‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu accepted Islam in its earliest days. He endured the persecution of the Quraysh of Makkah with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When the persecution became unbearable ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, along with a group of Muslims from Makkah, undertook the first Hijrah to Abyssinia. He was accompanied on this journey by his wife, Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the daughter of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Later on they undertook the second Hijrah to Madinah. Within two years she had passed away, whereupon the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam married him to his other daughter, Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha. Thus he was given the title Dhu al Nurayn (the possessor of the two lights), with reference to the privilege of being married to two of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughters, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. As such, he was ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu brother-in-law twice. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an embodiment of generosity. It is he who prepared the ‘Army of Distress’ during the Expedition of Tabuk.
When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu brought a thousand gold coins to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at the occasion of Tabuk, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave him the glad tidings of nothing being able to harm his Hereafter in the future. ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Samurah narrates:
عن عبد الرحمن بن سمرة قال جاء عثمان إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بألف دينار حين جهز جيش العسرة فنثرها في حجره قال عبد الرحمن فرأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقلبها في حجره ويقول ما ضر عثمان ما عمل بعد اليوم مرتين
‘Uthman went to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with one thousand dinars when the ‘Army of Distress’ was being prepared. So he poured them into his lap. I saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam turning them over in his lap, saying, “No harm can come to ‘Uthman (in terms of his Hereafter) after what he has done today,” (repeating it) twice.
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam promised that ‘Uthman would enter Jannat as well as be afflicted by tribulation before his death. Abu Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports:
عن أبي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه ، أنه توضأ في بيته، ثم خرج فقال لألزمن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ولأكونن معه يومي هذا، فجاء المسجد، فسأل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا وجه ههنا قال فخرجت على أثره أسأل عنه حتى دخل بئر أريس، فجلست عند الباب حتى قضى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حاجته وتوضأ، فقمت إليه فإذا هو قد جلس على بئر أريس وتوسط قفها وكشف عن ساقيه ودلاهما في البئر فسلمت عليه ثم انصرفت فجلست عند الباب فقلت لأكونن بواب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اليوم فجاء أبو بكر رضي الله عنه فدفع الباب فقلت من هذا؟ فقال أبو بكر فقلت على رسلك ثم ذهبت فقلت يا رسول الله هذا أبو بكر يستأذن فقال ائذن له وبشره بالجنة فأقلبت حتى قلت لأبي بكر ادخل ورسول الله يبشرك بالجنة فدخل أبو بكر حتى جلس عن يمين النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم معه في القف ودلى رجليه في البئر كما صنع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكشف عن ساقيه ثم رجعت وجلست، وقد تركت أخي يتوضأ ويلحقني فقلت إن يرد الله بفلان يريد أخاه خيراً يأت به فإذا إنسان يحرك الباب فقلت من هذا؟ فقال عمر بن الخطاب فقلت على رسلك ، ثم جئت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسلمت عليه وقلت هذا عمر يستأذن؟ فقال ائذن له وبشره بالجنة فجئت عمر فقلت أذن ويبشرك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالجنة فدخل فجلس مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في القف عن يساره ودلى رجليه في البئر ثم رجعت فجلست فقلت إن يرد الله بفلان خيراً يعني أخاه يأت به فجاء إنسان فحرك الباب فقلت من هذا ؟ فقال عثمان بن عفان فقلت على رسلك وجئت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبرته فقال ائذن له وبشره بالجنة مع بلوى تصيبه فجئت فقلت له ادخل ويبشرك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالجنة مع بلوى تصيبك فدخل فوجد القف قد ملئ فجلس وجاههم من الشق الآخر.قال سعيد بن المسيب فأولتها قبورهم
One day, I performed ablution in my house. When I left home I did so with the idea of staying close to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and spending the entire day with him. I came to the Masjid and enquired about him. The Companions said that he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had gone off in a particular direction. I continued enquiring about him until I came to Bi’r Aris (a well in a particular area of Al Madinah). I sat down at the door until the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam relieved himself and performed ablution. Then I went to him and saw him sitting at the edge of the well with his shins uncovered and his legs dangling in the well. I greeted him and returned to the door of the garden, thinking to myself, “Today I will be the gatekeeper of the Messenger of Allah.” Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu came and knocked at the door.
I said, “Who is it?”
He said, “Abu Bakr.”
I said, “Wait a moment.”
Then I went to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and said, “O Messenger of Allah! Abu Bakr is at the door seeking permission to enter.”
He said, “Allow him in and give him the glad tidings of Jannat.”
I returned and said to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “You may enter and the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has given you the glad tidings of Jannat.”
Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu came in, sat down on the right of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at the edge of the well, dangling his legs in the well with his shins exposed, as the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had done. I returned to the door and sat down. I had left my brother at home while he was performing ablution and anticipated that he would join me. I said to myself, “If Allah intends good for him (i.e. to be blessed to come at this time and receive the glad tidings of entering Jannat), He will bring him here.”
Someone knocked at the door and I said, “Who is it?”
He said, “‘Umar ibn al Khattab.”
I said, “Wait a moment.”
Then I proceeded towards the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. I greeted him and said, “‘Umar is at the door, seeking permission to enter.”
He said, “Allow him in and give him the glad tidings of Jannat.”
I went back to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and said to him, “The Messenger of Allah has given you permission to enter, as well as glad tidings of Jannat.”
He entered and sat down with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on his left, dangling his feet into the well. I returned to the door and sat down and said to myself, “If Allah intends well for my brother, He will bring him here.”
Someone knocked at the door and I said, “Who is it?”
He said, “‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.”
I said, “Wait a moment.”
I went to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and informed him about his arrival. He said, “Let him in and give him glad tidings of entering Jannat together with a tribulation which he will have to face.”
I came back to him and said, “You may enter; and the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gives you the glad tidings of entering Jannat together with a tribulation which will afflict you.”
He entered and saw that the one side of the well was fully occupied. So he sat on the opposite side.
