Allegations Against Hazrat Uthman: Fact Check

Table of Contents

Truth Behind Rebel Accusations on Uthman (RA)

Truth Behind Rebel Accusations on Uthman (RA)

Question: What allegations did the rebel movement in the Uthmani era level against Hazrat Uthman (RA)? And were those allegations true?

Answer:

Alhamdulillah:

In this series, number 139, we will try to understand what allegations were made against Uthman Ghani (Radi Allahu Anhu) by the rebel movement that arose during the third era of the Caliphate.

The rebel party compiled a chargesheet of allegations against Hazrat Uthman (RA) and started a propaganda campaign based on it. They also inserted this same chargesheet into their historical narrations to defame the Sahaba Karam (the Companions) with its help. Since these narrations are present in Tabari and other sources, it is appropriate to examine these allegations.

📜 The Allegations

The allegations were:

Hazrat Uthman (RA) violated the religion by not taking Qisas (retribution) from Ubaydullah bin Umar.
Hazrat Uthman (RA) gave high positions to his relatives.¹
These governors are oppressive, their character is not good, and these governors are among the Tulaqa (those freed after the conquest of Mecca).
Hazrat Uthman (RA) spends from the public treasury on his relatives.
Hazrat Uthman (RA) has introduced new innovations (Bid’ah) in religion, such as offering the full prayer in Mecca instead of Qasr (shortened prayer), and gathering people onto one official copy of the Holy Quran.
Hazrat Uthman has reserved pastures for himself.
The senior Sahaba are not satisfied with the actions of Hazrat Uthman (RA).

It would be appropriate at this point to narrate the full tradition in which the rebels compiled the chargesheet against you (Uthman), and Hazrat Uthman (RA) addressed the people of Medina, answering each of their objections one by one:

(When the rebels besieged Medina, Hazrat Uthman) wrote letters to the people of Kufa and Basra and announced a “Salat Jama’ah” (a general call for prayer). (It should be clear that Salat Jama’ah meant that the entire population of Medina should gather in the mosque to participate in the consultation.) When the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gathered around him, he, after praising Allah, informed them of the situation regarding those people (the rebels), and those two (gentlemen who had gone to assess the rebels) stood up. All the Sahaba unanimously said: “You should kill all of them, because the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Whoever, while the Muslims have a Caliph, engages in propaganda for himself or someone else, the curse of Allah is upon him; you should kill him.’ Hazrat Umar bin Khattab also said: ‘I give no concession to such a person (who does propaganda to declare his own rule). He should be killed, and I am with you in this matter.’”

Hearing this, Hazrat Uthman (RA) said: We forgive them and overlook (their faults) and will continue to monitor them as best we can. We will not hold enmity against anyone unless they commit a sin deserving of a Hadd (prescribed punishment) or express open disbelief. They have mentioned things which they know just as you do, but they want to remind me of them so they can publicize them to those who are unaware. They say:

“I offered the full prayer during a journey, whereas it should be shortened (Qasr). The reason is that I was in a city (Mecca) where my family was, so I led the full prayer. Is this correct?” The people said: “Yes.”

“They (the rebels) say that I reserved the pasture. By Allah, I did not reserve any pasture for myself. Pastures were reserved before me as well. I did not reserve the pasture for any one specific person (’s animals) so that the people of Medina could not dominate it. Then they (the government herdsmen) did not stop any of the common people, but reserved these pastures for the Sadaqat (livestock of the Bait-ul-Mal) of the Muslims, so there would be no quarrels or disputes, and no one was stopped from them. As for myself, I have no livestock other than two mounts. Neither goats, nor sheep, nor any other animal. When I was appointed Caliph, I had the most sheep, goats, and camels among the Arabs, but now I have nothing except two camels for the Hajj journey. Is it so?” The people said: “Yes.”

“These people say that the Holy Quran was in many books, and I made it one. The Holy Quran is one, revealed from the One God. I am a follower of those (previous Caliphs) in this matter. Is it so?” The people said: “Yes. Indeed.” Then they began to demand that these rebels be killed. He (Uthman) added.

“These people say that I called back Hakam (bin Abi al-Aas), even though the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had exiled him. Hakam was a resident of Mecca. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) exiled him from Mecca to Taif, then the Prophet (ﷺ) himself called him back. Thus, it was the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who exiled him and then called him back. Is it so?” The people said: “Indeed.”

“These people say that I have appointed young men as rulers. I have only appointed those individuals who are capable and whom the people like. You can ask the people who live under the administration of these governors and the residents of their cities about them. Even before me, a younger person was made a ruler. (Remember when) the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed Usama (bin Zaid) as a commander, he was criticized more than I am being criticized. Is it so?” The people said: “Yes. Indeed. These people make such objections that they cannot prove.”

“These people say that I gave Ibn Abi Sarh a special grant from the spoils of war. I gave him one-fifth of the Khums (1/25th) of the spoils as a reward (because he had achieved an extraordinary victory in a great battle). This amounted to one hundred thousand. Such orders were also issued by Abu Bakr and Umar. When the army disliked this, I took this amount back and distributed it among them, even though it was not the right of Ibn Abi Sarh? Is this the case?” The people said: “Yes.”

“These people say that I love my family members and give them wealth. As for the love of family members, I have not oppressed anyone because of them; rather, I have only fulfilled their rights and given them grants only from my personal wealth. Because in my view, the wealth of the Muslims is not Halal (permissible) to give to myself or anyone else. I used to give a lot of charity from my personal property during the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar. That was a time when I was frugal and thrifty. Now that I have become old and my life is ending, and I am leaving all this wealth for my family members. In these times, these atheists are making up such things. By Allah! I have not taken any additional wealth from any city, which would give people a chance to talk. The truth is, I used to return this wealth to them, and only the fifth part reached me, and I never kept anything from it for myself. The Muslims would distribute this wealth among the people there; I had no share in it. Not a single penny from Allah’s wealth was wasted, and I only live on my personal wealth.”

“These people say that I gave lands to people. The Muhajireen and Ansar who conquered them are partners in these lands. Therefore, whoever lives at the place of these conquests, he is its owner, and for those who returned to their families, the lands did not transfer with them. So I considered such lands and exchanged them with the lands of Arabia with the permission and consent of the original owners. Thus, these lands are in their possession, not in my possession.”

(The narrator says that)

Hazrat Uthman (RA) had distributed his wealth, possessions, and lands among the Banu Umayyah. He also made his children general shareholders in it. He started this distribution with the children of Abu al-Aas. Thus, he gave ten thousand to each of the children of Hakam (son of Abu al-Aas), and in this way, they all received a total sum of one hundred thousand. He gave the same amount to his own sons. Besides this, he distributed his wealth among Banu Aas, Banu Ees, and Banu Harb.

(Tabari, 1/397-398)

Hazrat Uthman (RA) himself gave a satisfactory answer to the objection of “introducing new things.” The objection of introducing new things was made against him because he had offered the full prayer in Mecca and had reserved some of Medina’s pastures for the livestock of the Bait-ul-Mal (public treasury). He has already answered this. We are providing further details on the remaining objections here.

1. Qisas (Retribution) for Ubaydullah bin Umar

As we have mentioned, Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr (RA) had seen Hormuzan and Abu Lu’lu Firoz whispering. When Firoz saw Abdur Rahman, he walked away quickly, and a two-pronged dagger fell from his clothes. At the time, he (Abdur Rahman) did not pay it much mind, but the next day, when Hazrat Umar (RA) was attacked with the same dagger, he remembered this incident and narrated it in front of everyone. Hearing this, Hazrat Umar’s young son, Ubaydullah, became impassioned and went and killed Hormuzan and one of his companions, Jufayna. A daughter of Firoz was also caught in this, and she was also killed.

Ubaydullah was the younger brother of Abdullah bin Umar.

What should have happened was that if Hormuzan and Jufayna were indeed part of this conspiracy, it should have been properly investigated. If the crime was proven against Hormuzan after investigation, he would be punished; otherwise, he would be acquitted. But Ubaydullah was not in his right mind after hearing this and went and killed all three. He was even saying that he would kill all the non-Arab inhabitants of Medina. Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas and Suhaib (RA) barely managed to control him and brought him home and confined him. At that time, a Caliph had not yet been chosen.

After Hazrat Uthman (RA) became the Caliph, this case was presented to him. Instead of deciding himself, he presented the case before a jury, which included all the distinguished Sahaba, Muhajireen, and Ansar. The crime of taking the law into his own hands was proven. Some Sahaba, including Hazrat Uthman and Ali (RA), were of the opinion that Ubaydullah should be executed in Qisas (retribution). Others said that given his psychological state, the punishment of Qisas should not be applied to him. He was not in his right mind when committing the crime, and when a person is in a state of madness, the rules of Shari’ah do not apply to him. Their position was that Hazrat Umar had just been martyred yesterday, and it would not be appropriate to kill his young son today. Hazrat Amr bin Aas (RA) was of the opinion that the incident happened when there was no Caliph. The position of the majority of this jury was accepted, and instead of Qisas, the punishment of Diyat (blood money) was imposed on Ubaydullah. He did not have enough money to pay the Diyat because a large part of Hazrat Umar’s (RA) property had gone to paying off debts. Hazrat Uthman solved this problem by paying his Diyat from his personal pocket.

(Tabari. 23H/3/1-272)

Hazrat Uthman (RA) is criticized in this case for doing wrong by not implementing the punishment of Qisas. This objection was especially raised by those rebels who martyred him. Those who make this objection forget that Hazrat Uthman’s own opinion was to take Qisas. Furthermore, the decision that was made was by the majority of the jury, which included all the Muhajireen and Ansar. According to another narration in Tabari, Hazrat Uthman (RA) had given Hormuzan’s son, Qumazban, permission to take Qisas before this jury’s decision.

Qumazban describes the killing of his father (Hormuzan) as follows: The Persians in Medina used to meet each other. One day, Firoz passed by my father, holding a two-pronged dagger. (My father) grabbed it and asked, “What will you do with this in this country?” He replied, “I will use it.” A man (Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr) saw him in this state. When Hazrat Umar was attacked, this man said, “I saw him (the killer) with Hormuzan. He gave this dagger to Firoz.” Therefore, Ubaydullah came and killed him (my father).

When Hazrat Uthman became the Caliph, he called me (Qumazban) and, giving me the authority, said: “My son! This is your father’s killer, and you have more right over him than we do. Go and kill him.” I took him (Ubaydullah) with me. At that time, every person at that place was with me, but they were all demanding something from me regarding him. I asked them, “Should I kill him?” They said, “Yes.” They cursed Ubaydullah. Then I asked them, “Do you forbid me from killing him?” They said, “No.” They again cursed Ubaydullah.

I left him for the sake of Allah and released him for the sake of these people (the Muslims). After that, the people lifted me up. By Allah! I reached home riding on the heads and hands (shoulders) of the people.

(Tabari. 3/1-276)

This narration makes it clear that Hazrat Uthman (RA) had issued the order for Qisas, but when Qumazban himself forgave Ubaydullah, the government also forgave him. Qumazban, by forgiving Ubaydullah, proved his high character as a sincere Muslim. He understood that his father Hormuzan was not involved in any conspiracy but had met Firoz by chance, during which the dagger fell from his hand. We should also maintain a good opinion about Hormuzan. Yes, the question remains why the rebels tried to reignite this revenge after twelve years. It is possible that they wanted to create Fitna (strife) for the sake of Fitna, to create division among Muslims and fulfill their objectives, or it is also possible that they wanted to please their Iranian allies, for whom Firoz, the killer of Hazrat Umar, was a hero.

Here, one more question arises: when the heir of the deceased had forgiven the killer, what was the need to convene a jury?

The issue was that Ubaydullah had committed a compound crime, which involved two offenses: one was murder, and the second was taking the law into his own hands. The Qisas for the murder was the right of the victim’s heirs, which they waived. Taking the law into one’s own hands was a crime for which punishment was still pending. The case was presented to the jury of Muhajireen and Ansar, and their majority decided that since this crime occurred in a state of insanity, the punishment of Diyat should be implemented instead of Qisas. Since Ubaydullah had no money, Hazrat Uthman (RA) resolved the matter very amicably by paying this Diyat from his own pocket.

2. The Accusation of Nepotism

The rebels’ biggest allegation against Hazrat Uthman (RA) was that he practiced nepotism in the distribution of positions and ignored merit.² They claimed he appointed his relatives from Banu Umayyah as governors, who were not sincere to Islam. These were people who had accepted Islam out of compulsion after the conquest of Mecca and were not eligible for the posts. In later periods, those who were influenced by this propaganda from the rebels also said similar things.

Even from the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic) period, the Banu Umayyah had held political posts because they had the capability for it.³ Mecca was a city-state.

At the time of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) mission, the Banu Umayyah held important political positions in Mecca. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) presented his invitation, the good-hearted people of Banu Umayyah came forward to believe, among whom Hazrat Uthman and Khalid bin Sa’id (RA) were prominent. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) himself appointed people from Banu Umayyah to multiple posts because they were qualified for them. He appointed the 21-year-old Umayyad youth Attab bin Asid (RA) as the governor of Mecca, the famous Umayyad chief Abu Sufyan to Najran, his son Yazid bin Abi Sufyan to Tayma, Khalid bin Sa’id to Sana’a (Yemen), Amr bin Sa’id to Tabuk, Hakam bin Sa’id to Wadi al-Qura, and Aban bin Sa’id (RA) as the governor of Bahrain. Similarly, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) also gave important posts to people from Banu Umayyah because they had the capability.

In response to this allegation of nepotism against Hazrat Uthman (RA), we will first present a list detailing the names of all the officials during the Uthmani era. After that, we will examine each person to state how he was appointed and to which tribe he belonged. We are citing this information from the place in Tarikh Tabari where the chapter on Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) caliphate concludes. Most of these people were governors when Hazrat Uthman (RA) was martyred.

(Tabari. 3/1-480.)

(Further details can be seen under the names of these officials in the books of Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.)

