The Instigators of the Fitnah and its Inception
November 14, 2025His Killing and His Killer
November 18, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Yawm al Dar (the Day of the House) and the killing of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan
1. Description of the house
The term Yawm al Dar (the Day of the House) refers to the period during which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was besieged, beginning with the Egyptians’ return to Madinah and ending with his murder.[1]
There are different opinions regarding the duration of the siege. Some say it lasted more than twenty days,[2] others say more than a month, others say forty days,[3] others say more than forty nights,[4] others say forty-nine days,[5] and others say two months and twenty days.[6]
The location of the siege was his large house, where ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu lived in Madinah,[7] sometimes called the palace by narrators.[8]
It is located east of al Masjid al Nabawi, opposite Bab ‘Uthman (the Gate of ‘Uthman)[9]. Its border to the north is the alley of al Baqi’, which is five cubits wide, and to the east is his smaller house, next to which is the house of Abu Hazm. Opposite his smaller house is a house of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[10] Between the larger house and al Masjid al Nabawi is a courtyard called al Balat,[11] which was filled with besiegers during the siege.[12]
Perhaps the location of this house was incorporated into al Masjid al Nabawi as part of one of its expansions. It appears to be the area between the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam grave and the eastern wall of the Masjid, next to al Baqi’ Gate, which was recently opened, opposite the al Salam Gate on the eastern side.[13]
Some sahih narrations contain fragments of descriptions of this house, which collectively form an approximate picture of it, helping us understand the events that took place in the house and led to the assassination of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Among the descriptions of this house I have come across is that it was adjacent to other houses of equal height, which assisted movement between them through its roof.[14] It was also adjacent to other houses not attached to it, which made it possible to move among them by means of wooden planks placed between them.[15]
The house had a niche overlooking the Masjid, or a window overlooking the street, from which the person looking out could see those in the street or the Masjid. Likewise, those in the Masjid or in the street could see those in the house through it. There was a staircase[16] connecting the house to its roof.[17]
2. The beginning of the siege
Sahih narrations do not detail how the siege began, but perhaps the events that preceded it shed some light on how it began.
While ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was delivering a sermon to the people one day, a man called A’yan[18] interrupted him and said, “O Na’thal,[19] you have changed.”
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked, “Who is this?”
They replied, “A’yan.”
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Rather, you are such, O servant.”
The people jumped up at A’yan. A man from the Banu Layth began to ward them off until he brought him into the house.[20]
After the—second—arrival of the Egyptians and before the siege intensified, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was able to go out to perform Salah and bring in whomsoever he wished. Then they prevented him from doing so and from leaving his house, so he was unable to go out for the obligatory Salah.[21]
A man from the besiegers was leading the people in Salah, who was one of the leaders of the fitnah, to the point that ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Adi ibn al Khiyar felt reluctant to perform Salah behind him, so he consulted ‘Uthman about it. ‘Uthman advised him to perform behind him, saying:
الصلاة أحسن ما يعمل الناس فإذا أحسن الناس فأحسن معهم وإذا أساءوا فاجتنب إساءتهم
Salah is the best deed that anyone can perform. Therefore, if people do good, do good with them, and if they do evil, avoid their evil.[22]
Some weak narrations state that the one leading the people in Salah was their leader, al Ghafiqi.[23]
There is no truth in al Waqidi’s narration that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered Abu Ayyub al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lead the people in Salah. Thus, he led them in Salah during the beginning of the siege, then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu led them in the ‘Id and the subsequent Salahs.[24] What further weakens the text of this narration, in addition to its weak chain, is that if ‘Ali or Abu Ayyub radiya Llahu ‘anhuma had been leading the people in Salah, ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Adi ibn al Khiyar would not have been hesitant to perform behind them.
3. Negotiations between ‘Uthman and his besiegers
When the siege was accomplished and those who rebelled against ‘Uthman surrounded the house, they demanded that he resign or they would kill him.[25] These people, who demanded that the Khalifah must resign, were the dregs and the scum of the people, the lowest of them in din, morals, and knowledge, and were not among the Ahl al Hill wa al ‘Aqd (people of authority).
With this offer, what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had said to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu transpired, and the time to act upon his advice had come. Therefore, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused to resign, saying:
لا أخلع سربالا سربلنيه الله
I will not take off a garment that Allah clothed me with.[26]
This is in reference to what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam advised him.[27]
Meanwhile, a few of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum held a different view than what he held. Some of them advised him to resign in order to protect his life, including al Mughirah ibn al Akhnas, but he refused. While those who held this view were with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma entered by them. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him:
انظر إلى ما يقول هؤلاء يقولون اخلعها ولا تقتل نفسك فقال ابن عمر إذا خلعتها أمخلد أنت في الدنيا فقال عثمان لا قال فإن لم تخلعها هل يزيدون على أن يقتلوك قال عثمان لا قال فهل يملكون لك جنة أو نارا قال لا قال فلا أرى لك أن تخلع قميصاً قمصكه الله فتكون سنة كلما كره قوم خليفتهم أو إمامهم قتلوه وفي رواية فلا أرى أن تسن هذه السنة في الإسلام كلما سخط قوم على أميرهم خلعوه لا تخلع قميصا قمصكه الله
Look at what these people are saying. They say, “Resign and do not kill yourself.”
Ibn Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma asked, “If you resign, will you live forever in this world?”
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied, “No.”
He asked, “If you do not resign, can they do anything more than kill you?”
‘Uthman replied, “No.”
He asked, “Do they possess the power to grant you Jannat or Jahannam?”
‘Uthman replied, “No.”
Ibn ‘Umar said, “Then I do not think that you should take off a shirt that Allah has clothed you with, lest it becomes a tradition that whenever a people dislike their Khalifah or Imam, they kill him.”[28]
Another narration states, “I do not think you should initiate this tradition in Islam that whenever a people are displeased with their leader, they depose him. Do not take off a shirt that Allah has clothed you with.”[29]
This dialogue does not indicate that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was hesitant about resigning or not, until Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma supported him, because the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam advice to him was explicit about not resigning, unless he forgot about it and then remembered it later. What appears from his expression, in which he expressed his opinion about not resigning, is that he remembered the advice and applied its meanings.
This position, dictated by the advice of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is a wise one. Responding to the demands of the rebels, who are a small group of the Ummah and are not among the people of authority nor among the men of Islam and the jurists of the Shari’ah, would have serious repercussions on the Ummah’s progress, the authority of the Caliphate, and the relationship between the shepherd and his flock. The price of averting these negative effects was that the Khalifah paid with his life, even though he knew his fate and surrendered to it, which was a heavy burden on the soul. However, he preferred the interests of the Ummah over his own personal interests, which reveals strength, determination, and courage, and thus rebutted the accusations levelled against him of being weak in these qualities.
He had—by the will of Allah—the ability to curb the fitnah, but he estimated that the harm of curbing it would be more than the benefit, therefore, he turned away from that in order to prevent harm. Thus, this exposes the error of those who said:
أن قتل عثمان لا يوصف بأكثر من أنه مشاغبة دهماء لم تجد من يكبحها
The killing of ‘Uthman cannot be described as more than a mob riot that found no one to curb it.[30]
This statement is a slander against the character and courage of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It was truly a mob riot, but not curbing it is considered a virtue of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu because it entailed sacrifice in the way of Allah, hoping to achieve the best interests of the Ummah, in accordance with the advice of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
While ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was in his house, surrounded by people, he passed into an entrance from which those inside could hear the words of those in the courtyard. He heard the besiegers threatening to kill him. It seems that he never expected that the situation would reach this level. He exited the entrance and entered upon those with him in the house. His complexion changed, and he said, “They were threatening to kill me just now.”
