was absent from the Pledge of al Ridwan
The Pledge of al Ridwan took place at the beginning of Dhu al Qa’dah in the sixth year after Hijrah, under a Samurah (Acacia) tree, at a place near Makkah called al Hudaybiyyah.[20]
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called for it after he sent ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the people of Makkah to negotiate with them and to clarify the Muslims’ purpose for coming, which was to perform ‘Umrah, not to fight. When the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam felt that ‘Uthman was delayed and news reached him that the polytheists had killed him, he had his Companions pledge allegiance to fight the polytheists in revenge for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Taking into consideration the possibility that the news might not be true, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pledged on behalf of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu by placing one of his own hands over the other.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala expounded the virtue of the Companions who took this pledge in multiple verses, just as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned them. From amongst the verses are:
لَّقَدۡ رَضِيَ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ إِذۡ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحۡتَ ٱلشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمۡ فَأَنزَلَ ٱلسَّكِينَةَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَأَثَٰبَهُمۡ فَتۡحٗا قَرِيبٗا
Certainly, was Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, (O Muhammad), under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest.[21]
From amongst the ahadith is the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on the Day of al Hudaybiyyah regarding those who participated in it:
أنتم خير أهل الأرض
You are the best of people on earth.[22]
Likewise, the following statement:
لا يدخل النار إن شاء الله من أصحاب الشجرة أحد الذين بايعوا تحتها
Of those present at the tree, none of them who pledged underneath its shade will enter Hellfire, Allah willing.[23]
From the time of the pledge to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it has remained a source of pride for those who participated in it. People recognised their virtue, status, and esteemed position. Those who did not participate in the Pledge, from those in Madinah as well as other Muslims, were not criticised at all.
When people began to criticise ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and searched for faults in him, it became clear that they deemed revolt against him acceptable through various justifications. Some of these were fabricated, while others were virtues in reality. His absence from the Pledge of al Ridwan falls into this latter category. His absence is, in fact, a sign of his high status by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not a flaw.
However, the understanding of the people was deficient, and their hearts were filled with hatred. This is why a man once asked Ibn ‘Umar, “Did ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu participate in the Pledge of al Ridwan?”
Ibn ‘Umar replied, “No.”
Before the man left, Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained clearly that ‘Uthman’s absence from the Pledge was not a fault. Rather, it was a virtue, because the reason he missed it was that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had sent him to the people of Makkah and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then took the pledge, with one of his own hands, on behalf of ‘Uthman.[24] The hand of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (on behalf of ‘Uthman) is better than the hand of any of those who pledged with their own hands.
Abu Nuaim said:
وأما بيعة الرضوان فلأجل عثمان وقعت هذه المبايعة وذلك أن النبي بعثه رسولا إلى أهل مكة لما اختص به من السؤدد والدين ووفور العشيرة وأخبر الرسول بقتله فبايع الرسول والمسلمون على الموت ليوافوا أهل مكة
As for the Pledge of al Ridwan, it occurred because of ‘Uthman. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent him as an envoy to the people of Makkah, due to his being distinguished for his noble standing, strong faith, and powerful tribe. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was informed that ‘Uthman had been killed. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Muslims pledged allegiance to fight to death in response to the people of Makkah.[25]
Thus, ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu absence from the Pledge of al Ridwan is considered a virtue, not a flaw. But the hateful hearts twisted it into a fault and criticised him for it.
This virtue can be summarised in four key points:
- The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam chose him for that crucial task, which itself is evidence of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu merit and capability to carry it out.
- He is considered among those who took the Pledge of al Ridwan, because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam pledged on his behalf with one of his hands over the other.
- He was distinguished from the Companions present under the tree, as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used his other hand to pledge on behalf of ‘Uthman, and the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam hand is better than theirs; may Allah be pleased with them all.
- The entire pledge took place because of him, which clarifies his great position in the eyes of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
d. He secured the pastures
Among the shortcomings was his securing of pastures.[26] When the people of Egypt arrived in Madinah and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu met them, they said to him, “Bring the Qur’an.”
He called for it.
They said, “Open the seventh.” (They would call Surah Yunus the seventh.)
He recited until he reached the verse:
قُلۡ ءَآللَّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمۡۖ أَمۡ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ تَفۡتَرُونَ
Say, “Has Allah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent (something) about Allah?”[27]
They said to him, “Stop! Do you see the pastures that you have secured. Has Allah given you permission, or are you inventing about Allah?”
‘Uthman replied, “Go ahead, it was revealed regarding such and such a matter.[28] As for the pastures, ‘Umar had secured them before me for the camels of charity. When I took over, the camels of charity increased, so I increased the pastures due to the increase in the camels of charity. Go ahead.”[29]
It has been reported that Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha said to those who rebelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
اسمعوا نحدثكم عما جئتمونا له إنكم عبتم على عثمان في ثلاث خلال.. وذكرت منها وموضع الغمامة أي الحمى
“Listen, let us inform you of what you came to us for. You criticised ‘Uthman for three things…” Among them, she mentioned the place of al Ghamamah, i.e. the pasture.[30]
Thus, it becomes clear that the rebels made it clear that they justified rebelling against ‘Uthman for securing the pastures, but they did not specify the place that ‘Uthman had secured. ‘Uthman’s response appears to indicate that what was meant was pastures for the camels of charity. Therefore, they did not object to him after he responded to them.
Al Muhibb al Tabari mentions that the intended meaning was al Baqi’ of Madinah, and that he prevented people from entering it and increased the boundary of al Baqi’ many times over. However, he did not mention any chain for this or attribute it to anyone.[31] He came many years after the events, having passed away in 694 AH.
‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu response to the people of Egypt is sufficient. He threw a stone at them and muted them from responding. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not innovate securing of pastures, rather, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam preceded him in this, and then ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu secured al Sharaf and al Rabadhah[32] for the animals of charity.[33] This indicates to the permissibility of the principle of securing pastures by the Khalifah, which is the Shafi’i school of thought. Some of them include the governors of the provinces.[34]
Excess out of necessity is also permissible, due to the permissibility of the original. The camels of charity during the reign of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu required an increase in the pastures due to the increase in the number of camels for charity, which indicates the abundance of charity during his Caliphate.
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited boundaries in his statement:
لا حمى إلا لله ولرسوله
There is no boundary except for Allah and His Prophet.[35]
This prohibition is only against pre-Islamic boundaries, which were reserved for a tribal chief, to the exclusion of others.[36]
As for what ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did, it was for the benefit of the Muslims, in accordance with the saying of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
كلكم راع ومسؤول عن رعيته فالإمام راع ومسؤول عن رعيته والرجل في أهله راع وهو مسؤول عن رعيته والمرأة في بيت زوجها راعية وهي مسؤولة عن رعيتها والخادم في مال سيده راع وهو مسؤول عن رعيته … فكلكم راع وكلكم مسؤول عن رعيته
Each of you is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. A ruler is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. A man is a shepherd in his family and is responsible for his flock. A woman is a shepherd in her husband’s home and is responsible for her flock. A servant is a shepherd in his master’s wealth and is responsible for his flock… Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.[37]
It is mentioned that they criticised him for his protection of the city market. However, there is no chain for what al Muhibb al Tabari mentioned,[38] that they resented him for his protection of some of the things bought and sold in the city market. They claimed: No one should buy dates until his agent buys what ‘Uthman needs for his camel’s fodder.[39] He then responded to that by saying:
وهذا مما تقول عليه واختلق ولا أصل له ولم يوجد له إسناد وعلى تقدير صحة ذلك يحمل على أنه فعله لإبل الصدقة وألحقه بحمى المرعى لها لأنه في معناه
This is something that is fabricated and concocted; it has no basis, and no chain has been found for it. Even if it is assumed to be true, it will mean that he did it for the camels of charity and included it in the protection of their pastures, because it is similar in meaning.
He also mentioned that they justified their rebellion against him for his protection of the sea, so that no ship could sail except for his trade. Then he said:
ولا يقول بذلك عاقل وغاية ما يقال على تقدير صحة النقل في ذلك يحمل على أنها كانت ملكا له لأنه كان منبسطا في التجارات متسع المال في الجاهلية والإسلام فما حمى البحر وإنما حمى سفنه أن يحمل فيها متاع غير متاعه
No sane person would say that. The most that can be said, assuming that the transmission is true, is that it was his property, because he was an expert in trade and possessed abundant wealth during the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods. He did not protect the sea, but rather protected his ships from carrying goods other than his own.[40]
These are his responses—may Allah have mercy on him—assuming the chain is authentic. However, none of them have been proven by any reliable chain.
e. His compilation of the Qur’an
A narration with a sahih chain indicates that those who rebelled against ‘Uthman criticised his compilation of the Qur’an manuscripts, and that ‘Ali would say to them:
يا أيها الناس لا تغلوا في عثمان ولا تقولوا له إلا خيرا أو قولوا له خيرا في المصاحف فوالله ما فعل الذي فعل في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منا
O people, do not exaggerate in criticising ‘Uthman, and do not say anything but good about him, or say something good about him, regarding the Qur’an manuscripts. By Allah, he did not do what he did with the Qur’an manuscripts except with the approval of a group of us.[41]
It has also been reported through a sahih chain from Abu Mijlaz (d. 106 AH or 109 AH) that he said:
عابوا على عثمان تمزيق المصاحف وآمنوا بما كتب إليهم
They criticised ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for tearing up the Qur’an manuscripts, but they believed in what he wrote to them.[42]
Al Muhibb al Tabari stated that among the things they criticised ‘Uthman for was his burning of the Qur’an manuscript of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and uniting the people on the Qur’an manuscript of Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu[43], after which he responded to them.[44]
Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Arabi states:
أنهم قالوا وابتدع في جمع القرآن وتأليفه وفي حرق المصاحف
They said, “He innovated in the compilation and writing of the Qur’an and in the burning of the Qur’an manuscripts.”[45]
Thereafter, he responded to them.[46]
Before demonstrating the invalidity of this flaw attributed to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, I will narrate the incident of the compilation of the Qur’an from its beginning, during the rule of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to its end, during the rule of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so that the issue becomes clear and evident.
Let us go back to the aftermath of the Battle of Yamamah. When ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu learned that a number of Qurra’ (expert reciters of the Qur’an) had been martyred in this battle, he thought with his conscious mind, distinguished by foresight and sound reasoning, about the impact of this incident on the Muslim Ummah. He feared that the killing of Qurra’ would increase[47] in various places, leading to the loss of much of the Qur’an. He went to Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the Khalifah at the time, and informed him of his fears. He then suggested that he order the collection of the Qur’an. Abu Bakr hesitated to accept this, saying, “How can we do something that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not do?”
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “By Allah, this is good.” He continued to consult him until Allah opened his heart and he accepted ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu opinion.
Abu Bakr then sent for Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu and informed him of the conversation he had with ‘Umar and that he selected him to undertake this task. Zaid radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “How can you do something that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not do?”
Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu continued to convince him until Allah opened his heart to what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’s heart had opened to. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained to Zaid the reason for selecting him to undertake this important task; that he was a wise young man who was not accused by anyone, and he had been writing down the revelation for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
He then ordered him to track down and compile the Qur’an. The task was huge for Zaid radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to the point that he would say, “By Allah, if they ordered me to move a mountain, it would not have been more difficult for me than compiling the Qur’an which he ordered me to do.”