Sa’id ibn al Musayyab—a narrator in the chain—commented: The order in which they sat down indicated the places of their burial.
The esteemed reader will notice that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam predicted that an affliction will affect ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also confirmed that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu will be upon guidance when that communal strife affects the Ummah.
عن أبي الأشعث الصنعاني أن خطباء قامت بالشام وفيهم رجال من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقام آخرهم رجل يقال له مرة بن كعب فقال لولا حديث سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما قمت وذكر الفتن فقربها فمر رجل مقنع في ثوب فقال هذا يومئذ على الهدى فقمت إليه فإذا هو عثمان بن عفان قال فأقبلت عليه بوجهه فقلت هذا قال نعم
Abu al Ash’ath al San’ani said that people were delivering sermons in al Sham, and among them were Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Finally the last of them, a man called Murrah bin Ka’b, stood up and said, “Were it not for a hadith which I heard from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I would not have stood (to address you). He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned tribulations, and that they would be coming soon. Then a man, who was concealed by a garment, passed by and he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘This one will be upon guidance that day.’ So I went towards him, and it was ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. I turned, facing him, and I said, ‘This one?’ He said, ‘Yes.’”
In his final days, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned ‘Uthman and consoled him over the difficulty he was to face in the future. ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha relates the touching moments during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam final days. She says:
عن عائشة قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في مرضه وددت أن عندي بعض أصحابي قلنا يا رسول الله ألا ندعو لك أبا بكر فسكت قلنا ألا ندعو لك عمر فسكت قلنا ألا ندعو لك عثمان قال نعم فجاء عثمان فخلا به فجعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يكلمه ووجه عثمان يتغير قال قيس فحدثني أبو سهلة مولى عثمان أن عثمان بن عفان قال يوم الدار إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عهد إلى عهدا وأنا صائر إليه وقال علي في حديثه وأنا صابر عليه قال قيس فكانوا يرونه ذلك اليوم
When the Messenger of Allah was ill he said, “I wish to have some of my Companions with me.”
We said, “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we call Abu Bakr for you?”
But he remained silent so we said, “Shall we call ‘Umar for you?”
But he remained silent so we said, “Shall we call ‘Uthman for you?”
He said, “Yes.”
So ‘Uthman came and he spoke to him in private. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spoke to him and ‘Uthman’s expression changed.
A narrator in this chain, Qais ibn Abi Hazim, said, “Abu Sahlah, the freed slave of ‘Uthman, narrated to me that on the day he was assassinated in his home, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan said, ‘The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told me what would come to pass and now I am coming to that day [Sa’ir].’” In another narration of the Hadith, it appears, ‘I am going to bear it with patience [Sabir].’” Qais said, “They understood it to refer to the day he was assassinated.”
Tijani does very little to hide his contempt for the Sahabah and has no qualms in falsifying history and altering the truth. Tijani carefully reconstructs the events surrounding the murder of ‘Uthman, making sure to nudge his readers into a position where they are left to choose between the Sahabah in general, or ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically. Similarly, our approach is to expose Tijani as either deliberately misrepresenting the realities of what he speaks of, or that he failed to take all the facts into consideration, which consequently brings into question his claim of examining both sides and only being motivated by the truth.
Tijani has previously revealed his prejudice when he condemned ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for having wealth and spending it in the Path of Allah. He has also targeted him for praying in full during Hajj despite it being a matter of Ijtihad. These have been dealt with earlier in this book and we refer the esteemed reader to the relevant sections for the details. Our focus here is to respond to the criticisms Tijani constructed against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically.
Tijani says the following:
When you ask them why the caliph of the Muslim’s Uthman was murdered, they would say: It was the Egyptians – and they were not believers – who came and killed him, thus ends the subject with two words.
When I had the opportunity to carry out research into history, I found that the main figures behind the killing of Uthman were the Companions themselves, and that Aisha led them, calling for his death publicly and saying: “Kill Na’thal (the old fool), for he was not a believer.”
Also we know that Talhah, al Zubair, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and other famous Companions besieged him in his house and prevented him from having a drink of water, so that they could force him to resign. Furthermore, the historians inform us that they did not allow his corpse to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, and that he was finally buried in “Hashsh Kawkab” without washing the corpse and without a shroud.
O Allah, praise be to You, how could they tell us that he was unjustly killed, and that those who killed him were not Muslims. This is another case similar to that of Fatimah and Abu Bakr: Uthman was either unjustly treated, therefore we may pass judgement on those Companions who killed him or those who participated in his killing that they were criminal murderers because they unlawfully killed the caliph of the Muslims, and threw stones at his funeral, and humiliated him when he was alive and then when he was dead; or that the Companions killed him because he committed certain deeds which were not compatible with Islam, as the historical sources tell us.
There is no third option, unless we dismiss the historical facts and accept the distorted picture that the Egyptians, who were not believers, killed Uthman. In both cases there is a definite rejection of the common belief that all the Companions were right and just, without exception, for either Uthman was unjust or his killers were not just, but all of them were Companions, and hence our proposition becomes void. Therefore we are left with the proposition of the followers of Ahlul Bayt, and that is that some of the Companions were right and some others were wrong.
Tijani’s argument can be summarised in the following terms: The Sahabah all conspired to have ‘Uthman killed, which polarizes the community of Madinah. Either ‘Uthman is upon truth, which implies that the rest of the Sahabah were evil; or ‘Uthman was upon falsehood which implies that the rest of the Sahabah were upon truth. To avoid this conundrum the Ahlus Sunnah conveniently shifted the blame on a third party. This, in a nutshell, is the crux of Tijani’s argument. The fait accompli, in Tijani’s mind, is that since one of the parties must have been on falsehood, the only plausible explanation is that the Shia division of Sahabah is accurate and that some of them are righteous whilst others had ulterior motives.