They said to him, “Allah will suffice you against them, O Amir al Mu’minin.”
He asked:
ولم يقتلونني وقد سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا في إحدى ثلاث رجل كفر بعد إيمانه أو زنى بعد إحصانه أو قتل نفسا بغير نفس فوالله ما زنيت في جاهلية ولا في إسلام قط ولا تمنيت أن لي بديني بدلا منذ هداني الله ولا قتلت نفسا ففيم يقتلونني
Why do they want to kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say, “The blood of a Muslim person is not permissible to be shed except in one of three cases: a man who disbelieves after his belief, or commits adultery after being married, or kills a soul without justification.” By Allah, I have never committed adultery in pre-Islamic days or in Islam, nor have I ever wished to change my din since Allah guided me, nor have I killed a soul. So why do they want to kill me?[31]
Then he looked at the besiegers and tried to calm their revolt and dissuade them from rebelling against their Imam. This discussion included a response to the criticisms they had levelled against him and revealing the truth which the people had distorted, hoping that those who had been deceived would come to their senses.
He asked the besiegers to bring out a man to speak to him. They brought out a young man called Sa’sa’ah ibn Suhan. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked him to explain to him what they are blaming him for.[32] Sa’sa’ah said, “We were expelled from our homes unjustly, only because we said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’”[33]
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him, “Recite (meaning, provide evidence from the Qur’an).”
He recited:
أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمۡ ظُلِمُواْۚ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصۡرِهِمۡ لَقَدِيرٌ
Permission (to fight) has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.[34],[35]
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:
ليست لك ولا لأصحابك ولكنها لي ولأصحابي وفي رواية أنه قال له كذبت لستم بأولئك نحن أولئك أخرجنا أهل مكة
This is not for you or your companions, but for me and my companions.
According to another narration, he said to him: You have lied. You are not of those; we are the ones. The people of Makkah expelled us.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu then recited the verse that Sa’sa’ah had used as evidence and the verses that follow it, which explains it and demonstrates the invalidity of Sa’sa’ah’s use of it. He recited:
أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمۡ ظُلِمُواْۚ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصۡرِهِمۡ لَقَدِيرٌ ٱلَّذِينَ أُخۡرِجُواْ مِن دِيَٰرِهِم بِغَيۡرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّآ أَن يَقُولُواْ رَبُّنَا ٱللَّهُۗ وَلَوۡلَا دَفۡعُ ٱللَّهِ ٱلنَّاسَ بَعۡضَهُم بِبَعۡضٖ لَّهُدِّمَتۡ صَوَٰمِعُ وَبِيَعٞ وَصَلَوَٰتٞ وَمَسَٰجِدُ يُذۡكَرُ فِيهَا ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ كَثِيرٗاۗ وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ ٱللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُۥٓۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ ٱلَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّٰهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ أَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَأَمَرُواْ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَنَهَوۡاْ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِۗ وَلِلَّهِ عَٰقِبَةُ ٱلۡأُمُورِ
Permission (to fight) has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. (They are) those who have been evicted from their homes without right, only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and Masjids in which the name of Allah is much mentioned (i.e., praised). And Allah will surely support those who support Him (i.e., His cause). Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. (And they are) those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give Zakat and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of (all) matters.[36],[37]
Thus, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained the verses correctly to the people, as they were revealed, explaining the circumstance for their revelation, about whom they were revealed, and what they indicate to, so that those who read the Qur’an without knowing its meaning are not confused and use it as evidence for that which contradicts its intended meaning.
This view held by ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the same view of the Imams of Tafsir among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and others, including Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, al Dahhak, and several other predecessors. They said that it was revealed regarding the Muhajirin (Emigrants).[38]
Regarding the verse: (And they are) those who, if We give them authority in the land,[39] ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz said:
ألا إنها ليست على الوالي وحده ولكنها على الوالي والمولى عليه ألا أنبئكم بما لكم على الوالي من ذلكم وبما للوالي عليكم منه إن لكم على الوالي من ذلكم أن يأخذكم بحقوق الله عليكم وأن يأخذ لبعضكم من بعض وأن يهديكم للتي هي أقوم ما استطاع
Beware, it is not only for the ruler, but for the ruler and the subject. Shall I not inform you of what rights you have from the ruler in this regard, and what rights the ruler has from you in this regard? You have the rights from the ruler, in this regard, that he takes from you (upholds) the rights of Allah upon you, that he takes the rights of some of you from others, and that he guides you to that which is most upright as much as he is able to.[40]
‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu exile of those he exiled was in accordance with the verse used by Sa’sa’ah, for it instructs whoever Allah has given authority on earth to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the Khalifah, and their exile was enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong because they had transgressed against some Muslims and instigated unrest. Had he killed them, that would have been correct and justice from him, because they were amongst those who spread corruption on earth, and Allah has stipulated their punishment, which is killing, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet of opposite sides, or exile from the land, as in the verse:
إِنَّمَا جَزَٰٓؤُاْ ٱلَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ وَيَسۡعَوۡنَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوٓاْ أَوۡ يُصَلَّبُوٓاْ أَوۡ تُقَطَّعَ أَيۡدِيهِمۡ وَأَرۡجُلُهُم مِّنۡ خِلَٰفٍ أَوۡ يُنفَوۡاْ مِنَ ٱلۡأَرۡضِۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمۡ خِزۡيٞ فِي ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَلَهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth (to cause) corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.[41]
What Sa’sa’ah used as evidence from the verse is very far from its true meaning. Moreover, their expulsion was not because they said, “Our Lord is Allah.” Ibn Kathir states:
إلا أن يقولوا ربنا الله أي ما كان لهم إلى قومهم إساءة ولا كان لهم ذنب إلا أنهم وحدوا الله وعبدوه لا شريك له
Except that they said, “Our Lord is Allah,” i.e. they had no wrongdoing toward their people, nor had they committed any sin except that they believed in the oneness of Allah and worshipped Him alone, without ascribing any partner to Him.[42]
Was this the reason for the expulsion of the troublemakers of Kufah? Is Sa’sa’ah’s argument from the verse correct, or is it a false argument?
Therefore, after ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu responded to these people, he reminded the people of his status, the status of the besiegers in Islam, and some of his virtues, appealing in the name of Allah for anyone who knew them or heard them from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to explain them to the people. Among his appeals to them was to acknowledge the testimony of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding his martyrdom, as he said:
اسكن حراء ليس عليك إلا نبي أو صديق أو شهيد
Be still Hira’. There is no one upon you except a prophet, a Siddiq, or a martyr.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was with him at that time.[43]
It is well known that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not a prophet, and that the Siddiq was Abu Bakr, as he was known for this attribute. This left ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his companions with only the third attribute, which is martyrdom. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu reminded the people of this and informed the ignorant among them, so that they would be certain that he would be martyred and that his killing was martyrdom. Perhaps this would prevent the people from his murder and expose to the people the error of those who accused him of change. He would also reassure them of the sanctity of his blood and the testimony of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding his good ending, to help them understand that the flaws they attributed to him do not justify his murder, because, at the very least, he was no more than a Muslim whose blood was protected.
