His Killing and His Killer
November 18, 2025Conclusion
November 18, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Miscellaneous aspects of the Fitnah
1. What was reported from the Companions regarding the impact of ‘Uthman’s murder
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred and attained Jannat due to the tribulation that befell him, just as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had informed him and the Companions with him of the tribulation of his murder and some of the details that would occur therein. Narrations prove that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam confided with him regarding something that the he did not wish to reveal, so he addressed it to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not others.[1] However, did the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam inform any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum of the impact of his martyrdom on the Ummah?
According to the narrations that have reached us, none of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhu explicitly stated this. Some of them narrated some of the effects of his martyrdom. Was this based on being informed by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, or merely their own insight and foresight? Both possibilities are valid, because they are not among those who unleash their tongues freely without being aware of what they are saying, speaking without knowledge. Moreover, they are the people with the strongest iman after the Prophets and Messengers ‘alayhim al Salam. Therefore, insight is closer to them than to others.
Among these is what Thumamah ibn ‘Adi[2] radiya Llahu ‘anhu said when he heard of the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This was in a sermon that he delivered, wherein he wept profusely. When he regained consciousness and his composure,[3] he said:
اليوم انتزعت خلافة النبوة من أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وصارت ملكا وجبرية من أخذ شيئاً غلب عليه
Today, the Caliphate of prophethood has been taken away from the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and has become a kingdom and a tyranny. Whoever takes something of it, it will overpower him.[4]
Thumamah radiya Llahu ‘anhu expressed a profound meaning related to understanding the system of the Caliphate, that it is thorough consultation and that its demolition by force transforms the system of government into a tyrant monarchy. His sense of the danger of this transformation was profound and his pain was intense, indicating an awareness of the social norms that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has established for His creation. Indeed, what Thumamah radiya Llahu ‘anhu said actually happened, only that it did not happen immediately after the martyrdom of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. After him, ‘Ali and then Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma assumed the Caliphate, but their Caliphate was not like that (i.e. monarchy); rather, it happened after that.
Likewise, the martyrdom of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu resulted in many negative consequences. The fortresses of Islam were exposed, making it easy for enemies to target them. Concerning this, Samurah ibn Jundub[5] radiya Llahu ‘anhu says:
إن الإسلام كان في حصن حصين وإنهم ثلموا في الإسلام ثلمة بقتلهم عثمان وإنهم شرطوا في الإسلام شرطة وإنهم لا يسدون ثلمتهم أو لا يسدونها إلى يوم القيامة
Islam was in a strong fortress. They made a hole[6] in Islam by killing ‘Uthman, and they cut a slit[7] in Islam. They will not be able to fill their hole until the Day of Qiyamah.[8]
Indeed, Islam was a fortress of harmony and love, uniting its people through iman in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. When its enemies infiltrated it under the guise of Islam and did what they did to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the fortress collapsed and fighting broke out among them.[9]
Perhaps this statement of Samurah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was made after the unrest that occurred during the Caliphate of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because Samurah passed away in 58 AH.
Hudhayfah[10] radiya Llahu ‘anhu explains the impact of the killing of ‘Uthman on people’s adherence to Islam and their understanding of its meanings when he heard of the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
اليوم نزل الناس حافة الإسلام فكم من مرحلة قد ارتحلوا عنه
Today, people have reached the edge of Islam[11]. How many stages[12] are there that they departed from?[13]
There is no doubt that this actually transpired, for the society during the era of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the eras of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum was more adherent to Islam, its meanings, and its understanding.
It is evident from Hudhayfah’s statement that they gradually declined and became inferior. He expressed this by them moving away from Islam in stages, until they reached its brink—i.e. its edge—after the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Hudhayfah’s statements on this matter are of great significance, given his deep awareness of the tribulations. This is because it is authentically reported that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed him of the tribulations that had occurred and would occur until the Day of Qiyamah.[14]
Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not suffice on this description of what had befallen Islam with the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, but rather explicitly stated that his killing was a tribulation and that it was the first of tribulations.[15] Indeed, it was a tribulation followed by successive tribulations. He also declared that the fate of those who killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Hereafter would be Hellfire.
‘Abdullah ibn Salam[16] explains that the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not shed a single drop of blood in the fitnah except that they will increase in their distance away from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. He said to them:
والله لا تهرقون محجما من دم إلا ازددتم به من الله بعدا
By Allah, you will not shed a single drop of blood except that you will increase your distance away from Allah due to it.[17]
Through this statement, Ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu agreed with Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this regard, stating that the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a cause for the weakness of the Muslim Ummah and a deficiency in its adherence to the teachings of din. In fact, he established a general principle stating that the more they shed blood, the further they move away from Allah.
‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu was one of the Jewish rabbis[18] and leaders[19] before embracing Islam. Concerning him, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed the verse:
وَشَهِدَ شَاهِدٞ مِّنۢ بَنِيٓ إِسۡرَٰٓءِيلَ عَلَىٰ مِثۡلِهِۦ
While a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar.[20],[21]
It is established that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam testified that ‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu would pass away while holding on to the most trustworthy handhold.[22] Thus, his statements and approvals are significant, arising from these two testimonies, as he adhered to his critical insight and Islamic standards during the circumstances of the fitnah that swept through many.
Hence, some have interpreted that he is the intended person in the verse:
– . / 0
And (the witness of) whoever has knowledge of the Scripture (i.e. the Tawrah).[23]
Mujahid said, “This refers to ‘Abdullah ibn Salam.”[24]
Since this information from him includes matters of the unseen, this increases confidence that he attained it from a reliable source, otherwise he would not have narrated it. Furthermore, he is the Companion mentioned in the Qur’an in the verse, “And (the witness of) whoever has knowledge of the Scripture.”[25]
Among the proven narrations regarding this from him is that, one day, he went to the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and forbade them from killing him. He informed them that only a short time remained for him to live, and said to them:
اتركوا هذا الرجل أربعين ليلة فوالله لئن تركتموه فليموتن إليها
Leave this man alone for forty nights, for by Allah, if you leave him alone, he will definitely pass away by then.
But they refused. Then a few days later, he came out to them again and said:
اتركوه خمس عشرة ليلة فوالله لئن تركتموه ليموتن إليها
Leave him alone for fifteen nights. By Allah, if you leave him alone, he will definitely pass away by then.[26]
He took an oath that if they killed him, they would never perform Salah together again.[27] What Ibn Salam said actually happened, as the hearts of the people became divided, to the point that al Hasan al Basri said, “By Allah, even if the people performed Salah together, their hearts are divided.”[28]
Ibn Taymiyyah states:
لم تحدث في خلافة عثمان بدعة ظاهرة فلما قتل وتفرق الناس حدثت بدعتان متقابلتان …..
No apparent innovation occurred during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman. When he was killed and the people became disunited, two opposing innovations occurred…[29]
Ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu also warned of the angels’ departure following his killing. These were the angels who had surrounded Madinah since the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had arrived. Their departure was eternal, and they would never return after their departure.[30] The narration did not clarify which angels were meant by his statement—are they specific angels or not? The angels who record good deeds and those who record evil deeds will not depart except with the departure of the soul of a person.
Moreover, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had informed that angels will surround Madinah at the end of time when al Dajjal attempts to invade it. Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu reported that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
على أنقاب المدينة ملائكة لا يدخلها الطاعون ولا الدجال
At the gates of Madinah are angels. Neither a plague nor al Dajjal will enter it.
Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam;
لا يدخل المدينة رعب المسيح الدجال ولها يومئذ سبعة أبواب على كل باب ملكان
The horror of al Dajjal will not enter Madinah. On that day, it will have seven gates, with two angels at each gate.[31]
When any transmission contradicts a hadith, preference is given to the hadith.
He also warned them of the descent of the sword of Allah, and that it will never be sheathed until the Day of Qiyamah, whereas, it had been sheathed for them. He also informed them that no prophet was killed except that seventy thousand were killed in return, and no Khalifah was killed except that thirty-five thousand were killed before the people united. He mentioned to them that seventy thousand were killed over the blood of Yahya ibn Zakariyya ‘alayh al Salam.
These details from him confirm to us that he did not mention this based on fabrication or speculation, but rather based on firm and certain knowledge.
2. A critique of some contemporary books on the fitnah
After Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala enabled me to collect and study the chains and texts of the narrations on the fitnah and present them historically, some contradictory facts dawned on me, which are well known and widely circulated in many books that have discussed the fitnah by contemporary writers.
Therefore, I decided to reveal, in this chapter, some of the errors committed by some of these contemporaries. I chose a book of an author who is most prominent, in terms of fame, and whose ideas have influenced people. He is ‘Abbas Mahmud al ‘Aqqad.
Al ‘Aqqad wrote a book called Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. The book was reprinted several times and enjoyed great popularity among some contemporary intellectuals and teachers of Islamic history in educational strongholds around the world, due to its author’s global fame.
Through these teachers and others, the author’s ideas, disseminated in the book, spread among the people of the Islamic world. Thus, the book is a primary reference for many professors and teachers of Islamic history in educational strongholds around the world.
The book had a powerful and effective contribution in displaying the image of the fitnah in our contemporary society. Therefore, it deserves attention in terms of criticism and correction, as this would be tantamount to amending a large part of the image of this historical event in the minds of contemporary intellectuals.
The truth is that the author was correct in some issues that many who have written about the fitnah have fallen into. We find that he was largely moderate in most of the issues related to ‘Uthman’s personality; however, there are some observations where he deviated from this moderation, which will be mentioned later.
He was almost correct in his interpretation of the fitnah and hinted at refuting some of the incorrect interpretations of the fitnah.
He described ‘Uthman’s killers with descriptions befitting their hideousness, while at the same time absolving the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum of this heinous act, just as he absolved them of the accusation of inciting against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, he sometimes falls into that which contradicts that, as will be discussed in due course.
He responded to the accusations levelled against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu with weak responses, then slipped and overruled some of these responses, as will be explained later.
He went into great detail in his refutation of those who described ‘Uthman’s personality as weak. He grabbed opportunities from events to refute this accusation against this Rightly-Guided Khalifah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is one of the positives of this book.
I have noted some aspects about the book related to its method of writing and others related to some historical facts. I have ignored that which has nothing to do with the fitnah except for one issue which I have mentioned, as this helps to visualise the author’s spirit when he wrote this book.
Among the methodological issues are the following:
1. The lack of attribution of information to its sources and the absence of documented footnotes for historical information. The entire book contains only thirteen footnotes, twelve of which clarify the text and one in which he referenced a poem, attributing it to al Tabari and Ibn al Athir. This was to indicate to the disagreement between them and what the author mentioned in the text. What is strange is that he did not mention the source which he relied on, thus contradicting what was in al Tabari and Ibn al Athir.[32]
Neglecting to attribute historical facts and information to their sources is a widespread disease among most contemporary writers, which is a clear error, as they did not witness the events to describe them to readers nor did they present sources they relied upon for this historical image. This weakens the reader’s confidence in their writings and also provides an opportunity for anyone who wants to fabricate or invent information and attribute it to Islamic history.
2. Failure to verify the authenticity of the narrations.
3. His reliance on a number of narrations whose authenticity and weakness are not clearly explained, and we do not know the methodology he adopted in selecting some of these narrations and not others.
4. Elaborately analysing some weak narrations, building a historical picture based on them, while neglecting many other narrations that are more authentic and reliable.
5. The author does not list his sources, so that we can ascertain why he relied on some narrations over others, the reader can understand the weak areas in the book and complete it with other sources that the author did not rely on, and he can understand the extent to which he benefited from them, and the methodology he followed in selecting the narrations.
6. The spirit and formulation of the book are somewhat far from the Shar’i Islamic characteristic. Among the things noted in this regard is the failure to begin with the Basmalah and Hamd.[33] This is a characteristic of al ‘Aqqad in all the books I have come across.[34] There is no doubt that adopting such a method clearly demonstrates the extent of its author’s religiosity and his adherence to Islamic customs and traditions. Perhaps the reason for this is his blind imitation of the westerners from whom he studied.
As for the scholarly errors I have come across in this book, they are as follows:
1. The author did not investigate the issue of the forged letter, and used some expressions that carry the possibility of it being true or false, such as his statement:
ثم بلغ الكتاب أجله بقصة ذلك الكتاب الذي قيل إنهم وجدوه مع غلام لعثمان…
Then the letter reached its destination, with the story they claimed that they found the letter with one of ‘Uthman’s slave…[35]
The truth is that it was a forged letter attributed to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He did not write it, did not order it to be written, and did not even know about it, as explained previously.
2. He stated that the forged letter attributed to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an order from him to flog ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Udays, ‘Amr ibn al Hamiq, and ‘Urwah al Bayya’,[36] to imprison them, shave their heads and beards, behead them, and crucify some of them.[37]
Perhaps he relied on the narration of al Waqidi, which al Tabari narrated in his al Tarikh. Al Waqidi is rejected, thus, the chain is very weak. This narration of al Waqidi contradicts a stronger and more authentic narration in some points. It states, “Crucify them, kill them, or cut off their hands and feet.”[38] The authentic narration does not specify the individuals to be punished, nor does it mention flogging, imprisonment, or shaving their heads and beards.
This appears to be correct. The forger of the letter, due to his skill in forgery, appears not to attribute these absurdities to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, but rather sought to mislead people by claiming that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu believed that these people were among the corruptors on the earth and deserved the punishment of the corruptors on earth, which is mentioned in the Qur’an in the verse:
إِنَّمَا جَزَٰٓؤُاْ ٱلَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ وَيَسۡعَوۡنَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوٓاْ أَوۡ يُصَلَّبُوٓاْ أَوۡ تُقَطَّعَ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَأَرۡجُلُهُم مِّنۡ خِلَٰفٍ أَوۡ يُنفَوۡاْ مِنَ ٱلۡأَرۡضِۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمۡ خِزۡيٞ فِي ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَلَهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth (to cause) corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.[39]
This slanderous forger hopes that his lie, which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu could have ordered based on this verse, will be believed. However, if it was such, then it is very unlikely that any rational person would believe its attribution to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They know that the limits of retaliatory punishment in Islam do not exceed the prohibitions of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. The Imam is not permitted to punish by shaving the beard because shaving it is a sin against Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Evidences of its prohibition have been consecutively narrated.
[1] Details of this passed in the previous section.
[2] Thumamah ibn ‘Adi al Qurashi, the governor of San’a’, Syria, for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Tabari states:
كان من المهاجرين وشهد بدرا
He was one of the Muhajirin and participated in the Battle of Badr. (Al Dhahabi: Al Tajrid, 1/70.)
[3] Al istafaqah from afaqa: to return from what had distracted him and regain his senses. This includes the awakening of the sick, the insane, the unconscious, and the sleeping person. (Majd al Din Ibn al Athir: Al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar: 3/481.)
[4] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/80; al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/176; Ibn Mandah (as in al Isabah, 1/204), all of them through Abu Qilabah — from Abu al Ash’ath — from Thumamah, this is a sahih, uninterrupted isnad which was deemed sahih by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar; ‘Abdur Razzaq: Al Musannaf, 11/447; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/80; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 491; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 1/296, all of them through Ayyub — from Abu Qilabah — from Thumamah, this is an interrupted isnad, but it is strengthened by the previous one.
[5] Samurah ibn Jundub ibn Hilal al Fazari radiya Llahu ‘anhu, an ally of the Ansar, a well-known Companion who narrated many ahadith. He passed away in Basrah in the year 58 AH. (Al Taqrib, pg. 2630.)
[6] Thulmah: a hole broken and demolished in something. (Al Fayruzabadi: Al Qamus al Muhit, 4/87.)
[7] Al shartah: as in the cupper slit with a scalpel. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 7/332.)
[8] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 493, with a hasan isnad.
[9] As for the wars against the apostates that took place during the reign of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they did not occur between Muslims, but rather it was between Muslims and those who had turned apostate. Some of them died in their disbelief, while others reverted to Islam.
[10] Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman, an ally of the Ansar, was a noble Companion among the early Muslims. It is authentically reported in Muslim that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed him of what had happened and what would happen until the Day of Qiyamah. His father was also a Companion who was martyred at Uhud. Hudhayfah passed away during the initial years of ‘Ali’s Caliphate, in the year 36 AH. (Al Taqrib, pg. 1156.) What is meant by his statement, “He informed him of what had happened…” i.e. the tribulations, for the knowledge of the unseen is only by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
[11] Hafat al shay’: the side and edge of something. (Al Fayruzabadi: Al Qamus al Muhit, 3/135; Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 9/59.) Ibn Manzur and Majd al Din Ibn al Athir mentioned that Hudhayfah said this when ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was killed. I did not find the basis on which they relied for this, therefore, perhaps it was a mistake. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best. See al Nihayah fi Gharib al Hadith wa al Athar, 1/462.
[12] Al marhalah: A place from which a person departs. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 11/280.)
[13] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/206, with a sahih isnad, whose narrators are same as the narrators of Muslim.
[14] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2216-2217.
[15] Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 2/770; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 459, its isnad is hasan.
[16] ‘Abdullah ibn Salam al Isra’ili, Abu Yusuf, an ally of the Banu Khazraj. It is said that his name was al Hussain, but the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam named him ‘Abdullah. He is famous for his ahadith and virtues. He passed away in Madinah in the year 43 AH. (Al Taqrib, pg. 3379.)
[17] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/81; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 490, its isnad is sahih.
[18] Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/414.
[19] Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/416.
[20] Surah al Ahqaf: 10.
[21] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/128; Sahih Muslim, 4/1930-1931.
[22] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/129, 12/401, Sahih Muslim, 4/1931.
[23] Surah al Ra’d: 43.
[24] Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/418; Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al Qur’an al ‘Azim, 2/521, Ibn Kathir mentioned that there is a difference of opinion regarding this. Refer to al Shawkani: Fath al Qadir, 3/91-92.
[25] Surah al Ra’d: 43.
[26] ‘Abdur Razzaq: Al Musannaf, 11/444; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 1/418; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 353-354, al Busayri and Ibn Hajar deemed it to be hasan. (Al Matalib al ‘Aliyah, 4/286-287.) It contains a mu’an’an of al Zuhri, who is a third-category mudallis.
[27] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/204, 207, with a sahih isnad.
[28] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351, with a hasan isnad to al Hasan.
[29] Minhaj al Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 6/231.
[30] ‘Abdur Razzaq: Al Musannaf, 11/445; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 68; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 354-356, al Busayri deemed it to be hasan. (Al Matalib al ‘Aliyah, 4/287). Its isnad is sahih.
[31] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 13/90.
[32] Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, pg. 121.
[33] I.e. to begin with the name and praise of Allah.
[34] See his books: Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, Maktabat Dar al ‘Arubah; Sha’ir al Ghazal (poetry of ‘Umar ibn Abi Rabi’ah and Jamil Buthaynah); Shu’ara’ Misr; Riwayat Qambiz fi al Mizan, Tidhkar Jiti; ‘Ara’is al Shaitan (these seven books were published in one volume by Dar al Kitab al ‘Arabi, first edition 1970 CE); ‘Aqrabiyyat Muhammad, Dar al Kitab al ‘Arabi). You will not find the Basmalah or Hamd at the beginning of any of these books.
[35] Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, pg. 147.
[36] This is how he mentioned the name (i.e. al Bayya’), but the correct word is (al Nabba’).
[37] Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, pg. 147.
[38] See the appendix of the narration in the section of Hadith Studies of the original book, Hadith: 64. Its isnad is hasan. The author mentioned it and discussed it at length.
[39] Surah al Ma’idah: 33.