Tijani does not present any reason for his rejection of the idea that a third party was responsible for ‘Uthman’s murder except what has been ascribed to ‘Aisha, and unreferenced ascriptions to Talhah, Zubair, and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (whom he claims was a senior Companion). Before we respond to Tijani’s twisting of history it is imperative that we point out the internal inconsistency in his own argument. He has overlooked the fact that if all the Companions where complicit in the murder of ‘Uthman, there is no evidence to exclude ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Furthermore, if we consider the hadith of Murrah ibn Ka’b mentioned above, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is clearly on guidance so where does that leave ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain? One might go further and ask the question, who stood to gain from his death?
We have already pointed out that our response does not rest on the corollary of Tijani’s conundrum. Instead our argument investigates the facts with historical rigour. To begin with we state that the Sahabah were not involved in the murder of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rather it is they who volunteered to defend him with their lives. It was ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu tender heart that prevented him from accepting their offer of defence. He was well aware of the fate that awaited him and feared the outbreak of further fitnah (communal strife). As proof for our stance we present a series of narrations that deny the involvement of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. I remind the esteemed reader that Tijani did not substantiate his claims with historical proof.
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma remarked about the fitnah saying, “This person was killed in it unjustly,” referring to ‘Uthman.
In the lengthy narration of Abu Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu, we find this detail in the book of al Bukhari:
ثم جاء آخر يستأذن فسكت هنيهة ثم قال ائذن له وبشره بالجنة على بلوى ستصيبه فإذا عثمان بن عفان
Then another arrived. He remained silent for a short while then said, “Let him in and give him the glad tidings of Jannat upon a misfortune that will afflict him.” It turned out to be ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.
If the Sahabah conspired to kill him why narrate these virtues to begin with? Furthermore, they are on record offering to defend ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Why offer to defend him if you’re going to kill him anyway? If questions are to be asked about who was involved in ‘Uthman’s murder, who is the primary suspect? If the Sahabah were complicit in ‘Uthman’s murder, why is it that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would offer the following supplication?
‘Abdur Rahman ibn Layla says:
I saw ‘Ali raising his hands and saying, “O Allah! I declare my innocence before You of shedding the blood of ‘Uthman!”
Similarly ‘Umair ibn Sa’d says:
We were with ‘Ali on the bank of the Euphrates when a ship passed by with its sail hoisted. ‘Ali said, “Allah says:
وَلَهُ الْجَوَارِ الْمُنْشَآتُ فِي الْبَحْرِ كَالْأَعْلَامِ
And to Him belong the ships (with sails) elevated in the sea like mountains.
I swear by the One who caused it to sail in one of its oceans, I did not kill ‘Uthman and I did not aid in his killing.
Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu says:
‘Ali sent message to ‘Uthman, “I have five hundred coats of armour with me. Allow me and I will defend you against these people. ”
‘Uthman said, “You will be rewarded with good (for your intention) but I do not wish for blood to be spilt because of me.”
Even ‘Ali’s sons and the sons of some of the other Sahabah were ready to fight in defence of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. Muhammad ibn Sirin says:
Hassan and Hussain, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Zubair, and Marwan, all of them, rushed (to ‘Uthman’s house) fully armed until they entered the house and ‘Uthman said, “I order you to return, and leave your weapons, and to stay at your homes!”
Kinanah, the freed slave of Safiyyah, said:
I witnessed the killing of ‘Uthman. Then I left the house and in front of me were four youngsters from the Quraysh stained in blood being lifted. They were warding off the attackers from ‘Uthman. They were Hassan ibn ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair, Muhammad ibn Hatib, and Marwan ibn al Hakam.
Also, it has been narrated from Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman that Abu Qatadah al Ansari and another man from the Ansar visited ‘Uthman while he was under house arrest and requested his permission to perform the Hajj. He permitted them and they asked, “Who should we side with if this people take power?” He said, “Stick with the Jama’ah (majority)!” They asked, “What if these people hurt you and they form a part of the majority?” He said, “Stick with the majority no matter who they are!” He said, “Then we left. When we reached the door of the house we met Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who was entering the house. So we turned around in order to see what he intended. When Hassan entered the room of ‘Uthman he said, “O Amir al Mu’minin! We are at your disposal. Instruct me with whatever you wish!” ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O young man. Return to your home until Allah’s decree comes into effect! I have no need for spilling blood!”
Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates in al Musannaf from ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair, he says:
I said to ‘Uthman on the Day of the House, “Go and fight them for indeed with you are a people whom Allah has granted victory with less than them! By Allah, fighting them is permissible!”
‘Uthman said, “By Allah! I will never fight them!”
In another narration, Ibn Zubair is on record having said:
“Allah has permitted you to fight them.”
‘Uthman said, “By Allah! I will never fight them!”
It has also been narrated that Ibn ‘Umar wore his coat of arms twice the day ‘Uthman was surrounded and he unsheathed his sword until ‘Uthman instructed him to leave out of fear that he would be killed.
Al Khayyat narrates from Abu Hurairah:
I said to ‘Uthman, “It pleases me to fight alongside you today.”
He said, “I command you to leave!”
Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates from Muhammad ibn Sirin:
Zaid ibn Thabit came to ‘Uthman and said, “These Ansar at the door are saying, ‘If you wish we will be the Ansar of Allah twice!’”
He said, “As for fighting, no!”
Qais ibn Hazim, a trustworthy narrator, says:
I heard Sa’id ibn Zaid saying, “If Uhud were to collapse on account of what happened to ‘Uthman it would have a good reason for doing so.”
Khalid ibn Rabi’ al ‘Abasi said:
We heard about Hudhayfah’s suffering. Therefore, Abu Mas’ud al Ansari travelled to him in a group I was a part of to Mada’in. Then he mentioned the killing of ‘Uthman and said, “O Allah! I was not present, and I did not kill, and I was not pleased!”
Jundub ibn ‘Abdullah says that when he met Hudhayfah he asked him about Amir al Mu’minin, ‘Uthman, and he said:
“Indeed, they will kill him!”
I said, “Where is he?”
He said, “In Jannat!”