In response to their criticising him for abstaining from the Pledge of al Ridwan, he reminded them and appealed to them to remember that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had sent him, at that time, to the polytheists of Makkah. When the pledge of allegiance was due, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “This is the hand of ‘Uthman,” and pledged allegiance. Many men agreed with him.[44]
His physical absence from the pledge of allegiance does not mean that he missed out on its merits. Likewise, his physical absence is not blameworthy, but rather evidence of his merit and standing by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who had delegated him for this great task.
When the people prevented him from performing Salah in al Masjid al Nabawi, he reminded them and appealed to them to remember his share in the expansion of the Masjid when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
من يوسع لنا هذا البيت في المسجد يشير إلى بيت جانب المسجد ببيت له في الجنة
Who will expand this house into the Masjid for us—pointing to a house on the side of the Masjid—in lieu of a house for him in Jannat?
He bought it with his own money and expanded the Masjid with it.[45]
Thus, preventing him from performing Salah in this Masjid is a clear injustice, as he was a Muslim who had a right to the Masjid like all other Muslims, in fact, he had an even greater right to it due to his significant contribution to its construction.
The promise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to him of a house in Jannat is clear evidence of his good end. If only the people had understood this testimony from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding his house in Jannat, and thus protected his life. If only they would realise that what ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave to his relatives was not from the Muslim treasury, but rather from his own wealth, with which he was generous and munificent before he assumed the treasury of the Muslims.
Spending in the way of Allah was not unique in its kind, but rather he spent much more than that. To remind them of this, he appealed to them regarding his preparation of the entire Army of Hardship, in response to the words of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who said:
من ينفق اليوم نفقة متقبلة
Who will spend today that which will be accepted?[46]
Furthermore, (he reminded them) regarding his purchase of the Well of Rumah, whose water used to be sold to travellers. He purchased it with his own wealth and made it available to travellers.
In denying him water, he was compensated with the opposite of what he had honoured the Muslims. He reminded them of his generosity towards them by gifting them the Well of Rumah. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his family, and the inhabitants of his city benefitted from this pure, sweet water, while they denied him water and forced him to drink from a stinking well in his house, wherein filth and dirt were thrown.[47]
When he saw their insistence and determination to kill him, he warned them of this and its consequences. He looked out from a window[48] and said to them:
أيها الناس لا تقتلوني واستعتبوني فوالله لئن قتلتموني لا تقاتلون جميعا أبدا ولا تجاهدون عدوا أبدا لتختلفن حتى تصيروا هكذا وشبك بين أصابعه وفي رواية أنه قال أيها الناس لا تقتلوني فإني وال وأخ مسلم فوالله إن أردت إلا الإصلاح ما استطعت أصبت أو أخطأت وإنكم إن تقتلوني لا تصلوا جميعا أبدا ولا تغزوا جميعا أبدا ولا يقسم فيئكم بينكم وقال أيضاً فوالله لئن قتلوني لا يحابون بعدي أبدا ولا يقاتلون بعدي جميعا عدوا أبدا
O people, do not kill me and seek my forgiveness, for, by Allah, if you kill me, you will never fight together, and never fight against an enemy, and you will differ until you become like this—and he interlocked his fingers.[49]
According to another narration, he said: O people, do not kill me, for I am a leader and a Muslim brother. By Allah, I only want to reform as much as I am able to do so. Sometimes I am correct and sometimes I err. If you kill me, you will never perform Salah together, nor will you ever wage war together, nor will your spoils be divided among you.[50]
Furthermore, he said: By Allah, if they kill me, they will never have mutual love after me, and they will never fight the enemy together ever again.[51]
What ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu warned them about came true. After his killing, everything he said to them came true. Regarding this, al Hasan al Basri says:
فوالله إن صلى القوم جميعا إن قلوبهم لمختلفة
By Allah, even if the people performed Salah together, their hearts were divided.[52]
Likewise, ‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu warned them against killing him.[53]
Then ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent for the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum to consult them about the situation of the besiegers and their threat of killing him. He sent for Ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu to consult him on the matter, as will be discussed in the next section.
4. The Companions’ offer to defend him and his refusal
When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw that these peaceful attempts were ineffective against them and their siege intensified, he consulted ‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu on this matter. ‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu advised him to refrain from fighting them, so that this would be more effective in his argument by Allah. He said to him:
الكف الكف فإنه أبلغ لك في الحجة
Refrain, refrain, for this will be more effective in your argument.[54]
He sent for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu set out heading to the house with some of his family. When they reached the house and found that it was surrounded by besiegers, he was determined to storm it and enter upon ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Some of his family clung to him and prevented him from entering the house, fearing that the besiegers would harm him. He removed the black turban he was wearing and threw it to ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu messenger.[55]
‘Uthman acted upon Ibn Salam’s advice, and took a peaceful stance, which required not engaging in combat with the people, no matter how serious the situation.
When the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum saw the ignominy of the audacity of the besiegers and feared for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, a group of them came and offered to defend him, but he refused. They came to him a second time and affirmed their determination to defend him, but he vehemently refused. When they saw that the situation reached a dangerous stage, they prepared to fight in his defence. Some of them entered the house, but ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was determined and emphasised on them to refrain from fighting in his defence, which prevented their sincere desire to defend him from being fulfilled.
It is noted from the sahih narrations that ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu refusal to defend himself intensified whenever the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum demonstrated their strong determination to defend him. In fact, when he saw the insistence of some of them, he admonished them, reminded them by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and appealed to them by the obedience he deserved from them. This demonstrates his strong determination to refrain from fighting and his lack of hesitation in doing so.
The following is a detailed account of the Companions’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum offers to defend ‘Uthman, and his position on these offers:
- Harithah ibn al No’man radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to him during the siege and said to him:
إن شئت أن نقاتل دونك
If you wish, we will defend you.[56]
- Al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to him and expressed to him the willingness of many people to defend him and proposed to him to fight them with the numbers and strength he had. He said:
إن معك عددا وقوة وأنت على الحق وهم على الباطل
You have the numbers with you as well as the strength. You are on the truth, and they are on falsehood.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied to him:
لن أكون أول من خلف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في أمته بسفك الدماء
I will not be the first, after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, in his Ummah to shed blood.[57]
- ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him:
قاتلهم فوالله لقد أحل الله لك قتالهم
Fight them, for by Allah, Allah has made fighting them permissible for you.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:
لا والله لا أقاتلهم أبدا
No, by Allah, I will never fight them.[58]
Another narration has the following:
يا أمير المؤمنين إنا معك في الدار عصابة مستبصرة ينصر الله بأقل منهم فأذن لنا
O Amir al Mu’minin, we are with you in the house, a group of astute men. Allah will grant victory with fewer than them. So, give us permission.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:
أنشد الله رجلا أهراق فيّ دمه
I appeal to you by Allah that not a single person’s blood should be shed because of me.[59]
Then he appointed him over the house and said:
من كانت لي عليه طاعة فليطع عبد الله ابن الزبير
Whoever is obliged to obey me should obey ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.[60]
The narrations do not reveal to us the powers this authority entailed, nor is it reported that Ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu issued any order after ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu appointed him over the house. Perhaps when ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw Ibn al Zubair’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu agreement and obedience to him in not fighting, he obliged him to transfer this instruction to others, and therefore he ordered his obedience.
- When the situation intensified, the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum were not satisfied with the first offer and the excuse for refusing to fight. Rather, Ka’b ibn Malik urged the Ansar to assist ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and said to them:
يا معشر الأنصار كونوا أنصار الله مرتين
O group of Ansar, be supporters of Allah for the second time.
