The Instigators of the Fitnah and its Inception

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Instigators of the Fitnah and its Inception

 

1. The Instigators of the Fitnah

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prophesised the occurrence of the fitnah,^[1] and his information was true and correct.

+ , – . 0 1 2 3 4

Nor does he speak from (his own) inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.^[2]

 

This information was one of the matters of the unseen that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informed him of; thus, its occurrence was certain.

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam specified its time, that it would occur in one of three years—either the thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, or thirty-seventh year AH.^[3] So, when did it occur? Who bore the sin of igniting it? How did it begin? What was ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu response to it?

Before discussing all of this, I would like to point out that there are da’if narrations accusing some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum of inciting against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is well known, as previously mentioned, that a Muslim’s relationship with the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a matter of beliefs, for which only sahih narrations are accepted.

These narrations that accuse them are not without flaws in their chains, if not multiple flaws combined in a single chain. We often find in their chains someone accused of hostility towards the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum or openly declaring hostility towards them.

These Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, who were falsely accused of instigating against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and killing him, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has praised their integrity in numerous places in the Qur’an. In fact, He was pleased with them and testified that they were pleased with Him, which is a great virtue for them, as He says:

 

وَٱلسَّٰبِقُونَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُهَٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحۡسَٰنٖ رَّضِيَ ٱللَّهُ عَنۡهُمۡ وَرَضُواْ عَنۡهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمۡ جَنَّٰتٖ تَجۡرِي تَحۡتَهَا ٱلۡأَنۡهَٰرُ خَٰلِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَبَدٗاۚ ذَٰلِكَ ٱلۡفَوۡزُ ٱلۡعَظِيمُ

And the first forerunners (in the faith) among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.^[4]

 

Allah’s pleasure is an everlasting attribute. He will only be pleased with a servant whom He knows fulfils the requirements of this pleasure. Whoever Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is pleased with, He will never be displeased with him again.^[5]

The evidences for Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam praise for the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum are abundant and mutawatir (consecutively narrated), which enshroud their personalities with reverence and respect, preventing the believer from criticising them or delving into the disputes between them—if any of that is proven—let alone relying on something for which there is no proven chain or text.

Among these evidences is the verse:

 

مُّحَمَّدٞ رَّسُولُ ٱللَّهِۚ وَٱلَّذِينَ مَعَهُۥٓ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى ٱلۡكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيۡنَهُمۡۖ تَرَىٰهُمۡ رُكَّعٗا سُجَّدٗا

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating…^[6]

 

Among the authentic narrations of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding their virtues is his statement:

 

لا تسبوا أصحابي لا تسبوا أصحابي فوالذي نفسي بيده لو أن أحدكم أنفق مثل أحد ذهباً ما بلغ مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه

Do not revile my Companions. Do not revile my Companions, for by the One in Whose Hand is my life, if one of you were to spend the like of Mount Uhud in gold, it would not amount to a mudd of one of them nor half of it.^[7]

 

There are other abundant texts indicating to their virtue and integrity.^[8] No one has the right to accuse them after Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has praised their integrity, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has praised them, and the Ummah has recognised their status in carrying Islam and striving in the path of Allah to establish His state and build His civilisation.

Among these false and fabricated accusations is what was narrated about ‘Ammar ibn Yasir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, accusing him of instigating against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.^[9]

The chains of the narrations that contain this false accusation are weak and full of flaws, just as their texts are objectionable. They establish that ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was angry with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Then ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent him to Egypt to a group, who had become obstinate and their issues and rebellion had gone beyond limits, to admonish them for everything they were criticised for, to command the good and to spread goodness, so that Allah may reform the corruption thereby.

Can it be expected from ‘Uthman to send him to people of this description to rebuke them, while he was criticising ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Did he not find anyone else who was pleased with him?

It is not proven in any authentic hadith that ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu rebuked ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu or that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent him to Egypt.

What the events of this fitnah depict is that it was ignited through careful, organised planning, which confirms that behind it was an organised group, whose aim was to ignite it, to achieve its own vile interests and weaken the power of the Muslims. It would be an exaggeration to attribute all of this to a single individual.