Zaid set out to track down the Qur’an, collecting it from palm leaf stalks[48], stones[49], and the chests of men until he completed its compilation. The manuscripts in which he compiled the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. After his death, they were passed on to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and after his martyrdom, they were passed onto his daughter, Hafsah, the wife of the Prophet.[50]
This continued until a full year of the Caliphate of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu had passed,[51] when the Islamic armies of Iraq and Syria conquered Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman was among this great army, and he saw differences in the recitation of the Qur’an in the ranks of the army and among the soldiers, to the point that he heard unsavoury things regarding their differences.[52]
He also saw something similar in Basrah. One day, while he was sitting in a gathering in one of the Masjids, during the governorship of al Walid ibn ‘Uqbah, a voice called out, “Whoever recites according to the recitation of Abu Musa, he should come to the corner near the gates of Kindah, and whoever recites according to the recitation of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, he should come to this corner near the house of ‘Abdullah.” The people gathered and disagreed over a verse from Surah al Baqarah. One of them recited:
وَأَتِمُّوا الْحَجَّ وَالْعُمْرَةَ لِلْبَيْتِ
And complete the Hajj and ‘Umrah to the House (of Allah).
Another person recited:
¢ £ ¤ ¥
And complete the Hajj and ‘Umrah for the sake of Allah.[53]
Hudhayfah became so angry that his eyes turned red. He stood up and tucked his shirt into his belt and said to one of them, “Either you ride to the Amir al Mu’minin, or I will.” He then turned to the people and said:
إن الله بعث محمدا فقاتل بمن أقبل من أدبر حتى أظهر الله دينه ثم إن الله قبضه فطعن الناس في الإسلام طعنة جواد ثم إن الله استخلف أبا بكر فكان ما شاء الله ثم إن الله قبضه فطعن الناس في الإسلام طعنة جواد ثم إن الله استخلف عمر فنزل الناس وسط الإسلام ثم إن الله قبضه فطعن الناس في الإسلام طعنة جواد ثم إن الله استخلف عثمان وأيم الله ليو شكن أن تطعنوا فيه طعنة تحلقونه كله
Allah sent Muhammad. He fought with whoever embraced Islam against whoever turned back, until Allah made His din victorious. Then Allah took him away and the people stabbed Islam with a mighty stab. Then Allah appointed Abu Bakr as his successor, and whatever Allah willed happened. Then Allah took him away and the people stabbed Islam with a mighty stab. Then Allah appointed ‘Umar as his successor, and the people entered into the midst of Islam. Then Allah took him away and the people stabbed Islam with a mighty stab. Then Allah appointed ‘Uthman as his successor. By Allah, I am sure that you will stab Islam with such a stab that will destroy it completely.[54]
Thereafter, he rode to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and said to him:
يا أمير المؤمنين أدرك هذه الأمة قبل أن يختلفوا في الكتاب اختلاف اليهود والنصارى في الكتب
O Amir al Mu’minin, take hold of this Ummah before they differ over the Qur’an as the Jews and Christians differed over the books.[55]
‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan was alarmed by this and gathered the Companions—among them ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu—and said:
ما تقولون في هذه القراءة فقد بلغني أن بعضهم يقول إن قراءتي خير من قراءتك وهذا يكاد يكون كفرا فقالوا ما ترى قال نرى أن نجمع الناس على مصحف واحد فلا تكون فرقة ولا يكون اختلاف فقالوا فنعم ما رأيت
What do you say about this recitation? I have heard that some of them say, “My recitation is better than yours,” and this could lead to kufr (disbelief)?
They said, “What is your opinion?”
He replied, “I feel that we should unite the people on a single copy of the Qur’an, so that there will be no division or disagreement.”
They said, “That is an excellent opinion.”
He then sent a message to Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anha, saying, “Send us the manuscripts in which the Qur’an was compiled, so that we may copy them and then return them to you.” Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anha sent them to him.
Thereafter, he stood up and urged the people to hand over what they had of the Qur’an, saying:
أيها الناس عهدكم نبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم منذ ثلاث عشرة سنة وأنتم تمترون في القرآن وتقولون قراءة أبي وقراءة عبد الله يقول الرجل والله ما تقيم قراءتك فأعزم على كل رجل منكم ما كان معه من كتاب الله شيء لما جاء به
O people, it has been thirteen years from the time of your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,[56] and you are already doubting in the Qur’an and saying, ‘the recitation of Ubayy, and the recitation of ‘Abdullah.’ A man says, “By Allah, your recitation is not correct.” Therefore, I urge every man among you, whoever has anything of the Book of Allah with him, to bring it.
The people responded. A man would bring a paper or leather with the Qur’an on it until he had collected a large number of them. Then ‘Uthman would come and call them, man by man, and take an oath from them, “By Allah, did you hear it from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and did he dictate it to you?”
He would say, “Yes.”
Then he asked, “Who is the best writer from the people?”
They replied, “The scribe of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Zaid ibn Thabit.”
Furthermore, he asked, “Who is the most eloquent of people?”
They replied, “Sa’id ibn al ‘As.”[57]
He then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, Sa’id ibn al ‘As, and ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Harith ibn Hisham to copy the Qur’an. He said to the three Qurashi men:
إذا اختلفتم أنتم وزيد بن ثابت في شيء من القرآن فاكتبوه بلسان قريش فإنما نزل بلسانهم
If you disagree with Zaid ibn Thabit about any part of the Qur’an, write it in the dialect of the Quraysh, for it was revealed in their dialect.