List of Officials During the Uthmani Era

Province of Hejaz & Yemen Officials

1. Abdullah bin Hadrami | Region: Mecca | Tribe: A tribe from Yemen
2. Qasim bin Rabi’ah Thaqafi | Region: Taif | Tribe: Banu Thaqif
3. Ya’la bin Umayyah Taimi | Region: Yemen | Tribe: Banu Taym (Quraysh)
4. Abdullah bin Rabi’ah al-Ghanri | Region: Al-Janad | Tribe: Banu Makhzum (Quraysh)
5. Khalid bin Aas Makhzumi | Region: Mecca | Tribe: Banu Makhzum (Quraysh)
6. Abdullah bin Harith bin Nawfal | Region: Mecca | Tribe: Banu Hashim (Quraysh)

Province of Iraq & Iran Officials

7. Abdullah bin Aamir | Region: Basra | Tribe: Banu Umayyah | Appointed by Hazrat Uthman
8. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas | Region: Kufa | Tribe: Banu Zuhra | Appointed by Hazrat Umar
9. Walid bin Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ayt | Region: Al-Jazirah, Kufa | Tribe: Banu Umayyah | Appointed by Hazrat Umar & Uthman
10. Sa’id bin Aas | Region: Kufa | Tribe: Banu Umayyah | Appointed by Hazrat Umar
11. Abu Musa Ash’ari | Kufa | Tribe: Banu Ash’ar (Yemen) | Appointed by Hazrat Umar & Uthman⁴
12. Jarir bin Abdullah Bajli | Region: Qarqisiya | Tribe: Banu Bajilah
13. Ash’ath bin Qais al-Kindi | Region: Azerbaijan | Tribe: Banu Kindah
14. Utaybah bin al-Nahhas | Region: Hulwan | Tribe: Unknown
15. Malik bin Habib al-Yarbu’i | Region: Mah (Media) | Tribe: Banu Tamim
16. Sa’id bin Qais | Region: Ray (Modern Tehran) | Tribe: Iranian
17. Sa’ib bin al-Aqra’ | Region: Isfahan | Tribe: Banu Thaqif
18. Nusayr | Region: Hamadan | Tribe: Iranian
19. Jaysh | Region: Masabadhan | Tribe: Iranian
20. Hakim bin Salamah al-Kharami | Region: Mosul | Tribe: Banu Khuram
21. Abdullah bin Mas’ud | Bait-ul-Mal Kufa | Tribe: Ally of Banu Makhzum
22. Uqbah bin Amr | Bait-ul-Mal Kufa | Tribe: Ansar
23. Jabir bin Fulan al-Muzani | Collector Iraq | Tribe: Banu Muzaynah
24. Simak Ansari | Collector Iraq | Tribe: Ansar
25. Qa’qa’ bin Amr | Commander Kufa | Tribe: Banu Tamim

Province of Egypt Officials

26. Amr bin Aas | Region: Egypt | Tribe: Banu Makhzum | Appointed by Hazrat Umar
27. Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh | Region: Egypt | Tribe: Banu Aamir | Appointed by Hazrat Umar

Province of Syria (Al-Sham) Officials

28. Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan | Region: Syria | Tribe: Banu Umayyah | Appointed by Hazrat Umar
29. Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid | Region: Homs, Al-Jazirah | Tribe: Banu Makhzum (Quraysh)
30. Habib bin Maslamah Fihri | Region: Qinnasrin | Tribe: Banu Fihr (Quraysh)
31. Abu al-A’war bin Sufyan al-Sulami Dhakwani | Region: Jordan | Tribe: Banu Dhakwan
32. Alqamah bin Hakim Kinani | Region: Palestine | Tribe: Banu Kinanah
33. Abdullah bin Qais Fazari | Coastal Areas | Tribe: Banu Fazara
34. Abu Darda | Qadi (Judge) Damascus | Tribe: Banu Khazraj (Ansar)⁵

Capital (Medina) Officials

35. Ali, Talha, Zubair, Sa’d (RA) | Central Cabinet
36. Marwan bin Hakam | Katib (Scribe) of the Caliph | Tribe: Banu Umayyah | Appointed by Hazrat Uthman
37. Zayd bin Thabit (RA) | Qadi of Medina and Bait-ul-Mal (Finance Minister) | Tribe: Banu Khazraj (Ansar)
38. Mughira bin Nawfal bin Harith bin Abd al-Muttalib | Post: Qadi | Tribe: Banu Hashim
39. Abdullah bin Arqam | Bait-ul-Mal (Finance Minister) | Tribe: Banu Zuhra (Quraysh)
40. Abdullah bin Qunfudh | Police Chief | Tribe: Banu Taym (Quraysh)⁶

If this list of officials is reviewed, a total of six individuals from Banu Umayyah, meaning Uthman (RA)’s tribe, are seen. Now we will detail the achievements of these gentlemen, from which it will be clear who appointed them and what the reasons were. Even among these, four had already been appointed during the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr or Umar (RA). Hazrat Uthman (RA) did nothing more than give them promotions based on their performance, which is a common practice in any civil service or army. Now let us see what the performance of these governors was, on the basis of which Hazrat Uthman (RA) made decisions concerning them.

Analysis of Umayyad Appointees

Walid bin Uqbah (RA)

Walid bin Uqbah (RA) was a distinguished Sahabi.7 He was appointed to civil administration by Hazrat Umar (RA), whose ability to judge men is proverbial. Hazrat Umar appointed him as the ruler of “Al-Jazirah,” which is the fertile valley between the Tigris and Euphrates in northern Iraq. He managed this region excellently, and no complaint related to it exists in the books of history. Moving forward from here, he conquered numerous areas in the north in Armenia.8 According to Tabari, when he set out for Jihad, he would reach far-flung places, showed no negligence in any matter, and made such arrangements that the enemy would avoid confronting him.

(Tabari. 3/1-309)

Hazrat Uthman (RA) transferred him and appointed him as the governor of Kufa. According to Tabari’s narration, when he came to Kufa, he became the most popular figure among the people because his behavior was gentle. For five years, his practice was that he did not build a door for his house, so that no person would have difficulty in conveying their concerns to the governor.

(Tabari. 3/1-285.)

What objection could anyone have to the transfer of a governor of this character?

An objection was raised against Hazrat Uthman (RA) as to why he appointed Walid bin Uqbah (RA) in place of a distinguished Sahabi like Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA)? The incident was that Hazrat Sa’d had taken a loan from the Bait-ul-Mal (public treasury) for personal needs and could not repay it on time. When the head of the Bait-ul-Mal, Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA), demanded it, Hazrat Sa’d asked for more time. Upon this, some harsh words were exchanged between them, and people gathered. When Hazrat Uthman (RA) was informed, he summoned Hazrat Sa’d (RA) to Medina. It should be clear that in that era, “dismissal” (Ma’zooli) did not mean that a person was completely removed from all affairs, but rather it meant a transfer, which is a common practice in military and civil administration even today. Hazrat Uthman gave Hazrat Sa’d (RA) responsibilities in the capital instead of Kufa and appointed Walid bin Uqbah in Kufa.

(Tabari. 3/1-285)

Some people, while maligning Hazrat Uthman, say that he removed Walid from an unimportant area like Al-Jazirah and gave him the post of a central location like Kufa. We know that transfers are a common practice in civil and military administration, and officials are changed according to need. We have already clarified regarding Walid bin Uqbah that he was the most beloved personality in Kufa, and his character can be judged by the fact that he did not install a door on his house for five years so that no petitioner would have difficulty accessing him. When the rebel movement began to establish its footing in Kufa, some of their men killed a person named Ibn Haysaman al-Khuzai. This case was presented to the governor, and the decision was made based on the testimony of the Sahabi Abu Shurayh (RA), who was an eyewitness to the incident. Walid wrote to Hazrat Uthman about the matter, who ordered the killers to be executed in Qisas (retribution), and this sentence was carried out. Now, the fathers and other heirs of these killers formed a front against the governor. Hazrat Walid (RA) had a Da’wati (invitational) mindset and worked to invite non-Muslims. From his invitation, a Christian poet, Abu Zubayd, accepted Islam and often stayed with him. The rebels accused him of drinking wine with Abu Zubayd. They started spreading this propaganda throughout the city.

When this news reached the head of the Bait-ul-Mal, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA), he said: “Whoever hides a fault from us, we do not expose him nor do we spy on him.”

(Tabari. 3/1-309)

Upon this, Walid summoned him (Ibn Mas’ud) and admonished him that his answer was not appropriate. Such an answer is given about suspicious individuals, whereas his case was clear before him. Some harsh words were also exchanged between them. Some of the rebels reached Medina and complained to Hazrat Uthman (RA), who said: “You are suspicious and spreading false things among Muslims, and you have come without permission. Go back.” These people then devised a conspiracy, and since Walid’s house had no door, they stole his ring during the night and came to Medina to formally present a case, stating, “We saw Walid (RA) drinking wine, and the proof is that we took off his ring, and he was not aware.” Hazrat Uthman (RA) summoned Hazrat Walid and said to him: “The place of a false witness is Hell. O my brother! Be patient.” After this, he implemented the punishment for wine on Walid, because in court, the decision is based on outward testimony.

(Tabari. 3/1-314)

From these same narrations of Tabari, it is known that this incident of wine-drinking was an absolute lie and was fabricated merely to get Hazrat Walid (RA) dismissed. These troublemakers from Kufa had similarly tried to get Mughira bin Shu’bah (RA) dismissed during the time of Hazrat Umar by accusing him of adultery. The reason was that after the murder incident, it was becoming difficult for the rebel movement to flourish in Kufa, so they wanted to bring in a weak governor through slander so they could continue their activities. But a problem arose for them, as the new governor appointed by Hazrat Uthman (RA) was also extremely astute. We are referring to Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah), who is mentioned next.

Another false narration has been fabricated about Walid bin Uqbah, stating that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent him to Banu Abd al-Mustalaq to collect Sadaqat (charity). He supposedly returned without collecting the Sadaqat and said that those people were preparing for war. Upon this, this verse of Surah Al-Hujurat was revealed:

إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَنْ تُصِيبُوا قَوْماً بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ

“If a Fasiq (evildoer, liar) comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm a people in ignorance and then regret what you have done.”

(Surah Al-Hujurat 49:6)

This narration was also fabricated solely for the character assassination of Walid. There are multiple problems with its isnad (chain of narration). This narration appears in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, and its chain is stated as: حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا محمد بن سابق حدثنا عيسى بن دينار حدثنا أبي أنه سمع الحرث بن ضرar الخزاعي قال۔ If we look at the names of these narrators, three are prominent:

Muhammad bin Sabiq is a narrator about whose reliability the Imams of Jarh wa Ta’deel (Criticism and Praise) have differed. Some experts consider him reliable (Thiqah), while others declare him weak (Da’if) or even rejected (Munkar). These include Ibn al-Madini, Abu Hatim, and Yahya bin Ma’in.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 7574. 6/157)
The second narrator is Isa bin Dinar, who was a Qadi (judge) in Spain. Not much detail is known about his status of reliability.
The third narrator is his father, Dinar, whose full name is unknown. In Mizan al-I’tidal, the biographies of seven narrators named Dinar are found, and all of them are weak or abandoned (Matruk). One of them was Abu Umar Dinar, who was part of the police force of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, who rose up against the Banu Umayyah. If this Dinar was that person, then it is clear that he fabricated this narration.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 2694. 3/48)

On the contrary, according to a narration in Musnad Ahmad, Walid bin Uqbah himself states that he came to the service of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) at the time of the Conquest of Mecca with a few boys. The Prophet (ﷺ) passed his blessed hand over the heads of all of them, except for Walid, because he had fragrant oil on his hair. Then he prayed for all of them. Now, if Walid was a boy at the time of the Conquest of Mecca, how could the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) send a boy for such a responsible task as collecting Sadaqat? After this, Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) sent him to the tribe of Quda’a to collect Sadaqat, which is a sign of his trust in him. If this (other) narration were correct, Hazrat Abu Bakr would not have sent him for the same task. Then, during the time of Hazrat Umar (RA), he continued to perform important military services, and he (Umar) made him the governor of Al-Jazirah. Since the rebels had a particular animosity towards Hazrat Walid, they fabricated this narration.

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who, besides being a historian, is also a highly influential Mufassir (exegete), has narrated this incident under this noble verse in his Tafsir from Sayyida Umm Salama (RA), and there the words are رجلا (a man), and the name of Walid bin Uqbah is not mentioned. After this, Tabari has transmitted it through multiple chains, but the status of these chains is such that the names of the narrators are given only briefly, making it impossible to trace the reliability of each narrator.

(Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Tafsir al-Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an. Under verse 49:6.

Maktabah Mishkat al-Islamiyyah. www.almeshkat.net)

Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah)

According to the biography Tabari wrote of Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah), he was an orphan, and Hazrat Uthman (RA) raised him. During the time of Hazrat Umar (RA), he was residing in Damascus and was ill. Hazrat Umar asked about him and then summoned him. He came to Medina and recovered, so Hazrat Umar (RA) said to him: “My nephew! I have received news of your capability and competence. Develop your skills, and Allah will elevate you.” Then Hazrat Umar advised him to marry.

Sa’id bin Aas sent a marriage proposal to Sayyida Umm Kulthum bint Ali and gave one hundred thousand dirhams as Mahr (dowry) at that time. Hazrat Ali, Hasan, and Umm Kulthum were agreeable to this match, but Hazrat Hussain (RA) had some objection. Hazrat Hasan insisted on this marriage, but Sa’id said: “I do not want to get involved in a matter that Hussain does not like.” He broke off the engagement and did not even take back the one hundred thousand dirhams. This shows his nobility and his love for the Ahlul Bayt (the Prophet’s family).

(Dhahabi. Siyar A’lam al-Nubala. 1809, Personality No. 2274)

Sa’id met some destitute women at a spring. He was very moved by their situation, and he married one of them. One of the other destitute women was married by Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Awf, and another by Walid bin Uqbah (RA). Sa’id’s uncle, Khalid bin Sa’id bin Aas (RA) (grandfather and grandson had the same name), was among the very first Sahaba (Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon), and he had performed tremendous services. Sa’id also performed excellent services in the footsteps of his uncle. He led the Jihad of Tabaristan and was successful. He conquered the vast region of Georgia and Tabaristan. Before the martyrdom of Hazrat Umar (RA), he had begun to be counted among the famous people.