There is no doubt that this secret group had representatives and dignitaries, the most prominent of whom was ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, the Jew—the figure whose reality and role in the fitnah have been the subject of much debate, controversy, and dispute among many scholars and researchers. What has earned this figure such attention is his effective role in igniting the fitnah during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

Some writers have attempted to conceal the existence of this figure.^[10] A number of Muslim writers have followed suit. The mainstay for denying the existence of the figure ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ is that Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi was the only one to establish this figure and Saif is da’if and has been criticised by a group of scholars.

Some contemporary intellectuals passed this information on, as given, and some were content with it without verifying its authenticity. One researcher^[11] even wrote an independent study to support this. The results which he reached from his study were no longer those of his previous studies. The summary of this thesis began with:

 

وقد خلص الباحث إلى أن روايات سيف بن عمر وروايات كتب الفرق والأدب عن ابن سبأ غير صحيحة وأن ابن سبأ شخصية وهمية وأن الدور المنسوب إليه في خلق وتسيير أحداث الفتنة دور مزعوم

The researcher concluded that the transmissions of Saif ibn ‘Umar and the transmissions in the books of sects and literature about Ibn Saba’ are not authentic, that Ibn Saba’ is a fictitious figure, and that the role attributed to him in creating and directing the events of the fitnah is an alleged role.^[12]

 

The approach which the researcher used is a weak approach in establishing facts and denying myths. The author relied on limited sources and denied what those sources did not mention, under the delusion that he had exhausted all the transmissions of Islamic history. Thus, he denied this figure due to its absence in the reliable transmissions in the sources he had received. This is a weak approach and the conclusion based on it is incorrect, as there are reliable transmissions that confirm this figure. In fact, it even provides us with some details about him, which will be mentioned later.

Some researchers have become aware of the error of these findings denying the figure Ibn Saba’ and have written powerful scholarly volumes to support them. Among them is Dr. Sulaiman al ‘Awdah, in his treatise, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ wa Dawruhu fi Ishti’al al Fitnah (‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ and his Role in Igniting the Unrest), wherein he succeeded in establishing this figure and his role in igniting and inciting the fitnah that led to the killing of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and subsequently the Battle of the Camel. Among them is Dr. Sa’di al Hashimi, in his lecture published under the title, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ Haqiqah la Khiyal (‘Abdullah ibn Saba’: Fact not  fiction), wherein he established that Ibn Saba’ was a real figure, from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and other sects, attributing every piece of information to its source in their books.^[13]

In collaboration with these two distinguished professors, I will mention some of the sahih, hasan, and da’if narrations that have reached us from other than Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi, to establish the identity of Ibn Saba’. Among them are:

1. The narration of Abu Ishaq al Fazari, through a sahih chain to Suwaid ibn Ghafalah:

 

أنه دخل على علي في إمارته فقال إني مررت بنفر يذكرون أبا بكر وعمر يرون أنك تضمر لهما مثل ذلك منهم عبد الله بن سبأ وكان عبد الله بن سبأ أول من أظهر ذلك فقال علي ما لي ولهذا الخبيث الأسود ثم قال معاذ الله أن أضمر لهما إلا الحسن الجميل ثم أرسل إلى عبد الله بن سبأ فسيره إلى المدائن وقال لا يساكنني في بلدة أبدا ثم نهض إلى المنبر حتى اجتمع الناس فذكر القصة في ثنائه عليهما بطوله ألا ولا يبلغني عن أحد يفضلني عليهما إلا جلدته حد المفتري

He came to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu during his reign, and said, “I passed by some people who were mentioning Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and they thought you harboured the same thought [i.e. enmity] for them, including ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’.” ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was the first to express this.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “What do I have to do with this evil, black man?”

Then he said, “Allah forbid that I harbour anything but good and beautiful thoughts of them.”

Then he sent for ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ and banished him to al Mada’in, saying, “He will never live with me in any town.”

Thereafter, he stood up on the pulpit and the people gathered.

He mentioned the entire incident of praising them [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] in which he said, “Harken! If I hear of anyone who declares me superior to them^[14], I will flog him with a slanderer’s punishment.”^[15]

 

This narration is not one of the narrations of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi and its chain is sahih. All of its narrators are thiqah (reliable). If no other narrations were narrated, it would have sufficed in demolishing the foundation which those who were delusional of Ibn Saba’ built.

2. The narration of Ibn ‘Asakir from Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who said:

لما بويع علي خطب الناس فقام عليه عبد الله بن سبأ فقال له أنت دابة الأرض قال فقال له أنت الملك فقال له اتق الله فقال له أنت خلقت الخلق وبسطت الرزق فأمر بقتله فاجتمع أصحابه فقالوا دعه وانفه إلى ساباط المدائن فإنك إن قتلته بالمدينة خرجت أصحابه علينا وشيعته فنفاه إلى ساباط المدائن فثم الفرق الضالة قال ثم قامت له طائفة وهم السبئية وكانوا أحد عشر رجلا فقال ارجعوا فإني علي بن أبي طالب أبي مشهور وأمي مشهورة وأنا ابن عم محمد فقالوا لا نرجع دع داعيك فأحرقهم بالنار وقبورهم في الصحراء أحد عشر مشهورة فقال من بقي ممن لم يكشف رأسه منهم علمنا أنه إله واحتجوا بقول ابن عباس لا يعذب بالنار إلا خالقها

قال ثعلب وقد عذب بالنار قبل علي أبو بكر الصديق شيخ الإسلام وذاك أنه رفع إليه رجل يقال له الفجاءة وقالوا إنه شتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد وفاته فأخرجه إلى الصحراء فأحرقه بالنار

قال فقال ابن عباس قد عذب أبو بكر بالنار فاعبدوه أيضا

When ‘Ali was given allegiance, he addressed the people. ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ stood up to him and said, “You are the beast of the earth.”^[16]

He further said, “You are the king.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him, “Fear Allah.”

He continued, “You created creation and expanded provision.”

So, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered his killing. His companions gathered and said, “Leave him and exile him to Sabat al Mada’in, for if you kill him in the city (Kufah), his companions and followers will rise up against us.”

Therefore, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu exiled him to Sabat al Mada’in, where there were the deviant groups. Then a group stood up against him. They were the Saba’iyyah, and they were eleven men. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to them, “Recant, for I am ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. My father is famous, my mother is famous, and I am the cousin of Muhammad.”

They said, “We will not recant. Leave your claim.”

Then he burned them with fire, and their graves are in the desert, eleven of them, well known. Those who remained, who were not exposed, said, “We know that he is Allah.”

They cited Ibn ‘Abbas’s statement, “No one can punish with fire except its creator.”

Tha’lab states, “Sheikh al Islam, Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, punished with fire before ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. That was because a man called al Fuja’ah was brought to him. They said that he swore the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after his death. Therefore, he took him out to the desert and burned him with fire.”

Jabir states that Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma responded, “Abu Bakr punished with fire, so worship him too then.”^[17]

3. The narration of Ibn ‘Asakir through Sammak, who said:

 

بلغ عليا أن ابن السوداء ينتقص أبا بكر وعمر فدعا به ودعا بالسيف أو قال فهم بقتله فكلم فيه فقال لا يساكنني ببلد أنا فيه قال فسيره إلى المدائن

News reached ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that Ibn al Sawda’ was disparaging Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, so he summoned him and summoned the sword—or he said that he intended to kill him. He negotiated with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who said, “He will not live with me in a city I am in.”

Sammak states, “He banished him to al Mada’in.”^[18]

 

4. The narration of Ibn ‘Asakir from Abu al Tufayl, who said:

 

رأيت المسيب بن نجبة أتي ملببة يعني ابن السوداء وعلي على المنبر فقال علي ما شأنه فقال يكذب على الله ورسوله

I saw al Musayyab ibn Najbah come to Mulabbibah—Ibn al Sawda’—whilst ‘Ali was on the pulpit. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “What is the matter with him?”