The Ansar came to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and stood at his door. Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered and said to him:
هؤلاء الأنصار بالباب إن شئت كنا أنصار الله مرتين
These Ansar are at the door. If you wish, we will be supporters of Allah for the second time.[61]
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused to fight, saying:
لا حاجة لي في ذلك كفوا
I have no need for that. Stop.[62]
According to another narration, they said to him:
يا أمير المؤمنين ننصر الله مرتين نصرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وننصرك
O Amir al Mu’minin, we wish to assist Allah twice. We supported the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and we wish to support you.
However, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu refused.[63]
- Al Hasan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma came and said to him:
أخترط سيفي
Should I draw my sword?
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him:
لا أبرأ الله إذا من دمك ولكن ثم سيفك وارجع إلى أبيك
No, then I absolve[64] myself to Allah of your blood. Sheath[65] your sword, and return to your father.[66]
- While ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was sitting on a chair in the house, and with him were al Hasan ibn ‘Ali, Abu Hurairah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, and ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and before him were washtubs filled with water and stained cloths, suddenly the messenger of al Zubair ibn al ‘Awwam radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered, conveyed greetings from al Zubair, and said:
إن الزبير يقول لك إني على طاعتي لم أبدل ولم أنكث فإن شئت دخلت الدار معك وكنت رجلا من القوم وإن شئت أقمت فإن بني عمرو بن عوف وعدوني أن يصبحوا على بابي ثم يمضون على ما آمرهم به
Al Zubair says to you, “I am obedient to you; I have not changed or broken my promise. If you wish, I will enter the house with you, and I will be a man amongst the people, and if you wish, I will stay, for the Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf promised me that they would come to my door in the morning and then carry out what I instruct them.”
When ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu heard the message, he glorified and praised Allah and asked the messenger to convey his greeting to him and tell him:
إن يدخل الدار لا يكون إلا رجلا من القوم وإن مكانه أحب إلي وعسى الله أن يدفع بك عني
If he enters the house, he will only be a man from among the people. His place is dearer to me. Allah may possibly protect me through you.[67]
These are two ways in which the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum offered ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu support in fighting the besiegers, but he rejected them, despite the great need for support.
When the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum saw that the situation had worsened and that the matter reached a climax[68], some of them resolved to defend him without consulting him. Some of them entered the house, prepared to fight. Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma was with him in the house,[69] wearing his sword and armour, ready to fight in defence of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. But ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu insisted that he leave the house, fearing that he would fight with the people when they entered upon him and he could be killed.[70] He also wore his armour again (and left).[71]
- Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu put on his sword and entered the house of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, saying:
يا أمير المؤمنين طاب أمضرب فقال له يا أبا هريرة أيسرك أن تقتل الناس جميعا وإياي قال لا قال فإنك والله إن قتلت رجلا واحدا فكأنما قتل الناس جميعا
O Amir al Mu’minin, it is good to strike[72] now.
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked him, “O Abu Hurairah, would you like to kill all of the people including me?”
He replied, “No.”
‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “By Allah, if you kill one man, it is as if all the people are killed.”
He returned and did not fight.[73]
Another narration states that Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was carrying his sword until ‘Uthman forbade him from doing so.[74]
After ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu responded to al Zubair’s letter, Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu stood up and said:
ألا أخبركم ما سمعت أذناي من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا بلى قال أشهد لسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول تكون بعدي فتن وأمور فقلنا فأين المنجى منها يا رسول الله قال إلى الأمين وحزبه وأشار إلى عثمان بن عفان
“Shall I not tell you what my ears heard from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”
They said, “Yes.”
He said, “I bear witness that I heard the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say, ‘There will be tribulations and issues after me.’
We asked, ‘Where will salvation from them lie, O Messenger of Allah?’
He said, ‘By the trustworthy and his party,’ and he pointed to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan.”
Then the people stood up and said:
قد أمكنتنا البصائر فأذن لنا في الجهاد
You have given us insight, so give us permission to fight.
‘Uthman said:
أعزم على من كانت لي عليه طاعة ألا يقاتل
I appeal to whoever is obligated to obey me not to fight.[75]
- Al Hasan, al Hussain, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn al Zubair, and Marwan radiya Llahu ‘anhum all set out, carrying their weapons until they entered the house. ‘Uthman said:
أعزم عليكم لما رجعتم فوضعتم أسلحتكم ولزمتم بيوتكم
I appeal to you to return, lay down your weapons, and stay in your homes.[76]
He cut off any opportunity for them by his statement:
أعزم على كل من رأى أن عليه سمعا وطاعة إلا كف يده وسلاحه فإن أفضلكم عندي غناء من كف يده وسلاحه فرضي الله عنه وأرضاه
I urge everyone who feels that he is obliged to listen and obey me to withhold his hand and weapon,[77] for the best of you in my view is he who refrains from using his hand and weapon, may Allah be pleased with him and please him.
- Umm al Mu’minin, Safiyyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, came riding a mule led by her freed slave, Kinanah, to defend ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Ashtar met her and struck the mule’s face and it swerved. Then, she said:
ردوني ولا يفضحني هذا الكلب
Take me back and do not let this dog disgrace me.[78]
Sulayt ibn Sulayt states:
نهانا عثمان عن قتالهم ولو أذن لنا لضربناهم حتى نخرجهم من أقطارها
‘Uthman forbade us from fighting them. Had he given us permission, we would have beaten them until we expelled them from its regions.[79]
Ibn Abi Mulaykah says:
كان مع عثمان في الدار عصابة مستبصرة منهم عبد الله بن الزبير
There was a group of astute men with ‘Uthman in the house, including ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.[80]
Ibn Sirin states:
كان مع عثمان في الدار سبعمائة لو يدعهم لضربوهم إن شاء الله حتى يخرجوهم من أقطارها منهم ابن عمر والحسن بن علي وعبد الله بن الزبير
There were seven hundred men with ‘Uthman in the house. Had he allowed them, they would have beaten them—Allah willing—until they expelled them from its regions. Among them were Ibn ‘Umar, al Hasan ibn ‘Ali, and ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.[81]
He also said:
لقد قتل عثمان يوم قتل وإن الدار لغاصة منهم ابن عمر وفيهم الحسن بن علي في عنقه السيف ولكن عثمان عزم عليهم ألا يقاتلوا
‘Uthman was killed—on the day he was killed—while the house was crowded. Among them were Ibn ‘Umar and al Hasan ibn ‘Ali, who had a sword around his neck. But ‘Uthman was determined that they should not fight.[82]
Al Hasan al Basri says:
لو أرادوا أن يمنعوه بأرديتهم لمنعوه
If they wanted to protect him with their cloaks, they would have protected him.[83]
However, they refrained from engaging with the people in response to the Khalifah’s instruction of restraint, as mentioned previously.
This exposes the falsity of the accusation levelled against the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, from amongst the Muhajirin and Ansar, that they failed to support ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. All that which has been narrated in this regard is not free from flaw, if not (multiple) flaws, both in the chain and the text.
When some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum saw ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu insistence on refusing to fight the besiegers and that the besiegers were determined to kill him, they found no way to protect him except by offering to help him escape to Makkah.
It has been narrated that ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair,[84] al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah,[85] and Usamah ibn Zaid[86] offered this to him, but their offers were distinct. Each one of them offered it to him separately and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu rejected all of these offers. It has also been mentioned that he was offered this, but he refused; without specifying the names.[87]
Do you see the reason that prompted ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to take this stance despite his need for support and fighting the besiegers?