(Tarikh Tabari. 3/1-314)

This detail shows that Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah) was appointed by Hazrat Umar (RA), and he had impressed him (Umar) with his performance. Hazrat Uthman (RA) merely transferred him and, in view of his abilities, gave him the governorship of a difficult province, “Kufa,” which by that time had become a stronghold of the rebel movement.

Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh (RA)

He was also a distinguished Sahabi and the foster brother of Hazrat Uthman (RA).9 The biggest objection raised against him was that he was among those who apostatized after accepting Islam and about whom the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had ordered to be killed at the time of the Conquest of Mecca. When Hazrat Uthman spoke to him, he accepted Islam, and then it was through the efforts of Hazrat Uthman that he was pardoned.

(Nasa’i. Kitab Tahrim al-Dam. Hadith 4067)

After this, he remained a sincere believer and demonstrated excellent faith during the era of the Rashidun Caliphs. Besides, when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forgives someone, then who has any room to object?

Hazrat Umar (RA) appointed Abdullah bin Sa’d as the commander of the army that attacked Egypt. After the conquest, he (Umar) appointed him governor of Upper Egypt (Southern Egypt), and he went on to conquer the region of Northern Sudan, which is clear proof of his abilities. In his own time, Hazrat Uthman (RA) appointed him governor of Lower Egypt (Northern Egypt), and he proved with his abilities that he deserved this position and conquered the territory up to Libya. Since the city of Fustat had become the center of the rebel movement and Hazrat Abdullah had been somewhat strict with them, these rebels made him a special target and criticized him.

Abdullah bin Aamir (RA)

He was the only person belonging to Banu Umayyah whom Hazrat Uthman (RA) appointed as governor, and this was due to his extraordinary abilities. At that time, his age was merely 25 years. Ibn Aamir was accustomed to a very simple lifestyle even in his youth. Fasting during the day and worship at night was his routine. Ibn Aamir was a pious young man and always kept righteous people in his company. During Jihad, he used to say: “I have no longing for anything in Iraq except that the voices of the Mu’adhdhin (callers to prayer) echo together there in the afternoon heat, and (pious) companions like Aswad bin Kulthum.”

(Tabari. 31H/3/1-341)

Such was the state of his abilities that after becoming governor, he accelerated the pace of conquests. In 31/651, he conquered a large part of modern-day Eastern Iran and Western Afghanistan, including Tus, Biward, Nisa, and Sarakhs, while the inhabitants of the city of Merv made a peace treaty. After this, he also conquered Khurasan. The conquest of Sijistan, which included parts of modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, was also the achievement of Ibn Aamir. People said to him: “No one else has conquered as many territories as you have. These include Fars, Kerman, Sijistan, and the entire region of Khurasan.” Ibn Aamir replied: “It is essential that I thank Allah (for these successes) in such a way that I perform Umrah by donning the Ihram (pilgrim’s garb) from this very place.” Thus, he donned the Ihram from Nishapur (Northeast Iran) and proceeded to perform Umrah. This shows his piety and devotion, that he spent such a long journey in the restrictions of Ihram. After this, when he came to Hazrat Uthman (RA), he (Uthman) did not like it because this was an excess, and said: “I wish you had donned the Ihram from the same Miqat (station) from where all Muslims don the Ihram.”

(Tabari. 3/1-355)

Even after this, several revolts arose from the region of Khurasan, which Ibn Aamir himself suppressed. Since he took strong action against the rebel movement that arose during the time of Hazrat Uthman and Ali (RA), the rebels specifically targeted him as well.

Marwan bin Hakam (Rahimahullah)

There is a difference of opinion regarding him as to whether he is a Sahabi or a Tabi’i (Successor). His father, Hakam bin Abi al-Aas, had been exiled to Taif by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) due to his anti-Islamic activities. Hazrat Uthman (RA) was very keen to bring the people of his tribe and family to Islam with gentleness; therefore, he recommended him (Hakam), and he accepted Islam and returned to Mecca. Marwan was a great scholar and a devout worshipper, and he was trained directly by the senior Sahaba. Imam Malik, in his Muwatta, has recorded several of Marwan’s judicial decisions as “established Sunnah.”

Hazrat Uthman (RA) did not give Marwan any official post; however, he did take secretarial services from him. He would have him write official letters, decrees, etc. Obviously, this is not a post that can be objected to. Some people have called him Hazrat Uthman’s secretary and accused him of taking undue advantage of his position. The reality is that Marwan can, at most, be called Hazrat Uthman’s “Personal Secretary,” not the “Secretary of the State.” The nature of his employment was clerical: to write whatever decision Hazrat Uthman wanted to be written down. He had no administrative powers from which he could benefit.

When the rebels besieged Medina, Marwan emerged as an ardent supporter of Hazrat Uthman (RA). He was among those who wanted to settle the matter with the rebels by the sword. He was also severely injured in a skirmish with the rebels, which is proof of his sincerity.

In Tabari’s narrations, criticism of him by Hazrat Ali (RA) is present. This criticism was also related to his excessive zeal; otherwise, later, two of Hazrat Ali’s own daughters were married to two of Marwan’s sons. We will detail this later. Since Marwan himself later became the Caliph for a year, and the caliphate transferred to his sons and grandsons after him—against whom the rebels continuously ran movements—narrations were fabricated against him to assassinate his character.

Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (RA)

The personality whom the rebel narrators have subjected to the most severe criticism and accusations is Hazrat Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (RA). The reason is clear: Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA), with his unparalleled wisdom and strategy, crushed the rebel movement. We have read some details in previous series, and we will state further details, Insha’Allah, in the future series related to Hazrat Ali and Mu’awiyah (RA).

It is alleged that he was the son of a great enemy of Islam and held hatred for Islam in his heart, whereas the reality is the opposite. His father, Abu Sufyan (RA), led wars against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for a few years in enmity to Islam, but he became a Muslim on the occasion of the Conquest of Mecca. After that, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed him as the governor of Najran, which shows that Abu Sufyan had become a Muslim from the heart; otherwise, why would he be made the governor of an important and sensitive area where the majority of the population was Christian? Besides, when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forgives someone, there is no room left for any foul language against them. Hazrat Mu’awiyah and his elder brother Yazid (RA) were still children during the time of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) battles (Badr, Uhud, Khandaq, etc.), and there is no mention of their role in any war. It is mentioned that after the Conquest of Mecca, he (Mu’awiyah) moved to Medina so that he could be brought up in an Islamic environment. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed him as his scribe (Katib), and he also used to write down the revelation of the Holy Quran.

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed Yazid bin Abi Sufyan (RA) as the governor of “Tayma” in northern Arabia, which was a border city. During the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), in the wars that took place with the Caesar of Rome, Yazid was the commander of a large army, and Mu’awiyah was an officer under him. After the victory, Hazrat Abu Bakr appointed Yazid as the governor of Syria (Al-Sham), and Mu’awiyah was his deputy. When Yazid passed away during the era of Hazrat Umar (RA), Mu’awiyah was appointed as the governor of Syria in his place. Syria was the border region that the Muslims had acquired from the armies of the Caesar of Rome. Caesar wanted to take this area back and made plans for military expeditions. Hazrat Mu’awiyah, with his unparalleled bravery and wisdom, thwarted Caesar’s plans and achieved further victories in many of his (Caesar’s) territories, conquering 40% of modern-day Turkey. Thus, Caesar’s government was reduced to 60% of the area of modern-day Turkey.

Hazrat Umar was rarely satisfied with any of his governors and often used to transfer them, but Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA) showed such extraordinary performance that Hazrat Umar, and then Hazrat Uthman (RA), not only kept him in his post but also continued to increase the territories under his control.

During the last period of Hazrat Uthman (RA), the province of Syria (Al-Sham) extended from the Euphrates River in the northeast to the Nile River in the west. The entire modern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan were part of the province of Al-Sham, while parts of Iraq and Turkey were also included in this province. Al-Sham was an extraordinary province because its borders met the Byzantine Empire, whose head was the Caesar of Rome. Caesar’s effort was to somehow reclaim his occupied territories. There was a need to appoint a governor of extraordinary abilities over Al-Sham. Thus, Hazrat Umar (RA) did just that and appointed Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA) as the governor here in 20/642. Along with Muslims, Christians also lived in Al-Sham. Since the Christian population here belonged to minority sects, and the Roman Church had declared them apostates, their support was with the Muslims.

Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA) treated the Muslim and non-Muslim population of Al-Sham in such a way that everyone became devoted to him and loved him immensely. The country’s wealth was spent on the welfare of the public, and every person received their rights. Hazrat Mu’awiyah repeatedly requested permission from Hazrat Umar to build a strong navy, but he (Umar) refused to give this permission due to the dangers of naval warfare.¹⁰ Hazrat Uthman, during his era, gave this permission on the condition that no soldier would be forced to join the navy. After this, Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA) established a huge shipbuilding industry on the Mediterranean coasts, which provided employment to countless people and made the country prosperous. The Muslim navy ended the authority of the Caesar of Rome over the Mediterranean Sea. Soon, the island of Cyprus was conquered, and an expedition was sent to Caesar’s capital, Constantinople. On the other hand, there was a ceasefire-like situation in the eastern region of modern-day Turkey.

This detail shows that Hazrat Mu’awiyah was appointed by Hazrat Umar (RA), and the allegation of nepotism cannot be leveled against Hazrat Uthman (RA). He only did this: the areas that Hazrat Mu’awiyah conquered, he (Uthman) left them under his (Mu’awiyah’s) control. The basic reason for this was that these areas were so far from the central capital that it was difficult for the center to control them. In contrast, these areas could be well-controlled from Damascus. Secondly, Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA), due to his extraordinary abilities, managed these areas so well that the Caesar of Rome could not achieve any success here. During the time of Hazrat Uthman, the rebel movement got the opportunity to establish its footing in Basra, Kufa, and Egypt, but it could not achieve even an iota of success in Al-Sham, which is clear proof of Hazrat Mu’awiyah’s abilities.

This entire detail shows that Hazrat Uthman (RA) appointed only one person from Banu Umayyah, and that was Abdullah bin Aamir (RA). He proved by his conquests and good administration that his appointment was purely on merit. Apart from this, the remaining four governors—Walid bin Uqbah, Abdullah bin Sa’d, Sa’id bin Aas, and Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (RA)—had already been inducted into the civil service by Hazrat Umar (RA), and these gentlemen had reached the posts of governors by earning promotions based on their achievements. Before and after becoming governors, they proved that their promotions were also purely on merit. Hazrat Uthman (RA) had said the same thing in response to the rebels’ objection:

”These people say that I have appointed young men as rulers. I have only appointed those individuals who are capable and whom the people like. You can ask the people who live under the administration of these governors and the residents of their cities about them. Even before me, a younger person was made a ruler. (Remember when) the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed Usama (bin Zaid) as a commander, he was criticized more than I am being criticized. Is it so?” The people said: “Yes. Indeed. These people make such objections that they cannot prove.”

(Tabari. 35H/3/1/397-398)

Apart from these five individuals, none of the remaining governors were related to Hazrat Uthman (RA).

3. Were the Tulaqa promoted over the senior Sahaba?

Apart from these five individuals, none of the remaining governors had any relation to Hazrat Uthman (RA). The allegation has also been leveled against Hazrat Uthman (RA) that he dismissed senior Sahaba and replaced them with the “Tulaqa.” The Tulaqa were those who accepted Islam after the Conquest of Mecca. This word was a source of honor for these gentlemen, which people later used as a taunt. It was an honor because the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had accepted their repentance and forgiven them. After this, there is no room for any person to speak ill of them.

The reality is that all the individuals mentioned above cannot be called Tulaqa because they were still children at the time of the Conquest of Mecca. When their parents and other relatives accepted Islam, they were subsequently raised in an Islamic environment and became true and staunch Muslims. Later, they proved themselves to be true Muslims by their conduct. It would be appropriate to examine their parents one by one.

Walid bin Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ayt’s father, Uqbah, was among the Tulaqa and was given amnesty at the Conquest of Mecca. Walid was still a child at the Conquest of Mecca.
Sa’id bin Aas bin Sa’id bin Aas bin Umayyah’s father, Aas bin Sa’id, was killed in the Battle of Badr. (It is strange that Sa’id bin Aas was named after his grandfather, and his father was named after his (own) grandfather.) He was raised by Hazrat Uthman (RA), who had a special passion for raising orphans. Sa’id’s two uncles, Khalid bin Sa’id and Amr bin Sa’id (RA), were among the very first Sahaba (Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon).
Abdullah bin Aamir’s (RA) father was the cousin (son of the paternal aunt) of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He did not belong to Banu Umayyah. He was a child at the time of the Conquest of Mecca.
Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh (RA) did not belong to Banu Umayyah but to Banu Aamir bin Lu’ayy. At the Conquest of Mecca, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forgave him. Yes, he was indeed the foster brother of Hazrat Uthman (RA).¹¹
Marwan bin Hakam bin Abi al-Aas’s father was exiled by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ); however, he accepted Islam after that, and he (the Prophet) forgave him. There is a difference of opinion about Marwan as to whether he is a Sahabi or a Tabi’i. Even if he is a Sahabi, he was still a child at the Conquest of Mecca.
Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan’s (RA) father accepted Islam on the day of the Conquest of Mecca and proved to be a sincere Muslim afterward. Hazrat Mu’awiyah was a young man at that time and never participated in any war against the Muslims. We will state later that Hazrat Mu’awiyah had accepted Islam at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah; however, he announced it on the occasion of the Conquest of Mecca.

This detail shows that, except for Abdullah bin Sa’d, no other person can be included among the Tulaqa. All of them were sincere Muslims who were raised by the senior Sahaba.

Now the question arises, why were these young men appointed as governors instead of the senior Sahaba?

If we examine the era of Hazrat Uthman (RA), 23-35 AH / 643-655 CE, we find that the senior Sahaba had become elderly in this period. Obviously, a Sahabi who was forty years old in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) era would necessarily have been 60-65 years old in this era. At that time, there was a need to bring the younger generation forward to manage the rapidly expanding borders effectively and strongly. The senior Sahaba transferred their experience to this generation, and then this generation took over the responsibilities, while the elder Sahaba took charge of tasks like planning.