He replied: “He lies about Allah and His Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[19]

 

5. The narration of Ibn ‘Asakir through Zaid ibn Wahb and Abu al Za’ra’ — from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

ما لي وما لهذا الحميت الأسود وفي رواية ما لي ولهذا الحميت^[20] الأسود يعني عبد الله بن سبأ وكان يقع في أبي بكر وعمر

What do I have to do with this black bag?^[21] Another narration has it as: What do I have to do with this black bag? Referring to ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ who would attack Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.^[22]

 

6. The narration of Abu Tahir al Mukhlis from Sharik al ‘Amiri, which al Hafiz Ibn Hajar graded as hasan, wherein he said:

 

قيل لعلي إن هنا قوما على باب المسجد يدعون أنك ربهم فدعاهم فقال لهم ويلكم ما تقولون قالوا أنت ربنا وخالقنا ورازقنا فقال ويلكم إنما أنا عبد مثلكم آكل الطعام كما تأكلون وأشرب كما تشربون إن أطعت الله أثابني إن شاء وإن عصيته خشيت أن يعذبني فاتقوا الله وارجعوا فأبوا فلما كان الغد غدوا عليه فجاء قنبر فقال قد والله رجعوا يقولون ذلك الكلام فقال أدخلهم فقالوا كذلك فلما كان الثالث قال لئن قلتم ذلك لأقتلنكم بأخبث قتلة فأبوا إلا ذلك فقال يا قنبر ائتني بفعلة معهم مرورهم فخد لهم أخدودا بين باب المسجد والقصر وقال احفروا فأبعدوا في الأرض وجاء بالحطب فطرحه بالنار في الأخدود وقال إني طارحكم فيها أو ترجعوا فأبوا أن يرجعوا فقذف بهم فيها حتى احترقوا قال

إني إذا رأيت أمراً منكراً

أوقدت ناري ودعوت قنبراً

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was told, “There are people here at the door of the Masjid who claim that you are their Lord.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu called them and said to them, “Woe to you, what are you saying?”

They said, “You are our Lord, our Creator, and our Provider.”

Then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Woe to you, I am only a servant like you, I eat food as you eat, and I drink as you drink. If I obey Allah, He will reward me if He wills. If I disobey Him, I fear that He would punish me. So, fear Allah and retract.”

They refused. The next day, they went to him in the morning. Qanbar^[23] came and said, “By Allah, they have returned to saying that.”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Let them in.”

They continued saying the same thing.

The third day, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu warned them, “If you say that, I will kill you in the worst possible way.”

They refused to do anything else.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “O Qanbar, bring me a punishment for their persistence.”

So, he dug a trench for them between the door of the Masjid and the palace and said, “Dig deep into the ground.”

He brought firewood and threw it into the trench and then said, “I will throw you into it, or you retract.”

However, they refused to retract, so he threw them into it until they were burned.

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “When I see something reprehensible, I light my fire and call for Qanbar.”^[24]

 

7. The narration of Ibn Sa’d from Abu al Minjab who said:

 

أن رجلا كان يأتي إبراهيم النخعي فيتعلم منه فيسمع قوما يذكرون أمر علي وعثمان فقال أنا أتعلم من هذا الرجل وأرى الناس مختلفين في أمر علي وعثمان فسأل إبراهيم النخعي عن ذلك فقال ما أنا بسبئي ولا مرجئ

A man used to visit Ibrahim al Nakha’i to learn from him. He would hear some people mentioning the matter of ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, so he said, “I am learning from this man, and I see people differing on the matter of ‘Ali and ‘Uthman.” So, he asked Ibrahim al Nakha’i about that, who replied, “I am neither a Saba’i nor a Murji’i.”^[25]

 

8. Ibn ‘Asakir’s narration from Hujayyah ibn ‘Abdi al Kindi, who said:

 

رأيت عليا كرم الله وجهه وهو على المنبر وهو يقول من يعذرني من هذا الحميت الأسود الذي يكذب على الله وعلى رسوله يعني ابن الأسود لولا أن لا يزال يخرج علىّ عصابة تنعى عليّ دمه كما ادعيت علي دماء أهل النهر لجعلت منهم ركاما

I saw ‘Ali—may Allah honour him—while he was on the pulpit saying, “Who will excuse me from this black bag who lies about Allah and His Messenger—referring to Ibn al Aswad? Were it not for a group that would continuously mourn for his blood against me, as the blood of the people of the river was claimed against me, I would have turned them into rubble.^[26]

 

There is a corroboration for their burning in a hadith narrated by al Bukhari in his al Sahih from ‘Ikrimah, who said:

 

أتي علي بزنادقة فأحرقهم فبلغ ذلك ابن عباس فقال لو كنت أنا لم أحرقهم لنهي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تعذبوا بعذاب الله ولقتلتهم لقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدل دينه فاقتلوه

Some heretics were brought to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so he burned them. News of this reached Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who said, “Had it been me, I would not have burned them, because of the prohibition of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who said, ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ I would have killed them because of the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”^[27]

 

9. The narration of Ibn ‘Asakir with a hasan chain from al Sha’bi, who said:

 

أول من كذب عبد الله بن سبأ

The first to lie was ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’.^[28]

 

Al Sha’bi was born approximately in the year 20 AH and died shortly after 100 AH, roughly before the birth of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi. This is conclusive evidence that Ibn Saba’ was known before the end of the first century.

These narrations are narrated by people other than Saif ibn ‘Umar. We find that they agree on confirming the identity of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. In fact, they even highlight some of his beliefs, his role in spreading them, and his role in igniting the fitnah.

Think, what would be the position of one who was delusional about the identity of Ibn Saba’, after studying these narrations, with his reliance on the fact that Saif was the only one to prove it.

Thus, the falsity of the claim about the identity of Ibn Saba’ and the assumption of a fictional character, claiming that Saif ibn ‘Umar was the only one to prove it, is clear.

 

2. Arrival of the people of the cities

After the rebels incited the people of the various cities against the Khalifah, they headed towards Madinah. The people of Egypt and Iraq arrived and met with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and negotiated with him.

When the people learned of the Egyptians’ march to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, some of them came to Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and asked him:

 

إن هؤلاء ساروا إلى هذا الرجل فما تقول قال يقتلونه والله فقالوا له أين هو فقال في الجنة والله فقالوا فأين قتلته فقال في النار والله

These people have marched to this man, what do you say?

He replied, “By Allah, they will kill him.”

They asked him, “Where will he be?”

He said, “In Jannat, by Allah.”

They asked, “Where will his killers be?

He replied, “In Jahannam, by Allah.”^[29]

 

The people left Egypt heading for Madinah. News of their arrival reached ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu before they arrived, while he was in a village outside Madinah—which the narrations did not specify. When they heard of his presence there,^[30] they headed towards him. He met them there. Al Mada’ini specifies the date of their arrival as the night of Wednesday, in the month of Dhu al Qa’dah.^[31]

The people met ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in this village. They said, “Bring the Qur’an.” He called for it.

They said, “Open the seventh.” (They would call Surah Yunus the seventh).

He recited until he reached the verse:

 

قُلۡ ءَآللَّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمۡۖ أَمۡ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ تَفۡتَرُونَ

Say, “Has Allah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent (something) about Allah?”^[32]

 

They said to him, “Stop! Do you see the pastures that you have secured. Has Allah given you permission, or are you inventing about Allah?”

‘Uthman replied, “Go ahead, it was revealed regarding such and such a matter. As for the pastures, ‘Umar had secured them before me for the camels of charity. When I took over, the camels of charity increased, so I increased the pastures due to the increase in the camels of charity. Go ahead.”

They began to question him verse by verse, and he would say, “Go ahead, it was revealed about such-and-such,” and they would not add anything. Thereafter, they took a covenant from him and wrote a condition for it. He took an undertaking from them that they would not revolt or leave the Jama’ah (community), as long as he fulfilled their condition. They returned satisfied.^[33]

This shows the weakness of the narration that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent fifty horsemen under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Maslamah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, among them Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to the delegation of the Egyptians in Dhu Khashab. There, they found a man from the people with the Qur’an hanging around his neck, his eyes shedding tears, a sword in his hand, and he was saying, “Behold, this—i.e. the Qur’an—orders us to strike with this—i.e. the sword—on what is mentioned in this—i.e. the Qur’an.”

Muhammad ibn Maslamah said to him, “Sit down, for we have struck with this on what is in this before you, so he sat down.”

He continued speaking to them until they returned.^[34]

The people camped at Dhu al Marwah, approximately a month and a half before his murder.^[35]

‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and another man, whose name has not been mentioned in the reports, to them. He met them there and said to them, “You will be given the Book of Allah and you will be excused for everything that displeases you.” They agreed to that.^[36]

Another narration states that they argued with him and he argued with them two or three times, then they said, “The cousin of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the messenger of the Amir al Mu’minin is offering the Book of Allah.” Then they accepted.^[37]

They agreed on five things: that the exiled be returned, the deprived be given a share, the spoils be paid in full, justice be done in the distribution, and the trustworthy and powerful be employed as governors. They wrote this down in a letter. They also agreed that Ibn ‘Amir be returned to Basrah and Abu Musa al Ash’ari to Kufah, and that everyone with a right be given their due. They did not write this down. Then they returned to Kufah.^[38]

This is how ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu negotiated with the delegation from each of the cities separately. Then the two delegations returned to their homes, satisfied.

Another narration mentions that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu met with all the people of the cities and said to them:

 

ليقم أهل كل مصر يسألوني صاحبهم الذي يحبونه فأستعمله عليهم وأعزل عنهم الذي يكرهون فقال أهل البصرة رضينا بعبد الله بن عامر فأقره علينا وقال أهل الكوفة اعزل سعيدا واستعمل علينا أبا موسى ففعل وقال أهل الشام قد رضينا بمعاوية فأقره علينا وقال أهل مصر اعزل عنا ابن أبي سرح واستعمل علينا عمرو بن العاص ففعل فما جاءوا بشيء إلا خرج منه فانصرفوا راضين

“Let the people of each city ask me regarding their leader whom they love, so I may appoint him over them and dismiss the one they dislike.”

The people of Basrah said, “We are satisfied with ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir, so retain him over us.”

The people of Kufah said, “Dismiss Sa’id and appoint Abu Musa over us.” He did that.

The people of Greater Syria said, “We are satisfied with Muawiyah, so retain him over us.”

The people of Egypt said, “Dismiss Ibn Abi Sarh and appoint ‘Amr ibn al ‘As over us.” So, he did that.

They did not come up with anything except that he found a way out of it, so they left satisfied.^[39]

 

After the peace treaty was concluded, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote a letter to the people of Iraq, saying:

 

إن جيش ذي المروة نزلوا بنا فكان مما صالحناهم عليه أن يؤدى إلى كل ذي حق حقه فمن كان له قبلنا حق فليركب إليه فإن أبطأ أو تثاقل فليتصدق فإن الله يجزي المتصدقين

The army of Dhu al Marwah has come to us. Among the things we agreed upon with them was that everyone with a right should be given his right. Therefore, whoever has a right over us should ride to it. If he is delayed or slow, then let him give it as charity, for Allah rewards those who give charity.^[40]

 

After this great peace and after all the people of the cities returned satisfied, it became clear to the instigators of the fitnah that their plan had failed and their vile goals had not been achieved. Therefore, they devised another plan to inflame and revive the fitnah and destroy the peace agreement that had taken place between the people of the cities and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This was evident by the following:

On the way back to Egypt, the people of Egypt saw a rider on a camel, sometimes appearing to them and sometimes hiding from them—showing as if he is fleeing from them—as if to say, “Catch me.”

They captured him and asked him, “What is the matter with you?”

He replied, “I am the messenger of the Amir al Mu’minin to his governor in Egypt.”

They searched him and found a letter from ‘Uthman, bearing his seal, addressed to the governor of Egypt. They opened the letter and found in it an order to crucify them or to kill them or cut off their hands and feet. Therefore, they turned back towards Madinah until they reached there.^[41]

Before we delve into attempts to uncover the identity of the writer of this letter, there is evidence that casts doubt on the veracity of the rumours spread by the people of the cities about the existence of this man carrying this letter. Why would it not be possible that they wrote the letter along the way and returned with it, claiming to have found it with a man on a camel?

This is further strengthened by the fact that no sources report that they took revenge on this man carrying this letter that contained their destruction, especially since they were a people who did not hesitate when shedding the blood of their Khalifah and leader. Thus, it is even more likely that they would not have hesitated in shedding the blood of this messenger.

Even if we assume this claim is true, why did this messenger take their route? Were there no other routes to Egypt? And if there were no other routes, couldn’t he have deviated from the road as he approached them, then returned to the same route?

Why did he approach them and move away from them, then return to them and leave them again? Why did he act in this way that prompted them to capture him?

If he was sent by ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu or someone close to him, would they not have guided him to these instructions that would help him evade the Egyptians, and warned him to conceal and hide the contents of this letter? Yes, this is what was inevitable given this situation.

But look at this ‘alleged’ messenger when he was captured. They asked him, “What is the matter with you?”

He replied, “I am the messenger of the Amir al Mu’minin to his governor in Egypt.”

Then they searched him and found—as in the narration—a letter from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the governor of Egypt to crucify them, kill them, or cut off their hands and feet.

And who can confirm that the seal was ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu ring? No sources have reported that any of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum saw this seal and acknowledged that it was his seal.

After their departure, the people returned carrying this news—which is not far-fetched at all that it was made up and fabricated—till they arrived in Madinah.

Some da’if narrations detail their going to some of the Companions and showing the letter to them, but none of the narrations are authentic.

‘Uthman denied having written this letter, telling them, “There are two things: either you appoint two men from among the Muslims, or I take an oath by Allah, besides Whom there is no deity, that I have not written, dictated, or known about the letter.”

The letter may be written in the name of a man and a seal be engraved. However, they did not believe him.

We do not doubt ‘Uthman’s truthfulness, just as they had no doubt about it. However, they paid no attention to this oath from him, perhaps, because they knew in advance that he was not the writer of the letter, but rather it was a ploy to break the covenant which they regretted adopting, or because the instigators of the fitnah were furious and angry at its unfolding.

If we assume that they actually found a letter in the handwriting of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu scribe and bearing his seal, who would bear the sin of forging it?

Some accuse Marwan ibn al Hakam of this, claiming that he had acted unilaterally against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu by writing it. I find this highly unlikely, given that the details of the plan to send this letter indicate that its sender did not intend to deliver it to Egypt, but rather that it was intended to inform the Egyptian delegation of it, just as there is no benefit for Marwan in writing this letter.

What appears—Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best—is that the one who forged this letter was ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ or one of his aides. This was one of his ugly habits that he used to incite fitnah. This letter was not the only forged letter in this fitnah; rather, others were forged on behalf of others, such as Aisha and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

After their return, they besieged the house, treated the Khalifah ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the most abhorrent manner, and behaved in the most reprehensible manner. The following chapter details what happened during the siege.

 

NEXT⇒ Yawm al Dar (the Day of the House) and the killing of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan

---

^[1]  Details have passed in the introduction.

^[2]  Surah al Najm: 3-4.

^[3]  As mentioned in the sahih hadith mentioned n.

^[4]  Surah al Tawbah: 100.

^[5]  Ibn Taymiyyah: Hukm Sabb al Sahabah, pg. 36-37.

^[6]  Surah al Fath: 29.

^[7]  Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, pg. 7/21; Sahih Muslim, 4/1967; Abu Dawood, al Tirmidhi, and Ahmed ibn Hanbal, from the hadith of Abu Sa’id al Khudri; Muslim and Ibn Majah, from the hadith of Abu Hurairah.