I said, “Where are his killers?”
He said, “They are in the Fire!”
Ibn Kathir narrates in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah from Abu Bakrah:
For me to fall from the heavens onto the earth is more beloved to me than to have participated in the killing of ‘Uthman.
Abu ‘Uthman al Nahdi says:
Abu Musa al Ash’ari said, “If the killing of ‘Uthman had been guidance the Ummah would have derived milk from it but it was deviation and therefore the Ummah derived blood from it.”
Kulthum ibn ‘Amir, a Tabi’i and a reliable transmitter, says:
Ibn Mas’ud said, “It would not please me to throw a spear at ‘Uthman, whether it hits or not, in exchange for Mount Uhud in gold.”
Ibn Shabbah narrates with a sanad leading to Raytah, the freed slave of Usamah ibn Zaid, she says:
Usamah sent me to ‘Uthman saying, “If you wish we will burrow (for you) a hole in the house which you may escape through so that you reach a safe place for you. Then those who obey you will fight those who disobey you!”
Al Bukhari narrates from Harithah ibn ‘Uthman who witnessed Badr; he said to ‘Uthman while he was under siege, “If you wish, we will defend you.”
Ahmed narrates in Fada’il al Sahabah from ‘Abdullah ibn Salam, he said:
Do not kill ‘Uthman! If you do so you will never pray together (again)!
Ibn ‘Asakir narrates in his Tarikh that Samurah ibn Jundub radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:
Indeed, Islam was well fortified. Then they breached a hole into Islam with their killing of ‘Uthman. Indeed, they will never cover their hole until the Day of Judgement. Indeed, the khilafah used to be amongst the people of Madinah but they removed it and it will never again be amongst them.
Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar, narrates that Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma said:
I met Ibn ‘Abbas and he was ‘Uthman’s deputy for the Hajj season during the year of the killing. I informed him about his killing and said, “By Allah! He was amongst those who commanded towards justice. I wished I was killed that day.”
We have presented over twenty narrations which demonstrate the Sahabah’s stance towards ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. We know with certainty that they did not participate, nor were they pleased with the killing of the third Khalifah, Amir al Mu’minin, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The truth is that they offered to defend him and were prepared to give up their lives for him, but he would not have any blood spilt on his account. May Allah be pleased with these exemplary individuals!
Furthermore, Tijani left his readers with two possible outcomes and now we also leave the discerning reader with two possible conclusions regarding Tijani’s research. The difference is that ours has been the result of academic enquiry and the facts have been substantiated by actual narrations. Thus we are absolutely certain that Tijani either lied about examining all the narrations in this regard; or he lied about what really transpired. We leave it to the discerning reader to decide which lie is more probable.
Without wanting to appear overbearing we present some Shia narrations which will confirm which lie Tijani is guilty of. These narrations attest to the Sahabah’s defence of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, specifically that of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his two sons, Hassan and Hussain.
Al Mas’udi, the Shia, says in his book, Muruj al Dhahab:
When it reached ‘Ali that they intended killing him he sent his two sons, Hassan and Hussain, with his freed slaves to ‘Uthman’s door armed with swords in order to assist him and (he) commanded them to defend ‘Uthman from them. Zubair sent his son ‘Abdullah, and Talhah sent his son Muhammad. Most of the children of the Sahabah were sent by their fathers, following those who we mentioned before, and they blocked the enemies from the house.
Ibn Abi al Hadid says in the commentary of Nahj al Balaghah:
A group of people stood up in Kufah encouraging the people to support ‘Uthman, and the people of Madinah also assisted him including ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa, and Hanzalah al Katib, all of the aforementioned are from the Sahabah. From the Tabi’in were Masruq, al Aswad, Shurayh, and others besides them.
In Basrah ‘Imran ibn Hussain, Anas ibn Malik, and others besides them, stood up (in support of ‘Uthman). From the Tabi’in were Ka’b ibn Sur, and Haram ibn Hayyan, and others besides them.
In al Sham and Egypt a group of Sahabah and Tabi’in (also) stood up (in support of ‘Uthman).
‘Uthman came out one Friday, and led the people in salah, and ascended the mimbar, and said, “O you people (with reference to the rebels)! By Allah! The people of Madinah know that you are cursed upon the tongue of Muhammad. So erase the mistake with what is correct.” Then Muhammad ibn Salamah al Ansari stood up and said, “Yes, indeed, I know that,” and Hakim ibn Jabalah sat him down. Then Zaid ibn Thabit stood up and Qutayrah ibn Sa’d sat him down. Then the rebels rose up against them and stoned them with pebbles until they forced them out of the Masjid. They even pelted ‘Uthman to a point where he fell down from the mimbar unconscious. He was brought to his house and a group of Madinah residents remained with him including Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Hassan ibn ‘Ali, Zaid ibn Thabit, and Abu Hurairah. Then ‘Uthman sent the message to them, “I command you to leave!” Then they left.
These narrations indicate that the rebels and killers of ‘Uthman comprised of two groups. A further study will reveal that both groups were led by ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, who attempted to mislead the people. He constantly moved around from Hijaz, to Basrah, to Kufah, then al Sham from where he was expelled. Then he went to Egypt where he initiated the doctrine of Raj’ah and claimed that the successor after the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was ‘Ali. Many people of Egypt were charmed by this idea and these represent the first group. After developing his doctrine he sent his propagandists to the various regions. He wrote to those who were influenced by him in the various cities and they responded to him; they all secretly conspired to carry out his instructions. They form the second category of followers. They comprised largely of Bedouins and trouble-makers among the Arabs, many of whom turned apostate during Abu Bakr’s era.
It was for this reason that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not in a position to deal with ‘Uthman’s murderers right away. This is evident in his communication to Talhah and Zubair when they demanded the Hudud (prescribed punishments) be carried out on the killers of ‘Uthman:
O my brothers! I am not ignorant of what you know. How do I do that with a people who are in charge of us and we are not in charge of them? Indeed, your slaves have revolted with them and your Bedouin Arabs have stood firm with them?
This is confirmed by the Twelver scholar, al Nowbakhti. He says:
A group of people turned apostate and left Islam. The Banu Hanifah tribe claimed prophethood for Musaylimah, who had claimed prophethood (for himself) during the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam life. Abu Bakr sent the armies to them with Khalid ibn Walid ibn Mughirah al Makhzumi at their helm. They fought them and killed Musaylimah. Those who were killed were killed and those who returned (to Islam) returned to Islam. Those who returned were called Ahl al Riddah and they remained united with the rest of the Ummah until they criticised ‘Uthman for some things which he innovated and (consequently) they were either conspirators or murderers, except for the special ones of the Ahlul Bayt and a few others besides them until he (‘Uthman) was killed.
Those who claimed responsibility for the attack upon ‘Uthman came from Egypt, led by al Ghafiqi ibn Harb al ‘Akbi. These people were known as the Misriyyin (Egyptians). However, Tijani denies that because, as he claims, he read the entire history! However, the books of history in addition to other resources confirm that the killers of ‘Uthman were indeed the Egyptians. Refer to Tarikh al Tabari, Tarikh Ibn al Athir, al Tamhid wa l-Bayan, Muruj al Dhahab, al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, al Isti’ab by Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, al Tarikh al Islami, and al Futuh by Ibn al A’tham.
I repeat my earlier question, which history has Tijani been reading?
Tijani has no qualms in pointing a finger at Umm al Mu’minin ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, accusing her of masterminding the assassination of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He says:
Aisha led them, calling for his death publicly and saying: “Kill Na’thal (the old fool), for he was not a believer.”
a. This narration, which Tijani relies on, is weak as it revolves around a narrator called Nasr ibn Muzahim.
‘Uqayli said about him, “He adopted Tashayyu’. There are internal inconsistencies in his narrations in addition to abundance of errors.”
Al Dhahabi said (about him), “He was a staunch Rafidi. They abandoned him (his ahadith).”
Abu Khaythamah said about him, “He was a liar!”
Abu Hatim said about him, “Weak in hadith, Matruk (suspected of forgery).”
Al Daraqutni said about him, “Weak!”
Al Jowzajani says, “Nasr was wayward from the truth, deviated (from it).”
Salih ibn Muhammad said, “Nasr ibn Muzahim narrated many anomalous reports from the weak narrators.”
Hafiz Abu al Fath Muhammad ibn Hassan said, “Nasr ibn Muzahim was extreme in his belief.”
Therefore, this narration is not reliable and is not considered proof-worthy in addition to the fact that it contradicts the authentic narrations.
b. The authentic narrations confirm that ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha lamented the death of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and cursed his killers. Masruq relates a conversation with ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha:
“You left him like a garment clean from any impurities. Then you drew him closer before slaughtering him like a ram.”
Masruq said, “This is of your doing! You wrote to the people commanding them to rebel against him.”
‘Aisha said, “I swear by Him in whom the believers believe and the disbelievers belie, I never wrote anything to them even up to this moment!”
A’mash said, “They were of the view that the letter was forged in her name.”
Ahmed narrates in his Fada’il from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha that she used to say concerning the killing of ‘Uthman:
If only I was in oblivion and forgotten. As for what happened to ‘Uthman, by Allah, I did not wish for a single right of ‘Uthman to be violated except that a similar right of mine be violated to the extent that if I wished for his killing, I would be killed instead…
Ibn Shabbah narrated from Talq ibn Hushshan:
I said to ‘Aisha, “How was Amir al Mu’minin, ‘Uthman, killed?”
She said, “He was killed unjustly. May Allah curse his killers!”
Ahmed narrates in his Fada’il from Salim ibn Abi al Ja’d:
We were with Ibn Hanifah in the mountain pass when he heard a man discrediting (someone) with Ibn ‘Abbas in his presence. Then he said, “O Ibn ‘Abbas! Did you hear Amir al Mu’minin this morning? He heard a clamour coming from the direction of Marbad so he sent someone and told him, ‘Go and investigate what this noise is!’ When the person retuned he said, ‘It is ‘Aisha cursing ‘Uthman’s killers and the people around her are saying Amin (to her supplications).’ Then ‘Ali said, ‘I too curse the killers of ‘Uthman’s on the land and on the mountains. O Allah; Curse the killers of ‘Uthman! O Allah; Curse the killers of ‘Uthman on the land and on the mountain!’”
Then Ibn Hanifah faced him and faced us and said, “Do you not find in Ibn ‘Abbas and me credible witnesses?”
We said, “We do!”
He said, “This indeed occurred!”
c. It is well-known by all the historians that ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha sought vengeance for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Knowing that, how does one reconcile between demanding vengeance and the alleged statement, “Kill Na’thal as he has disbelieved,” unless it is a clear forgery upon her?
Also we know that Talhah, al Zubair, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and other famous Companions besieged him in his house and prevented him from having a drink of water, so that they could force him to resign
a. Tijani claims that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was from the most famous Sahabah, this is an ‘established fact’ which cannot be denied. He was a companion no doubt! However, this Companionship lasted less than four months since the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away when Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was an infant, not even four months old! How can he be from amongst the most famous Sahabah?
b. Tijani hasn’t produced any evidence to substantiate his claim that Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma prevented ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from leaving his house and that they were among those who laid siege to him. We know this to be a lie; not because of Tijani’s lack of evidence, but because there is sufficient evidence indicating their support for him.
c. The authentic narrations confirm that Talhah and Zubair were deeply pained at the loss of ‘Uthman. They were prepared to defend him with their lives. Abu Habibah relates:
Zubair sent me to ‘Uthman while he was restricted (to his house). I came to him on a clear day while he was sitting on a chair and Hassan ibn ‘Ali, Abu Hurairah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, and ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair, were (all) with him.
I said, “Zubair sent me to you. He sends his greetings to you and says, ‘I remain obedient (to you). I have not substituted (my obedience with disobedience) and I have not gone back on my pledge. If you wish I will enter the house and be one of the men (to defend you), and if you wish I will remain (where I am) as Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf promised me they would be at my door in the morning and they will do what I instruct them to do.’”
When he heard the message he said, “Allah Akbar! All praise is for Allah who protected my brother. Send my greeting to him and then say, ‘If you enter the house you will merely be another person. I prefer that you remain where you are. Perhaps Allah will protect me through you.’”
When Abu Hurairah heard the message he stood up and said, “Should I not inform you what my ears heard from the Messenger?”
They said, “Indeed!”
He said, “I testify that I heard the Messenger saying, ‘After me there will be trials and tribulations.’ We asked, ‘Where will the refuge be from it, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘With al Amin (the truthful one) and his group,’ pointing towards ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.”
The people then stood up and said, “(This) knowledge justifies our position, so permit us to fight!”
Then ‘Uthman said, “I instruct the person who considers it his duty to obey me not to fight!”
Al Daraqutni narrates in Fada’il al Sahabah:
‘Uthman overlooked the Masjid and saw Talhah sitting in the eastern wing of the Masjid. He said, “O Talhah!” and he said, “Here I am!”
He said, “I remind you of Allah. Do you know that the Messenger said, ‘Who will purchase a portion of land to expand the Masjid?’ Then I bought it from my wealth.”
Talhah said, “Yes!”
Then he (‘Uthman) said, “O Talhah!” and he said, “Here I am!”
He (‘Uthman) said, “I remind you of Allah. Do you know that I carried in the Army of Distress one hundred?”
Talhah said, “Yes!”
Then Talhah said, “I only know ‘Uthman to have been oppressed.”
d. There is no disagreement in the fact that Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were among the first to demand vengeance and retribution for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu from his killers. Why then would they rebel, lay siege to ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu house, and aid in murdering him? What purpose would demanding justice and vengeance for ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder serve if they were responsible for killing him in the first place?
Tijani goes on to say:
Furthermore, the historians inform us that they did not allow his corpse to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, and that he was finally buried in “Hashsh Kawkab” without washing the corpse and without a shroud.
And at another place he says:
It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in “Hash Kawkab”. Which was Jewish land.
This is Tijani’s desperate attempt to portray the Sahabah as a group of scum and savages who kill one another and even prevent them from being buried in the Muslim graveyard, that too without being washed or shrouded. That is quite interesting when one considers that the murderer of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu has a shrine built for him in some parts of the ‘Muslim’ world.
His allegation that the Sahabah prevented his burial in the Muslim cemetery hence he was buried in Hash Kawkab, a Jewish piece of land, only reveals his ignorance. Hash Kawkab is not a Jewish-owned piece of land. The (word) Hash means ‘garden’ and ‘Uthman purchased it from a man from the Ansar named Kawkab. When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu passed away he was buried in his own garden which was purchased with his own wealth. Is there anything objectionable in that?
Then he adds and says:
It became clear to me what the historians meant when they said that he was buried in “Hash Kawkab”. Which was Jewish land, because the Muslims refused to bury him in the Baqi’ of the Messenger of Allah. When Muawiya seized power, he bought that land from the Jews and included it in al Baqi’, so that it contains the grave of his cousin Uthman. He who visits al Baqi’ today will see this fact very clearly. 
Even toddlers know that the Jews were expelled from Madinah during the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lifetime, and not a single Jew remained during the period of the Khalifas! There was no Jewish land in Madinah. It exists only in Tijani’s ‘unbiased’ mind.
He goes on to say:
It is worth mentioning here a story related to the subject of inheritance that has been cited by many historians:
Ibn Abi al Hadid al Mutazili said in his commentary on Nahj al Balagha: Aisha and Hafsa came to see Uthman, during his caliphate, and asked him to give them their shares of what they had inherited from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Uthman was stretched on the sofa, so he sat up and said to Aisha: You and that woman sitting next to you brought a man who cleansed himself with his urine and testified that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “We, the prophets, do not leave an inheritance.” If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam truly did not leave any inheritance, why do you ask for it now, and if he left an inheritance, why did you deprive Fatimah of her legal share? After that, she left him feeling very angry and said: Kill Na’thal, for he has become an unbeliever.
I opened the commentary of Nahj al Balagah (volume 6, page 220-223) as he indicated in Tijani’s footnote, but I could not find the narration he alludes to. However, I did find this narration:
Malik—from Zuhri—from ‘Urwah—from ‘Aisha that when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, his wives intended to send ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan to Abu Bakr to ask for their share of the inheritance. She said, “I said to them, ‘Did the Prophet not say, ‘we are not inherited from. What we leave is charity.”’
Al Bukhari and Muslim have narrated something similar to this narration which clearly contradicts the story Tijani mentions in his book.
That being said, the reliable ahadith and the biographies of ‘Uthman and ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anhuma repudiate this report and reject it. And all praise is for Allah!
Then he says:
When Uthman came to power after Umar, he went a long way in al Ijtihad, and did more than any on his predecessors had done, until his opinions started to affect political and religious life generally, thus leading to the revolution, and he paid with his life as a price for his Ijtihad.
Look at Tijani contradicting himself. Earlier on he was berating the Sahabah for the murder of ‘Uthman and now he blames ‘Uthman for his Ijtihad! Clearly it is a lie meant to shift attention from the rebels and the underground movement headed by Ibn Saba’. Responsibility for the Fitnah lies with them, and not ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. That is clear from the hadith of Murrah ibn Ka’b, after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned the imminent Fitnah he said:
وذكر الفتن فقربها فمر رجل مقنع في ثوب فقال هذا يومئذ على الهدى فقمت إليه فإذا هو عثمان بن عفان قال فأقبلت عليه بوجهه فقلت هذا قال نعم
He salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam mentioned tribulations, and that they would be coming soon. Then a man, who was concealed by a garment, passed by and he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “This one will be upon guidance that day.”