It was not the case that Hazrat Uthman (RA) would appoint governors according to his own will and the opinion of the public was not considered. He appointed all his governors according to the people’s opinion, and if the people of any city did not like their governor, he would be replaced.

Imam Bukhari narrates in his book “Tarikh al-Saghir”:

حدثني محمد بن أبي بكر المقدمي ثنا حصين بن نمير ثنا جبير حدثني جهيم الفهري: Juhaim al-Fihri says: I was a witness to this matter. Uthman said: “The people of every city who dislike their governor should stand up. I will dismiss him and appoint the person whom they like.” The people of Basra said: “We are happy with Abdullah bin Aamir.” He kept him appointed. The people of Kufa said: “Remove Sa’id bin Aas and appoint Abu Musa (al-Ash’ari).” He did so.12 The people of Al-Sham said: “We are happy with Mu’awiyah.” He kept him. The people of Egypt said: “Remove Ibn Abi Sarh and appoint Amr bin Aas.” Hazrat Uthman did so.

(Bukhari. Al-Tarikh al-Saghir. Narration No. 334. Maktabah Mishkat al-Islamiyyah.)

This incident probably occurred at the time when the rebel movement was strengthening its roots against Hazrat Uthman (RA). In this exchange, Hazrat Uthman was martyred before Hazrat Amr bin Aas (RA) could take charge.

4. The Accusation of Corruption in the Bait-ul-Mal

The rebels accused Sayyiduna Uthman Ghani (RA) of practicing nepotism in the distribution of state funds and giving wealth to his relatives. This same allegation has also been transmitted in some historical narrations. There is no doubt that the rebels made this allegation against Hazrat Uthman (RA), but we will also discuss its reality here.

What was Hazrat Uthman’s response to this allegation?

This allegation was an absolute lie, and Hazrat Uthman (RA) answered it himself.

حدثني عبد الله بن أحمد بن شبوبه، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: حدثني عبد الله، عن إسحاق بن يحيى، عن موسى بن طلحة: (Hazrat Uthman gave a sermon before the people of Medina in which he said:) These people (the rebels) have said things which they also know just as you gentlemen know. But they are mentioning them in order to spread propaganda among those who are unaware. …

“These people say that I gave Ibn Abi Sarh a special grant from the spoils of war. I gave him one-fifth of the Khums (1/25th) of the spoils as a reward, which amounted to one hundred thousand. Such orders were also issued by Abu Bakr and Umar. When the army disliked this, I took this amount back and distributed it among them, even though it was not the right of Ibn Abi Sarh? Is this the case?”

The people said: “Yes.”

(The narrator says that) Hazrat Uthman (RA) had distributed his wealth, possessions, and lands among the Banu Umayyah. He also made his children general shareholders in it. He started this distribution with the children of Abu al-Aas. Thus, he gave ten thousand to each of the children of Hakam (son of Abu al-Aas), and in this way, they all received a total sum of one hundred thousand. He gave the same amount to his own sons. Besides this, he distributed his wealth among Banu Aas, Banu Ees, and Banu Harb.

(Tabari. 3/1-396)

It is clear from this narration that Hazrat Uthman (RA) did not give a single pai (penny) of government money to any of his relatives; rather, he always supported them from his own wealth. He never even drew a salary from the Bait-ul-Mal (public treasury) for his services. He was fond of Sila Rehmi (maintaining family ties), which is why he used to give his personal wealth to his poor relatives and supported numerous orphans and widows. The rebels seized upon this and propagated that he was squandering government money on his relatives. In response, he delivered the aforementioned speech, in which he not only answered this objection but also had it confirmed by the people of Medina.

If Hazrat Uthman had given anything from the Bait-ul-Mal to his relatives, it would certainly not have remained hidden from the people of Medina, because the responsibility of the Bait-ul-Mal was entrusted to Hazrat Zayd bin Thabit and Abdullah bin Arqam (RA), and the distribution of grants did not happen in the darkness of night but used to take place in the Prophet’s Mosque in front of everyone. Furthermore, giving money to someone from the Bait-ul-Mal was not solely at the Caliph’s discretion; rather, it was all done with the mutual consultation of the Muslims. Every year, the accounts of the Bait-ul-Mal were closed, and the entire accounting was presented before the people. Because of this, if there had been any corruption, the people of Medina would have objected immediately. This shows that this allegation of embezzlement in the Bait-ul-Mal was a complete lie.

On this topic, we searched for narrations in the three oldest books of history in which this allegation was leveled against Hazrat Uthman (RA), and we were able to find a total of 16 such narrations that contain this allegation. An analysis of these narrations is given in this table:

Source	Total Narrations	Narrator Analysis
Ibn Sa’d (168-230/784-845)	2	The narrator of both is Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi, who is unreliable.
Baladhuri (d. 279/893)	13	9 from Waqidi, 3 from Abu Mikhnaf, 1 from Muhammad bin Hatim & Hajjaj al-A’war (all unreliable).
Tabari (224-310/838-922)	1	From Waqidi, who is an unreliable narrator.
Total	16	All 16 narrations are from unreliable narrators.

It would be appropriate for you to once again review the principles of examining historical narrations in the previous series and then consider these narrations. A strange fact will come before you. The 13 narrations Baladhuri has transmitted are almost all from Ibn Sa’d, but the strange thing is that in Ibn Sa’d’s Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, only two of these narrations are present; the remaining narrations are missing from Ibn Sa’d’s own book, but Baladhuri is writing them with reference to Ibn Sa’d. It would be appropriate to present the chain of narration (isnad) and a summary of the narration here. This will clarify the source of these narrations. Look closely at the underlined names in the chains of narration:

حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن عبد الله بن جعفر، عن أم بكر بنت المسور بن مخرمة، عن أبيها: Hazrat Uthman said: Abu Bakr and Umar were strict on themselves and their relatives regarding this wealth, whereas I think Sila Rehmi (kindness to relatives) should be practiced in this matter.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن عبد الله بن جعفر، حدثني محمد بن عبد الله عن الزهري: Hazrat Uthman was the most beloved personality for six years. Then he gave posts to his relatives, gave Marwan the Khums (one-fifth) of Africa, and gave wealth to his relatives, calling it Sila Rehmi. He gave them loans from the Bait-ul-Mal, upon which people criticized him.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن محمد بن عبد الله الزهري: Hazrat Uthman used to take some of the Zakat on horses.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن أسامة بن زيد بن أسلم، عن نافع مولى الزبير، عن عبد الله بن الزبير: Hazrat Uthman gave Marwan bin Hakam one-fifth of the spoils.
حدثني عباس بن هشام الكلبي، عن أبيه، عن لوط بن يحيي أبي مخنف عمن حدثه: Abu Mikhnaf narrated from someone that Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh, Hazrat Uthman’s foster brother and governor of the West, waged Jihad in Africa in 27 AH, and Marwan bin Hakam was with him. Marwan bought the one-fifth of the spoils for one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dinars. He spoke to Hazrat Uthman, who gifted it to him. People criticized him for this.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن عبد الله بن جعفر، عن أم بكر بنت المسور بن مخرمة: Marwan built a house in Medina and invited people, saying: “By Allah, I have not spent a single dirham from the Muslims’ wealth in building this house.” Upon this, Miswar said: “It would be better for you if you ate and kept quiet. You waged Jihad with us in Africa, and you had the least wealth, slaves, and companions. Then Ibn Affan gave you the Khums of Africa and appointed you over the Sadaqat, and you took from the Muslims’ wealth.”
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن عبد الله بن جعفر، عن أم بكر بنت المسور بن مخرمة، عن أبيها: The Sadaqat (charity) camels came to Hazrat Uthman, and he gifted them to Harith bin Hakam bin Abi al-Aas.
حدثني محمد بن حاتم بن ميمون، حدثنا الحجاج الأعور، عن ابن جريج عن عطاء عن ابن عباس: Hazrat Uthman sent Hakam bin Abi al-Aas to collect Sadaqat from Quda’a, which amounted to three hundred thousand dirhams. When he brought it, Hazrat Uthman gave this sum to him.
قال أبو مخنف والواقدي في روايتهما: Hazrat Uthman gave Sa’id bin Aas one hundred thousand dirhams, so Ali, Zubair, Talha, Sa’d, and Abdur Rahman bin Awf criticized him.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن ابن أبي سبرة، عن أشياخه، قالوا: Ibn Abi Sabra narrated from his teachers, and they said: When it rained, Hazrat Uthman sent some people to collect Sadaqat. He delegated the responsibility to these people, and they exceeded their limits. He neither replaced them nor held them accountable. Because of this, the people became bold against him and attributed the actions of these officials to him.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن زيد بن السائب، عن خالد مولى أبان بن عثمان: Marwan sold thirty camels in Medina and had it announced that the Amir-ul-Momineen (Commander of the Faithful) wanted to buy them, whereas Hazrat Uthman did not want to buy them.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي، عن عيسى بن عبد الرحمن، عن أبي إسحاق الهمداني: Hazrat Ali complained to Hazrat Uthman that Hazrat Umar had told him not to impose Banu Umayyah and Banu Abi Mu’ayt on the necks of the people.
قال أبو مخنف في إسنادة: Hazrat Uthman gave Hazrat Zayd bin Thabit one hundred thousand dirhams, so Aslam bin Aws, who had stopped Hazrat Uthman from being buried in Baqi’, recited these verses: “…He unjustly gave Marwan the Khums.”
(Baladhuri. 6/138-149)
ذكر محمد بن عمر (الواقدي) أن عبد الله بن جعفر حدثه عن أم بكر بنت المسور بن مخرمة، عن أبيها: Hazrat Uthman gave Hakam bin Abi al-Aas the Sadaqat camels. When this news reached Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Awf, he took them back and distributed them among the people.
(Tabari. 3/1-418)

You can see for yourself that 13 out of 14 narrations are narrated either by Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi or by Abu Mikhnaf. We have stated in many places in this historical series regarding both these gentlemen that they are not reliable narrators to any degree. In narration number 8, however, the chain does not contain Waqidi or Abu Mikhnaf. Its chain includes Muhammad bin Hatim bin Maymun (d. 235/850), whose reliability is disputed. Yahya bin Ma’in and Ibn al-Madini have declared him a Kadhdhab (liar).

(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 7336. 6/94)

The second narrator is Hajjaj al-A’war, whose full name is Hajjaj bin Ali. This person’s status is unknown, but it is known that he was the teacher of Abu Mikhnaf.

(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 1475. 2/203)

Only two of these narrations are transmitted in Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, and both are narrated from Waqidi. In Tabari, there is only one narration in this regard, which is narrated from Waqidi. This shows that the trail of all narrations in this regard ends at Waqidi or Abu Mikhnaf.

Was anything given to Ibn Abi Sarh and Marwan from the Khums of Africa?

In this context, there are two narrations that need clarification. One is the same narration mentioned above, that Hazrat Uthman (RA) granted Hazrat Abdullah bin Abi Sarh (RA) the Khums of the Khums (1/25) of the spoils of war from Africa. According to the second narration, this Khums was given to Marwan bin Hakam.

Before clarifying these narrations, it would be appropriate to state the rule of Khums. The command of the Holy Quran in this matter is:

وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ إِنْ كُنتُمْ آمَنْتُمْ بِاللَّهِ.

"If you believe in Allah, know that whatever you acquire as spoils of war, one-fifth (1/5) of it is for Allah, His Messenger, your relatives, orphans, the needy, and travelers." (Al-Anfal 8:41)

Since the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not get enough time from his responsibilities of prophethood and governance to arrange for his own livelihood, the law was made that 4/5 of the spoils obtained from enemy forces during wars would be distributed among the army, and its Khums (one-fifth) would be sent to the central government. From this Khums, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would spend on his family, orphans, the needy, and travelers. Whatever his family received from this, they too would spend most of it on these orphans and the needy instead of their own needs. The Khums of this Khums (i.e., 1/25th) was designated as the personal fund of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), which he would spend according to Allah Ta’ala’s guidance.

After the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), this same Khums began to be received by the central government, which took on the status of a Benevolent Fund. Since the treasures of Caesar and Khosrau were now being conquered, the amount of Khums also became very large and began to be spent on the welfare of the Muslims. Imam Shafi’i stated in Kitab al-Umm that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) determined the method of spending this Khums such that the Khums of this Khums (i.e., 1/25th) would be the discretionary fund of the ruler.

(Muhammad bin Idris al-Shafi’i. Kitab al-Umm. Qism al-Fay’ wal-Ghanimah, al-Wajh al-Thalith. No. 1843. Vol. 5, p. 315. Mansoura: Dar al-Wafa. www.waqfeya.com)

The remaining four parts of the Khums were spent on orphans, the needy, and other vulnerable classes. In this way, 24/25 of whatever wealth was obtained from enemy forces in the spoils of war was distributed among the Muslims, and 1/25 came to the Caliph’s share. The Caliphs also generally spent this amount in the interest of the Ummah and sometimes gave it as a reward to certain commanders.

Hazrat Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh (RA) was incentivized by Hazrat Uthman (RA) that if he conquered the regions of Libya and Tunisia, he would receive 1/25 of the spoils of war. He used his extraordinary abilities to accomplish this campaign, in which immense spoils were obtained.

Commander Abdullah was entitled to this 1/25, which amounted to nearly one hundred thousand dirhams. Hazrat Uthman (RA) gave him this sum, but his army did not like it. To protect the army’s morale, Hazrat Uthman ordered him to return the money, and then this sum was distributed among his army.

(Tabari. 3/1-396)

Hazrat Abdullah (RA) did not show any resentment and continued to perform his duties with the same diligence after returning the money. This shows the sincerity of his intention.

The second objection raised against Hazrat Uthman (RA) is that he gave the entire Khums of the conquests of Africa to Marwan bin Hakam.

This is also merely an accusation. Allama Ibn Khaldun (732-808/1332-1405) states:

Ibn Zubair sent the good news of the victory and the one-fifth of the spoils of war to Medina, which Marwan purchased for five hundred thousand dinars. What some people say, that Hazrat Uthman granted it to Marwan, is not correct.