If we present this question to the narrations regarding the fitnah, we come across five reasons:
- He acted according to the advice of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that the latter told him in secret, which ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained on the Day of the House. It was a covenant entrusted to him which he would be patient upon.[88]
- That which was stated in his statement, “I will not be the first to succeed the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his Ummah to shed blood,” meaning that he disliked to be the first to succeed the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his Ummah to shed the blood of Muslims and fight each other.[89]
- His knowledge that the rebels wanted no one but him, thus, he disliked protecting himself through the believers and preferred to protect them with himself.[90]
- His knowledge that this fitnah would end with his killing, as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed him when he gave him the glad tidings of Jannat after a tribulation would befall him, and that he would be killed while remaining patient with the truth which he will implement during the tribulation.[91] Signs indicated that his time had come. This was confirmed by the vision he had seen on the night of his assassination. He saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who said to him, “Break your fast with us tomorrow.” Thus, Allah revealed to him that the time of his martyrdom was approaching.
- Acting upon the advice of Ibn Salam, as he said to him, “Refrain, refrain, for that is more effective for you in your argument.”[92]
The Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prophecy was fulfilled, that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would assume the Caliphate and then be killed while he was patient with the truth which he will implement. This is according to the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Hawalah radiya Llahu ‘anhu wherein the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
من نجا من ثلاث فقد نجا ثلاث مرات موتي والدجال وقتل خليفة مصطبر بالحق معطيه
Whoever survives three trials is certainly safe—he repeated this thrice—my death, al Dajjal, and the killing of the Khalifah who persevered upon the truth which he implements.[93]
From the stance of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the Day of the House, ‘Uthman’s calm thinking became evident. The severity of the ordeal did not prevent him from thinking correctly and expressing sound opinion—despite the many factors of fighting those who rebelled against him in determining this peaceful stance.
There is no doubt that he was right in the stance he took, as it is authentically reported from the Prophet radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he indicated to the eruption of this fitnah and testified that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his companions would be on the truth in it.[94]
As for the narration that he took a spear then heard a call from the sky, “Hang on, ‘Uthman,” and he threw it away, its chain is da’if and cannot be used as evidence.[95]
5. The Fighting on the Day of the House
Despite his attempts to prevent his defenders from fighting those besieging him, some narrations indicate that friction and a minor skirmish occurred, which led to al Hasan ibn ‘Ali being carried away wounded from the house that day.[96]
Some da’if[97] and very da’if[98] narrations detail this and state that a fierce battle took place, but they cannot be relied upon due to the weakness of their chains.
A sahih narration states that four young men from Quraysh, covered in blood, were carried out of the house on the day ‘Uthman was killed. They were: al Hasan ibn ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, Muhammad ibn Hatib, and Marwan ibn al Hakam.[99]
6. The Last Days of the Siege, and a vision in it
On the last day of the siege—the day he was killed—’Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu slept,[100] and woke up telling the people,[101] “The people will kill me.”[102]
He then said:
رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ومعه أبو بكر وعمر فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يا عثمان أفطر عندنا فأصبح صائما وقتل من يومه
I saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in a dream.[103] With him were Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.[104] The Prophet said, “O ‘Uthman, break your fast with us.”[105]
He fasted[106] that day and was killed that same day.[107]
Seeing the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in a dream is true, for Shaitan does not appear in his form, as is proven in a sahih narration of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
من رآني في المنام فقد رآني فإن الشيطان لا يتمثل بي
Whoever sees me in a dream has indeed seen me, for Shaitan does not appear in my form.[108]
He also stated:
وإن الشيطان لا يتراءى بي
Shaitan does not appear in my form.[109]
He also said:
من رآني فقد رأى الحق فإن الشيطان لا يتكونني
Whoever sees me has seen the truth,[110] for Shaitan does not appear in my form.[111]
Furthermore, he declared:
من رآني في النوم فقد رآني فإنه لا ينبغي للشيطان أن يتشبه بي
Whoever sees me in a dream has seen me, for it is not possible for Shaitan to take my form.[112]
The image that Shaitan cannot impersonate or assume is the true image of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as he was during his lifetime.[113]
Therefore, whoever sees a person in a dream, claiming that he is the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then he must compare the image he saw with the true image of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam according to his description mentioned in sahih narrations.[114]
Therefore, Ibn Sirin states:
إذا رآه في صورته
If he saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his original form.[115]
Thus, it is evident that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu actually saw the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in a dream and that it was not a mere image of Shaitan in his form, because ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu knew the image of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which Shaitan cannot impersonate. Similarly, this dream contains a second glad tiding from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu of Jannat and that he will be with him therein. It also provides evidence that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not change or give in, but rather remained firm and steadfast until certainty (death) came to him, unlike what his invalid enemies claim.
NEXT⇒ His Killing and His Killer
[1] This is evident from the narrations related to the Day of the House.
[2] Stated by Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ma’arif, pg. 196.
[3] This is mentioned by Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 7/184.
[4] This is the view of Hammad ibn Zaid as narrated by Ibn Abi al Dunya: Al Muhtadirin (manuscript), (as mentioned in the footnotes of Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 405, footnote 2); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 405, its isnad contains Bashshar ibn Musa al Khaffaf, who is da’if and makes many mistakes; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/45, he said, “The word nayf can be pronounced with a tashdid or without it. Its origin is from the letter ‘waw’. It is used as: one hundred and ten and ‘nayf’ (more). Everything that exceeds ten is nayf, until it reaches the next ten.”
[5] Ibn al Athir from al Waqidi: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.
[6] Ibn al Athir from al Zubair ibn Bakkar: Usd al Ghabah, 3/489.
[7] Al Samhudi: Wafa’ al Wafa’, 2/731.
[8] This is found in a narration of Musnad Ahmed, 1/340-341, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, with a hasan isnad.
[9] The reference to the door of ‘Uthman was in the old Masjid building. There is no doubt that it was demolished and incorporated into the Masjid during its many expansions.
[10] Al Samhudi: Wafa’ al Wafa’, 2/731.
[11] Al Balat is a place next to al Masjid al Nabawi, paved with stones. (Yaqut al Hamawi: Mu’jam al Buldan, 1/479.)
[12] Indications to this were narrated by Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/67; Musnad Ahmed, 1/348, 363, 379, 380, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, he deemed it sahih; ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Al Musnad, 1/348, 363, 379, 380, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Sunan al Darimi, 2/171-172; Sunan Abi Dawood, 4/170-171; Sunan Ibn Majah, 2/847; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 4/461; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan al Kubra, 7/91-92; al Baghawi: Sharh al Sunnah, 10/148; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/66, its isnad is sahih and its narrators are that of Sheikhayn (al Bukhari and Muslim).
[13] This door was opened on 01/09/1408 AH, by order of King Fahd ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al Sa’ud.
[14] Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Talkhis al Mutashabih, 1/96; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 395, from the narration of al No’man ibn Bashir, from Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, the wife of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Its isnad contain two unknown narrators, one is truthful, and the rest of its narrators are thiqah.
[15] ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/959; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 420; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 8/128, its isnad is sahih or hasan.
[16] This is understood from the narrations transmitted regarding his appeals.
[17] Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Talkhis al Mutashabih, 1/96; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 395, from the narration of al No’man ibn Bashir, from Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, the wife of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Its isnad contain two unknown narrators, one is truthful, and the rest of its narrators are thiqah.
[18] A’yan ibn Dabi’ah ibn Najiyah ibn ‘Uqal al Tamimi al Hanzali al Darimi, the nephew of Sa’sa’ah ibn Najiyah, the grandfather of al Farazdaq. The author of al Isti’ab mentioned him but did not mention anything that indicates to him being a Companion. He is the father of al Nawwar, the husband of al Farazdaq. He participated in the Battle of the Camel with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and he was the one who hamstrung the camel that Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha was mounted on. It is said that she supplicated that he be killed by treachery, and that is what transpired in the year 38 AH. (Ibn Hajar: Al Isabah, first type, 1/55; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 1/119.)
[19] This is a nickname given to ‘Uthman by the rebels. Ibn ‘Asakir narrated from Ibn al Kalbi that he said:
إنما قيل له نعثل لأنه كان يشبه برجل من أهل مصر اسمه نعثل وكان طويل اللحية فكان عثمان إذا نيل منه وعيب يشبه بذلك الرجل لطول لحيته لم يكونوا يجدون عيبا غير هذا وقال بعضهم إن نعثلا من أهل أصبهان ويقال في نعثل إنه الذكر من الضباع
He was called Na’thal because he resembled a man from Egypt named Na’thal, who had a long beard. Whenever ‘Uthman was criticised for a fault, he would be likened to that man because of his long beard. They could find no other fault. Some said that Na’thal was from Asbahan. Some say that Na’thal is the male hyena. (Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 331.)
[20] This sermon was narrated by Ahmed: Al Musnad, 1/378, with the research of Ahmed Shakir who deemed it hasan. The rest was narrated by Abu Ya’la: Al Musnad, 1/151, Dar al Qiblah print; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 247, its isnad is hasan. Al Haythami said, “The narrators in the isnad of Abu Ya’la are the same as that of Sahih al Bukhari except ‘Ibad, and he is thiqah.” (Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/228.) Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned him in Fath al Bari, using him as proof. This action of his indicates that he is acceptable according to him.
[21] Khalifah Ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 172; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 341-342, its isnad is hasan till Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Abu Usayd—there is a difference of opinion about his Companionship; Ibn Hibban and others deemed him to be thiqah; ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmed: Ziyadat al Musnad, 2/13-14, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/627, through Thumamah al Qushayri from ‘Uthman. This is understood from the following narrations: Musnad Ahmed, 1/340-341, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 6/236; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 342-343; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/486-487, all through Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman from ‘Uthman, its isnad is hasan; al Daraqutni: Al Sunan, 4/197-198; Ibn ‘Asakir.
[22] Sahih al Bukhari. (Fath al Bari, 2/188.)
[23] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/353-354, from Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi, who is da’if, thus, the isnad is da’if.
[24] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/423, al Waqidi is matruk (rejected), thus, the narration is da’if jiddan (very weak).
[25] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/66, from Umm Yusuf bint Mahak from her mother; I did not find any biographies of them, but there are corroborations for them, including: Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/200-201; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/72; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 170; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 409; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, with a sahih isnad to Wathab, the freed slave of ‘Uthman, for whom I did not find any biography. With these two isnads, the narration rises to the level of hasan.
[26] Refer to the previous footnote.
[27] This has passed in detail in the introduction of this discussion.
[28] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 170; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 359, its isnad is hasan. In it, the text states, “They will depose him” instead of “They will kill him.” Its narration is through Khalifah. The researcher of al Tarikh of Khalifah, Dr. Akram Diya’ al ‘Umari, commenting on this phrase in the footnote, said, “Perhaps the correct wording is, “They will depose him.” This indicates that he—may Allah preserve him—found the wording, “They will kill him” strange. Perhaps it was written by some copyists. This is indicated by the fact that the version relied upon by Ibn ‘Asakir in his narration did not have the wording distorted. Allah knows best.
[29] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/66, with a sahih isnad, the narrators are same as that of Sheikhayn; Ibn Shabbah: Tarikh al Madinah, 4/1226; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 359, its isnad is hasan li ghayrihi.
[30] Al ‘Aqqad: Dhu al Nurayn ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, pg. 122.
[31] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/67; Musnad Ahmed, 1/348, 363, 379-380, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, Ahmed Shakir deemed it sahih; ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Al Musnad, 1/348, 363, 379-380; Sunan al Darimi, 2/171-172; Sunan Abi Dawood, 4/170-171; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 4/461; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 7/91-92; Sunan Ibn Majah, 2/847; al Baghawi: Sharh al Sunnah, 10/148; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/66, its isnad is sahih and its narrators are the same as those of Sheikhayn.
[32] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/203-204, with a sahih isnad to Ibn Sirin. He was not a contemporary of the incident, but the following narration of Qatadah is a corroboration to this.
[33] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 350, with a hasan isnad to Qatadah. Qatadah was not a contemporary of the incident, but the previous narration of Ibn Sirin is a corroboration to this. The narration does not detail the incident of this exile and the reason for their exile; however, other narrations clarify some details about it, in which it states that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu exiled some troublemakers who wanted to instigate unrest in Kufah.
[34] Surah al Hajj: 39.
[35] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/203-204, with a sahih isnad to Ibn Sirin mentioned above. He was not a contemporary to the incident. The narration of Qatadah mentioned above is a corroboration for it.
[36] Surah al Hajj: 39-41.
[37] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/203-204, with a sahih isnad to Ibn Sirin who was not a contemporary to the incident. The narration of Qatadah mentioned above is a corroboration for it.
[38] Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al Qur’an al ‘Azim, 3/226.
[39] Surah al Hajj: 40.
[40] Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al Qur’an al ‘Azim, 3/226.
[41] Surah al Ma’idah: 33.
[42] Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al Qur’an al ‘Azim, 3/226.
[43] Musnad Ahmed, 1/340-341, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 6/236; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 342-343; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/486-487, all of them through Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman from ‘Uthman, its isnad is hasan; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/625; Sahih al Bukhari, in his explanatory remarks; Fath al Bari, 5/406-407; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 2/236-237; al Daraqutni: Al Sunan, 4/1994-2000; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 337-338, all of them through Abu ‘Abdur Rahman al Sulami, its isnad is sahih; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/627, through Thumamah al Qushayri from ‘Uthman.
[44] Musnad Ahmed, 1/340-341, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 6/236; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 342-343; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/486-487, all of them through the isnad of Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman from ‘Uthman, its isnad is hasan.
[45] See the previous footnote; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/627, through Thumamah al Qushayri from ‘Uthman; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 172; al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/383; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 341-342, with a hasan isnad; ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Ziyadat al Musnad, 2/13-14, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 239-240, through Thumamah ibn Hazn al Qushayri, which includes Hilal ibn Haqq al Jariri whom no one authenticated except Ibn Hibban; Musnad Ahmed, 1/380-381, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, through al Ahnaf, Ahmed Shakir authenticated its isnad, it contains ‘Amr ibn Jawan whom no one authenticated except Ibn Hibban; al Daraqutni: Al Sunan, 4/197-198; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 343-344, through Musa ibn Hakim from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the isnad includes ‘Umar ibn ‘Ubaidullah and Musa ibn Hakim, who were authenticated by Ibn Hibban only, and Bishr ibn Adam, who is saduq (truthful), and the rest of the narrators are thiqah.
[46] ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Ziyadat al Musnad, 2/13-14, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 339-340, through by Thumamah ibn Hazn al Qushayri, which includes Hilal ibn Haqq al Jariri who was not authenticated by anyone other than Ibn Hibban; Musnad Ahmed, 1/380-381, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, through al Ahnaf, Ahmed Shakir authenticated its isnad, which contains ‘Amr ibn Jawan whom no one authenticated except Ibn Hibban; al Daraqutni: Al Sunan, 4/197-198; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 343-344, through Musa ibn Hakim from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the isnad includes ‘Umar ibn ‘Ubaidullah and Musa ibn Hakim who were authenticated by Ibn Hibban only, and Bishr ibn Adam, who is saduq (truthful), and the rest of the narrators are thiqah; Sunan al Tirmidhi, 5/625; Sahih al Bukhari, in his explanatory remarks; Fath al Bari, 5/406-407; al Nasa’i: Al Sunan, 2/236-237; al Daraqutni: Al Sunan, 4/1994-2000; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 337-338, all of them through Abu ‘Abdur Rahman al Sulami, its isnad is sahih.
[47] Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Talkhis al Mutashabih, 1/96; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 395, the narration of al No’man ibn Bashir from Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, the wife of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. There is an unknown person in the isnad.
[48] Al kaww: a hole in a wall, a hole in a house etc. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 15/236.)
[49] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/203, the wording is his; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71; Ibn al A’rabi: Al Mu’jam, (Kh. Q. 125 A); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351-352, all of them through Abu Layla al Kindi from ‘Uthman, its isnad is hasan; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn al A’rabi: Al Mu’jam, (Kh. Q. 125); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman pg. 351-352, its isnad is hasan.
[50] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/67-68; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, through Mujahid from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Mujahid did not witness the incident, so the isnad is interrupted. Refer to al ‘Ala’i: Jami’ al Tahsil, pg. 336-337.
[51] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn al A’rabi: Al Mu’jam, (manuscript); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351-352, with a hasan isnad.
[52] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351, with a hasan isnad to al Hasan.
[53] See his statements in warning them in the section: ‘What was transmitted from the Companions regarding the effect of the killing of ‘Uthman’ in this book.
[54] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/203; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 171; Ibn al A’rabi: Al Mu’jam (manuscript); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 351-352, with a hasan isnad.
[55] This information came in four narrations that support each other:
- Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/209; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 73; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman pg. 372, from the narration of Mundhir ibn Ya’la. The isnad is da’if due to its interruption.
- Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/68-69; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman pg. 372, from the narration of Rashid ibn Kaysan ibn Abi Fazarah al ‘Absi. This isnad is also interrupted.
- Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/68; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 371, from the narration of Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali. This is also da’if, due to it being a mu’an’an narration of a mudallis from the third stage.
- Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/82; ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/848-849; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman pg. 461, from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla, which includes Sharik, who had become confused. The narrator of this narration from him is ‘Abdullah ibn Numair, who is among those who narrated from him after becoming confused.
[56] Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/101; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 240, its isnad is sahih, and its narrators are thiqah, same as that of Muslim.
[57] Musnad Ahmed, 1/369, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/272; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman pg. 387-388; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/70; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/329, and he said, “Ahmed narrated it and its narrators are trustworthy, except that I cannot establish that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan heard from al Mughirah.”
[58] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 399-400, its isnad is sahih, and its narrators are trustworthy, same as those of Sheikhayn.
[59] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 400; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 400, its isnad is hasan, and its narrators are trustworthy, and the same as that of Sheikhayn.
[60] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; through his isnad Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 399-400, with a hasan isnad to ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair.
[61] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, with a hasan isnad to Qatadah; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/205; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 400-401, with a hasan isnad to Ibn Sirin. It has a corroboration of al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 1/101, with an isnad that contains an ambiguous narrator; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/227, from the narration of al Hasan al Basri, with a da’if isnad due to a mu’an’an narration of a mudallis.
[62] This came in the narration of Khalifah from Qatadah mentioned in the previous footnote.
[63] This was mentioned in the narration of al Hasan al Basri.
[64] This is how it appears in the original text. Perhaps it was, “I declare my innocence before Allah.”
[65] This is how it appears in the original text. Thumm: repairing and perfecting something. (Ibn Manzur: Lisan al ‘Arab, 12/79.) Perhaps what is meant is ‘restore your sword to its place and perfect it’, a metaphor for reluctance from fighting. It is possible that it is a misprint from sham, which means: returning the sword to its sheath. This is mentioned in a hadith. (See Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 7/429.)
[66] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/224, with an isnad that appears to be hasan.
[67] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 374, through Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah with a hasan isnad.
[68] The water reached the zuba or the ruba. It is also narrated as: the flood reached the zuba or the ruba. Zuba is the plural of zubyah as in zubyat al asad (a lion’s hole), which is a hole dug for a lion in a high place to hunt. When the water reaches it, it is detrimental. Ruba is the plural of rubwah. This proverb is used to describe horrific evil. (Al Zamakhshari: Al Mustaqsa fi Amthal al ‘Arab, 2/14.)
[69] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 397-398, with a hasan isnad, narrators are all thiqah and same as those of Sheikhayn.
[70] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 398, with a hasan isnad, narrators are all thiqah and same as those of Sheikhayn
[71] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 397-398, with a hasan isnad, narrators are all thiqah and same as those of Sheikhayn. He narrated it through other isnads also.
[72] The mim here replaces the lam, so its root is (al darb). It is the dialect of some of the people of Yemen, who replace the lam of the definite article with a mim. (Ibn Hajar: al Talkhis al Habir, 2/205.)
[73] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 401-402, its isnad is sahih.
[74] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 401, it contains the tadlis of Qatadah al Sadusi, but it is strengthened by the narration in the previous footnote.
[75] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 374, through Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah, with a hasan isnad.
[76] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 174; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 396, with a hasan isnad to Ibn Sirin, but he did not witness the incident.
[77] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173; Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/204; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 69-70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 402-403, its isnad is hasan.
[78] Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Saghir, 7/227; ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/959; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 8/128, its isnad is sahih.
[79] Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, through Muhammad ibn Sirin from Sulayt ibn Sulayt, it contains a narrator who was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban.
[80] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/70; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 400, through Ibn Sa’d, its isnad is sahih.
[81] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/71: Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 400, with a sahih isnad to Muhammad ibn Sirin, who did not witness the incident. It has a corroboration narrated by Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Tarikh, pg. 173, through Muhammad ibn Sirin from Sulayt ibn Sulayt. It contains a narrator who was not authenticated by anyone except by Ibn Hibban.
[82] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 395, through al Daraqutni. Some of them were narrated with a sahih isnad, which were previously mentioned.
[83] Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/227, its isnad includes Abu ‘Ubaidah al Naji, who is da’if.
[84] Musnad Ahmed, 1/360-361, with the research of Ahmed Shakir, its isnad is interrupted.
[85] Musnad Ahmed, 1/369, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 388-387, its isnad is also interrupted.
[86] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 411-412, its isnad includes a da’if narrator and two unknown narrators.
[87] This is based on the three narrations mentioned in the three previous footnotes.
[88] Refer to the sahih hadith reported regarding this, including that which is reported in al Musnad from Abu Sahlah from Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, who said:
دعى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عثمان فلما جاء قال تنحي فجعل يساره ولون عثمان يتغير فلما جاءه يوم الدار وحصر فيها عثمان قلنا (أي أبي سهلة) يا أمير المؤمنين ألا تقاتل قال لا إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عهد إلى عهدا وأنا صابر نفسي عليه
The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called for ‘Uthman. When he came, he said [to Aisha], “Move aside.” He began whispering to him while ‘Uthman’s colour changed. When it was the Day of the House and ‘Uthman was besieged in it, we (Abu Sahlah) said, “O Amir al Mu’minin, will you not fight?”
He said, “No, because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had made a covenant with me, and I will remain patient upon it.”
Narrators of this narration are the same as that of Sheikhayn, except for Abu Sahlah, and he is thiqah.
[89] Musnad Ahmed, 1/196, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/272; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 387-388; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/70; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/329, who said, “It was narrated by Ahmed and its narrators are all thiqah, except Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan; I did not find any evidence of him hearing from al Mughirah.”
[90] Ibn Abi al Dunya: Kitab al Muhtadirin (manuscript), (as in the footnotes of Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 405), with an isnad that includes Bashshar, who is da’if and makes many mistakes. It also includes Yunus, and there are a few errors in his narration from al Zuhri.
[91] The sahih ahadith were mentioned in the introduction.
[92] This information is found in four narrations that support each other, and we have alluded to them previously.
[93] Musnad Ahmed, 4/105, 109-110, 5/33, 288, with an acceptable isnad; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 289.
[94] Refer to the sahih ahadith related to this in the introduction.
[95] Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 63, with an interrupted Isnad.
[96] Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 7/237; ‘Ali ibn al Ja’d: Al Musnad, 2/959; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 8/128, its isnad is hasan.
[97] Al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/381, its isnad is da’if. It contains ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Sharik, who is truthful but makes mistakes, Sharik, who is known for his frequent mistakes and his memory changed, Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who is a mudallis and mentions a mu’an’an narration, and al Harith ibn Abi Bakr, who is not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban.
[98] This is mentioned in a narration by al Waqidi, narrated by al Tabari: Tarikh al Umam wa al Muluk, 4/379-380. Al Waqidi is matruk (rejected), and the rest of the narrators in the isnad are unknown. Likewise, it is reported in 4/394, through al Waqidi. It contains another weak narrator, and thus the two isnads of al Waqidi are very weak.
[99] Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab (with al Isabah), 3/78, with a hasan isnad.
[100] Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Talkhis al Mutashabih, 1/96; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 395, through al No’man ibn Bashir from Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, the wife of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Its isnad contains two unknown narrators. It has corroborations that elevate it to the level of hasan li ghayrihi, reported by Ibn Sa’d, Abu Ya’la, Ibn ‘Asakir, and others.
[101] Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali, (manuscript); al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; al Lalaka’i: Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, (257b); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 391, all of them through Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, from Ibn ‘Umar, the isnad contains Abu Jafar al Razi who is truthful but has a poor memory; Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 3/74-75; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, through Ya’la ibn Hakim—from Nafi’—from ‘Uthman, its isnad is sahih till Nafi’, and Nafi’ did not meet ‘Uthman, thus, the isnad is interrupted. It has many other corroborations from Ahmed, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn ‘Asakir, and others.
[102] ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Musnad Ahmed, 2/7, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232; through Umm Hilal bint Waki’ from Na’ilah bint al Farafisah, the wife of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, al Haythami remarked, “It includes narrators I do not know.” Ahmed Shakir said, “It is questionable.” He attributed its weakness to Ziyad and Umm Hilal. I say: Ziyad is da’if and Umm Hilal is unknown, thus, the chain is da’if due to both of them. Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/262; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Musnad, compilation of Dr. Akram al ‘Umari, pg. 46, from the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Salam. Its isnad contains Shu’ayb ibn Safwan and Muhammad ibn Yusuf. Al Hafiz said about each of them, “They are acceptable.”
[103] ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Musnad Ahmed, 1/388-389, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/490; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 393; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 64; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/67-68; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232, all of them through Muslim Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Haythami said, “Its narrators are thiqah.” I say: Muslim was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/262; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Musnad, compilation of Dr. Akram al ‘Umari, pg. 46, from the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Salam from Kathir ibn al Salt. Its isnad contains Shu’ayb ibn Safwan and Muhammad ibn Yusuf. Al Hafiz said about each of them, “They are acceptable.”
[104] ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Al Musnad, 1/388-389, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/ 490; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 393; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 64; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/67-68; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232, all of them from the narration of Muslim Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, from ‘Uthman. Al Haythami said that its narrators are thiqah. I say: Muslim was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban. Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/262; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Musnad, compiled by Dr. Akram al ‘Umari, pg. 46, from the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Salam, from Kathir ibn al Salt. Its isnad contains Shu’ayb ibn Safwan and Muhammad ibn Yusuf. Al Hafiz said about each of them, “They are acceptable.”
[105] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/75; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 390; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232, all of them from the narration of Abu ‘Alqamah, the freed slave of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, through Kathir ibn al Salt. Al Haythami said, “I did not know Abu ‘Alqamah; the rest of the narrators are thiqah.” I say: It is as he said. I did not find a biography for him, and the rest of the narrators are thiqah. By means of these two isnads, the narration rises to the level of hasan li ghayrihi. Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali, pg. 164, Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 390; al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; al Lalaka’i: Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah (manuscript); Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 391, all of them from Nafi’, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Umar, from Ibn ‘Umar, from ‘Uthman. Its isnad contains Abu Jafar al Razi who is truthful, but with a poor memory; Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, pg. 3/74-75, Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, from Ya’la ibn Hakim, from Nafi’, from ‘Uthman, its isnad is sahih to Nafi’, and Nafi’ did not meet ‘Uthman, thus, the isnad is interrupted. Al Bukhari: Al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/262; Khalifah ibn Khayyat: Al Musnad, compiled by Dr. Akram al ‘Umari, pg. 46, from the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Salam, from Kathir ibn al Salt. Its isnad contains Shu’ayb ibn Safwan and Muhammad ibn Yusuf. Al Hafiz said about each of them, “They are acceptable.”
[106] Ibn Sa’d: Al Tabaqat, 3/75; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); al Bazzar: Kashf al Astar, 3/181; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 390; al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232, all of them are narrated by Abu ‘Alqamah, the freed slave of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, from Kathir ibn al Salt. Al Haythami said, “I do not know Abu ‘Alqamah, and the rest of his narrators are thiqah. I say: It is as he said. I did not find a biography for him. The rest of the narrators are thiqah.
[107] ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed: Musnad Ahmed, 1/388-389, with the research of Ahmed Shakir; Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah, 3/490, Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, biography of ‘Uthman, pg. 393; Abu Ya’la: Al Maqsad al ‘Ali (manuscript); Abu ‘Arab: Al Mihan, pg. 64; al Muhibb al Tabari: Al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/67-68, al Haythami: Majma’ al Zawa’id, 7/232, all of them from the narration of Muslim Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, from ‘Uthman. Al Haythami said about its isnad, “Its narrators are thiqah.” I say: Muslim was not authenticated by anyone except Ibn Hibban.
[108] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 12/383, from Anas; Sahih Muslim, Sharh al Nawawi, 15/24, from Abu Hurairah.
[109] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 12/383, from Abu Qatadah.
[110] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 12/383; Sahih Muslim, Sharh al Nawawi, 15/26, from Abu Qatadah and Abu Sa’id al Khudri.
[111] Sahih al Bukhari with Fath al Bari, 12/383, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri.
[112] Sahih Muslim, Sharh al Nawawi, 15/26, from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah.
[113] Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 12/386.
[114] Refer to al Nawawi: Sharh Muslim, 15/25; Ibn Hajar: Fath al Bari, 12/384.
[115] Al Bukhari mentioned it in his explanatory notes in al Sahih, Fath al Bari, 12/383. Corroborations for it from Ibn Sirin will be mentioned in due course.