They did so[58] and copied the manuscripts into scriptures. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu then returned the manuscripts to Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anha. He sent one copy to every region, and ordered that everything else of the Qur’an, be it manuscripts or scriptures, be burned. That was the time when the manuscripts of the Qur’an were burnt in fire.[59]
After recounting the story of the compilation of the Qur’an from its beginning to its end, we return to what has been transmitted from some who have turned this virtue of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu into a flaw that is criticised.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not innovate in his compilation of the Qur’an; rather, Abu Bakr al Siddiq preceded him in doing so. He also did not do it on his own. Rather, he did it after consulting the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who were impressed by this action and said, “What a great opinion!” Some also said, “He did a good thing.”
Mus’ab ibn Sa’d met the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When ‘Uthman burnt[60] the copies of the Qur’an for him, he saw that they were amazed by this action.[61]
‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu forbade anyone who criticised ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for this, saying:
يا أيها الناس لا تغلوا في عثمان ولا تقولوا له إلا خيرا أو قولوا خيرا فوالله ما فعل الذي فعل أي في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منا جميعا أي الصحابة … والله لو وليت لفعلت مثل الذي فعل
O people, do not exaggerate in your criticism of ‘Uthman, and do not say anything about him except good—or say something good—for by Allah, he did not do what he did—regarding the copies of the Qur’an—except with the approval of all of us, i.e. the Companions… By Allah, if I were to be appointed leader, I would do the same as he did.[62]
After this virtuous group of the best of creation agreed on this blessed matter, it becomes clear to every person, who is free from whims, that it is obligatory for a Muslim to be satisfied with this action that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu performed and through which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala preserved the Qur’an.
It has not been proven that Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu disagreed with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this matter. Everything that has been narrated in this regard is through weak chains, according to the narrations I have found. These weak narrations, which contain this, also prove that Ibn Mas’ud reverted to what the Companions had agreed upon regarding the compilation of the Qur’an, that he stood before the people and announced this, and ordered them to revert to the Muslim community regarding this. He said:
إن الله لا ينتزع العلم انتزاعا ولكن ينتزعه بذهاب العلماء وإن الله لا يجمع أمة محمد على ضلالة فجامعوهم على ما اجتمعوا عليه فإن الحق فيما اجتمعوا عليه
Allah does not take away knowledge suddenly, but rather takes it away by the departure of the scholars. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will not unite the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam upon misguidance, so unite with them upon what they have agreed upon, for the truth is in that which they have agreed upon.
He wrote about this to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[63]
It has not been proven that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered the burning of Ibn Mas’ud’s copy of the Qur’an specifically. Even if this is true, al Muhibb al Tabari believes that his action was a cure for a great corruption in din, due to the large number of anomalies in Ibn Mas’ud’s copy of the Qur’an, which are reprehensible to scholars of the Qur’an. He also omitted the Mu’awwadhatayn[64] from his copy, despite the fact that they were well known among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum as being part of the Qur’an.[65]
Perhaps the reason for this was that Ibn Mas’ud would write down what was revealed of the Qur’an in his copy whenever he heard of the revelation of verses of the Qur’an. Thus, its sequence differed from the sequence distinguished by ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu copies of the Qur’an, which was arranged according to the final presentation to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, according to what the diligence of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, supported by their consensus, led to it.
It is possible that Ibn Mas’ud missed, in his copy, some of the verses that Zaid ibn Thabit and his companions had investigated, which were by other Qurra’ amongst the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Furthermore, Ibn Mas’ud was such that the dialect of his tribe, the Hudhayl tribe, was dominant on him, and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam permitted people like Ibn Mas’ud to recite in their own specific dialects.
It was good for the Ummah to unite in reading the Book of their Lord in the Mudari dialect spoken by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Al Tahawi, al Baqillani, and Ibn ‘Abdul Barr claimed that reading the Qur’an in seven dialects was initially permitted, but was then abrogated when the excuse was removed, memorisation became easier, accuracy became widespread, and writing was taught.[66]
As for what is mentioned about Ibn Mas’ud giving a sermon in Kufah where he said:
أما بعد فإن الله قال وَمَن يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وإني غال مصحفي فمن استطاع منكم أن يغل مصحفه فليفعل
Allah said, “And whoever betrays, (taking unlawfully), will come with what he took on the Day of Resurrection.”[67] Indeed, I am stealing my copy of the Qur’an. Whoever among you is able to steal his copy of the Qur’an, let him do so.[68]
I have not come across its chain. The earliest person to mention it is Ibn al ‘Arabi, who passed away in 543 AH, and there was a distance of more than five centuries between him and the incident.
Would this be expected from someone who abandoned qasr[69] in Mina for fear of unrest and strife and in compliance with the Khalifah? No, by Allah, he would not be expected to ascend the pulpit and incite people to unrest.
This is despite the fact that there are clear evidences supporting Ibn Mas’ud’s view of qasr in Mina, unlike the compilation of the Qur’an, which the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum unanimously agreed upon. Is it conceivable that Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu would follow ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in something for which there are clear evidences contradicting it, fearing unrest, and then contradict him in what his fellow Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum unanimously agreed upon, in fact, incite people to unrest using the pulpit of Kufah, whereas he is the one who said, “Discord is evil?” What a weak story this is and what a fool is he who fabricated it!
As for burning or tearing up anything other than ‘Uthman’s copy of the Qur’an, it is permissible if there is corruption in keeping it, or if it contains something that is not part of the Qur’an, or something that was abrogated from it, or was not in its proper order. All the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum submitted to this.[70]
What ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu accomplished in collecting the Qur’an, confirming it, and standardising its script, is the greatest favour he bestowed upon the Muslims, and through it, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala fulfilled His promise made in His statement:
إِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا ٱلذِّكۡرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُۥ لَحَٰفِظُونَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the message (i.e., the Qur’an), and indeed, We will be its guardian.[71]
He approved this work and disseminated its script and recitation in all the provinces of his rule. Thus, the consensus of the Muslims in the first century was established that what he did was among his greatest good deeds. The same rebels who criticised him for this were, during his Caliphate and afterward, reciting from the copies of the Qur’an of ‘Uthman, which were unanimously agreed upon by the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[72] This refers to those who were deceived and had good intentions.
As for those malicious heretics like Ibn Saba’, recitation of the Qur’an or performing any act of worship cannot be expected from them, except out of hypocrisy, concealment, and deceiving those who do not know their true nature. If they do recite the Qur’an, it will not go beyond their throats, as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated in his description of the Khawarij.
The incident of the compilation of the Qur’an during the reign of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu reveals the extent of the Companions’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum understanding of the verses prohibiting disagreement, as Allah forbade disagreement and warned against it. Due to their deep understanding of these verses, Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhu trembled when he heard signs of disagreement in the recitation of the Qur’an. He immediately travelled to Madinah and informed ‘Uthman of what he had seen and heard. ‘Uthman quickly stood up and addressed the people. He warned them of the consequences of this disagreement and consulted with the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum on a solution to this emerging ordeal. Within a short period, the matter was resolved and the door to discord that had almost opened was closed, by collecting the manuscripts and transcribing them into a single Qur’an from extremely reliable sources.
The Muslims rejoiced at this closure of the door to discord, while the hypocrites, who had been anticipating the beginning of unrest which they had been waiting impatiently for and striving to realise, were enraged. When the dispute was resolved and they found no way to revive it, their hatred for the one who resolved it and closed its door, increased. They strove to stigmatise him and portray his good deeds as evil deeds. In order to prove this, they held on to weak spider webs, to criticise him and justify their rebellion against him, demonstrating to the people that this good deed was an evil deed that warranted rebellion against him.
This should alert Muslims in every era, and their wise men should take heed and hasten to resolve every disagreement among them, on sound basis, while preserving the fundamentals of Islam, without compromising the truth or overlooking any fundamental principles of belief or the Shari’ah. If any agreement is not based on the correct belief, there is no benefit in it. It is likely to increase disagreement and be a patch that only increases the split (i.e. exacerbate the problem). The fundamentals of Islam should not be abandoned under the pretext of resolving and patching up disagreements. Rather, those who oppose the correct belief must free themselves from the yokes of deviation and embrace the correct belief, to resolve the disagreement. Similar is the case of those who abandon the correction of their belief under the pretext of uniting the community and unifying the ranks. This, as previously stated, only disperses the community and divides the ranks even more than they were. The presence of sensory evidence in the Islamic arena today cannot be denied except by someone who is ignorant or imprudent.
The Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not leave each reciter to his correct recitation, but rather, united them on a single recitation, thus uniting them and unifying their ranks. This is the correct method of unifying the ranks of Muslims and uniting them. This can only be achieved by returning to the Qur’an and Sunnah and understanding them correctly, derived from the understanding of the pious predecessors, and holding fast to them, so that unity may be achieved for them, they may unite against their enemy, and Allah may lift the failure from them, which they deserved due to their disputes.
وَلَا تَنَٰزَعُواْ فَتَفۡشَلُواْ وَتَذۡهَبَ رِيحُكُمۡۖ
And do not dispute and (thus) lose courage and (then) your strength would depart.[73]
This is one of the fruits of studying the history of al Khalifas al Rashidun (the Rightly-Guided Khalifas), which is replete with lessons and role models.
After we have arrived at this truth, which our pious predecessors were upon, it becomes clear to us how distant are those who turn their backs entirely on the meaning of the Qur’an and Sunnah and let their reason govern them, rejecting the call of the Qur’an and Sunnah and interpreting that benefit is in other than them.
It is more appropriate for those who have read the correct, mutawatir Qur’an to return to the truth, to the authentic meaning of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and to abandon everything that their limited minds see and invent, and to what the clear, authentic texts indicate. They should not put any matter, idea, or method before Allah and His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but rather, they should return to what Allah and His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called towards.
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تُقَدِّمُواْ بَيۡنَ يَدَيِ ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦۖ
O you who have believed, do not put (yourselves) before Allah and His Messenger.[74]
فَإِن تَنَٰزَعۡتُمۡ فِي شَيۡءٖ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأٓخِرِۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيۡرٞ وَأَحۡسَنُ تَأۡوِيلًا
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best (way) and best in result.[75]
Consider how matters were handled correctly. The reciters knew that their recitation was correct, having received it from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Despite that, they abandoned it at the instruction of the Khalifah and agreed upon a single recitation in a single copy of the Qur’an. It should be noted that ‘Uthman and Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma also knew this, but they did not say to each reciter, “You are correct, and reading according to the mutawatir recitation. You follow the recitation of Ubayy, and you follow the recitation of Ibn Mas’ud. Both are Companions who took the Qur’an directly from the mouth of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So, whoever recites according to the recitation of either of them is on the right path.”
But they abandoned this truth for something that is more worthy, which is unity and the absence of division. So how about those who persist on error or doubt under the pretext of uniting the word, unifying the ranks, and under the slogan:
نجتمع على ما اتفقنا عليه ويعذر بعضنا بعضا فيما اختلفنا فيه
We unite on what we agree upon and we excuse each other in what we disagree upon.
Indeed, some of them go beyond that, calling on the people of correct belief to abandon the truth, indicated by authentic evidence, because others disagree with them on it, under these seemingly attractive slogans.
These people are strange. Why do they not leave the people of truth to the truth, even if disagreement arises? And why do they not ask the people of falsehood or doubt, at the very least, to abandon what they believe, for the sake of uniting the word and unifying the ranks on the truth and by the truth.
f. Performing full Salah in Mina
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would perform two rak’at for a four rak’at Salah in Mina during the Hajj. The two Khalifahs, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, followed him in that. As for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he did this during the first six years of his Caliphate. He then made ijtihad (independent judgement) and would thereafter complete full four rak’at.
A number of Companions disagreed with him on this, including Ibn ‘Umar, who explained that the Sunnah was to perform qasr, as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman—during the early years of his Caliphate—did.[76]
It is reported that people objected to ‘Uthman doing so, so he explained to them the reason for him performing complete Salah[77] and his evidence for it.[78] Narrations mention several reasons, including:
1. He married in Makkah since arriving there, and he heard the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say:
من تأهل ببلد فليصل صلاة المقيم
Whoever marries in a place should perform the Salah of a resident.
Thus, he considered himself to have taken Makkah as his residence, and thus assumed the ruling of a resident.[79]
This reason has been transmitted through several chains from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, each strengthening the other. However, the text is questionable. ‘Uthman was a Muhajir, and residing in Makkah was forbidden for him.[80] He undoubtedly knew this. When al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him during the siege:
اركب رواحلك إلى مكة قال لن أفارق دار هجرتي
“Ride with your camels to Makkah.”
He replied, “I will never leave the land of my emigration.”[81]
2. He claimed that he had acquired wealth in Ta’if and intended to reside there.[82] This is from a weak chain, and its text is refuted by the same refutation of the first statement. Furthermore, the people of Ta’if are not considered to be from the people of Makkah, so acquiring wealth in Ta’if does not make the person from Makkah. Therefore, it is not expected that ‘Uthman would make this excuse.
3. He had heard that the Bedouins, who had performed Hajj with him the previous year, had performed qasr Salah in their homelands and they justified that by the Salah in Mina. Therefore, he performed complete Salah to teach them that the Salah is four rak’at, fearing that they would follow his example. He addressed the people and informed them that the Sunnah was the Sunnah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Sunnah of his two Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. However, this occurred from the people, so he feared that they might regard it as a Sunnah.[83]
Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned that al Zuhri stated:
إنما صلى عثمان بمنى أربعاً لأن الأعراب كانوا كثروا في ذلك العام فأحب أن يعلمهم أن الصلاة أربع
‘Uthman only performed four rak’at in Mina because the Bedouins had come in large numbers that year, so he wanted to teach them that Salah is four rak’at.”[84]
Ibn Jurayj narrates that a Bedouin called out to him in Mina:
يا أمير المؤمنين ما زلت أصليها منذ رأيتك عام أول ركعتين
O Amir al Mu’minin, I have continued to perform it as two rak’at since I saw you in the first year.
Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar preferred this. After mentioning some of these chains, he stated:
وهذه طرق يقوي بعضها بعضاً ولا مانع أن يكون هذا أصل سبب الإتمام
These chains strengthen each other. There is nothing preventing this from being the main reason for performing complete Salah.[85]
4. It is said that the reason for performing complete Salah is that he believed that qasr was specific to those who were traveling, while those who were staying during their journey, their ruling was same as those who were resident and thus, he performed complete Salah. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar chose this view and used as evidence the narration of ‘Abbad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, who stated:
لما قدم علينا معاوية حاجا صلى بنا الظهر ركعتين بمكة ثم انصرف إلى دار الندوة فدخل عليه مروان وعمرو بن عثمان فقالا لقد عبت أمر ابن عمك لأنه كان قد أتم الصلاة قال وكان عثمان حيث أتم الصلاة إذا قدم مكة صلى بها الظهر والعصر والعشاء أربعا أربعا ثم إذا خرج إلى منى وعرفة قصر الصلاة فإذا فرغ من الحج وأقام بمنى أتم الصلاة
When Muawiyah came to us performing Hajj, he led us in two rak’at Salat al Zuhr in Makkah. Then he went to Dar al Nadwah. Marwan and ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthman entered upon him and said, “You have condemned your cousin’s action because he had performed complete Salah.”
He said, “‘Uthman performed complete Salah when he arrived in Makkah, by performing four rak’at Salat al Zuhr, ‘Asr and ‘Isha. Then, when he left for Mina and ‘Arafah, he performed qasr. When he completed the Hajj and stayed in Mina, he performed complete Salah.”[86]
Al Hafiz did not see his choice of this view as contradicting his choice of the third view. Rather, he strengthened it in that the state of residency during travel is closer in analogy with general residence, contrary to one who is travelling. Then he said, “This is what ‘Uthman’s ijtihad led to.”[87]
5. Ibn Battal states:
الوجه الصحيح في ذلك أن عثمان وعائشة كانا يريان أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما قصر لأنه أخذ بالأيسر من ذلك على أمته فأخذا لأنفسهما بالشدة
The correct view in this is that ‘Uthman and Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhuma believed that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made qasr because he had taken the easier option for his Ummah, so they took the stricter option for themselves.
Al Hafiz states:
وهذا رجحه جماعة من آخرهم القرطبي لكن الوجه الذي قبله أولى لتصريح الراوي بالسبب
This reason was preferred by a group, the last of whom was al Qurtubi, but the previous view[88] is more appropriate because the narrator clearly stated the reason.
What appears to me—and Allah knows best—is that al Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s choice is a strong one, as indicated by the accepted narrations, i.e. that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu performed complete Salah to teach the Bedouins that the four-rak’at Salah are four, and he did so in Mina because he was residing there in a kind of residence and was not seriously traveling. Thus, the third and fourth opinions are reconciled.
Al Hafiz, while commenting on Ibn Mas’ud’s statement, “If only my portion of four rak’at would be two rak’at”, said:
قال الداودي خشي ابن مسعود أن لا تجزئ الأربع فاعلها وتبع عثمان كراهة لخلافه وأخبر بما يعتقده وقال غيره يريد أنه لو صلى أربعا تكلفها فليتها تقبل الركعتان والذي يظهر أنه قال ذلك على سبيل التفويض إلى الله لعدم اطلاعه على الغيب وهل يقبل الله صلاته أو لا فتمنى أن يقبل منه الأربع التي يصليها ركعتين ولم يقبل الزائد وهو يشعر بأن المسافر عنده مخير بين القصر والإتمام والركعتان لابد منهما ومع ذلك فكان يخاف أن لا يقبل منه شيء فحاصله أنه قال إنما أتم متابعة لعثمان وليت قبل مني ركعتين من الأربع
Al Dawoodi states: Ibn Mas’ud feared that the four rak’at would not be sufficient for the one who performs them. He followed ‘Uthman out of aversion of disagreeing with him, and he informed of what he believed.
Others say: He meant that if he performed four rak’at, he would be responsible for it. If only (it would be such that) two rak’at would be accepted.
What seems to be the case is that he said this as a way of entrusting it to Allah, because he was unaware of the unseen and whether Allah would accept his prayer or not. He hoped that the four rak’at that he performed would be accepted from him as two rak’at, but not the extra.
He is informing that the traveller, in his view, has a choice between qasr and completing full Salah, and that two rak’at were necessary. Nevertheless, he feared that nothing would be accepted from him.
The gist of it is that he said, “I only performed complete Salah, following ‘Uthman, and I wish that two rak’at of the four were accepted from me.”[89]
Thus, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a mujtahid and he had evidences. He was one of the senior jurists from amongst the senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, especially pertaining to the rituals of Hajj, to the point that Muhammad ibn Sirin said:
كان أعلمهم بالمناسك ابن عفان وبعده ابن عمر
Ibn ‘Affan was the most knowledgeable of them regarding the rituals of Hajj, followed then by Ibn ‘Umar.[90]
Even if we assume that his ijtihad was without evidence, that does not justify rebelling against him, let alone killing him.
NEXT⇒ 2. Narrations in this regard whose isnad is not authentic
[1] Regarding this battle, see al ‘Ulaymi: Marwiyyat Ghazwah Badr; Dr. Akram al ‘Umari: Al Mujtama’ al Madani al Jihad Didd al Mushrikin, pg. 39, 59.
[2] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/54, 363; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/629; Musnad Ahmed, 8/101-102, 199-200, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/160; al Tayalisi: Al Musnad, pg. 264: Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 254-256; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/24-25. The only one who narrates it with the statement of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “And my reward, O Messenger of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala?” is Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 30.
[3] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 29, 31.
[4] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 30.
[5] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 29, 31.
[6] Ibn Hisham: Tahdhib Sirah Ibn Ishaq, 2/ 278-279; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 29-30.
[7] Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/159-160.
[8] It was possibly al ‘Ala’ ibn ‘Arar, Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 7/364; some narrations are explicit that this individual is from amongst the people of Egypt, Fath al Bari, 7/54, 59.
[9] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/54, 363; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/629; Musnad Ahmed, 8/101-102, 199-200, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/160; al Tayalisi: Al Musnad, pg. 264: Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 254-256; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/24-25.
[10] Surah al Tawbah: 91-92.
[11] Surah al Tawbah: 93.
[12] Abu Nuaim: Al Imamah, pg. 301-302, with the research of Dr. ‘Ali Nasir al Faqihi.
[13] Surah Al ‘Imran: 152.
[14] Regarding this battle, see; al Mujtama’ al Madani al Jihad Didd al Mushrikin, pg. 65, 86; Hussain al Bakiri: Marwiyyat Ghazwah Uhud.
[15] Surah Al ‘Imran: 155.
[16] Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/297.
[17] As is mentioned in the following verse:
ﯸ ﯹ ﯺ ﯻ ﯼ ﯽ ﯿ ﰀ ﰁ
Shaitan has overcome them and made them forget the remembrance of Allah. (Surah al Mujadilah: 19.)
[18] It is mentioned in one of the narrations of al Bukhari that he was a man from Egypt, Fath al Bari, 7/54; al Hafiz ibn Hajar mentions that it is al ‘Ala’ ibn ‘Arar, Fath al Bari, 7/364.
[19] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/54, 363; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/629; Musnad Ahmed, 8/101-102, 199-200, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/160; al Tayalisi: Al Musnad, pg. 264: Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 254-256; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/24-25.
[20] Majd al Din ibn al Athir said, “The second ya is pronounced lightly, however many of the scholars of hadith pronounce it with a tashdid.” (Al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar, 1/349.)
[21] Surah al Fath: 18; Tafsir ibn Kathir, 4/190-191.
[22] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/443.
[23] Sahih Muslim, pg. 163; Musnad Ahmed, 6/420.
[24] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/54, 363; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/629; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 14/442-443; Musnad Ahmed, 8/101-102, 199-200, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 3/160; al Tayalisi: Al Musnad, pg. 264; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 254-256; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/24-25.
[25] Al Imamah, pg. 304, with the research of Dr ‘Ali Nasir al Faqihi.
[26] Hima is a protected place, and it is the opposite of what is permissible. (Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 5/44.)
[27] Surah Yunus: 59.
[28] This is how it appears in the narration.
[29] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 168-169; al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 4/90-91; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/215-220; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/354-356; Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh, as in al Matalib al ‘Aliyah, 4/354-356; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/60, its isnad is sahih. Al Haythami said, “It is narrated by al Bazzar and its narrators are that of al Sahih except for Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Ayyub Asid, who is thiqah (trustworthy).” (Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/228-229.)