(Ibn Khaldun. Tarikh. Chapter on the Conquest of Africa. 2/574. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr 2000)

The rebels needed an excuse for propaganda; they turned Marwan’s purchase into a grant and started leveling false accusations against Hazrat Uthman (RA). If they had not gotten this opportunity, they would have made some other objection. You have already seen in the narrations mentioned above that the narration of Marwan being given the Khums of Africa is narrated by Abu Mikhnaf. This is the same person whose hatred for the Sahaba Karam is well-known, and he belonged to the fourth generation of the same rebel movement that rose up against him (Uthman).

5. Was Hazrat Uthman’s lifestyle royal?

Another objection raised against Hazrat Uthman (RA) was that he ate soft and fine food, whereas his predecessor Hazrat Umar (RA) ate very simple food. What was his reply to this:

‘Amr bin Umayyah Damri (RA) says: The old people of Quraysh preferred soft food. One night, I ate an excellently cooked meal with Hazrat Uthman (RA). I had never eaten a finer meal before it. It contained meat from a goat’s stomach, as well as milk and ghee. Uthman asked: “What do you think of this food?” I said: “This is the finest food I have eaten.” Uthman remarked: “May Allah have mercy on Umar bin Khattab, did you ever eat this kind of food with him?” I said: “Yes! But when I would bring my morsel to my mouth, it would fall from my hand. It had neither meat nor milk. There was, however, some ghee in the curry.”

Uthman said: “You speak the truth. The reality is that Umar made the work difficult for his successors. He used modest food items. But the food I eat, I do not eat by spending the wealth of the Muslims, but from my personal wealth. You know that I was the wealthiest among the Quraysh and worked the hardest in trade. I have always eaten good food, and now I have reached an age where the finest food is desirable to me. I do not infringe on anyone’s rights in this matter.”

(Tabari. 3/1-459)

6. The Dissatisfaction of the Senior Sahaba

The rebel narrators have tried in their narrations to present an impression that the senior Sahaba were not happy with Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) policies. By doing so, they try to justify their rebellion, whereas the reality is contrary to the words of these rebels. History is full of narrations according to which, when the rebels besieged Medina, the senior Sahaba defended Hazrat Uthman (RA). They answered the rebels’ allegations and put the lives of their young sons at risk for the security of Hazrat Uthman. Most prominent among them were Hazrat Ali, Talha, and Zubair (RA). Then, when he was martyred, these same Sahaba showed a strong reaction against the killers.¹³ If the senior Sahaba were not satisfied, they would not have shown such a strong reaction to the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (RA). All senior Sahaba were not only satisfied with Hazrat Uthman but were also participants in his policy-making. Here we are quoting the statements of a few Sahaba, which give an idea of their opinion.

We have been able to find 19 such narrations in the earliest books of history regarding the displeasure of the senior Sahaba with Uthman (RA), the details of which are presented below:

Source	Total Narrations	Narrator Analysis
Ibn Sa’d (168-230/784-845)	1	Narrated from the unreliable narrator Qunafa Aqili.
Baladhuri (d. 279/893)	16	8 from Waqidi, 4 from Abu Mikhnaf, 1 from Hisham Kalbi, 2 from Bahz bin Asad, 1 Unknown (all unreliable).
Tabari (224-310/838-922)	2	1 from Waqidi, 1 from Sayf bin Umar (both unreliable).
Total	19	All 19 narrations are from unreliable narrators.

Tabari has transmitted the words of various distinguished Sahaba, which they said upon hearing the news of the oppressed Caliph’s martyrdom.

When Hazrat Ali (RA) received this news, he said:

“May Allah have mercy on Uthman and grant us peace and well-being.” Some people said: “Now they (the rebels) are worried.” Upon this, he (Ali) recited this verse: “They are like Satan when he says to man, ‘Disbelieve.’ But when he disbelieves, Satan says, ‘Indeed, I am free of you; I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds.’”

(Tabari. 3/1-448)

Hazrat Zubair (RA) said:

“Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un (We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return). May Allah have mercy on Uthman and be his helper.” People told him: “They (the rebels) are worried now.” He said: “They plotted, and what they wanted was not fulfilled. Destruction is for them.” Then he recited this verse: “So they were unable to make a bequest, nor could they return to their families.”

(TabTari. 3/1-448)

When Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) received the news, he said:

“They are those whose efforts are lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing good.” Then he said: “O Allah! Confound them in their affairs and then seize them.”

(Tabari. 3/1-448)

Sayyida Aisha (RA) said:

People used to level accusations against Uthman and declare his governors as criminals. These people would come to us in Medina, describe the situations of the governors, and seek our advice. From their outward talk, it seemed that they were seekers of reform and righteous people. But when we investigated the situations, we found Uthman to be very pious and innocent of these allegations. Those who complained about him appeared to be wicked and liars in the guise of piety. Their outside was one thing, and their inside was another. When these people gathered strength through this deceit and fraud, they reached Medina, besieged Uthman in his house, and shed a sacred blood, making it lawful. Then they plundered the wealth which was Haram (forbidden) to take and desecrated the City of the Messenger without any justification. What they are seeking is not appropriate for you. You must take Qisas (retribution) from the killers of Uthman and establish the command of Allah Azza wa Jall.

Allah Azza wa Jall says: أَلَمْ تَرَى إِلَى الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا نَصِيباً مِنْ الْكِتَابِ يُدْعَوْنَ إِلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّى فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ وَهُمْ مُعْرِضُونَ “Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture? They are invited to the Book of Allah that it should judge between them; then a party of them turns away, revolving.” (Aal-Imran 3:23)

(Tabari. 36H/3/2-68)

After this love from the Sahaba Karam, we now present those few narrations from which it ostensibly appears that the senior Sahaba were not satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies. Along with this, we will review these narrations under the principles of Riwayah (narration) and Dirayah (scrutiny).

Did Hazrat Umar have any apprehension about what would come after him?

Some people say that Hazrat Umar (RA) feared that tribal ‘asabiyyah (partisanship) would rise up after him. For this reason, he was particularly cautious about Hazrat Uthman (RA). In this regard, they present a fabricated narration, which Baladhuri transmitted, and from there, it spread. After that, Ibn Abd al-Barr, in “Al-Isti’ab,” related it in such a way that some narrator added significant spice to it.

Ibn Abd al-Barr’s narration is something like this:

حدثنا عبد الوارث بن سفيان قراءة منى عليه من كتابى وهو ينظر فى كتابه قال، حدثنا أبو محمد قاسم بن أصبغ، حدثنا أبو عبيد بن عبد الواحد البزار، حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن ايوب، قال قاسم وحدثنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن سالم الصائغ حدثنا سليمان بن داود قالا حدثنا إراهيم بن سعد حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق عن الزهرى عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس:

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (RA) that he said: I was walking with Hazrat Umar one day when he took a deep breath, and I thought his ribs might have cracked. I said: “SubhanAllah! O Amir-ul-Momineen! By Allah, this must be due to some great matter that you have sighed like this.” He said: “Alas! Ibn Abbas! I do not understand what to do about the Ummah of Muhammad (ﷺ).” I said: “What is this? You have the authority to nominate a reliable person for it (the Caliphate).” He said: “You are telling me that your companion, meaning Ali (RA), is the most deserving of it among all people.” I said: “Yes! I say this because of his precedence in Islam, his knowledge, his kinship, and his status as a son-in-law (of the Prophet).” He said: “Yes, he is like that, but he has too much jocularity.”

I said: “What is your opinion about Uthman?” He said: “By Allah! If I nominate him, he will impose the children of Abu Mu’ayt on the necks of the people, so that they disobey Allah in their affairs. By Allah! If I do this, he will certainly do that. Then the people will fall upon him and kill him.”

I said: “What about Talha bin Ubaydullah?” He said: “Oh, that self-worshipper! The station (of Caliphate) is far above him. God forbid that I entrust the affairs of the Ummah of Muhammad to an arrogant person like him.”

I said: “Zubair bin Awwam?” He said: “He would measure things out to people by the Saa’ (a small measure).”

I said: “What is your opinion about Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas?” He said: “He is not fit for this work; he is only fit for taking a contingent of horsemen and fighting.”

I said: “And Abdur Rahman bin Awf?” He said: “He is a good man, but this work is not for him. By Allah! Ibn Abbas! The one fit for this work (Caliphate) is only he who is strong but not harsh; gentle but not weak; generous but not extravagant; knows how to control but without stinginess.” Ibn Abbas says: “By Allah, Umar was just like that.”

(Ibn Abd al-Barr (368-463/979-1071). Al-Isti’ab fi Ma’rifat al-Ashab. 2/59, Bab Ali)

There are problems with both the isnad (chain) and the matn (text) of this narration. Every word of the narration is crying out that its fabricator holds intense hatred for all the Sahaba of the Shura (consultative council) except Hazrat Ali (RA). For this reason, he has tried to express his hatred through the words of Hazrat Umar (RA). Since Hazrat Talha and Zubair (RA) tried to stem the tide of the rebel movement, particular hatred for them is dripping from the words of this narration.

From the perspective of the text (matn), firstly, this narration presents a picture completely contrary to the authentic and sound narrations according to which Hazrat Umar (RA), while appointing the Shura, said:

“Before you is the group about whom the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said that they will surely enter Paradise. Sa’id bin Zayd bin Amr bin Nufayl is also among them, but I will not include him in this Shura. Among these people, Ali and Uthman are from Banu Abd Manaf (i.e., close relatives of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)). Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas are the maternal uncles of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Zubair bin Awwam is his Hawari (disciple) and his cousin (son of his paternal aunt). And among them is Talha al-Khayr (the Good) bin Ubaydullah.”

(Tabari. 3/1-254)

And the second point is that the narrator, while fabricating the above narration, refutes himself by the words he attributed to Hazrat Umar regarding Hazrat Uthman.

The words are: ”By Allah! If I nominate him, he will impose the children of Abu Mu’ayt on the necks of the people, so that they disobey Allah in their affairs. By Allah! If I do this, he will certainly do that. Then the people will fall upon him and kill him.”

Now, the question arises that Hazrat Uthman did not give any post to anyone from the descendants of Abu Mu’ayt. Only Walid bin Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ayt was one, who was appointed by Hazrat Umar himself, not Hazrat Uthman. Other than him, Hazrat Uthman did not give any post to any son or grandson of Abu Mu’ayt. (Radi Allahu Anhum)

Now let’s look at the isnad (chain).

Ibn Abd al-Barr (368-463/979-1071) stated its chain as: حدثنا عبد الوارث بن سفيان قراءة منى عليه من كتابى وهو ينظر فى كتابه قال، حدثنا أبو محمد قاسم بن أصبغ، حدثنا أبو عبيد بن عبد الواحد البزار، حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن ايوب، قال قاسم وحدثنا محمد بن إسماعIL بن سالم الصائغ حدثنا سليمان بن داود قالا حدثنا إراهيم بن سعد حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق عن الزهرى عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس۔

Abdul Warith bin Sufyan, from whom Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated, his status is unknown, and it is not known if he is reliable or not.
There are many narrators named Sulayman bin Dawud, all of whom are weak except for one. Mizan al-I’tidal mentions eight narrators with this name, listed from No. 3451-3458.
- Among them, the first is Sulayman bin Dawud al-Khawlani, who is weak. The second is Sulayman bin Dawud al-Yamami, who is also weak and Matruk (abandoned). The third is Abu Dawud Sulayman bin Dawud al-Tayalisi (d. 204/819), who is Thiqah (reliable) but makes many mistakes. The fourth is Sulayman bin Dawud al-Minqari al-Shadhukuni (d. 234/848), who is extremely weak and Matruk al-Hadith (abandoned in Hadith), and is accused of fabricating lies. The fifth is Sulayman bin Dawud al-Qurashi, whose status is unknown. The sixth is Sulayman bin Dawud al-Jazari, who is Matruk. The seventh is Sulayman bin Dawud bin Qais al-Madani, whose reliability has been criticized. The eighth is Sulayman bin Dawud Mawla Yahya bin Ma’mar, whose status is unknown.
Among these, the highest probability is that the original narrator of this narration is al-Shadhukuni, who is severely weak and accused of fabricating lies.
In the chain of the narration is Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ayyub. No narrator by this name is mentioned in the encyclopedias of Rijal (biographies of narrators). Mizan al-I’tidal mentions sixty narrators named Muhammad bin Ahmad, from No. 7139-7198, but Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ayyub is not among them. Therefore, nothing can be said about his reliability. There is, however, another person named Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ayyub, who has been declared Matruk and Kadhdhab (liar). He is mentioned under No. 535. It is possible that a scribe wrote Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ayyub instead of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ayyub.

Baladhuri stated its chain as: حدثنا محمد بن سعد، حدثنا الواقدي، عن محمد بن عبيد الله الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة، عن ابن عباس: This chain first has al-Waqidi, whose lying is famous. The second narrator is Muhammad bin Ubayd Allah al-Zuhri, whom Abu Hatim declared Munkar al-Hadith (rejected in Hadith). Yahya bin Ma’in says that his Hadith has no standing, and Ibn ‘Adi says that he was a member of the rebel party of Kufa.

(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 7910. 6/246)

From this, it is known that none of the chains of the narration mentioned above, in which Umar (RA) is expressing a lack of confidence in Uthman (RA), is reliable.

❓ Was Hazrat Ali satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

Tabari has transmitted a few narrations from which it seems that Hazrat Ali (RA) was not satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) policies. When the rebels besieged Medina, the following words of Hazrat Ali (RA) were transmitted:

قال محمد بن عمر: وحدثني عبد الله بن محمد، عن أبيه:

“I kept advising you time and again, and we talked on every occasion. On every occasion, you acted on the advice of Marwan bin Hakam, Sa’id bin Aas, Ibn Aamir, and Mu’awiyah, and opposed my advice.” Uthman said: “Now I will obey your every word and will not accept their word.”… “Are you satisfied with Marwan? He will ruin your intellect and your Deen (religion) and then leave. In front of him, you are like a riding camel; he drives you wherever he wishes. By Allah! Marwan is neither wise nor religious. I fear that he will lead you to destruction, from which you will not be able to get out. Now, after this, I will never come to advise you, because you have been overpowered and are helpless.”