^[8]  For this, refer to Surah al Fath: 29; Surah al Naml: 59; al Kubaysi: Sahabat Rasul Allah; al Maqdisi: Al Nahy ‘an Sabb al Sahabah; Ibn Taymiyyah: Hukm Sabb al Sahabah; Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 6/206-241; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 1/1-60; al Baghawi: Sharh al Sunnah, 14/86; al Tabari: Jami’ al Bayan fi Tafsir al Qur’an, 2/19; Ibn Hajar: Al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah, 9/1-12; Qurashi ibn ‘Umar ibn Ahmed: Tanbih Dhawi al Najabah ila ‘Adalat al Sahabah; Muhammad Salah Muhammad al Sawi: Manzilat al Sahabah fi al Qur’an.

^[9]  Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, 3/1122-1123, with a weak isnad from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Thawban from ‘Uthman. His narration from ‘Uthman is mursal. Abu Zur’ah says, “Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Thawban narrating from ‘Uthman is mursal.” (Refer to al ‘Ala’i: Jami’ al Tahsil, pg. 326.)

^[10]  Among these is Murtada al ‘Askari, who wrote an independent book about Ibn Saba’, which he filled with fallacies and deviated from the scholarly method in research and writing.

^[11]  Refer to ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’: Dirasah li al Riwayat al Tarikhiyyah ‘an Dawrihi fi al Fitnah (A Study of Historical Transmissions of his Role in the Fitnah), a ninety-page thesis published by Kuwait University in the Faculty of Art College in 1407 AH, the Eighth Annual, Forty-Fifth Treatise, a summary of which was published in the magazine al Safahat al Mukhassasah li al Kutub al Hadithiyyah’,’alam al Kutub, volume eight, edition four, Rabi’ al Akhir 1408 AH.

^[12]  ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’: Dirasah li al Riwayat al Tarikhiyyah ‘an Dawrihi fi al Fitnah, pg. 9.

^[13]  This lecture was printed in 1406 AH and published by Maktabat al Dar in Madinah.

^[14]  I.e. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

^[15]  Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar reported it from him in Lisan al Mizan, 3/290, its isnad is sahih, all of its narrators are thiqah; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[16]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[17]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[18]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 7).

^[19]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[20]  Al himmit means al ziqq i.e., a waterbag or wine bag made of hairless hide. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 2/25.)

^[21]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[22]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (part: ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 5).

^[23]  Qanbar was the servant of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. (Ibn Abi Hatim: Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 7/146.)

^[24]  Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 12/270.

^[25]  Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 6/275.

^[26]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (Part 1, ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 6).

^[27]  Fath al Bari, 6/149, 12/267.

^[28]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq (Part 1, ‘Abdullah ibn Salim – ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Aisha, pg. 4), its isnad is strong.

^[29]  Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/206; Ya’qub ibn Sufyan: Al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 2/762, 768, he deemed it sahih; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman. Pg. 388-389; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/80, its isnad is sahih.

^[30]  Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/215-220.

^[31]  Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 168; through him Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman.

^[32]  Surah Yunus: 59.

^[33]  Khalifah and others narrated it from Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, and its isnad is hasan.

^[34]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 321, from Jabir. He narrated something similar from Ibn Sa’d — from al Waqidi.

^[35]  Refer to the referencing of his letter to the people of Iraq.

^[36]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 328, through Khalifah and others; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 169-170, abridged, both through Ibn Sirin, its isnad to him is sahih, except that he did not witness the fitnah—he was born in the year 33 AH and the fitnah occurred in the year 35 AH. Some of it has corroborations.

^[37]  This appears in the narration of Ibn ‘Asakir which was mentioned previously, which is not through Khalifah.

^[38]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 328, through Khalifah and others; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 169-170, abridged, both through Ibn Sirin, its isnad to him is sahih, except that he did not witness the fitnah—he was born in the year 33 AH and the fitnah occurred in the year 35 AH. Some of it has corroborations.

^[39]  Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/220-222, its isnad is weak, as it contains Hussain ibn Numair, who became confused, and the narrator from him is Ibn Numair, who is among those who narrated from him after becoming confused and he was also accused of nasb. Likewise, the isnad contains Juhaym al Fahri, who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. The previous narration collaborates some of this narration.

^[40]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 362, 487-488, its isnad is hasan.

^[41]  Narrated by Khalifah and others from Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd, its isnad is hasan; Ahmed: Fada’il al Sahabah, pg. 471; Ibn Shabbah, 3/133.