[30] Narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed in Ahmed ibn Hanbal: Fada’il al Sahabah, 1/452, its isnad is weak. It contains ‘Abdul Malik ibn ‘Umair who became confused, and the narrator’s report from him does not clarify whether it was before or after his confusion. It also contains a mu’an’an narration (chains with one or more times the preposition ‘an (from) between two transmitters are called mu’an’an chains) of ‘Abdul Malik, who is a mudallis. Al Hafiz listed him in the third category of mudallisin. (Mudallis refers to a transmitter who (sometimes) transmits with obfuscation in his transmission; either intentionally or unintentionally, narrating a hadith in a manner that obscures or omits transmitters in the isnad.)
[31] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/83, 93.
[32] Al Bukhari narrated it in al Sahih in his explanatory remarks. (Fath al Bari, 5/44.) Al Sharaf is a place near Makkah, and al Rabadhah is a place between Makkah and Madinah. (Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 5/45.)
[33] Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it with an isnad which is deemed sahih by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar. (Fath al Bari, 5/45.)
[34] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 5/44-45.
[35] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 5/44-45.
[36] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 5/44-45.
[37] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 5/181.
[38] I originally intended to mention this in the third section of this chapter, but I preferred to mention it here because it falls under the general category of protection. They criticised him for this, so perhaps these aspects of protection fall under it.
[39] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/83.
[40] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/83.
[41] Ibn Abi Dawood: Al Masahif al ‘Ilmiyyah, Hadith: 28029.
[42] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/210.
[43] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/87.
[44] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/99.
[45] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 76.
[46] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 80-85.
[47] Yastahirru: the killing became intense. (Al Fayruzabadi: Al Qamus al Muhit, 8/2.)
[48] Al ‘usub, plural of ‘asib: a palm branch, which is a frond on which palm leaves do not grow. (Majd al Din Ibn al Athir: Al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar, 3/234.)
[49] Al likhaf, plural of lakhfah: thin white stones. (Majd al Din Ibn al Athir: Al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar, 4/244.)
[50] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 8/344, 9/10-11.
[51] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 9/17.
[52] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 9/11; al Tabarani: Musnad al Shamiyyin, Hadith: 2991, with a sahih isnad.
[53] Surah al Baqarah: 196.
[54] Ibn Abi Dawood: Al Masahif al ‘Ilmiyyah, 18; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 233-234, through his isnad which contains a narrator who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. However, Hudhayfah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu anger at their disagreement over the Qur’an has a corroborating narration reported by al Bukhari, which elevates it to the level of hasan li ghayrihi.
[55] Al Tabarani: Musnad al Shamiyyin, Hadith: 2991, with a sahih isnad.
[56] Fath al Bari, 9/17.
[57] Ibn Abi Dawood: Al Masahif, pg. 23-24, Cordoba print, pg. 31, al ‘Ilmiyyah print. The isnad contains an unknown narrator.
[58] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 9/9.
[59] Al Tabarani: Musnad al Shamiyyin, Hadith: 2991, and its origin is in Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 9/11.
[60] Mashq: to burn. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 10/344.)
[61] Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/94, its isnad is hasan li ghayrihi.
[62] Ibn Abi Dawood: Al Masahif, pg. 28-30, al ‘Ilmiyyah print; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, through the same isnad, pg. 241-242. He also narrated it through other isnads, pg. 237-239. Its isnad is sahih. It was graded as sahih by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari, 9/18.
[63] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 239-240, narrated by Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi, who is a liar.
[64] Surah al Falaq and Surah al Nas.
[65] Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/99.
[66] Muhibb al Din al Khatib: Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 84, footnote no. 84.
[67] Surah Al ‘Imran: 161.
[68] Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 84; Musnad Ahmed, 1/414; Ibn Abi Dawood: Al Masahif, al ‘Ilmiyyah print, pg. 21-23. These two narrations mention that Ibn Mas’ud said this, but it does not mention that he delivered this sermon in Kufah.
[69] Qasr: shortening of obligatory Salah by a traveller.
[70] Ibn al ‘Arabi: Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 83.
[71] Surah al Hijr: 9.
[72] This was mentioned by Muhibb al Din al Khatib: Al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, pg. 82, footnote 80.
[73] Surah al Anfal: 46.
[74] Surah al Hujurat: 1.
[75] Surah al Nisa’: 59.
[76] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 2/563, 3/509; Sahih Muslim, pg. 10; Muwatta’ Malik, pg. 149, 402, Sunan al Darimi, 2/56.
[77] Musnad Ahmed, 1/351, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 249-250, this isnad has ‘Ikrimah ibn Ibrahim al Bahili who is da’if (weak) and ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Dhubab who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban; however, it has a corroboration that elevates it to the level of hasan li ghayrihi.
[78] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/571.
[79] Musnad Ahmed, 1/351, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, 249-250, from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Dhubab, its isnad is weak, but it has corroborations such as: That which Abu Dawood narrated (al Sunan, 2/199), by Ibrahim al Nakha’i, its isnad is weak, and that which he narrated through a sahih isnad till al Zuhri, however, the isnad is interrupted between him and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as al Zuhri did not meet ‘Uthman. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al Bari, 2/175, and attributed it to ‘Abdur Razzaq and said, “It is a mursal narration.”
[80] Fath al Bari, 2/571.
[81] Musnad Ahmed, 1/369, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 387-388, the isnad is interrupted. Refer to the appendix, Hadith: 170. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al Bari, beginning with the words, “proven”. (Fath al Bari, 2/571.)
[82] Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/571, he attributed to al Bayhaqi.
[83] Sunan Abi Dawood, pg. 1992, with a sahih isnad to al Zuhri.
[84] Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/571, he attributed to al Bayhaqi.
[85] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/571.
[86] Musnad Ahmed, 4/94, through an isnad which al Hafiz Ibn Hajar graded as hasan. (Fath al Bari, 2/571.)
[87] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/571.
[88] I.e. the fourth view.
[89] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 2/572.
[90] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/60, with a sahih isnad.