(Tabari. 3/1-409, 414)

The narrations in which these things are transmitted are all narrated by Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi, and we have already quoted the opinions of the Muhadditheen (Hadith scholars) on Waqidi’s mendacity and lying. Waqidi’s practice was that this gentleman would collect all sorts of sound and unsound narrations, create a story from them, and narrate it. It is very possible that Waqidi recorded the narrations of the rebel narrators just as they were. Waqidi is narrating this narration from Abdullah bin Muhammad. It is highly probable that this Abdullah is the grandson of Hazrat Aqil (RA), and the experts of Jarh wa Ta’deel (Criticism and Praise), such as Ibn al-Madini, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Khuzaymah, have declared him weak (Da’if). Ibn Hibban says his memory was weak.

(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 4541. 4/175)

From the perspective of Dirayah (scrutiny), if Hazrat Ali was not satisfied with Hazrat Uthman (RA), why would he be so anxious for his protection that he would appoint his young sons to guard the Caliph in an extremely dangerous situation?

❓ Was Hazrat Talha satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

Some historical narrations have specifically targeted Hazrat Talha (RA), alleging that he did not protect Hazrat Uthman (RA) but secretly helped the rebels. In our view, these things are part of the disinformation spread by the rebel movement, and allegations were leveled against Hazrat Ali and Talha (RA). As you have read above, the rebels wanted that when they martyred Hazrat Uthman, the blame for it should fall on Hazrat Ali, Talha, and Zubair (RA). In this way, the rebels’ goal would be achieved, and the infamy would fall to these gentlemen.

This allegation is refuted by the fact that Hazrat Talha appointed his young son, Muhammad bin Talha, to protect Hazrat Uthman, who guarded the Caliph’s house along with his companions Hasan, Hussain, and Abdullah bin Zubair (RA). After the martyrdom of Uthman, Hazrat Talha started a strong movement against this rebel movement, and while fighting against these same rebels in the Battle of the Camel, he offered the sacrifice of his own life and his son’s life, and before his martyrdom, he said these historic words:

“O Allah! Take my life in retribution for Uthman, so that he may be pleased.”

(Tabari. 3/2-146)

Hazrat Talha’s son, Muhammad bin Talha, was also martyred with his father in this battle. To say about a person who offered his own life and his child’s life for Hazrat Uthman that he, Ma’adhAllah (God forbid), was a helper of the rebels, is a very meaningless thing.

A summary of the narrations found in the books of history regarding Hazrat Talha (RA) is as follows:

The most famous narration is the one that Baladhuri transmitted from Hazrat Sa’id bin al-Musayyib (Rahimahullah), and other historians have also recorded it. It is a long narration in which he described the details of Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) martyrdom in great detail, and along with it, mentioned the extraordinary efforts of the senior Sahaba, including Hazrat Ali, Talha, Zubair, and Sa’d (RA), which they made in defense of the Caliph. There are some sentences in this narration that give a false impression about Hazrat Talha (RA), that he was against Hazrat Uthman and that he had appointed his son to protect him (Uthman) only under compulsion. If you look at the chain of this narration, it is: هشام بن عمار الدمشقي، محمد بن عيسى بن سميع، محمد بن أبي ذئب، الزهري، سعيد بن المسيب۔
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 6/186)
We are citing the commentary of the famous Muhaddith (Hadith scholar) Ibn ‘Adi regarding this narration:
Ibn ‘Adi says: There is no harm in narrating from (Muhammad bin Isa bin Sumay’), but he has been criticized for the narration of Hazrat Uthman’s martyrdom. He actually took this narration from Isma’il bin Yahya bin Ubayd Allah, who is one of the weak narrators, and attributed it to Ibn Abi Dhi’b. In this way, he used Tadlis (deceptively concealing a weak narrator’s name and giving the impression that the narration is reliable) by omitting Isma’il and attributing it to Ibn Abi Dhi’b.
Salih Jazarah says: Hisham bin Ammar narrated the incident of Hazrat Uthman’s martyrdom through Ibn Sumay’ and Ibn Abi Dhi’b. I tried in every way to get him to use the word “Haddathana Ibn Abi Dhi’b” (Ibn Abi Dhi’b told us), but he refused and only kept saying the word “‘An” (from). [The word ‘An’ is ambiguous and does not clarify whether a narrator received the narration from his teacher himself or if it reached him through someone else. In contrast, the word ‘Haddathana’ is specific and is only used when the narrator hears the Hadith directly from his teacher.]
Salih bin Muhammad says: Muhammad bin Isa’s grandson, Mahmud, told me that in my grandfather’s book, this narration is narrated from Ibn Abi Dhi’b through the medium of Isma’il bin Yahya. Salih says that Isma’il used to fabricate narrations. When I told this to Muhammad bin Yahya al-Dhuhli, he said: “It is Allah who helps.”
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 8039. 6/289)
It should be clear that all experts of Jarh wa Ta’deel are unanimous that Isma’il bin Yahya bin Ubayd Allah was one of the biggest liars among the narrators.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 967. 1/415)
In this narration, he (Isma’il) tried to present the roles of Hazrat Talha, Zubair, and Sa’d (RA) in defending Uthman at a minimal level and to highlight the role of Hazrat Ali (RA).
Baladhuri narrated a second narration from Abu Mikhnaf, according to which, Ma’adhAllah (God forbid), Hazrat Talha cut off the water supply to Hazrat Uthman (RA). Hazrat Ali (RA) became very angry at this and sent water himself.
(Baladhuri. 6/188)
In another narration, an apology from Hazrat Talha to Hazrat Uthman is transmitted, and in response, Hazrat Uthman’s complaint is transmitted: “Sir, you ignited the fire of rebellion against me, and now you yourself are apologizing for it.”
(Baladhuri. 6/196)
The chain (isnad) that Baladhuri stated for both these narrations is: وقال أبو مخنف وغيره (And Abu Mikhnaf and others said). We believe this chain needs no comment, as Abu Mikhnaf’s hatred for the Sahaba Karam is well-known. It is clear that when Hazrat Talha (RA) started the movement for Qisas for the killers of Uthman, these people specifically tried to defame him, alleging that this gentleman himself started the rebellion and has now himself become the claimant for Qisas.
The third narration is a long story narrated from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (58-124/677-741). In it, the entire story of Uthman’s martyrdom is described in detail, and it mentions Hazrat Talha (RA) cutting off the water. Baladhuri stated its chain as: حدثني أحمد بن إراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا وهب بن جرير بن حازم، حدثنا أبي، عن يونس بن يزيد الأيلي، عن الزهري۔ This chain is Munqati’ (disconnected) because al-Zuhri was born in 58 AH / 677 CE, 23 years after the martyrdom of Uthman. It is not known from whom he received this narration, and to what degree that person was reliable. The narrator from al-Zuhri, Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli, had a weak memory and was declared weak (Da’if) by Ahmad bin Hanbal.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 9932. 7/320)
Almost all the negative narrations transmitted from al-Zuhri are narrated by al-Ayli.
The fourth narration is transmitted by Tabari from al-Waqidi. According to it, Ma’adhAllah, Hazrat Talha (RA) issued the order to besiege Hazrat Uthman (RA), and upon this, Hazrat Uthman cursed him. The chain of the narration is: قال محمد (بن عمر الواقدي): وحدثني إبراهيم بن سالم، عن أبيه، عن بسر بن سعيد، قال: وحدثني عبد الله بن عياش بن أبي ربيعة۔ The falsehood of this narration becomes clear upon seeing the chain, as its central narrator is al-Waqidi. He narrated it from Ibrahim bin Salim, who is famous for Munkar (rejected) narrations.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 95. 1/152)

In short, all the historical narrations that mention Hazrat Talha (RA) sided with the rebels, all of them have some suspicious narrator in their chain who is famous for transmitting lies, or the names of these narrators are unknown. This shows that the rebels ran a disinformation campaign against the senior Sahaba so that the blame for martyring the Caliph would fall on them; this (disinformation) was included in the historical narrations. Hazrat Talha was innocent of any action against the oppressed Caliph, and he washed this accusation away with his own blood and the blood of his young son, and was martyred fighting against these same killers of Uthman.

If it is necessary to rely on narrations, then we present here a few other narrations in which the deep relationship between Hazrat Uthman and Hazrat Talha is prominent:

وحدثني عمر، قال: حدثنا علي، عن إسحاق بن يحيى، عن موسى ابن طلحة: Musa bin Talha states that Hazrat Talha owed Hazrat Uthman fifty thousand. One day, Hazrat Uthman came to the mosque, and Hazrat Talha said: “Your money is ready, please take it.” He (Uthman) replied: “Abu Muhammad! This is your wealth, a reward for your chivalry and nobility.”

(Tabari. 35H/3/1-462)

وأما سيف، فإنه روى فيما كتب به إلي السري، عن شعيب، عنه، عن أبي حارثة وأبي عثمان ومحمد وطلحة:

(After the martyrdom of Uthman) When it was midnight, Marwan, Zayd bin Thabit, Talha bin Ubayd Allah, Ali, Hasan, Ka’b bin Malik, and other Sahaba (RA) reached his house. Women and children also reached the site of the funeral. All these gentlemen brought Uthman’s funeral, and Marwan led his funeral prayer. Then from there, they took him to Baqi’ and buried him.

(Tabari. 35H/3/1-474)

❓ Was Hazrat Abdur Rahman satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

Through the propaganda that the rebels spread against Hazrat Uthman (RA), they wanted to prove that the senior Sahaba were not satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies. For this, they spread disinformation, and these same things became part of the narrations. The great Muhadditheen (Hadith scholars), seeing the falsehood of these narrations, paid them no heed, but Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi, who himself is famous as a Kadhdhab (liar) and possessed a special skill in narrating all sorts of reports, recorded them in his books, and thanks to him, they became part of later history books.

Regarding Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Awf (RA), who had selected Hazrat Uthman (RA) as Caliph, Baladhuri has transmitted some narrations according to which Hazrat Abdur Rahman was severely angry with Hazrat Uthman because he had sent Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari to Rabdhah. In his terminal illness, he (Abdur Rahman) did not even drink the water sent by Hazrat Uthman and swore that he would never speak to Hazrat Uthman. Baladhuri transmitted three such narrations, and the source of all three is this same Mr. Waqidi. The isnads (chains) are:

حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي عن إبراهيم بن سعد عن أبيه.
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي عن محمد بن صالح عن عبيد بن رافع عن عثمان بن الشريد
حدثني محمد بن سعد عن الواقدي عن محمد بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن عبد الله بن ثعلبة بن صعير.
حدثني مصعب بن عبد الله الزبيرى عن إبراهيم بن سعد عن أبيه!
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 6/171-172)

You can see for yourself that in the chain of the first three narrations, Mr. Waqidi is present, and this is a fabrication spread by him. The fourth chain is from the famous genealogist Mus’ab Zubayri, but it only contains the fact that Hazrat Abdur Rahman’s funeral prayer was led by Hazrat Sa’d or Hazrat Zubair (RA). Other than this, there is no negative point in this narration.

The animosity of Abdur Rahman towards Hazrat Uthman (RA) was something that should have become famous throughout Medina, and many people should have narrated it. By the time the second century AH was reached, this narration should have become so famous that everyone would know it, but we see that besides Waqidi, no one else knows this. The interesting part is that Baladhuri narrates this from Waqidi through Muhammad bin Sa’d, and in Ibn Sa’d’s own book, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, these narrations are untraceable.

On the contrary, we also find the narration that when Hazrat Uthman used to go for Hajj, he would appoint Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Awf (RA) as the acting Caliph behind him.

(Ibn Asakir. Tarikh Dimashq. 39/208)

This shows that an excellent relationship existed between Hazrat Uthman and Abdur Rahman (RA). It is possible that some minor issue occurred between them, but the experts in propaganda presented one as ten in order to run their campaign against Hazrat Uthman (RA).

❓ Was Hazrat Ammar involved in the rebel movement?

Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (RA) is a distinguished Sahabi and accepted Islam in the very beginning. His parents, Yasir and Sumayya (RA), are counted among the first martyrs of Islam. Hazrat Ammar’s entire life was dedicated to the religion of Islam, and not a single negative point is found in it. He was the governor of Kufa during the eras of Siddiqi and Faruqi. In some historical narrations, an accusation has been leveled against Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (RA) that he was part of the rebel movement that rose against Hazrat Uthman (RA). The reason for this accusation appears to be that the rebels needed some personalities to increase the stature of their movement, whom they could be proud of. They found Hazrat Ammar (RA) to be a suitable personality in this regard, and they fabricated and spread narrations concerning him.

We have tried to collect all those narrations in which this allegation against Hazrat Ammar (RA) is present and to examine the chains of these narrations to see which narrators are in them. We were able to find a total of 10 such narrations in the books of history. Their analysis is as follows:

Ibn Sa’d (168-230/784-845): 1 narration, from the unreliable narrator Qunafa Aqili.
Baladhuri (d. 279/893): Total 4 narrations, from Abu Mikhnaf & Kalbi: 1. Bahz bin Asad: 1. Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli: 1. Unknown: 1.
Tabari (224-310/838-922): Total 3 narrations, from Waqidi: 1. Sayf bin Umar: 2.
Ibn Asakir (499-571/1106-1175): Total 2 narrations, from Muhammad bin Shu’ayb: 1. Mujalid: 1.

