Sources for the narrations on the murder of ‘Uthman

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Sources for the narrations on the murder of ‘Uthman

 

The sources which contain the narrations of the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are divided into two categories. Those which deal with the fitnah in general and those which deal with the killing of ‘Uthman specifically. In the upcoming lists, I will mention the non-extant sources which I did not come across, followed by some of the sources which I had benefited from in preparing this research:

Non-extant sources which were authored regarding the fitnah in general:

1. ‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 228 AH): Al Fitan.^[1]
2. ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 532 AH): Al Fitan.^[2]
3. Ismail ibn ‘Isa al ‘Attar al Baghdadi (d. 232 AH): Al Fitan.^[3]

 

Non-extant sources which were authored regarding the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu specifically:

1. Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya (d. 157 AH): Al Shura wa Maqtal ‘Uthman.^[4]
2. Abu ‘Ubaidah Ma’mar ibn al Muthanna al Tamimi (d. 210 AH): Maqtal ‘Uthman.^[5]
3. Abu al Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Yusuf al Mada’ini (d. 215 AH): Maqtal ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.^[6]
4. ‘Umar ibn Shabbah ibn ‘Ubaid ibn Ritah, Abu Muaz (d. 262 AH): Maqtal ‘Uthman.^[7]
5. Abu al Nazar Muhammad ibn Mas’ud al ‘Ayyashi (d. 320 AH): Sirat ‘Uthman.^[8]
6. Abu al Hasan Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Yusuf ibn Ahmed ibn Yusuf al Katib: Al Maqtal. Born in the year 281 AH. He was a jurist and had authored many books, including this book.^[9]
7. ‘Isa ibn Mihran: Al Maqtal.^[10] He was an evil man according to al Daraqutni^[11] and a habitual liar according to Abu Hatim.^[12]

Every single one of these books are non-extant, only a very small portion of them has reached us through al Tabari and others. What is important to note is that Ibn Sa’d and the rest of the sources from which I have attained the narrations of the fitnah, excluding al Tabari, did not narrate from the book of Abu Mikhnaf. Perhaps they turned away from it due to the many lies and distortions contained therein, as was his habit.^[13]

As for the sources which I had benefited from in preparing this research, some of them are primary sources whilst others are secondary sources.

 

Primary sources

1. Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat. This is an extremely valuable book, the chains precede the narrations and are categorised as high chains, due to the author passing away in the beginning of the third century, in the year 230 AH, which makes his chains easy to study and research, due to the fact that majority of the narrators in his chains were well known and having biographical information, except the teachers of his teacher, al Waqidi.^[14]

What is worth mentioning is that Ibn Sa’d has not narrated from Saif in his book al Tabaqat regarding the fitnah in general. It has occurred to me that it could be due to two reasons:

• He had not come across the narrations of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi regarding the fitnah.
• He had come across them, but had no confidence in the chains which were characterised as mursal—generally—and he was not as lenient with him as he was with his teacher al Waqidi who resembled Saif to a great extent in that regard (i.e. in transmitting mursal narrations), even though amongst al Waqidi’s narrations there are narrations that are acceptable, whose chains appear to be uninterrupted.

The narrations of Ibn Sa’d are usually characterised as being moderate, except what he narrates from his teacher al Waqidi. There is neither moderation nor any honour in those narrations, rather they are characterised with extreme exaggeration in dishonouring the position of the Companions.

2. Khalifah ibn Khayyat (d. 240 AH): Al Tarikh. It is considered from amongst the best books on history. We found that the author mentions the chains for the narrations he brings and sometimes he omits them.

Al Tarikh of Khalifah ibn Khayyat resembles al Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d to a great extent, except that he surpassed Ibn Sa’d in the soundness of the texts of his narrations by highlighting the fitnah in a pure and authentic manner, free from distorting the position of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum. However, al Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d is distinguished from al Tarikh of Khalifah ibn Khayyat by the large number of narrations that he narrates.

3. Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari (d. 310 AH): Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk. The role that al Tabari played in authoring this book is that of an extensive collector, because many extant works are contained in his book.

After a thorough study of the narrations of al Tabari regarding the fitnah of the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it appears to me that his sources are:

• When using the word haddathani (he narrated to me), he refers to: Ahmed ibn Ibrahim, Ahmed ibn Thabit, Ahmed ibn Zuhayr ibn Abi Khaythamah, Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman ibn Hakim, al Harith, Ziyad ibn Ayyub, ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Shabbuyah, ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed al Marwazi, ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, Muhammad ibn Musa al Harashi, and Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim.
• When using the word qala (he said), he refers to: ‘Ali ibn Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Abu Bakr, Abu al Mu’tamir, Abu Ma’shar, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Abi Sabrah, and others.^[15]
• When using the words huddithat ‘an (it was narrated from), he refers to: al Hasan ibn Musa al Ashyab and Zakariyya ibn ‘Adi.
• When using the words dhukira ‘an (it is mentioned from), he refers to: Hisham ibn Muhammad al Kalbi.
• When using the word dhakara (he mentioned), he refers to: Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi.
• When using the words fi riwayah (in a narration), he refers to: Abu Mikhnaf and Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi.
• He mentioned very little information without tracing it back to any source.

These narrations—of varying sources—consist of reliable and unreliable historical narrations, most of them being from the first category. This is due to the varying inclinations of the authors of those sources which the author relied upon for many of his narrations.

Al Tabari cannot be blamed for this, because he had presented chains for these narrations, and whosoever presents a chain of narration frees himself from any blame. This was the sentiment of those in the era in which al Tabari lived.

He states in the introduction to his book:

 

فما يكن في كتابي من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه أو يستشنعه سامعه من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها في الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة فليعلم أنه لم يؤت في ذلك من قبلنا وإنما من قبل بعض ناقليه إلينا وإنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا

Whichever report appears in my book which we have narrated from the formers, which is questionable and which the listener considers abhorrent due to the fact that he does not recognise any angle of soundness for it nor any [sound] meaning in reality, he should know that this is not from our side. It is actually from the side of the transmitters to us. We only transmitted it verbatim as it was transmitted to us.^[16]

 

Rather, he is to be thanked for that, because in doing that, he had uncovered the sources of the erroneous information regarding the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum which had been transmitted by people from the time of the fitnah until present times.

This methodology used by al Tabari is not confined to him, rather it was the methodology used during that era by the scholars of Hadith and others that lived in the second century. Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani says the following in his biography of Sulaiman ibn Ahmed ibn Ayyub al Lakhmi al Tabarani:

 

الحافظ الثبت المعمر . . . وقد عاب عليه إسماعيل بن محمد بن الفضل التيمي جمعه الأحاديث بالإفراد على ما فيها من النكارة الشديدة والموضوعات وفي بعضها القدح في كثير من القدماء من الصحابة وغيرهم وهذا أمر لا يختص به الطبراني فلا معنى لإفراده اليوم بل أكثر المحدثين في الأعصار الماضية من سنة مائتين وهلم جرا إذا ساقوا الأحاديث بإسناده اعتقدوا أنهم برؤا من عهدته والله أعلم

The aged trustworthy Hafiz … Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn al Fadl al Taymi criticised his compilation of solitary narrations due to the severe incongruity and fabrications it contains. Some of those narrations even contained criticism of many of the senior Companions as well as others. This is something that is not restricted to al Tabarani, there is no need to criticise al Tabarani today^[17] for being the sole narrator of certain narrations; since many of the scholars of Hadith of the past, who lived in the third century and onwards, if they narrated a hadith with its chain of narration, they believed that they had fulfilled their responsibility towards that narration. And Allah knows best.^[18]

 

In addition to that, al Tabarani indicates to the fact that he refrained from mentioning certain narrations due to his dislike of the hideousness of the narration.^[19]

4. Abu ‘Arab (d. 333 AH): Al Mihan. There are very few narrations in this book regarding the fitnah. However, the researcher had not extracted its text in a precise manner. He had fallen into many errors when reading the manuscript of the book.

 

Secondary sources

1. Al Muhibb al Tabari (d. 694 AH): Al Riyad al Nadirah. The author of this book relied upon many of the non-extant sources, the likes of al Sirah by al Mulla’i as well as other similar works, and the author had not added any important additional information to the primary sources, so it is as if those non-extant sources were gathered from the primary sources.

What decreases the value of the narrations of al Muhibb al Tabari is that they are mentioned without any chains of narration. He generally suffices on mentioning only the chief narrator of the narrations and omits the remainder of the narrators, thereafter citing its source.

The author listed the sources he relied upon in his introduction to the book, which is worth noting, because it contains many names of non-extant history sources.

2. Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al Ash’ari al Maliki, Ibn Bakr (d. 741 AH): Al Tamhid wa al Bayan fi Maqtal al Shahid ‘Uthman.^[20]

The author of this book did not add any academic material to the previously mentioned primary sources. His book could almost be considered a summary of the narrations of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi. Most of the narrations are in Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk by al Tabari. The author sometimes gives the impression that he had obtained these narrations directly from the book of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi; perhaps he had come across his books.

3. Al Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774): Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah. The benefit I derived from this source is confined to the footnotes of the author and his ruling on some of the narrations, because he does not add any narration to what is found in the previously mentioned sources which are currently with us. I have taken the narrations directly from most of the sources which he relied upon.

As for the contemporary sources regarding the fitnah, they are numerous. However, I had not benefitted from them in gathering information due to relying only on narrations with chains. At the end of the book, I discussed the book of al ‘Aqqad and criticised some of the errors it contained regarding the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Whoever contemplates over the contemporary sources regarding the fitnah would find that they are divided into two categories:

• The first category: Picks out the worst of the narrations and portrays a distorted image of those events.
• The second category: Uses both sound and corrupt narrations and is not restricted to a specific methodology in taking from these narrations; it just uses any narration available. Thereafter, it portrays an image that contains both truth as well as falsehood.

What has become apparent through examining these contemporary studies of the fitnah is that the interpretations of the fitnah vary.

• Some take a tribal approach, portraying the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum in a tribal light wherein each one of them tried to claim the Caliphate for his tribe and stripped it from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, preferring their close relatives. The Banu Hashim wanted the Caliphate for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, while the Banu Taym sought it for Talhah ibn ‘Ubaidullah.

After studying the authentic narrations, the outcome was in complete contrast to the false interpretations which were based on weak narrations. These invented portrayals are not authentic, and have no origin in that blessed period.

• Some of these studies take a materialistic approach in understanding the fitnah, thus portraying the populace of that era as being overcome with materialistic love and greed being widespread among them, such that they fought in the name of materialism and spoils of war.

This has been proven false on multiple accounts, since the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, from the time they embraced Islam, had rid all pre-Islamic fanaticism from their hearts. The testimonies and proof for this are too numerous to count, such that a son would find no difficulty in killing his father to spread the message of Islam, an individual would abandon his entire tribe, and others would emigrate from their birthplace to practice Islam.^[21]

The narrations which these individuals used to arrive at these conclusions are narrations with weak chains, narrated by weak, accused narrators.

Perhaps the motive which led this study towards these two deviant directions is the influence of the two camps; the atheist communist East and the materialistic capitalist West, on some of those who claim to be Muslim. They inflated these people to emphasise this false interpretation and erroneous portrayal of the greatest of eras in general. Thus, through this, it became easy for them to strike at Islam and the Muslims from within, as a nation lives and dies by its creed and history.

I ask Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, the Lofty and All-Capable, to give me the ability to shed light on this great incident in such a way that the reality becomes extremely clear, without disparaging any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and the reader finds such clarity in it that he does not find elsewhere.

After this introduction, I have brought the preface which I titled “Snippets from the biography of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.” I have mentioned in it selected portions of his biography, from his birth up until the beginning of the fitnah which occurred towards the end of his Caliphate. This section also contains the prophetic narrations mentioning the fitnah which led to his martyrdom.

 

NEXT⇒ Glimpses into the life of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan

---

^[1]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 285.

^[2]  Ibid.

^[3]  Ibid., pg. 122.

^[4]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 105; al Tusi: Al Fihrist; as stated by Franz Rosenthal in ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 311; Ismail Basha: Hidayah al ‘Arifin, 5/842.

^[5]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 59; Haji Khalifah: Kashf al Zunun, 2/1794; Franz Rosenthal: ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 279.

^[6]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 115; Franz Rosenthal: ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 279.

^[7]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 125; Franz Rosenthal: ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 279.

^[8]  Franz Rosenthal: ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 311, from al Tusi; Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 246 or 279; Ismail Basha: Hidayah al ‘Arifin, 5/842; al Zirkili: Al A’lam, 7/95.

^[9]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 247.

^[10]  Ibn al Nadim: Al Fihrist, pg. 275; Franz Rosenthal: ‘Ilm al Tarikh ‘ind al Muslimin, pg. 311, from al Tusi; Ismail Basha: Hidayah al ‘Arifin, 4/541.

^[11]  Tarikh Baghdad, 11/168.

^[12]  Tarikh Baghdad, 11/168.

^[13]  Al Dhahabi says regarding him in Mizan al ’I’tidal, 3/419-420, “A historian; destroyed; he cannot be trusted.”

^[14]  As will appear often whilst researching his narrations.

^[15]  He would also use the phrase: others have mentioned.

^[16]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 1/8.

^[17]  What the context dictates is criticism.

^[18]  Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 3/75.

^[19]  Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/356.

^[20]  Haji Khalifah: Idah al Maknun, 3/322, many editions of it have been published.

^[21]  Akram al ‘Umari: Al Mujtama’ al Madani al Jihad Didd al Mushrikin, pg. 58.