So I went towards him, and it was ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. I turned, facing him, and I said: “This one?”
He said: “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Sahabah stood by ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and were prepared to defend him against the rebels. How then could one simply dismiss his murder as a consequence of his Ijtihad?
There are so many ahadith which confirm that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was upon truth and that those who rebelled against him were the people of sedition and falsehood. Al Hakim narrates in al Mustadrak, and Ahmed in al Fada’il, by way of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, who said:
Abu Habibah narrated to me that he visited ‘Uthman while ‘Uthman was under siege and that he heard Abu Hurairah seeking permission from ‘Uthman to speak and ‘Uthman permitted him. So he stood up, and praised Allah, and said, “Indeed, I heard the Messenger saying, ‘You will encounter Fitnah and difference of opinion after me.’ A man then said to him, ‘What should we do, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘Stick with al Amin (with reference to ‘Uthman) and his party!’”
The hadith of Abu Musa al Ash’ari found in Sahih Muslim was quoted in its entirety earlier on. We now reproduce the relevant part of it:
فجلس النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال افتح وبشره بالجنة على بلوى تكون قال فذهبت فإذا هو عثمان بن عفان قال ففتحت وبشرته بالجنة قال وقلت الذى قال فقال اللهم صبرا أو الله المستعان
Then the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sat and said, “Open and give him the glad tidings of Jannat upon a trial which will afflict him!”
I went and it was ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. So I opened the door and gave him the glad tidings of Jannat and related to him what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had said.
‘Uthman said, “O Allah! (grant me) patience!” or he said, “Allah is the one whom help is sought from.”
Similarly Ibn ‘Umar said:
The Prophet mentioned the Fitnah and said, “This person will be killed therein unjustly,” pointing to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.
The hadith has emphatically declared ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu upon truth. We have presented over twenty narrations which clarify that the Sahabah stood by his side, supported him, and were prepared to fight in his defence which he forbade them from. All that remains is the party which is responsible for the murder of ‘Uthman. Tijani has condemned the Sahabah, so he does not fall in that camp. He has castigated ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu for his Ijtihad, so he cannot possibly be on ‘Uthman’s side. Where does that leave Tijani?
In conclusion we state:
‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu ranks the third after the Prophets in terms of merit. He is only preceded by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. He is among those whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam confirmed is in Jannat. His generosity and spending in the path of Allah became an example for others to follow after him. He has the honour of extending the Prophet’s Masjid using his own wealth. He purchased the well of Rumah and endowed it for the benefit of the Muslims just as he prepared the ‘Army of Distress’.
‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu generosity is a reality which cannot be denied, not by Tijani nor his mentors. Abu al Fath al Arbili, a Shia scholar, writes in his book Kashf al Ghummah about ‘Ali’s marriage to Fatimah:
‘Ali said, “The Messenger faced (us) and said, ‘O Abu al Hassan! Go now and sell your coat of arms and bring its price so that I can prepare for you and my daughter what befits you.’”
‘Ali said, “Then I went and I sold it for four hundred Dirhams to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. When I took hold of the dirhams and he took hold of the coat of arms from me he said, ‘O Abu al Hassan! Am I not more entitled to the coat of arms than you and you more entitled to the dirhams than me?’ I said, ‘Indeed!’ He said, ‘Indeed, the coat of arms is a gift from me to you.’ So I took the coat of arms and the dirhams and headed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and I placed the coat of arms and the dirhams in front of him and informed him about what happened with regards to ‘Uthman and the Prophet supplicated for him.”
The sons and grandsons of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu—who are considered infallible Imams by the Shia—displayed immense love and respect for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It has been narrated from ‘Ali Zayn al ‘Abidin that he said:
A group of people from Iraq came to him and uttered some disparaging remarks about Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. When they completed what they had to say, he said to them, “Are you from those described by the verse:
الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ الَّذِيْنَ أُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنْصُرُوْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهٗ أُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُوْنَ
The Muhajirin who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and (His) approval and supporting Allah and His Messenger. Those are the truthful ones.
The group from Iraq replied, “No!”
Zayn al ‘Abidin then asked, “Are you then from those described by the verse:
وَالَّذِيْنَ تَبَوَّءُوا الدَّارَ وَالْإِيْمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ يُحِبُّوْنَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَا يَجِدُوْنَ فِيْ صُدُوْرِهِمْ حَاجَةً مِمَّا أُوْتُوْا وَيُؤْثِرُوْنَ عَلٰى أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌ
And (also for) those who were settled in the abode (i.e. Madinah) and adopted the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts of what they (i.e. the Muhajirin) were given but give them preference over themselves, even though they are in privation.
The group from Iraq replied, “No!”
Zayn al ‘Abidin then said, “As for you, you have absolved yourselves from being from these two groups, and I testify that you are not from those regarding whom Allah says:
وَالَّذِيْنَ جَاءُوْا مِنْۢ بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلِإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِيْنَ سَبَقُوْنَا بِالْإِيْمَانِ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ فِيْ قُلُوْبِنَا غِلًّا لِلَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا
And those who came after them, saying, “Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts (any) resentment toward those who have believed.”
Zayn al ‘Abidin said, “Get away from me! Allah will do with you what He wills!”
This is how an ‘infallible Imam’ views ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It stands in stark contrast to Tijani’s stance on ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It does not come as a surprise that Tijani’s projection of events only fits a twisted version of history, riddled with internal inconsistencies which clearly identify it as false.
 Musnad Ahmed (20630), Jami’ al Tirmidhi (3701)
 Sahih Al Bukhari, Kitab Fada’il Ashab al Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, hadith (3674) ; Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, hadith (2403)
 The script of these two words are the same, the difference is one dots. As such it can be read in two different ways, even though neither negates the meaning of the other. – Translator
 Musnad Ahmed (25797), Sunan ibn Majah, Kitab al Muqaddimah, hadith (113)
 Then I was guided, 116-117.
 Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Manaqib, Hadith: 3708; See also Sahih al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 2924.
 Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah, Bab Manaqib ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, Hadith: 3492.
 Fada’il al Sahabah, vol. 1, p. 452, the examiner says, “Its sanad is good.”
 Surah al Rahman: 24.
 Tarikh Dimashq, p. 403; See also the examined version of Mawaqif al Sahabah by Muhammad Amhazun, vol. 1, p. 469.
 Tarikh al Khulafa’, by al Khayyaṯ, p. 173, See also the examined version of Mawaqif al Sahabah by Muhammad Amhazun, vol. 1, p. 468.
 ’Asr al Khilafah al Rashidah by Akram Diya ‘Umri, p. 390, he says, “Ibn ‘Abdul Barr narrates it in al Isti’ab with a good sanad.”
 Al Fada’il by Ahmed, vol. 1, Hadith: 753, p. 464-465, the examiner says, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 8, Kitab al Fitan, Ma Dhakara fi ‘Uthman, p. 681-682.
 Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 70; the author of ‘Asr al Khilafah says, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 Ibid; the author of ‘Asr al Khilafah says, “Its sanad is reliable”, p. 386.
 Tarikh al Khulafa’ by Khalifah al Khayyaṯ, p. 174; See the examined version of Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 1, p. 468, with a reliable sanad; Refer also to ‘Asr al Khilafah, p. 386.
 Al Musannaf, vol. 8, Kitab al Fitan, p. 682; The author of ‘Asr al Khilafah says its sanad is good, p. 391.
 Ibid, vol. 8, p. 682.
 Ibid, vol. 8, p. 683.
 Tarikh Dimashq, p. 388; See the examined version of Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 28.
 Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 203.
 Tarikh Dimashq, p. 490, See also Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 32.
 Majma’ al Zawa’id, by al Haytami, vol. 9, p. 93.
 Tarikh al Madinah al Munawwarah, Ibn Shabbah, vol. 3, p. 1211; See also Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 34.
 Tarikh al Saghir by Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 76; See also Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 34.
 Fada’il by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 474, the examiner says, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 Tarikh Dimashq, p. 212; See also Mawaqif al Sahabah, vol. 2, p. 37.
 ’Asr al Khilafah al Rashidah, p. 397, the examiner said, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 Muruj al Dhahab by Mas’udi, vol. 2, p. 344-345.
 Sharh Nahj al Balaghah by Ibn Abi al Hadid, vol. 1, p. 162, under the sub-heading ‘Fi Khuruj Ahl Misr wa al Kufah wa l-Basrah ‘ala’Uthman.
 Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 2, p. 702, the year 35 (A.H).
 Firaq al Shia by al Nowbakhti, p. 4.
 Tarikh al Tabari, vol. 3, p. 36, the year 35 (A.H).
 Tarikh Ibn al Athir, under the year 35 (A.H), vol. 3, p. 46.
 Al Tamhid wa l-Bayan fi Maqtal al Shahid ‘Uthman by Muhammad ibn Yahya al Malaqani, p. 109-118, under, ‘Dhikr Hisar ‘Uthman’.
 Muruj al Dhahab by Mas’udi al Shi’i, vol. 2, Khilafah ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, p. 343.
 Al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah under ‘the thirty sixth year entered and it occurred the killing of ‘Uthman.’
 Al Tabaqat, under ‘Dhikr al Misriyyin wa Hasr ‘Uthman I’ vol. 3, p. 64.
 Sharh Nahj al Balaghah by Ibn Abi al Hadid under ‘Fi Khuruj Ahl Misr wa l-Kufah wa l-Basrah ‘ala’Uthman’ to ‘Man ‘Uthman min al Ma’ wa Kayfiyyah Qatlih’vol. 1, p. 162-167, Dar al Fikr Beirut
 Al Isti’ab ‘Dhikr ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan’,vol. 3, p. 1037-1053.
 Al Tarikh al Islami by Mahmud Shakir, vol. 3, ‘al Bab al Thalith, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.’
 Al Futuh, vol. 1, p. 44, under ‘Dhikr Wusul al Misriyyin ila al Madinah.’
 Al Du’afa’ by ‘Uqaylivol. 4, p. 300, biography no. 1899.
 Al Mizan by al Dhahabi, vol. 4, p. 253, biography no. 9046.
 Tarikh Baghdad by al Baghdadi, vol. 13, p. 283.
 Al Bidayah wa l-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 204, he said, “this is a reliable sanad.”
 Fada’il al Sahabah by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 462, its examiner says, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 Al Tarikh al Kabir by Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 357, with a good sanad; See also ‘Asr al Khilafah, p. 397.
 Al Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 8, Kitab al Jamal, p. 712, with a good sanad.
 Al Fada’il by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 511-512, the examiner says, “a good sanad.”
 Tahdhib al Asma’ wa l-Lughat by al Nawawi, vol. 1, p. 323; Also: al Ma’alim al Athirah fi al Sunnah wa l-Sirah by Muhammad Hassan Sharab, p. 101.
 Then I was guided, p. 139.
 Then I was guided, p. 140.
 Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, vol. 4, p. 82, under the heading, Fi al Akhbar al Waridah fi Fadak wa ma Suni’a fiha, as for the copy which he relied upon and references it to vol. 16, it is not the copy I depended upon. That being said, I referred to the copy he depended upon, to the volume and page number the author indicated to but I did not find it there also.
 Then I was guided, p. 167
 Fada’il al Sahabah by Ahmed, vol. 1, p. 451, the examiner says, “Its sanad is reliable.”
 This hadith has been previously cited.
 Kashf al Ghummah by al Arbili, vol. 1, p. 368-369, under the heading, ‘Fi Tazwijihi Faṯimah.’
 Surah al Hashr: 8.
 Surah al Hashr: 9.
 Surah al Hashr: 10.
 Kashf al Ghummah by al Arbili, vol. 2, p. 291, under the heading, ‘Fada’il al Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin.’Back to top