Meaning, there are 10 narrations in total. Four of them are transmitted by Baladhuri, three by Tabari, one by Ibn Sa’d, and two by Ibn Asakir. In the chains of all ten of these narrations, there are narrators who are either in the category of Kadhdhab (liar), or are severely weak and feeble narrators, or their status is unknown. Here we are presenting all these chains and our commentary on them:

Baladhuri Narration 1:
حدثنا عباس بن هشام بن محمد عن أبي مخنف في إسناده،
(Baladhuri. 6/161)
According to this narration, Hazrat Uthman (RA) took some jewelry from the Bait-ul-Mal. Ma’adhAllah (God forbid), when Hazrat Ammar (RA) objected to this corruption, Hazrat Uthman had him beaten so much that he fell unconscious. For this narration to be false, it is sufficient that its chain contains Abbas bin Hisham Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf, whose hatred for the Sahaba is well-known. There is a missing link between these two, which is certainly Abbas’s father, Hisham Kalbi.
Baladhuri Narration 2:
حدثنا روح بن عبد المؤمن المقرئ، وأحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا بهز بن أسد، حدثنا حصين بن نمير، عن جهيم الفهري۔
(Baladhuri. 6/165)
This narration also mentions violence against Hazrat Ammar (RA). Among its narrators, the first link is Juhaim al-Fahri, about whom nothing is known, who this gentleman was, or to what degree he was reliable. Whether he was part of the rebel movement or not, we do not know. Another narrator is Bahz bin Asad, about whom it is known that he held prejudice against Hazrat Uthman (RA).
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 1326)
Baladhuri Narration 3:
قد روي أيضا۔
(Baladhuri. 6/169)
In this narration, Baladhuri has not even given the chain, but just said, “It has been narrated.” According to it, Hazrat Uthman intended to exile Hazrat Ammar (RA). Obviously, when there is no chain, the matter is completely baseless.
Baladhuri Narration 4:
أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، وهب بن جرير بن حازم، أبي، يونس بن يزيد الأيلي، الزهري۔
(Baladhuri. 6/208)
This is the same narration that was stated above with reference to Abbas Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf. Its chain includes Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli, who was a freed slave of Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA). There is disagreement among the experts of Jarh wa Ta’deel (Criticism and Praise) as to whether he is reliable or not. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal’s opinion about him is that he narrates Munkar (rejected, strange) types of narrations from al-Zuhri.
(Dhahabi. Narrator 9932. 7/320)
Furthermore, al-Ayli attributes this narration to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who was born in 58/677, at least 24 years after this incident. If al-Zuhri really did narrate this, it is very possible that he heard it from someone who held prejudice against Hazrat Uthman (RA). We have stated above that almost all the negative narrations related to the Sahaba Karam that are narrated from al-Zuhri are narrated through Yunus al-Ayli. You can see the previous series for more details about him.

In this way, it is known that the four narrations Baladhuri transmitted regarding Hazrat Ammar’s (RA) opposition are all weak or fabricated.

Now we come to Tabari’s narrations.

Tabari Narration 1:
رجع الحديث إلى حديث سيف، عن شيوخه ۔
(Tabari. 3/1-394)
According to this narration, some harsh words were exchanged between Hazrat Ammar and Abbas bin Utbah bin Abi Lahab, for which Hazrat Uthman (RA) punished them both. Because of this, Hazrat Ammar (RA) became severely against him. In light of the character of Hazrat Ammar that is before us, it is far-fetched that based on a trivial incident, he would go to such an extreme as to join the rebel movement. The chain includes Sayf bin Umar, who is not reliable in any way.
Tabari Narration 2:
قال محمد بن عمر: وحدثني عبد الله بن محمد، عن أبيه۔
(Tabari. 3/1-411)
According to this narration, when the rebels besieged Medina, Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) went to Hazrat Ammar (RA) and tried to convince him to go and negotiate with those rebels and send them back. Hazrat Ammar flatly refused. This narration is narrated by Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi, whose unreliability we have been discussing in various places in this book.
Tabari Narration 3:
حدثني عبد الله بن أحمد بن شبويه، قال: حدثني أبي، قال: حدثني عبد الله، عن إسحاق بن يحيى، عن موسى بن طلحة۔
(Tabari. 3/1-458)
This is the same narration that mentions the harsh words between Hazrat Ammar and Abbas bin Utbah. If you look at the chain of this narration, it begins with Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Shabwayh and his father. The status of both these gentlemen is unknown, and we do not know to what degree they are reliable. Then they narrate from some ‘Abdullah,’ and there are hundreds of narrators with this name, making it impossible to determine which Abdullah is meant here.

This detail shows that the narrations found in Tabari regarding Hazrat Ammar (RA) are also extremely weak in terms of their chain. Now we comment on the single narration from Ibn Sa’d.

Ibn Sa’d Narration 1:
أخبرنا سليمان بن حرب قال أخبرنا حماد بن زيد عن أيوب عن قنافة العقيلي عن مطرف،
(Ibn Sa’d 3/79)
According to this narration, Mutarrif states that he came to Hazrat Ammar (RA) and asked him why he opposed Hazrat Uthman (RA) when they had pledged allegiance to him with heart and soul? Upon this, Hazrat Ammar remained silent and gave no answer. In the chain of this narration is Qunafa al-Uqayli, whose status is unknown. It is very possible that this gentleman was also part of the rebel movement or was influenced by their propaganda. Thus, this narration of Ibn Sa’d is also severely weak.

Now we come to the two narrations stated by Ibn Asakir (499-571/1106-1175). Since Ibn Asakir’s time is 500 years after these events, his chains are very long.

Ibn Asakir Narration 1:
أخبرنا أبو محمد هبة الله بن أحمد وعبد الله بن أحمد وأبو تراب حيدرة بن أحمد – إجازة – قالوا: نا عبد العزيز بن أحمد – لفظا – أنا عبد الرحمن بن عثمان بن أبي نصرنا أبوبكر أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد، وأبو الميمون البجلي، قالا: نا أبو عبد الملك أحمد بن إبراهيم بن بسر، نا محمد بن عائذ، …. قال: وسمعت غير واحد منهم محمد بن شعيب يخبر عن سعيد بن عبد العزيز۔
(Ibn Asakir. 39/423)
According to this narration, when Hazrat Uthman sent Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (RA) to Egypt for investigations, he stayed there and said: “I have come out of Uthman’s allegiance just as I am unwrapping this turban of mine.” Upon this, the rebel movement’s prominent member, Muhammad bin Abi Hudhayfa, gave him and his companions 40,000 dinars.
This narration, in terms of Dirayah (scrutiny) as well as its chain, is severely weak. It accuses Hazrat Ammar (RA) of, Ma’adhAllah (God forbid), taking a bribe of 40,000 dinars and rebelling against the Caliph. A person who endured the oppression of the disbelievers on the burning sand in Mecca could not have such a character as to join the rebels. In terms of its chain, it is a Munqati’ (disconnected) narration, starting with Sa’id bin Abd al-Aziz (d. 167/784). Although Sa’id is a reliable narrator, his time is long after the martyrdom of Uthman.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 3234. 3/218)
Even if his age is assumed to be 100 years, he was still born long after the martyrdom of Uthman. It is very possible that he heard this narration from a rebel narrator and stated it but did not mention his name. This narration is received from Sa’id by Muhammad bin Shu’ayb, who is not a reliable narrator.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 7678. 6/185)
Ibn Asakir Narration 2:
أخبرنا أبو علي الحداد وغيره في كتبهم، قالوا: أنا أبوبكر بن ريذة، أنا سليمان بن أحمد، نا أبو خليفة، نا أبو عمر حفص بن عمر الحوضي، نا الحسن بن أبي جعفر، نا مجالد، عن الشعبي، قال:
(Ibn Asakir. 39/494)
According to this narration, the famous Tabi’i Masruq (Rahimahullah) said to Malik al-Ashtar: “You people killed Hazrat Uthman while he was fasting and worshipping.” Ashtar conveyed this to Hazrat Ammar (RA), who came and said: “By Allah! Uthman punished Ammar, exiled Abu Dharr, and reserved pastures, and you are saying he was killed while fasting and worshipping?” Masruq said: “You people had to choose one of two things: either you take revenge equal to the punishment you received, or you observe patience, and Allah is very good to those who are patient.” Hearing this, Hazrat Ammar became silent as if a stone had been put in his mouth.
In this narration, Hazrat Ammar (RA) is accused of being with the rebel movement. If you look at its chain, it contains Mujalid bin Sa’id, who is unreliable.
(Dhahabi. Narrator No. 7076. 6/23)

You can see the analysis of all ten of these narrations; their chains are weak, and they include narrators who are unreliable. Generally, the method of such narrators is that even if they do not fabricate lies themselves, they narrate hearsay without investigation. The rebel movement lacked prominent figures, and it was their need to show at least some Sahaba as their allies so that their credibility (Sakh) would improve, and with its help, they could mislead more young people. This is why they spread propaganda about some Sahaba, claiming they were their allies. The most prominent name in this propaganda was that of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (RA). The rebels gained two benefits from this: one, the blame for the martyrdom of Uthman fell on a distinguished Sahabi, and two, their movement was strengthened by the idea that Sahaba were also joining them.

We have tried to find such narrations related to Hazrat Ammar (RA) in all important history books, and despite a full effort, we could only find these ten narrations. We do not claim that no other narration exists about him besides these; however, what has been said about him is covered in these narrations. If you find any narration other than these, be sure to look at its chain. We are certain that in the chain of all such narrations, there will definitely be someone who is not reliable.

❓ Was Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari exiled?

This accusation has also been leveled against Hazrat Uthman (RA) that he exiled the distinguished Sahabi Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari (RA) from Medina and sent him to Rabdhah, where he resided with his family and passed away. In historical narrations, the story is told something like this: Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) used to severely criticize the wealthy in Medina. On Hazrat Uthman’s advice, he went to Syria. When Abdullah bin Saba’ wanted to establish his foothold here, he came to Hazrat Abu Dharr and drew his attention to the gap between the rich and the poor. Upon this, Hazrat Abu Dharr was influenced by his words and went to the governor of Syria, Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA), and argued with him that wealth should be distributed among the poor and the wealthy should be stopped from accumulating wealth. Hazrat Mu’awiyah replied that the government can only collect Zakat from the rich, and that is being done. Upon this, Hazrat Abu Dharr got angry and came to Medina, and here too, he continued his movement against the rich. This movement created problems in Medina as well, due to which Hazrat Uthman (RA) sent him towards Rabdhah. Based on this very story, some modern-day communists have declared Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari (RA) to be, Ma’adhAllah (God forbid), a communist.

It would be appropriate to examine the narrations in which these events are stated. Baladhuri has transmitted eleven narrations in this regard, which are:

(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 6/166)
This is the same narration that mentions Hazrat Abu Dharr’s (RA) criticism of the rich and his exile. Baladhuri has not stated its chain, but simply said Qalu (They said) and narrated the report. According to his usual method, he says this when he has already stated the chain previously. The chain of the preceding narration is: حدثنا روح بن عبد المؤمن المقرئ، وأحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا بهز بن أسد، حدثنا حصين بن نمير، عن جهيم الفهري۔ We have already commented on this chain above, that the status of Juhaim al-Fahri is unknown, and Bahz bin Asad was prejudiced against Hazrat Uthman (RA).
حدثني عباس بن هشام، عن أبيه، عن أبي مخنف، عن فضيل بن خديج، عن كميل بن زياد۔
This narration is the statement of Kumayl bin Ziyad, that “I was in Medina at the time when Hazrat Uthman sent Abu Dharr (RA) first to Syria and then to Rabdhah.” All the narrators of this report are famous for their hatred of Hazrat Uthman (RA). Especially regarding Kumayl bin Ziyad, it is also stated that he was included in the party of Uthman’s killers and on one occasion had planned an assassination attempt on Hazrat Uthman himself, which failed. As for the rest, Abbas bin Hisham Kalbi, his father, and Abu Mikhnaf are so famous in this matter that no further comment is needed.
حدثني بكر بن الهيثم، عن عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن قتادة۔
This narration also mentions the exile and states that upon Hazrat Abu Dharr’s exile, Hazrat Ali (RA) came to Hazrat Uthman (RA) and spoke harshly to him. The narrator in this chain, Bakr bin al-Haytham, it is unknown who this gentleman is or to what degree he is reliable. It is possible that he was also part of the rebel movement. It is possible he is the son of the famous Kadhdhab (liar) Haytham bin Adi (d. 207/823), who was famous for his hatred of the Sahaba Karam.
(Dhahabi. Siyar A’lam al-Nubala. Personality No. 6546. p. 4113)
قد روي أيضا۔
In this narration, it is stated that after Abu Dharr, Hazrat Uthman also wanted to exile Ammar bin Yasir (RA), but refrained from it due to criticism from Hazrat Ali (RA). Looking at the chain, Mr. Baladhuri has merely contented himself with Qad Ruwiya Aydan (i.e., “It has also been narrated”) and has not given the name of any narrator. One can guess who these narrators must be.
حدثني محمد عن الواقدي عن موسى بن عبيدة عن عبد الله بن خراش الكعبي، وحدثني محمد عن الواقدي عن شيبان النحوي عن الأعمش، عن إبراهيم التيمي عن أبيه۔
According to these narrations, someone asked Hazrat Abu Dharr what brought him to Rabdhah. He replied: “My sincerity (khayr khawahi) for Uthman and Mu’awiyah.” According to the second narration, he mentioned Amr bil Ma’roof (enjoining good). For these narrations to be unreliable, it is sufficient that Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi is present in the chain. Furthermore, Ibrahim al-Taymi is also an unreliable narrator. Abu Hatim declared him “Munkar al-Hadith” (rejected in Hadith), while in Imam Bukhari’s view, the narrations he relates are not proven.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. Narrator No. 178. 1/180)
حدثني محمد عن الواقدي عن طلحة بن محمد بن بشر بن حوشب الفزاري عن أبيه۔
This narration is also from Waqidi; however, it presents a positive side of the picture. According to it, Bishr bin Hawshab asked the famous Tabi’i Hazrat Sa’id bin al-Musayyib (Rahimahullah) about the exile of Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA), and he replied: “Hazrat Uthman sent Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) to Rabdhah because he (Abu Dharr) himself wanted to live there.” In our opinion, this is likely the correct version: Hazrat Abu Dharr, tired of the commotion of the city, must have wanted to live in the open atmosphere of the countryside, which is why Hazrat Uthman (RA) sent him there and gave him land and livestock for his sustenance.
قال أبو مخنف:
In this narration by Abu Mikhnaf, it is mentioned that Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) was residing with his family in Rabdhah, and he died there. He willed to his daughter that whoever attended his funeral should be invited for a meal. After his death, some travelers passed by who performed his funeral prayer and, according to his will, were served a meal. According to Abu Mikhnaf’s narration, Hazrat Jarir bin Abdullah led the funeral prayer, while according to Waqidi, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA) led the funeral prayer. There is nothing negative in these narrations. Baladhuri transmitted this same narration through two other chains as well.
حدثني عن هشام عن العوام بن حوشب عن رجل من بني ثعلبة بن سعد، قال:۔
This is a positive narration, but its chain is weak. According to it, some people from the rebel movement met Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) in Rabdhah and encouraged him to join them. Upon this, he gave a very beautiful answer: “If Ibn Affan (Uthman) crucifies me on a date palm trunk, I will listen to him, I will obey him, I will hold myself accountable, and I will be patient. Whoever humiliates the government, his repentance will not be accepted.” Hearing this, the rebels went back.
(Baladhuri. 5/171)
Although the chain of the narration is weak, as the name of one person is unknown, the matter stated in it is exactly in accordance with the character of Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari (RA).

Tabari has narrated one long report in this regard which clarifies the matter:

كتب إلي بها السري، يذكر أن شعيبا حدثه عن سيف، عن عطية، عن يزيد الفقعسي۔

According to it, when Abdullah bin Saba’ came to Syria, he said to Hazrat Abu Dharr: “Abu Dharr! Are you not surprised at Mu’awiyah’s statement that he says all wealth is ‘Allah’s wealth’? Whereas everything belongs to Allah. I fear that he might take all the wealth of the Muslims into his possession and even erase the name of the Muslims.” Hearing this, Abu Dharr (RA) went to Mu’awiyah (RA) and asked him the reason for this. He (Mu’awiyah) replied: “Abu Dharr! Are we not all Allah’s slaves, and is the wealth not His wealth? Is this creation not His creation? Is the original command not His command?” Now Hazrat Abu Dharr began preaching in Syria, in which he urged the rich to give their wealth to the poor. Due to this, the poor gathered around him, and the rich became annoyed with him. Hazrat Mu’awiyah (RA) wrote to Hazrat Uthman asking for a solution to the problem, who replied that he (Abu Dharr) should be sent back to Medina with honor and respect. Now Hazrat Abu Dharr came to Medina and saw various types of secret assemblies here. He said: “Give the people of Medina the prophecy of a severe, devastating, and memorable war.”

When Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) met Hazrat Uthman, he (Uthman) asked him about the matter. Abu Dharr replied: “It is not correct to call the wealth of the Muslims ‘Allah’s wealth,’ and it is not permissible for the wealthy to accumulate wealth.” Upon this, Hazrat Uthman replied: “Abu Dharr! It is my duty to fulfill my obligations and to collect from the public what is due upon them. I cannot force them to become Zahid (ascetics); I can only (stipulate) that they work hard and practice frugality.” Upon this, Abu Dharr asked him for permission to live outside Medina. Hazrat Uthman asked: “Would you prefer to live in a lesser place than Medina?” He replied: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) commanded me that when the buildings of Medina become secret hideouts (Siyaseen – ‘forts’ or ‘hideouts’), I should leave.” Upon this, Hazrat Uthman said: “In that case, comply with the order given to you.” After this, Hazrat Uthman gave him a herd of camels and also handed over two companions to serve him, and also sent word: “Keep visiting Medina, lest you become a bedouin.” Thus, Abu Dharr used to act upon this. He also built a mosque in Rabdhah.

(Tabari. 3/1-321)

In this narration, Sayf bin Umar or some other narrator has tried to give the impression that Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA), influenced by Ibn Saba’s words, began giving speeches against the rich and in favor of the poor, whereas this is not correct. It is well-known about Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) that he always used to exhort the rich to distribute their wealth among the poor, even beyond Zakat. Abdullah bin Saba’ had no role in this matter. Hazrat Abu Dharr was a sensitive person and understood that the abundance of wealth might corrupt the character of the Muslims. This was a time when, due to the multitude of conquests, the treasures of Caesar and Khosrau had fallen into the hands of the Muslims, and instead of being kept in the Bait-ul-Mal, they were being distributed among the common man. It was not that the poor in this society were very poor and the rich very rich; rather, the government had taken responsibility for the basic needs of every person. The position of Hazrat Uthman and Mu’awiyah (RA) was that the government could only forcibly collect Zakat from the public. The wealthy could be encouraged to spend more on the poor, but nothing more could be done. Yes, if an extraordinary situation like a famine arose, then the government could impose additional taxes on the rich besides Zakat.

Due to this difference of opinion, Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) preferred to leave the city and move to a village. Hazrat Uthman (RA) first tried to convince him, but when he was not convinced, he sent him off with a herd of camels, which was the greatest wealth of that era, but at the same time advised him to keep visiting Medina. This shows the mutual relationship between these two Sahaba.

Such a difference of opinion arising is not a big deal, and this happens among humans. Now, what happened was that the rebel movement used this minor issue for its own purposes. They first tried to provoke Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) and get him to join them, and for this, they also tempted him with leadership. Hazrat Abu Dharr did not fall for their trap and rebuked them, saying: “If Ibn Affan (Uthman) crucifies me on a date palm trunk, I will listen to him, I will obey him, I will hold myself accountable, and I will be patient. Whoever humiliates the government, his repentance will not be accepted.” After this, these rebels twisted the situation and presented it, accusing Hazrat Uthman (RA) of having exiled Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA), whereas Hazrat Abu Dharr had gone to Rabdhah, which was a large pasture, of his own free will.

This entire detail shows that the whole story about Hazrat Abu Dharr (RA) is merely a fabrication, which the rebels concocted merely to involve him with them.

❓ Was Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud subjected to violence?

Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA) is a distinguished Sahabi, and he is also counted among the Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon (the first to embrace Islam). Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud was one of the four Sahaba from whom the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) commanded (others) to learn the Quran. He was in charge of the Bait-ul-Mal of Kufa during the eras of Hazrat Umar and Uthman (RA) and, along with that, spent his life in education and preaching. He held an extraordinary position in Fiqh (jurisprudence), and it was on the basis of his scholarly efforts that the Kufan school of Fiqh came into existence in later centuries, spearheaded by Imam Abu Hanifa.

Hazrat Abdullah was among the close companions of Hazrat Uthman (RA). When Hazrat Uthman was elected, Hazrat Abdullah came to Kufa and said: “We have elected the best person from the remaining people and have not been negligent in this matter.”

(Ibn Asakir. 39/212)

When the rebels besieged Medina, although Hazrat Abdullah had passed away by that time, it was his distinguished students—Masruq bin al-Ajda’, Aswad bin Yazid, Shurayh bin al-Harith, and Abdullah bin Hakam (Rahimahumullah)—who prepared the people of Kufa to help the Caliph. This shows that Hazrat Abdullah and his students loved Hazrat Uthman (RA) very much.

(Tabari. 3/1-401)

The rebels, as part of their propaganda, fabricated narrations that Hazrat Abdullah had turned against Hazrat Uthman because he (Uthman) had him beaten with whips. This same propaganda, becoming part of some narrations, entered the books of history. It is necessary that we also look at its reality. We have been able to find only two narrations in this regard in the books of history, which Baladhuri has transmitted:

حدثني عباس بن هشام عن أبيه عن أبي مخنف وعوانة في إسنادهما:
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 6/146)
According to this narration, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud criticized the governor of Kufa, Walid bin Uqbah, in punishment for which Hazrat Uthman (RA) summoned him to Medina, had him beaten, and imprisoned him there, within two years of which Hazrat Abdullah passed away. If you look at the chain of the narration, it contains all those people who were later part of the rebel movement, and all of them held severe hatred for the Sahaba Karam. They include Abbas bin Hisham, Hisham Kalbi, and Abu Mikhnaf.
حدثني اسحاق الفروي أبو موسى، حدثنا عبد الله بن إدريس عن عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله عن رجل نسيه اسحاق:
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 6/148)
According to this narration, Hazrat Uthman went to Hazrat Abdullah’s (RA) house when he was on his deathbed. On this occasion, both of them prayed for forgiveness for each other. In the chain of the narration, there is an unknown person, whose name Ishaq had forgotten, and we do not know to what degree he was reliable. The Sahaba Karam used to pray for each other, but stating the prayer in this context ostensibly seems to be for the purpose of confirming the narration of Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi above.

When Medina was besieged, the most prominent names among those who campaigned in Kufa to support Hazrat Uthman were the students of Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA). If, God forbid, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud had been subjected to violence, would his distinguished students have campaigned against the rebel movement and encouraged people to help Hazrat Uthman (RA)? This shows that this narration is also part of the false propaganda.

🏁 Conclusion of the Series

In this series, we have conducted a detailed survey of the earliest sources of history and collected all those narrations in which accusations against Hazrat Uthman (RA) are present. We have also examined their chains (isnads) and stated to what extent they are reliable. You can see that in the chain of more or less every such narration, unreliable narrators like Waqidi, Abu Mikhnaf, Hisham Kalbi, Sayf bin Umar, or similar types are present. Even after this, if someone wants to hold suspicion against the oppressed Caliph based on the words of these unreliable narrators, no one can stop him. Yes, a person who believes in the Holy Quran and acts upon its command of Husn-e-Zan (thinking well of others) can very well know the difference between propaganda and reality.

The falsehood of the rebel movement’s propaganda becomes clear from the fact that after the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (RA), the way the entire Muslim world rose up against these rebels is unparalleled. If their propaganda had been correct, there would not have been such restlessness in the Muslim world over the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman; rather, Na’udhu Billah (we seek refuge in Allah), people would have been grateful that they were rid of an oppressive and corrupt Caliph. This shows that this propaganda was merely a lie, and the people of that era also considered it a lie. In our era, however, some people have mistaken this propaganda for the truth and started leveling accusations against Sayyiduna Uthman (RA). If these gentlemen had only looked at the chains of these narrations, they would have known their reality.

Alas, if an accusation is leveled against our parents, we insist on its investigation, but when accusations are leveled against the Sahaba Karam, the need to investigate them is not felt.

Despite this humble effort of ours, if any narration related to the Uthmani era in the oldest sources of history has been left out, which presents a negative picture of his era, then investigate it yourself; surely, that narration too will be narrated by unreliable narrators.

We can state the summary of this series in the form of these points:

Rebel movements have a life cycle. It takes approximately twenty years for a movement to reach its peak.
The emergence of a rebel movement during the era of the Rashidun Caliphs was inevitable because many elements existed who did not like the expanding empire of Islam.
The rebels used the weapon of propaganda and fabricated accusations against Hazrat Uthman (RA). These same allegations became part of historical narrations. If the chain of all such narrations is examined, the narrators of this same rebel movement are seen in them.
All the Sahaba, including Hazrat Ali, Talha, and Zubair, loved Hazrat Uthman (RA) very much and made every possible effort to defend the oppressed Caliph, and in this regard, they also put the lives of their young sons at stake.
The rebels fabricated various accusations against numerous Sahaba, such as Hazrat Ali, Talha, Abdur Rahman, Abdullah bin Mas’ud, and Ammar bin Yasir (RA). All such narrations are fake.

May Allah Pak grant us all the Tawfiq (ability) to understand the truth, and grant us guidance, and grant us the Tawfiq to walk on the straight path. Ameen.

(Wallahu Ta’ala ‘A’lam bi-al-Sawab – And Allah the Exalted knows best what is correct.)

Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/583

Allegations Against Hazrat Uthman: Fact Check

Truth Behind Rebel Accusations on Uthman (RA)

📜 The Allegations

1. Qisas (Retribution) for Ubaydullah bin Umar

2. The Accusation of Nepotism

List of Officials During the Uthmani Era

Province of Hejaz & Yemen Officials

Province of Iraq & Iran Officials

Province of Egypt Officials

Province of Syria (Al-Sham) Officials

Capital (Medina) Officials

Analysis of Umayyad Appointees

Walid bin Uqbah (RA)

Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah)

Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh (RA)

Abdullah bin Aamir (RA)

Marwan bin Hakam (Rahimahullah)

Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (RA)

3. Were the Tulaqa promoted over the senior Sahaba?

4. The Accusation of Corruption in the Bait-ul-Mal

What was Hazrat Uthman’s response to this allegation?

Was anything given to Ibn Abi Sarh and Marwan from the Khums of Africa?

5. Was Hazrat Uthman’s lifestyle royal?

6. The Dissatisfaction of the Senior Sahaba

Did Hazrat Umar have any apprehension about what would come after him?

❓ Was Hazrat Ali satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Talha satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Abdur Rahman satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Ammar involved in the rebel movement?

❓ Was Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari exiled?

❓ Was Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud subjected to violence?

🏁 Conclusion of the Series

Author: IslamicHelper

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Truth Behind Rebel Accusations on Uthman (RA)

📜 The Allegations

1. Qisas (Retribution) for Ubaydullah bin Umar

2. The Accusation of Nepotism

List of Officials During the Uthmani Era

Province of Hejaz & Yemen Officials

Province of Iraq & Iran Officials

Province of Egypt Officials

Province of Syria (Al-Sham) Officials

Capital (Medina) Officials

Analysis of Umayyad Appointees

Walid bin Uqbah (RA)

Sa’id bin Aas (Rahimahullah)

Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh (RA)

Abdullah bin Aamir (RA)

Marwan bin Hakam (Rahimahullah)

Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (RA)

3. Were the Tulaqa promoted over the senior Sahaba?

4. The Accusation of Corruption in the Bait-ul-Mal

What was Hazrat Uthman’s response to this allegation?

What is the position of the narrations related to corruption in the Bait-ul-Mal?

Was anything given to Ibn Abi Sarh and Marwan from the Khums of Africa?

5. Was Hazrat Uthman’s lifestyle royal?

6. The Dissatisfaction of the Senior Sahaba

Did Hazrat Umar have any apprehension about what would come after him?

❓ Was Hazrat Ali satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Talha satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Abdur Rahman satisfied with Hazrat Uthman’s policies?

❓ Was Hazrat Ammar involved in the rebel movement?

❓ Was Hazrat Abu Dharr Ghifari exiled?

❓ Was Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud subjected to violence?

🏁 Conclusion of the Series

Author: IslamicHelper

Related Posts

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply