We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.1 Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (S), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands.

When the battle ended, al-Hasan (‘a) headed for the capital of his grandfather (S). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them2. Because of his blessing, Allah made them conquer it and made the standard of Islam flutter over it. For the public interest and serving the religion, which are the best of all the other considerations, Imam al-Hasan (‘a) entered the fields of jihad and struggle, and paid no attention to displeasure he had hidden in his soul due to losing his father’s right (of authority). This is a wonderful lesson the political parties standing in the country must use to refrain from party fanaticism and to take care of the interests of the country and society.

Uthman ruled the country for some years, but his policy was very far from the Sunna of Allah’s Apostle (S); likewise, it was very far from the sunna of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). Moreover it was very far away from the essence of that time, for it did not agree with the religious and social sides; for this reason it failed and was deserted. The reason for that is that the Caliph Uthman was unable to manage the affairs of the community and the government. He had a weak willpower in all his acts.

Emerson is truthful when he says: “Most surely, willpower is the secret of success, and the success is the goal of existence. That is because willpower has immortalized the names of Napoleon, Krant, Alexander, and the like from among the men of history. Many men of history are famous for bravery, experience, and cleverness, but their desertion resulted from their hesitation and their weak willpower. It is impossible for us to enter the battle of life and hope for victory without having a willpower.3”

Willpower has a perfect effect on forming person and his immortality in life. It is impossible for the weak, helpless person to achieve any goal for the community or to build its entity. Islam has taken great care of removing the weak-willed person from leading the community and preventing him from practicing the government. For such a person subjects the country to dangers, brings about to it hardships and misfortunes, takes away the prestige and morale of the government, encourages those powerful to mutiny against him and to disobey him.

Most surely, Uthman had no willpower to a far extent. He had no power to face the events, nor had he an ability to overcome them. As a result he entrusted the affairs of the government to Marwan, and he acted freely. On the authority of his Sheikhs, Ibn Abi al-Hadid has narrated that the real caliph was Marwan, and that Uthman had nothing except the name of the caliph.

Anyway, it is necessary for us to explain Uthman’s story and to understand its reality, for there is a close connection between it and our research. Some historians claim that Imam al-Hasan (‘a) was Uthmani in inclination, defended him on the day of the house, showed severe sadness for him after his murder, and criticized his father because he did not help and protect him.

Dr. Taha Husayn has inclined to this viewpoint and sent it to readers as an axiomatic without pondering on it. We cannot understand the reality of this viewpoint unless we come to know Uthman’s policy and behavior. It, and nothing else, will show us the falsehood of these affairs and their disagreement with the reality of Imam al-Hasan (‘a) who carried the guidance of his grandfather, Allah’s Apostle (S).

Before we speak about Uthman’s policy, we would like to explain that we, in many of our researches, do no agree with Dr. Taha Husayn, for he tried to justify Uthman’s actions and deem him far above the accusations fastened on him through some ways far and void of scientific research. In the introduction to his research, he has disowned all kinds of inclination and tribal fanaticism. He has indicated that he is not a follower of Uthman, nor is he a follower of ‘Ali; rather, through his researches he tries to be loyal to reality as far as possible4.

However, he has not conformed to his promise. He has set out to cling to some weak ways in order to correct the mistakes of Uthman’s policy, which, throughout its stages, did not keep abreast with Allah’s Book, the Sunna of His Prophet, and the Sunna of the two Sheikhs. Accordingly, the good and righteous Muslims bore a grudge against him, and the Muslim regions revolted against him. The Muslim masses surrounded him. They demanded him to be moderate in his policy and follow the clear, white way. However, he did not respond to them, so they killed him. The community was unhappy during the period of his government and was liable to a trial after his death.

It is incumbent on us to ponder on these events carefully and honestly and to explain their results, for there is a close connection between them and our religious life. We have no right to find an excuse to any person when his practices oppose the Islamic teachings, principles, and precepts. We mention to readers some of the criticisms facing Uthman’s policy.

His Pardoning Ubaydillah

Uthman received the caliphate with pardoning Ubaydillah Ibn Umar, who took vengeance on those who killed his father. For no reason, he killed al-Hurmuzan, Jufayna, and the daughter of Abu Lu’lu’. He intended to kill all the captives in Medina. However, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas went to him, said soft words to him, overcame him, and took the sword from him. Ubaydillah was thrown into prison until Uthman decided his case. When Uthman became a caliph, he went up on the pulpit and told the Muslims about Ubaydillah’s case. He said to them: “It was a decree of Allah that Ubaydillah Ibn Umar killed al-Hurmuzan. Al-Hurmuzan is among the Muslims. He has no inheritor except the Muslims in general. I am your Imam. I have pardoned him; therefore, will you pardon him?”

Some people expressed their satisfaction and acknowledged the pardon. However Imam ‘Ali (‘a) criticized Uthman and was dissatisfied with his decision. He said to him: “Punish the sinner (Ubaydillah Ibn Umar), for he has committed a great crime! He has killed a Muslim for no reason!”

The Imam said to Ubaydillah: “O Sinner, if I won a victory over you, I would kill you for al-Hurmuzan.”5

Al-Miqdad Ibn Umar said to Uthman: “Most surely al-Hurmuzan is a follower of Allah and His Apostle, so you have no right to grant that which belongs to Allah and his Apostle!”6

The honest, righteous Muslims were not satisfied with such a kind of pardon. They regarded it as a kind of aggression against Islam and a violation to its bounds. Accordingly, when Ziyad Ibn Labeed met Ubaydillah, he said to him:

O Ubaydillah, neither escape nor refuge nor guard will protect you from Ibn Arwa.

You have shed blood unlawfully. The murder of al-Hurmuzan has a danger.

For nothing (you have killed him). However a sayer has said: “Have you accused al-Hurmuzan (of killing) Umar?” So a fool has said, and the events are numerous. Yes I accuse him (of that). He has advised and commanded.

The slave’s weapon was inside his house, and the affair is considered through an affair.

Ubaydillah complained to Uthman of Ziyad. So Uthman summoned Ziyad and prevented him from that. However, he did not refrain from that; rather, he went on criticizing Uthman, saying:

O Abu Amr, Ubaydillah is hostage to the murder of al-Hurmuzan; therefore, you must have no doubt (about that).

For you have pardoned him; the reasons for the mistake are two racehorses. You have no right to pardon.

Uthman became angry with Ziyad and rebuked him until he refrained from criticizing him7. He commanded Ubaydillah to leave Medina for Kufa. He gave him a house there. The place was ascribed to Ubaydillah and was given the name of Kuwayfa Ibn Umar. Al-Tabari has narrated: “Uthman consulted the companions (of the Prophet) in respect of the affair of Ubaydillah, and they advised him to pardon him. They said to him: ‘Umar was killed yesterday; and his son is killed today?’ Some of them advised him to kill him. Among them was Imam ‘Ali (‘a). However Amr Ibn al-Aas said to him: ‘Most surely, Allah has exempted you from the event that happens while you have an authority over the Muslims. This event had taken place when you had no authority.’ As a result, Uthman responded to his viewpoint. That was when he said: ‘I am a ruler over them. I have decided that the punishment should be a blood money, and I will pay it from my own wealth.’”8

This procedure faces the following criticisms:

1. Islam has required rulers to administer the prescribed punishments, not to show tolerance and leniency in respect of them, that regulations may be kept, and souls may be protected from aggressions. The ruler has no right to show tolerance and leniency toward an aggressor irrespective of his high social position. The Prophet (S) declared that and applied it to real life. He was asked to pardon a female thief due to the nobility of her family, and he replied:

“Those before you perished because they punished the weak when they stole and left the noble. By Allah, if Fatimah, Muhammad’s daughter, stole, I would cut off her hand.”9

2. He (‘a) flogged those who told lies (ashab al-ifk). Among them was Satih Ibn Athatha, who took part in the Battle of Badr10. This is required by Islamic justice, which makes no difference between the white and the black, the weak and the powerful, the head and the subjects. They are equal before the law. However, Uthman turned away from that. He opposed what justice required. He did not punish Ubaydillah, for he was Umar’s son and from Quraysh. He preferred to please al-Khattab’s family and Quraysh through pardoning him and he sent him far from Kufa and gave him a house to live in. Through that he opened a door to chaos and corruption and empowered the influential to punish the weak who had no authority to resort to.

3. The public interest required killing Ubaydillah Ibn Umar, and not pardoning him, for if Uthman had killed him, he would have put an end to corruption and murder, and no influential would have committed such a crime. The Caliph’s son killed al-Hurmuzan; however, Uthman paid no attention to the public interest and responded to his personal purposes, which opposed the community’s interest.

4. The Imam’s authority is established when he comes to know that the killed one has no inheritor. As for al-Hurmuzan, he belonged to Persia. Therefore, Uthman had to look for his inheritors. When he had come to know that al-Hurmuzan had no inheritors, his authority would have been established. However, he did not do that; rather he claimed that he was his inheritor and ruler.

5. The ruler has no right to pardon someone out of giving blood money; rather he has the right to make reconciliation for it. Al-Hanafi says: “Most surely the Imam has the right to make conciliation for blood money, but he has no right to pardon, for the punishment is the right of Muslims due to the fact that his (the killed one) inheritance belongs to them. The Imam represents them in administering the prescribed punishments. Pardon means canceling their right completely. This is impossible. For this reason father and grandfather do not have it (pardon) though they have (the right) to administer a full punishment on the criminal. The Imam has the right to make conciliation for blood money.”11

According to the Hanafite religious verdict, Uthman had no right to pardon Ubaydillah Ibn Umar for blood money. This paradox is recorded against Uthman according to that some of them narrated that he pardoned him for blood money. Uthman faces these criticisms because he pardoned Ubaydillah, and did not kill him.

Taha Husayn’s Defense

Dr. Taha Husayn tried to justify Uthman’s actions and did not hold him responsible for them. His excuse has no scientific nature. We will mention to readers the places of his defense:

1. Uthman did not want to start his caliphate with killing the Qurashi boy, who was Umar’s son. He did not want to shed the blood of a Muslim and two dhimmis (non-Muslim citizen). He preferred wellbeing. From his own wealth he paid the blood money to the Public Treasury of Muslims and spared Ubaydillah Ibn Umar’s blood. His deciding the case in such a way was a wise policy if the people considered the case through a pure political consideration12.

Most surely if Uthman had started his caliphate with killing Ubaydillah, he would have fulfilled his covenant toward the Muslims. That was when he told them that he would follow Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet and apply the Islamic law to the real life. However he followed the political fields; so, he preferred wellbeing and neglected the religious precepts. His Eminence Imam Kashif al-Ghita’, may Allah have mercy on him, has commented on this excuse, saying: “Firstly, this excuse is among the clear mistakes, for the Islamic law had decided to shed Ubaydillah’s blood and not to spare it. Secondly, the murder was intentional, and its precept was administering the prescribed punishment, and not blood money. The first made a mistake, and the last came to justify their mistake through another mistake.”13

2. We return to say that Uthman had an authority over the affairs of the Muslims; and he, according to this authority, had the right to pardon. We add to that that when he pardoned Ubaydillah, he did not cancel any of the punishments prescribed by Allah, nor did he shed the blood of al-Hurmuzan and of his two friends. Rather he paid the blood money on behalf on them to the Public Treasury of the Muslims, whom only he inherited14.

His Eminence, late Kashif al-Ghita’ has commented on it, saying: “This is also a mistake (which is) more cunning and bitterer, for the duty of the one who has authority over the affairs of the Muslims is to administer the punishments prescribed by Allah, and not to cancel them. As for paying blood money for releasing someone from killing without pleasing the blood heirs is regarded as arbitrariness in the Islamic laws and playing with the religion.”

3. The Prophet said that there was no penalty on suspicion criterion. Perhaps Uthman repelled this prescribed punishment from Ubaydillah out of the suspicion that resulted from his anger for his father and his rushing due to his unruly desire. And Allah has made Muslims like pardon when they are able (to pardon) and rewarded them good for it.

This is among the horrible mistakes, for it is not right to repel the prescribed punishments out of anger; otherwise, it is incumbent to repel the prescribed punishments from all killers according to justice, for, most times, killing results from anger and unruly excitement. The rule of no penalty on suspicion criterion is not applied to the case we have discussed, for it has special sources, and this source is not of its proofs. If anger was a reason for canceling killing, then Uthman would use it as an excuse and defend himself through it when Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and the like of him, criticized him. Therefore, is Dr. Taha Husayn more knowledgeable than Uthman in the meanings of the sunna?

Most surely Dr. Taha Husayn’s defense is void of inquiry and has not legislative quality. Such a defense cannot justify Uthman’s procedure and send far the responsibility from him.

Anyway Uthman pardoned Ubaydillah in order that he might please the hearts of al-Khattab’s family and Quraysh, and not to take the community’s interest into consideration.

His Fiscal Policy

Islam has taken severe precautions in respect of the state’s wealth. It has made it obligatory on rulers and governors to spend it on public interests, reforming life, combating poverty, helping the weak, spending on the helpless such as widows and orphans. The rulers and the governors have no right to save anything of the public wealth for themselves, nor have they the right to choose anything of it for their children. That is because it is not their own, nor it is their property, that they may spend it wherever they wish. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) said to Abdullah Ibn Zam‘a when he asked him for money during his caliphate: “This wealth does not belong to me and you; rather it is the Fay’ of Muslims and earning of their swords. If you shared them at a battle, then you would have the like of their share; otherwise, the earning of their hands will be for nothing other than their mouths.”15

Imam ‘Ali (‘a) wrote to Qatham Ibn al-Abbas, his governor over Mecca: “Reflect on the wealth of Allah you have gathered. Spend it on those who have families, and suffer from hunger, hitting with it the places of poverty and lacks. If something of that remains, then send it to us, that we may divide it among those we accept.”16

Allah’s Apostle (S) says: “The men who spend Allah’s wealth without any right shall have the fire on the Resurrection Day.”17

This is an outline on the viewpoint of Islam in respect of money, for Islam makes it incumbent on the responsible ones to spend the state’s money on refreshing the subjects, and saving them from misery and neediness. The responsible have no right at all to employ it to buy consciences and to gift those who are not needy. However, Uthman did not apply that to all circumstances.

He controlled the Central Budget and generously gave money to the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family, that he might strengthen their influence and their position in the country. So they exploited the Muslims, played with their fates, and controlled their destination. He also gave plentiful money to the prominent persons and the heads of whose side he was afraid and of whose power he was careful because of their political influence in the country. This policy led to inflating wealth and accumulating properties with a group of people who were perplexed in spending them. Of course such a policy led to spreading neediness, poverty, and misery among the people; and this affair opposes Islam, which takes great care of making society happy, spreading welfare and ease among people. We will mention some examples as proofs for what we have mentioned:

His Gifts To The Umayyads

Uthman gave the properties of the Muslims to his family and relatives, who denied and opposed Islam and battled against it. He gifted them and was kind to them. He empowered them over the Muslims. He gave them plentiful wealth to enjoy and to go too far in spending. We mention to readers some of those upon whom he spent lavishly:

Abu Sufyan

Uthman gave Abu Sufyan a hundred thousand (dirhams) from the Public Treasury18. He gave him this gift while he (Abu Sufyan) was the head of the polytheists at the Battle of Uhud and the Battle of al-Ahzab. He was on top of those who harbored malice against Islam. The religion did not enter his heart, nor did it remove from him the beliefs of pre-Islamic era. It was he who went to the grave of Hamza and kicked it and said: “O Abu Imara, the affairs for which we engaged in a sword fight is now at the hands of our boys; they are playing with it.” Then he happily came in to Uthman after he had become blind. He said to him: “O Allah, let the authority be similar to that was before Islam, the kingdom be ruled by the usurpers, and the projections of the earth be owned by the Umayyads.”19

Therefore, is it an act of justice and fairness that the Muslims’ properties were given to such a hypocrite whose soul was full of enmity and hatred against Islam? Dose the Islamic law permit giving such wealth to such a person who did not believe in Allah at all?

Al-Harith Ibn Al-Hakam

Uthman gave generously to al-Harith Ibn al-Hakam, his son-in-law on the side of his daughter A’isha. He gave him three hundred thousand dirhams20. He gave him the camels of charity when they came to Medina21. He gave him a market in Yathrib (Medina) named Tahruz, while the Prophet (S) had given the market to the Muslims as charity22. Why was al-Harith worthy of such enormous properties? Did he render a service to Islam or perform a deed through which he benefited Islam, that he might be worthy of giving such wealth? It is worth mentioning that the camels of alms had to be spent on the poor and the needy. Moreover how did Uthman single out al-Harith with the alms of Allah’s Apostle (S) while they belonged to all the Muslims? Therefore, Uthman had no justification for giving such funds through which he disobeyed Allah and turned away from the community’s interest.

Abdullah Ibn Sa’d

Uthman gave his foster brother, Abdullah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Sarh, all that which Allah had given to the Muslims who conquered al-Maghrib (Morocco) in Africa, which was from Tripoli to Tangier. He made none of the Muslims share him in such wealth23.

It is worth mentioning that al-Harith was among the prominent polytheists and one of those who denied Islam and its values. We will mention his biography in the chapters that follow to prove that. Therefore, how was it possible for Uthman to give him such enormous funds and such plentiful wealth?

Al-Hakam Ibn Abi Al-Aas

Before we mention Uthman’s gifts to al-Hakam, we have to know his reality and some of his affairs. It may be clear that he was worthy of estrangement, be sent away and that there was at all no justification to give him the Muslims’ funds. We will mention that to readers as follows:

His Fighting Against Islam

Al-Hakam resisted propagating Islam. He urged the people to go on worshipping the idols and prevented them from embracing Islam. Marwan (bin al-Hakam) met with Huwaytib and asked him about his age, and he told him about that. However Marwan said to him: “Your Islam is late, O Sheikh, to the extent that the boys preceded you (in embracing it)!”

Huwaytib said to him: “By Allah, I intended to be a Muslim more than one time, but your father prevented me and said: ‘Do you want to leave your honor, abandon your fathers’ religions for a new religion, and be a follower?”24

Most surely al-Hakam and the rest of the Umayyad family resisted Islam and spared no effort to repel propagating it. But Allah repelled their scheme, supported Islam and strengthened His religion.

His Disparaging The Prophet

Al-Hakam was the bitterest enemy to Allah’s Apostle (S). He harbored malice against him. He went too far in hurting, disparaging, and making light of his high position. He walked behind him, slandered him, sneered at him, and moved his mouth and nose25. The Prophet turned and saw him do that. He said to him: “May you be so!” Accordingly, al-Hakam was trembling and shaking until he died. Abdurrahman Ibn Thabit rebuked him for that. He satirized Abdurrahman Ibn al-Hakam, saying:

Most surely your father is cursed; therefore, throw away his bones. If you throw away, you will throw away someone who is trembling and crazy.

He enters into evening small-bellied and remains big-bellied due to (his) evil deeds.26

The Prophet Curses Him

This evil, cunning person (al-Hakam) asked the Prophet (S) for permission to enter his house, and he (‘a) said: “Shall I permit him? May Allah’s curse be on him and on those who will come out of his back (offspring) except the believers who will be very few; they are the possessor of cunning and deception. The world will be given to them, but they shall have no portion of the hereafter!”27 The Prophet (S) ordered Imam ‘Ali to bring al-Hakam as a ewe was brought. He fetched him. He took him by the ear and made him stop before Allah’s Apostle (S). The Prophet cursed al-Hakam three times, and then he said to Imam ‘Ali: “Make him stay at a place! A group of the Muhajirin and the Ansar went to him, and he summoned him again, cursed him, and said: “Most surely, this (person) will oppose Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. Future troubles will come out of his back (offspring). Their smoke will reach the heaven.” Some people said to him: “He (al-Hakam) is too low to do that!” “Yes,” he (‘a) said, “some of you will be his followers.”28

The Prophet Banishes Him To Al-Ta’if

This dirty, wicked person (al-Hakam) distorted the traditions of Allah’s Apostle (S). He went too far in hurting him. So the Prophet banished him to al-Ta’if and said: “Let him not live with me in one place!”29

Al-Hakam and his children lived in their place of exile throughout the caliphate of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar). However, Uthman interceded with them for him, and they did not respond to him. Accordingly, al-Hakam and his children remained there.

His Return To Yathrib (Medina)

When Uthman became caliph, he released al-Hakam. Accordingly, al-Hakam returned to Yethrib wearing a worn out garment. He was driving a goat, and the people were looking at his worn out garments and his bad state. He came in Uthman’s house, and then he went out wearing a silk jubbah and pallium30. Moreover, Uthman gave him a hundred thousand (dirhams)31.

His Undertaking The Endowments

Uthman appointed him over the endowments of Quda’a, which amounted three hundred thousand dirhams32. He gave him this sum of money. This policy made the people displeased with him and criticize him for his lodging the one banished by Allah’s Apostle (S) and gave him the endowments Allah had appointed for the poor, the deprived, and the needy. Therefore, how was it permissible for Uthman to give them to such a person cursed by Allah’s Apostle (S)? The decision on this problem is up to readers.

Sa’eed Ibn Al-Aas

Uthman gave Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas a hundred thousand Dirhams33. It is worth mentioning that Sa’eed Ibn al-‘Aas was among the Umayyad sinners and dissolute. His father was among the prominent polytheists. Imam ‘Ali killed him at the Battle of Badr34. This gift moved people’s displeasure against Uthman. Trustworthy, righteous Muslims criticized him for it.

Waleed Ibn Aqaba

Waleed Ibn Aqaba was Uthman’s foster brother. He was a dissolute sinner. He did not respect Allah, just as we will explain that when we talk about the governors appointed by Uthman. He went to Kufa and asked Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud for a loan of enormous money from the Public Treasury, and he lend it to him. Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud asked him to return the money, but he wrote a letter to Uthman about that. Uthman wrote Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud a letter in which he said: “You are our treasurer; therefore, do not ask Waleed to return the money he had taken!” As a result Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud put the keys before Uthman and said: “I thought that I was the treasurer of the Muslims. If I am your treasurer, then I am in no need of that!” He resigned and lived in Kufa35. How was it possible for Uthman to disperse the Muslims’ money and to give it to the enemies of Allah and the opponents of Islam? The decision on this problem is up to readers.

Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam

Allah’s Apostle (S) cursed Marwan Ibn al-Hakam when he was in his father’s back. This tradition was narrated by Imam al-Hasan (‘a)36. When Marwan was born, he was brought to Allah’s Apostle (S). The Prophet said: “He is a cowardly, unsuccessful one, son of a cowardly, unsuccessful one. He is a cursed one, son of a cursed one!”37 Imam ‘Ali (‘a) looked at him and said: “Woe unto you! And woe unto Muhammad’s community because of you and your household when your temples become white!”38

Marwan Ibn al-Hakam was among the hypocrite heads and one of the prominent men of misguidance and falsehood. He was given the nickname of Khayt Batil (the thread of falsehood). Concerning him the poet has said:

By your life I do not know how the beaten-backed one does. May Allah curse the men who have appointed Khayt Batil as a commander over the people. He gives and prevents whatever he wishes39.

He was famous for treachery, and breaking promise and covenant. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) said when (the Prophet’s) two grandsons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, talked with him about Marwan’s pledge of allegiance to him: “I am in no need of his paying homage. It is a Jewish hand. If he pledged allegiance with his hand, he would betray with his own forefinger. He will have an authority (that lasts as short) as a dog licks its own nose. He is the father of the four rams. The community will meet a red day because of him and his sons.”40

Uthman was charitable to this cowardly, unsuccessful, dirty person (Marwan Ibn al-Hakam). He empowered him over the Public Treasury, and he gave and prevented whomever he wished. We will mention to readers the enormous gifts Uthman gave to Marwan. They are as follows:

1. He gave him the one fifth of the booties of Africa, which amounted five hundred thousand dinars. Uthman was criticized for that. Abdurrahman Ibn Hanbal satirized him, saying:

I will swear by Allah as far as possible, Allah does not leave an affair to be in vain. However you have been created as an affliction for us, that we might be tried through you, and you tried (through us). Most surely the two trusted ones have made the road sign on (which) guidance is. They did not take any dirham illegally, nor did they place any dirham in caprice. You have summoned the cursed one and brought him near contrary to the Sunna of those passed away. You have unjustly given Marwan the one fifth (of the money) of the people41.

2. He gave him a thousand and fifty okes; we do not know whether they were of gold or silver. It was among the affairs that brought about the displeasure with him42.

3. He gave him a hundred thousand (dinars) from the Public Treasury, and so Zayd Ibn Arqam, the treasurer, brought the keys and put them before Uthman. He wept, but Uthman scolded him and said to him: “Are you weeping because I have retained my kinship?”

“But I weep because I think that you have taken this money as a compensation for that which you spent in the way of Allah during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle (S). If you gave Marwan a hundred dirhams, it would be much,” retorted Zayd.

Yet Uthman rebuked him and shouted at him, saying: “Put the keys, O son of Arqam! We will find someone other than you!”43

4. He gave him Fadak as a gift44. Anyway it was not permissible for him to give Fadak as a gift, for if it had been given to Fatimah, peace be on her, as a gift, as she said, then it would have belonged to her children. If it was alms, as Abu Baker claimed, then it belonged to all the Muslims. Therefore, Uthman had no right to act freely in respect of it in both cases.

Anyway, which service did Marwan render to the community? Which noble deed or achievement issued from him, that he might deserve such a plentiful giving and be given such enormous wealth? These are some of the gifts the Caliph (Uthman) gave to his family and relatives. Without doubt these gifts do not agree with Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. They required the rulers to treat those near and far equally, demanded them not to prefer a people to another, and to apply justice to all fields.

Uthman Is Criticized

Of course such a policy moved the displeasure of the good, the righteous, and the religious. Rather it moved the displeasure of the general populace who had doubt about the Islam of the Umayyads. They thought that such giving would expand the Umayyads, strengthen their influence, and spread their authority. Abdurrahman Ibn Awf, who elected Uthman and appointed him as a ruler over the Muslims, harbored malice against him and said: “Anticipate him before he goes too far in his governing.” He said to Imam ‘Ali: “Take your sword, and I take my sword, for he (Uthman) has broken the promise he gave to me.” When he was about to die, he recommended not to (let him) pray over him45.

Grumbling spread among the Muslims because of this crooked policy. The special associates and the general populace criticized Uthman when he alone possessed the jewels in the Public Treasury. He took some of them to adorn some of his family, and then he went up on the pulpit and said: “We will take our need from this Fay’ in spite of the people.”

This speech moved the people’s displeasure. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) opposed him, saying: “You shall be prevented from that, and we will come between you and that.”

The Prophet’s great companion, Ammar Ibn Yasir confirmed the Imam’s statement and expressed his displeasure with Uthman, saying: “I bear witness that I am the first unwilling one.”

When Uthman gave a hundred thousand dirham to Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and a group of the leading companions of the Prophet blamed and criticized him for that. But he said to them: “He is my relative.”

They refused his justification, saying: “Did Abu Bakr and Umar have no relatives?”

He answered them: “Abu Bakr and Umar thought of depriving their relatives (of giving), and I think of giving my relatives.”46

The Muslims harbored malice against Uthman, and their good ones were displeased with him, for he alone possessed the Fay’, gave the Muslims’ properties to the Umayyads, and did not establish through his policy the social justice that Islam brought.

Uthman Apologizes

Uthman apologized to those who criticized his policy for his gifting his relatives and being kind to them, for he thought that he had committed no sin, nor had he broken the Islamic law. It is necessary for us to pause before this apology, that we may come to know its reality and rightness. If we carefully consider it, we will conclude that such a speech is incorrect, does not agree with the Islamic law, and does not serve the community’s interests. The reasons for that are: Firstly, the properties he gave to his family were not his own, that he might have a choice in spending them on his relatives. Rather they belonged to the Muslims; therefore, it was incumbent on him to spend them on them. The ruler had no right to act freely in respect of them. For example, once, Aqeel went to Yathrib. He was poor and was in need of his brother Imam ‘Ali (‘a). He asked him to settle his debts. So the Imam asked him:

- How many dinars?

- Forty thousand (dinars).

- I do not have them. Be patient until I receive my pay, and I will give it to you.

-The public treasuries are at your hand, while you delay me to your pay.

- Do you order me to give you the Muslims’ wealth, while they have entrusted me with it?47

This is the speech of Islam, this is its justice, and this is its equality. It makes no distinction between the near and the far; all people are equal in pay and other than it.

Secondly, the members of his family, to whom he was charitable, were worthy of boycott and deprivation. They opposed Islam and battled against it. They are the cursed tree in the Qur’an. Ibn Abi Hatam has narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar, who said: “The Prophet (S) said: ‘As if I see the sons of al-Hakam Ibn al-‘Aas on the pulpits. They look like apes. So Allah revealed:And we did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Qur’an as well. He has meant al-Hakam and his sons.”48 A’isha said to Marwan: “I have heard Allah’s Apostle (S) say to your father: ‘Abi al-‘Aas Ibn Umayya, you are the cursed tree in the Qur’an.”49 Allah has prohibited showing love toward His enemies and made it forbidden to be kind to them. He, the Most High, has said:

“You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, even though they are their [own] fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk” (Qur’an, 58:22).

Uthman loved the Umayyads very much. He would say: “If the keys of the Garden were at my hands, I would given them to the Umayyads, that they all might enter it.”50 This violent love for his family put an end to him, moved the Islamic forces to revolt against him, to overthrow his government, and to kill him.

His Gifts To The Leading Personalities

Uthman gave the Muslims’ money to the dignitaries, the leading personalities, and those who had political influence, for he was afraid of them. He gave two hundred thousand dinars to Talha51. Talha was in debt to Uthman for fifty thousand (dinars). Talha said to Uthman: “Your money is ready that you may receive it.” Uthman gave him the money as a gift and said to him: “It belongs to you, O Abu Muhammad, because of your generosity.52” He gave al-Zubayr six hundred thousand (dinars). When he received them, he asked about the best money to exploit it. He was guided to build houses in the regions and the cities53. Accordingly, he built eleven houses in Medina, two houses in Basra, a house in Kufa, and a house in Egypt54. Uthman gave enormous money to Yazid Ibn Thabit, to the extent that he was so rich that he left behind him gold and silver which were broken with an ax, and in addition he left behind him properties and estates estimated as a hundred thousand dinars55. He gave other properties to his followers and the supporters of his policy. In his encyclopedia, al-Amini, the head of researchers, has in detail mentioned Uthman’s gifts56.

He Alone Possesses Properties

Uthman exhausted the public treasuries. He chose of them what he wished for himself and his family. He went too far in lavishness and extravagance. He ordered a house of bricks and lime to be built in Medina. He ordered its doors to be made of teak and juniper. He had properties, gardens, and springs in Medina57. He covered his teeth with gold, and worn king garments. He spent most of the money in the public treasury on cultivating his country estates and building houses58. When he was killed, his treasurer had thirty million, five hundred thousand dirhams, and a hundred thousand dinars. He also left behind him a thousand camels, endowments in Baradis and Khaybar, and Wadi al-Qura. They were estimated at two hundred thousand dinars59.

Uthman followed a special way in his fiscal policy. He did not conform to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. He acted freely in respect of the Public Treasury. He took from it whatever he wished, granted to whomever he liked, and gave to his followers. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) has described this crooked policy, saying: “Till the third man of these people (Uthman) stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him the children of his father (the Umayyads) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth like a camel devouring the foliage of spring.”

This is the most wonderful speech through which the devious policy is described when it uses authority as means for obtaining wealth, enjoying life pleasures, pays no attention to the community, and takes no care of its interests and objectives.

Accordingly, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) issued his decisive decision when he seized the reins of government. He ordered all the properties that Uthman had taken or given to his special associates and relative to be confiscated. This is the text of his decision: “All lands granted by Uthman, all Allah’s wealth he gave should be returned to the Public Treasury. Nothing invalidates the old right. If I found that the women got married through it and scattered in the countries, I would return it as it was. That is because there is ease in justice. Whoever is annoyed with right is more annoyed with tyranny.60”

Imam ‘Ali (‘a) took this procedure according to Islamic justice, which limited the authorities of the responsible, gave them no free rein to act freely in respect of the community’s properties and possessing them alone. The rulers have no right to choose properties for themselves and their relatives. An example of that is Allah’s Apostle (S). His only daughter, other whom he had no child, came to him and asked him to buy her a servant to help her turn the hand mill because her hands ulcerated. However he (‘a) found no way to take some money from the Public Treasury to buy a servant to help his daughter. He refused her request and taught her the tasbeeh (glorification) which has been ascribed to her. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) followed the same policy. His brother Aqeel came to him asking for charity, ease, and welfare. However the Imam heated a piece of iron and wanted to burn him with it. This is the speech of Islam, which has come to make peoples happy, reform them, and save them from misery, poverty, and deprivation.

With Dr. Taha Husayn

Dr. Taha Husayn’s statements have clearly contradicted each other in respect of Uthman’s fiscal policy. He sometimes claims that Uthman kept Umar’s fiscal policy, and that he did not oppose him in that, nor did he deviate from him in all his administrative and war actions, all that which all the Muslims followed such as enjoying good, forbidding evil, clinging to the inherited Sunna, refraining from affection and innovation61. And he sometimes becomes straight in his statements. He believes that Uthman deviated from Umar’s fiscal policy in maintaining the Public Treasury, spending nothing of it except the amount of need of spending, criticizing Umar’s strictness, believing that there was enough (money) in the Public Treasury for people than that was during the days of Umar. This is an indirect criticism to Umar’s policy in respect of managing the Public treasury62. This means that Uthman did not conform to Umar’s way, nor did he put into practice his policy. This contradicts what he has mentioned at first, which is that Uthman followed the goals Umar had followed.

Anyway, at last Dr. Taha Husayn inclined to correct Uthman’s fiscal policy. That is when he said that Uthman’s fiscal policy did not oppose the inherited Sunna, was not void of good, and conforming to the public interests. We will mention the text of his speech as follows:

“The certain thing is that Uthman did not flatter in respect of his religion, and the certain thing as well is that Uthman did not see in that policy of his dangerous or not dangerous disagreement with the behavior of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), for he did not depend on oppression and favouritism; rather, he generously gave to the people some of their properties. He saw riches in the Public Treasury, so he preferred the people through it and he did not go too far in saving up. Which prohibition is in gifting the Prophet’s companions with some or much of this wealth, for they were the Imams of Islam, the ones who built the state, showed extreme courage during the days of the Prophet, faced many hardships and much deprivation? Allah was truthful in His promise and He increased good. Therefore, which of the people was the worthiest of the Muhajirin in enjoying some of this good?”63

Reflection

The Places of Reflection on his Speech are as follows:

1. Dr. Taha Husayn believes that Uthman did not cajole in respect of his religion, that he did not see in his policy any dangerous or not dangerous disagreement with the behavior of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), and that he did not depend on oppression and favouritism. As for that Uthman did not flatter in his religion, it is falsified by his announcing repentance of turning away from justice and deviating from the straight path. This is the text of his repentance: “O people, by Allah I do not ignore any of the things for which you have criticized me. I have come to know them, but my soul have made me desire and it deceived me, and my reason has gone astray. I have heard Allah’s Apostle (S) say: ‘Whoever slips should turn to Allah in repentance, and whoever makes a mistake should turn to Allah in repentance and should not go too far in destruction. Most surely whoever goes too far in oppression is farther away from the way; therefore, I am the first to learn a lesson. I ask Allah’s forgiveness and turn to him in repentance.”64

This statement is clear in that Uthman followed a way other than the straight path, that he deviated from the inherited Sunna, that he came to know of that and did not ignore it, and that the knowledge of it was not absent from him. Uthman responded to his desires and sentiments when he did what he did. He opposed the Sunna such as his gifts to the Umayyads, his gifts to Abu Ma’eet’s family, his punishing the prominent companions (of the Prophet) because they criticized his policy, and other than that from among the heavy events. His soul made him desire, to the extent that his reason went astray, and he lost his mind, as he said. He admitted that and recorded against himself that he deviated from the straight path, then how is it said that he did not flatter in his religion and not intend tyranny and favouritism?

2. As for what he mentioned that Uthman gave generously to the people some of their properties because he saw wealth in the Public Treasury, so he preferred the people through it and did not go too far in saving up,’ it is unacceptable at all. Uthman did not give generously to the people and not make easy their livelihood. If he did all these things, why did the people revolt against and kill him? Rather he spent generously on himself, his special associates, the Umayyads, and the followers of his policy. He preferred them to others through al-Fay’ and singled them out with the properties of the state. This matter brought about grumbling, and the Muslims’ displeasure throughout their countries and regions, to the extent that they overthrew his government and killed him. They did not bury him, to the extent that the good Muslims regretted that they did not burn his corpse65.

3. As for what he has mentioned: “There was no prohibition and sin against Uthman when he gifted the companions of the Prophet (S) with the properties, for they were the Imams of the Muslims and showed extreme courage; therefore, which of the people was worthiest of them in enjoying a thing of this good?” Most surely it is apparently false because the Public Treasury, as we have mentioned more than one time, belonged to all the Muslims, and no people had the right to alone possess it. It had to be spent on their interests and the reforming of their affairs. No tribe, whatever importance it had, had to be singled out with it, and the overwhelming majority had not to be deprived of it.

Moreover Islam at that time was in need of spreading the social justice among the peoples who were thirsty for its just equality, which did not prefer a people to another. However, Uthman preferred the Umayyads in all things. He preferred them in properties and offices, and empowered them over the people. This affair destroyed the equality Islam had brought.

As for that the Muhajirin from among the companions of the Prophet (S) preceded others to believe in Islam, to defend its beliefs, and to bear hardships and tribulations for it, it is certain, and there is no room to doubt it. They are thanked for that, and it is Allah who will reward them for that. However granting them properties and heaping bounties upon them is not a permissible affair, for it gave life to the casteism against which Islam had fought and condemned all its aspects.

Dr. Taha Husayn continues justifying Uthman’s policy and the legality of his gifts he had given to the Prophet’s companions. He says that Uthman did not oppose the inherited Sunna; rather he followed his generous nature. However he has not mentioned Uthman’s great gifts to the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family. His Excellency, the doctor, has turned away from that and not mentioned it at all. I think that such gifts made the people criticize Uthman. However Dr. Taha Husayn has neglected this side because either he has found no room to apologize for it or he has seen that no harm resulted from that; likewise, he has seen that there is no harm on giving such gifts to the Prophet’s companions. Unfortunately, he has overlooked that and justified what has opposed the Sunna.

Uthman’s Governors Over The Cities

Islam makes it incumbent on the caliph of Muslims and their guardian to do his best to choose men of abilities and talents from among those who have the necessary qualities such as justice, fear of Allah, honesty, and loyalty. The caliph should appoint over cities and regions those who honestly and sincerely take care of their interests and affairs. It is not permissible for him to appoint anyone, whatever he is close to him, out of favouritism, and preference, for that is treason to Allah, His Apostle, and Muslims. That is because governors undertake the responsibility for government, giving legal decisions to people, managing their affairs, making peace among them, protecting their blood and their properties. Therefore, they should be the best of people, the most religious, the greatest in reflecting on suspicions, the farthest in refraining from greed and stinginess, and the most patient in understanding affairs. This is the viewpoint of Islam, and this is its plan that its immortal regulation has. However, Uthman went far from that. He intentionally appointed the members of his family and his relatives who battled against Allah’s Apostle (S) and caused mischief in the earth. He appointed them over the Muslims and entrusted to them the most important offices. He appointed them as governors over the cities and the regions. We will mention some of them along with explaining their biographies. They are as follows:

Waleed Ibn Aqaba

Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas was a governor over Kufa, but Uthman removed him from it and appointed over it Waleed Ibn Aqaba Ibn Abu Ma’eet. He did not entrust it to the men of qualifications and abilities from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar, who showed extreme courage in Islam, that they might undertake the affairs of this city, which was the greatest of the Muslim cities in importance and boundaries.

Any way, was Waleed entitled to it, that Uthman might entrusted to him this important office taking care of giving legal decisions to people, leading them in prayer, protecting the Public Treasury, and other affairs depending on justice, fear of Allah, and clinging to religion? We will mention an outline on his affairs, that his condition may be clear. They are as follows:

His Childhood

Waleed grew up and was brought up during the pre-Islamic period. No ray of the light of Islam entered his heart. His father was the enemy of Allah’s Apostle (S). A’isha narrated on the authority of Allah’s Apostle (S) who said: “I was between the wickedest two neighbors; between Abu Lahab and Aqaba Ibn Abi Ma’eet. They brought waste materials and spread them at my door….”66 This cursed guy (Aqaba Ibn Abi Ma’eet) spat in the face of Allah’s Apostle (S) and cursed him. So the Prophet (S) said to him: “If I found you coming out of the mountains of Mecca, I would strike off your head.” When the Battle of Badr was about to take place and his (Aqaba) companions to go out, he refrained from going out. His companions said to him: “Go out with us!” “This man (the Prophet),” he retorted, “had threatened me that if he found me going out of the mountains of Mecca, he would behead me.” “You have a quick red camel,” they said to him, “if there was a defeat, you quickly escape with it.” He went out with them. When Allah defeated the polytheists, his (Aqaba) camel carried him to badlands. Allah’s Apostle (S) took him as a prisoner of war along with seventy Qurayshi people. Aqaba asked the Prophet (S): “Will you kill me along with these people?” “Yes,” he replied, “because you had spat in my face.” Then he ordered ‘Ali to behead him, and he did67. Accordingly, Waleed’s soul was full of spite and hatred against the Prophet (S) for he had ordered his father to be killed. When Waleed found no escape from embracing Islam, he became Muslim, while his heart was full of disbelief and hypocrisy.

His Transgression

The Holy Qur’an has mentioned his transgression and disbelief twice. The first is that a heated argument took place between him and Imam ‘Ali. Waleed said to the Imam: “Keep silent, for you are a boy, and I am an old man. By Allah, I am more eloquent than you in tongue, sharper than you in spearhead, braver than you in heart, and greater than you in loading.” “Be silent, for you are a sinner!” (Imam) ‘Ali said to him. Accordingly, Allah, the Exalted, revealed in respect of him His words:

“Is he then who is a believer like him who is a transgressor? They are not equal” (Qur’an, 32:18).”68

Hasan Ibn Thabit has written a poem on that, saying:

In the Holy Book Allah has revealed a verse in respect of ‘Ali and Waleed.

Waleed has occupied transgression of that, and ‘Ali has occupied faith.

He who is a believer and has come to know of Allah is not like him who is a transgressor and traitor.

So ‘Ali will find with Allah exaltedness, and Waleed will find abasement there.

Waleed will be rewarded disgrace and a fire, and ‘Ali will, without doubt, be rewarded Gardens.69

The second is that he cheated the Prophet and told lies to him. That was when the Prophet sent him to the Banu al-Mustalaq. However, he returned to the Prophet and claimed that they refused to give alms. Accordingly, the Prophet (S) went out to battle against them, but he came to know that Waleed had told lies to him. This Verse was revealed to him in respect of Waleed’s transgression:

“O you who believe, if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done” (Qur’an, 26:6).70

The Qur’an has announced Waleed’s transgression and sin. Therefore, how was it permissible for Uthman to appoint him as a governor over the Muslims, and an Imam to lead them in prayer, to take care of their properties, and to spare their blood?

His Authority Over Kufa

Uthman appointed him as a governor over Kufa after deposing Sa’d. Waleed ruled Kufa in a manner of playing and dissoluteness. He did not respect the religion and caused mischief in the land, to the extent that Kufa was noisy due to his dissoluteness and recklessness, and the good, righteous people grumbled because of his bad behavior.

His Drinking Wine

Waleed committed the most excessive crime and the most horrible sin. That was when he drank wine and performed four ruk’as in the morning prayer and said during his ruku‘ andsujud: “Drink and give me wine to drink!” Then he vomited in the mihrab (prayer niche), said thetaslim, and said: “Shall I do more for you?” Ibn Mas‘ud said to him: “May Allah not increase you and the one who has sent you in good!” He took a sandal and hit Waleed on the face. The people hit Waleed with small stones until he entered the palace. He was staggering.71

Al-Hutay’a, the poet, satirized Waleed for this sin in some of his poems.

This action shows that Waleed was dissolute and he went too far in committing sins. He did not respect prayer, which was the most important of all the religious rites and the greatness of them in sacredness with Allah.

Dr Taha Husayn’s Viewpoint

Taha Husayn believes that the story of that Waleed led the people in prayer and increased it while he was drunk was fabricated, had no portion of correctness, and was made up by Waleed’s opponents and ascribed him. He indicates that if Waleed had increased the prayer, the Muslim group from Kufa would not have followed him. There were some of the Prophet’s companions, the reciters of the Qur’an, and the righteous, and the Muslims would not have be satisfied with Uthman unless he should administer the prescribed punishment on him because of his drinking wine. Increasing the prayer and playing with it is more dangerous with Allah than drinking wine.

He also believes that al-Hutay’a did not satirize Waleed through his poetry; rather he praised him in his poetry to show love for him and to obtain his good pleasure. He has mentioned some of al-Hutay’a’s poetry lines praising and lauding Waleed72. The things Dr. Taha Husayn has mentioned could not be accepted for the following reasons: Firstly, there are numerous authentic texts in respect of that. Many writers from among those who have written Waleed’s biography or dealt with the events of Uthman have mentioned them. An example of them is Abu Umar. He has said in his book al-Isti‘ab: “His (Waleed) leading them in prayer while he was drunk and his statement: ‘Shall I increase you (in prayer) after he had performed four (ruk‘as) in the Morning Prayer is famous with the reliable traditionists and the historians.”

In his book al-Isaba, Ibn Hajar has said: “The story of his leading the people in the Morning Prayer while he was drunk is famous.” In his al-Aghani, Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani has narrated on the authority of Abu ‘Ubayd and al-Asma‘i, who have said: “Most surely, Waleed Ibn Aqaba was a fornicator and he drank wine very much. He drank wine in Kufa and rose to lead the people in the Morning Prayer in al-Mesjid al-Jami‘. He led them in four ruk‘as and then he turned to them and said: ‘Shall I do more?’ He vomited in al-Mihrab, and then he recited to them during the prayer: ‘The heart had clung to al-Rababa after she and it became old!’”73

Most surely if someone has doubts about this event and he believes that it is among the fabricated things, he denies the necessary and has doubts about the axioms. In the footnote there are some books that has mentioned this story authentically and without doubt74.

Secondly, most surely, Allah, the Most High, knows His servants’ secrets and intentions. He has announced Waleed’s dissoluteness in two verses of His Holy Book. Therefore, it is possible for Waleed to commit these serious offences and great sins.

Thirdly, the good, righteous Muslims criticized Waleed for his drinking wine, took vengeance on him, and shouted at him. An example of them is Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud, who hit him with his sandals. The people hit him with small stones, as we have already mentioned. Some Kufans sought the help of the leading companions, that they might save them from Waleed’s authority and dissoluteness; we will mention that. Dr. Taha Husayn has mentioned that some Muslim Kufans followed him while some of them were from among the Prophet’s companions and righteous. Through this statement of his, he has contradicted the historical realities proving what we have mentioned.

Fourthly, although al-Hutay’a praised Waleed and was sincere to him, he harbored malice against him and satirized him for his committing this abominable crime through which he has blackened the face of the Islamic and Arabic history!

Most surely al-Hutay’a is famous for satire and praising. He praised someone because he hoped for charity and good from him. If such a person had not given him what he wanted, he would have satirized and dispraised him. An example of that is that he went to the Banu Dhahl to seek their help and to ask them for giving. He has praised them, saying:

Most surely, the best people of al-Yamama are the villagers from among the Banu Dhahl. If the people mention their own lineage, then their branch is mine and their origin is mine. However, the people gave him nothing, so he satirized them, saying: The wickedest people of al-Yamama are the villagers from among the Banu Dhahl.

When he was angry with the Banu Abs, he satirized them and said that he belonged to the Banu Dhahl. When he was angry with the Banu Dhahl, he satirized them and said that he belonged to the Banu Abs. He was angry with his mother, so he satirized her, saying:

Step aside and sit down far away from me. May Allah save the people from you. Are you a sieve when you are entrusted with a secret and a brazier toward people? As far as I know your lifetime is evil, and your death may gladden the righteous.

One day he sought a person to satirize him. When he found no person, he composed, saying:

Today my two lips have refused except saying something evil. I do not know to whom I will say it!

He repeated this verse several times. However he saw nobody. When he reached a well, he looked at it and saw his face. So he said: I see that I have a face that Allah has deformed; how ugly the face is, and how ugly its owner is!75

This is al-Hutay’a. Is his condition unknown to Dr. Taha Husayn, that he may regard as unlikely for him to praise and satirize Waleed?

Anyway Dr. Taha Husayn tried to justify Waleed’s actions and regard him as far above serious offences and sins. In the meantime he tried to regard him as among the righteous who did not turn away from justice during their government. In respect of him, he has said:

“During his authority over Kufa, Waleed followed a behavior in which there was too much riches and good doings. He did not fall short of closing the fortified borderline cities and going too far in conquering countries. Rather, he reached a goal of that for which he has become famous and about which the people talked during his lifetime and after his death. He ruled Kufa with a policy of determination, resolution, and strictness. Accordingly, he established security, and punished the mischief-makers from among the new Muslims, who did not respect regulations and religion.”76

Can Dr. Taha Husayn prove that to us and guide us to the qualities of that wise policy that Waleed followed and about which the people talked during his lifetime and after his death? If the affair is as he has mentioned, Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas, whom Uthman appointed as a ruler over Kufa after he had deposed, would have not risen to wash the pulpit to cleanse it of Waleed’s serious offences and sins. Yes the people have talked about the farces of the Umayyad government, which was built on favouritism, selfishness, abasing the Muslims, betraying, forcing, and subjecting the community through appointing Waleed and the like of him from among the dissolute and the reckless as rulers and governors. Unfortunately, Dr. Taha Husayn has defended such traitors, who were pages of shame and disgrace in respect of the Arab and Islamic community.

Waleed Is Punished

Some reformative Kufans hurried to Yathrib to tell Uthman about Waleed’s crime and his violating the sacredness of Islam. They took with them his ring, which they took from him while he was drunk. When they arrived in Yathrib, they met Uthman and bore witness before him that Waleed had drunk wine, but he rebuked them and said:

“What has made you know that he had drunk wine?” “It was the wine we drank during the pre-Islamic period,” they replied.

Then they showed him Waleed’s ring. However, Uthman became excited, put his hand on their chests and pushed them backwards, and said to them the bitterest words. Accordingly, they went to Imam ‘Ali (‘a)77 and told him about the affair. The Imam went to Uthman and said to him: “You have refuted the witnesses and cancelled the prescribed punishments.”

“What do you think?” asked Uthman. “I think that you must send for your friend,” said the Imam, “if they bear witness before him, and he gives no proof, then you must punish him.”

Uthman found no escape from yielding and responding to the Imam’s words, so he wrote a letter to Waleed and commanded him to come to him. When Uthman’s letter reached Waleed, he left Kufa for Yathrib. Uthman summoned the witnesses, and they bore witness against Waleed. In the meantime Waleed gave no proof to defend himself. Those who attended the meeting refrained from punishing him due to his kinship to Uthman. Accordingly, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) took the whip and approached Waleed. Waleed abused the Imam, saying: “You are defective and oppressive!” Aqeel Ibn Abu Talib hurried to answer Waleed, saying to him: “O Ibn Abu Ma’eet (Waleed), you are speaking as if that you do not know who you are! You are an infidel from Saforiya!”78

Waleed dodged the Imam. However, the Imam took him, knocked him down, and flogged him. Uthman became excited and angry, and said to the Imam: “You have no right to do that!”

“Yes,” retorted the Imam, “and worse than this if he acts sinfully and prevents Allah’s right to be taken from him.”

Imam ‘Ali punished Waleed. Therefore, Uthman had to send Waleed far and not to bring him near, that Waleed and those other than him might refrain from committing abominable deeds, and corruption. But shortly after that he had mercy on him and appointed him over the endowments of Kalb and Bulqayn79. How was this dissolute, sinful guy entrusted with the Muslims’ endowments and properties?

The new and old Muslim cities were inhabited by both Arabs and no-Arabs who emigrated from their own countries to seek livelihood, and the prisoners of war who resided with the conquerors. All those people were new Muslims. They expected that the Caliph and Ruler of the Muslims would appoint over them some people who had piety, righteousness, and other good qualities, that they might be models and guides for them. However, Uthman preferred the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family to others in respect of the government, while they represented nothing except luxury, prostitution, unemployment, leisure time, rushing upon pleasure and dissoluteness.

Sa’eed Ibn Al-Aas

When Waleed committed that abominable crime, Uthman reluctantly removed him from the authority over Kufa. It was expercted that he would entrust the government to one of the leading companions (of the Prophet), who showed extreme courage in Islam. But he intentionally appointed Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas as governor over this great city. The Kufans received him with hatred and dissatisfaction, for he was luxurious young man who did not refrain from committing sins and telling lies80. In respect of breaking the fast at the end of the Month of Ramadan, Ibn Sa’d has narrated that Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas had said after he was appointed as governor over Kufa: “Who has seen the crescent?”

Hashim Ibn Utba, a great companion, rose for him and said: “I have seen it.”

However Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas said to him bitter and severe words: “Have you seen it with this blind eye of yours?”

Hashim became sad and said to him: “Do you revile me because of my eye, which was gouged out for Allah’s sake?” It is worth mentioning that his eye was gouged out during the Battle of al-Yarmuk.

As for Hashim, he broke the fast according to the deed of Allah’s Apostle (S) who said: “Fast when you see it (the moon), and break the fast when you see it.” The people broke the fast due to his breaking the fast. Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas heard of that, and he sent for him, hit him, and burnt his house. Through this flagrant aggression against a leading Muslim, he made the people angry with him.

It has been reported from him that he said: “Al-Sawad (Kufa) is a garden belongs to Quraysh!” Malik al-Ashtar rose for him and said: “Do you regard the positions of our spears and what Allah has given to us as a garden belongs to you and your people? By Allah, if someone desired it, he would be struck violently until he cried!” The Kufan reciters of the Qur’an and jurists joined al-Ashtar and confirmed his statement. However, the commander of the police, became angry with them and rudely treated them. They rose and severely hit him, to the extent that he fainted. They left his gathering, criticized him, mentioned Uthman’s defects, the evil deeds of Quraysh, and the crimes of the Umayyads. Sa’eed wrote a letter to Uthman and told him about the affair of these people, and he responded to him that he had to banish them to Sham (Syria). Meanwhile he wrote a letter to Mu’awiya and commanded him to reform them.

The most important thing is that these people had committed no sin or corruption, nor had they committed a crime, that they might deserve such a punishment and banishment; rather, they criticized their governor because he deviated from the right way, and said something other than the truth. It is worth mentioning that Islam gave the citizens a full freedom, and gave them the right to criticize the rulers if they followed a wrong way and turned away from the straight path. How was it right for Uthman to banish these people from their homelands while they did not disobey him and not separate themselves from the community? Anyway, Sa’eed violently drove them away from their homeland and sent them to al-Sham which was not familiar to them. There Mu’awiya received and made them live in a church and gave them some food. He debated with them and preached to them, but he did not succeed in convincing them.

Which a quality distinguished Quraysh from the rest of the people that al-Sawad (Kufa) might belong to them? Which an achievement issued from them that they might have excellence over the rest of the Arabs and Muslims? When Mu’awiya was disappointed of them, he wrote a letter to Uthman and asked him to exempt him from permitting them to stay in al-Sham lest they should move its people against him. Uthman exempted him from that and commanded him to repatriate them to Kufa. They returned to Kufa while they insisted on criticizing the then government. They released their tongues to mention the defects of Sa’eed, Mu’awiya, and Uthman. Again Sa’eed wrote a letter to Uthman and asked him to banish these men from his city. Uthman responded and commanded him to banish them to Hams and al-Jazira, and he drove them away from their homeland. There, Abdurrahman Ibn Khalid Ibn Waleed, the governor of Mu’awiya over Hams, treaded them badly. He tortured them, and said to them obscene and ugly words. When he rode (his horse), he ordered them to walk around him to display their humiliation and abasement and to urge the people to disparage them. When they saw such rudeness, they showed obedience and announced repentance. They asked him to forgive them their sins. He forgave them and wrote a letter to Uthman and asked him to be pleased with and pardon them. Uthman responded to him and commanded to repatriate them to Kufa. Sa’eed went to Yathrib on a task and he found the people there complaining to Uthman of him and asking to depose him (Sa’eed).

But Uthman refused to respond to them and command Sa’eed to go back to his work. Accordingly, the people had gone back home before him. They had occupied Kufa and sworn by Allah that Sa’eed would not enter it as long as they carried their swords. Then Malik al-Ashtar headed them and went to al-Jur‘a. There, they waited for Sa’eed. When he came,they prevented him from entering the city. They forced Uthman to remove him from office and to appoint someone other than him. Uthman unwillingly responded to them81.

The important thing is that Uthman severely punished those who criticized Sa’eed Ibn al-Aas, while they were the reciters of the Qur’an and jurists of the city. He banished them from their homelands and went too far in exhausting them for the sake of a foolish young man who was among his relatives and family. This affair brought about grumbling against him, displeasure, and hatred of the community toward his government.

Abdullah Ibn Amir

Uthman removed Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari from the authority over Basrah and appointed his cousin Abdullah Ibn Amir Ibn Kurayz82. He appointed him over it while he was twenty-four or five years old83. Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari heard of that, and he said to the people: “The boy who spends lavishly will come to you. His grandmothers and aunts are highborn. The two cities will be entrusted to him.”84

The important thing is that Uthman appointed him over this great city (Kufa), while he was still a young man. He had to appointed over it a man from among the good, trustworthy companions of the Prophet, that the people might make use of his guidance and righteousness. However he intentionally chose this young man, for he was his cousin. During his authority, Abdullah Ibn Amir followed a way of luxury and lavishness. He spent lavishly, just as Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari had said. He was the first to wear silk garments in Basrah. He wore a dark jubbah, and the people said: “The Emir has worn a bear’s skin!” So he changed his garments and wore a red jubbah85.

Amir Ibn Abdullah al-Tamimi, an ascetic worshipper, criticized him for that and for his policy. He also blamed Uthman for that. Al-Tabari has narrated: “Some Muslims held a meeting and discussed Uthman’s deeds and what he had done. Then they decided to send a man to him to talk with him and tell him about his deeds. They sent to him Amir Ibn Abdullah. When he met with him, he said to him: ‘Some Muslims held a meeting and carefully considered your deeds. They have come to know that you have committed serious actions. Therefore, fear Allah, the Great and Almighty, turn to him in repentance and give up.’ However Uthman disrespected him, for his words hurt him. He said to those around him: ‘Look at this person! The people claim that he is a reciter of the Qur’an. Then he has come to talk with me about the disrespectful. By Allah, he does not know where Allah is!’ So Amir said to him: ‘I do not know where Allah is?’ ‘Yes,’ replied Uthman. ‘Most surely I know that Allah is watching,’ said Amir. Uthman sent for his advisers and his governors. He discussed the affair with them. Abdullah Ibn Amir advised and said to him: ‘My pinion, O Commander of the Faithful, is that you must make them busy through waging jihad, that they may yield to you, and have no concern except theirs!’

“Other people advised him to follow something other than that. However he responded to Abdullah’s viewpoint. He returned his governors and commanded them to confine the people under their authorities, and to send them to wage jihad. Moreover, he decided to deprive them of their salaries, that they might obey and be in need of him.”86

When Abdullah Ibn Amir arrived in Basrah, he intended to punish Amir Ibn Abdullah. He commanded his hirelings and followers to bear witness with him that Amir had opposed the Muslims in respect of the affairs that Allah had made lawful, that he did not eat meat, did not marry, and did not attend the Friday prayer87. He sent a letter to Uthman in this respect, who ordered him to banish the man to al-Sham on a camel’s back. Amir was carried to Sham. Mu’awiya made him live at al-Khadra’ and sent a slave girl to spy on him.

The slave girl came to know that Amir performed prayers during the night, went out in the early morning and came back in the evening, did not eat anything of the food sent by Mu’awiya, put a piece of bread into water, and drank some of that water. She told Mu’awiya of that, and he wrote a letter in respect of Amir’s affair. Uthman ordered Mu’awiya to gift him88.

The Muslims harbored malice against Uthman, for he had banished a righteous Muslim89 from his homeland and family, just because he had criticized his governors. It is worth mentioning that the ruler has no authority to carry out such banishment, for it has been legislated for those who war against Allah and his Apostle and cause mischief in the land.

Anyway Abdullah Ibn Amir remained as a governor over Basrah until Uthman was killed. When he heard of Uthman’s murder, he took the money in the public treasury and went to Mecca. He gave it to Talha, al-Zubayr, and A’isha. He joined them and supplied the rebels with money. The rebels had decided to go to al-Sham, but Abdullah turned them away from that and advised them to go to Basrah90.

Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan

Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan was the greatest of Uthman’s governors in luck, influence, and precedence in authority. Besides, his people were the most people in obedience and loyalty to him. They loved him, and he loved them. Umar had endowed him with authority and supported him with all kinds of support. He raised his importance and exalted his position. He reckoned his governors every year and shared them their properties even if they had earned them through trading or legal ways. But he excluded Mu’awiya from that. He did not reckoned him, nor did he share him (his properties), nor did he ask him about his affairs. Rather he praised and lauded him. He went too far in guiding and apologizing to him. People said to Umar: “Mu’awiya wears silk garments while they are forbidden in Islam. He spends lavishly while such a deed is contrary to the administrative regulations Islam has brought, for they require governors to be moderate and not spend lavishly from the Muslims’ properties.”

The people told Umar about such deeds, but he justified them on behalf of Mu’awiya, saying: “He is the Khosrau of the Arabs!” Suppose he was such, then was it lawful for him to wear unlawful garments and spend lavishly from the Muslims’ money? Umar was not satisfied with this laudation and support only, but he blew into him the spirit of ambition and opened for him the door to the hope for the caliphate. He said to the members of the Consultative Committee: “If you envy each other, neglect one another, are hostile to each other, and hate one another, then Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan will overcome you for this (caliphate).” Mu’awiya was then a governor over al-Sham91. That urged him to think of the caliphate and to use all means to win it. Accordingly, he mutinied against the government of Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and battled against him. We will mention that in details in the book.

Anyway, Mu’awiya was a governor over al-Sham throughout the caliphate of Umar. He behaved whatever he wished. He alone possessed the properties, bought the consciences and surrounded himself with followers. There was no supervisor over him, and none blamed him for his deeds. Rather Umar guided and lauded him and was pleased with his acts. After Umar’s death, Uthman appointed him as governor and increased his authority. He added to him Palestine after the death of its governor Abdurrahman Ibn Alqama al-Kinani. He also added to him Hams when its governor Umar Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari asked him to accept his resignation. Through that, Mu’awiya controlled all the land of al-Sham, and became the greatest of all governors in power and influence. His country became the most important of all the Islamic countries, the strongest, and the greatest in calmness and stability.

Without doubt Uthman had increased Mu’awiya’s influence, expanded the region of his power, and paved the way for him to move the caliphate to Abu Sufyan’s family. Dr Taha Husayn has mentioned that, saying: “Without doubt it was Uthman who paved the way for Mu’awiya to move the caliphate someday to Abu Sufyan’s family and fix it among the Umayyads. So it was Uthman who expanded Mu’awiya’s authority. He added Palestine and Hams to his authority. He established for him a Syrian unity with distant borders and made the four countries yield to him. Therefore his armies were the strongest of all the Islamic armies. Then he extended his authority throughout his caliphate just as Umar had done. He released his hand in all the affairs of al-Sham more than Umar had released it. When the discord happened, Mu’awiya looked and suddenly found that he was the oldest of the governors in authority, the strongest of them in soldiers, and the greatest of them in possessing the subjects’ hearts.92” Most surely, Uthman had paved the way for him and gave him an opportunity to battle against Imam ‘Ali (‘a) to commit horrible, abominable things and serious offences. He paved the way for him to kill the righteous, trustworthy Muslims such as Hajr Ibn Adi and his believing brethren, and to commit more sins and crimes.

Abdullah Ibn Sa’d

Uthman endowed his foster brother Abdullah Ibn Sa’d with the authority over Egypt and gave him the power over this great country. He entrusted to him the affair of its links and its land tax93. Before that he had given him enormous properties and granted him the one-fifth of the booties of Africa, while he was not worthy of them, for he had a black history full of sins and offenses. That was when he became an apostate and a polytheist after he had become Muslim. He went to Quraysh in Mecca and began disparaging the Prophet and said to them: “I can make him go wherever I wish!” The Prophet outlawed him on the Day of Conquering Mecca even if he was found clinging to the curtains of the Kaaba. So he went to Uthman and sought protection with him, and he hid him. When the people of Mecca became tranquil, Uthman brought him to the Prophet (S). The Prophet kept silent for a long time, and then he gave him security and pardoned him. When Uthman went away, the Prophet (S) said: “I kept silent for nothing except for that one of you would rise and behead him.” So a man from the Ansar said to him: “Why did you, O Allah’s Apostle, not beckon to me?” And he replied: “Most surely, the Prophet must not have stealthy looks.”94 A verse of the Holy Qur’an was revealed in respect of his disbelief and dispraising him. The verse is:

“And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah, or says: It has been revealed to me; while nothing has been revealed to him, and he who says: I can reveal the like of what Allah has revealed?” (Qur’an, 6:93).

The interpreters of the Qur’an have unanimously agreed on that the verse meant him. The reason for that is that when the verse and certainly We created man of an extract of clay, the Prophet summoned him and recited it to him. When he reached these words of Him then We caused it to grow into another creation, Abdullah became astonished at the details about the creation of man. He said: “So blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.” The Prophet said: “In this manner it was revealed to me.” However Abdullah had doubt and said: “If Muhammad was truthful, then it was revealed to me as it was revealed to him. If he was untruthful, then I said just as he said.” Accordingly, he withdrew from Islam and joined the polytheists95.

Why was such an apostate, who disparaged the Prophet, appointed a governor over the Muslims? Why was the leadership over Muslims entrusted to him? And why was he entrusted with their security and properties? By Allah, most surely this is the breaking misfortune, which melts hearts and souls with sorrow and regret! Why was the authority over the Muslims given to the enemies and opponents of Islam who spared no effort to aggress and scheme against Islam? However, to Allah we belong and to Him is our return!

Anyway Abdullah Ibn Sa’d remained as a governor over Egypt for some years. He forced the Egyptians to do what they could not do. He ruled them with a policy of violence and tyranny. He showed pride and arrogance, so the people were tired of him and of his government. They went to Uthman and complained to him of Abdullah. He sent to him a letter and threatened him with removing him from the office of government unless he would return to reason. However he refused to refrain from what Uthman prohibited him. He severely punished those who complained to Uthman of him, to the extent that he killed them. Accordingly, seven hundred Egyptians went to Yathrib and entered the mosque. They complained to the companions of the Prophet of what Ibn Abi Sarh had done to them. Talha went to Uthman and severely talked with him. A’isha sent someone to him and asked him to treat the people with justice in respect of their governor. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) visited Uthman and said to him: “The people have asked you to replace the man with another one. They have claimed that he killed a person. Therefore, depose. If a right is due on him, then treat people with justice in respect of him.”

Uthman responded to that and said to the people: “Choose a man to appoint him as a governor over you.” The people advised him to appoint Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, and he wrote his appointment over Egypt. He sent with him some people from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar to discuss what had happened between the people and Ibn Abi Sarh (Abdullah Ibn Sa’d)96. They left Yathrib. When they arrived at the placed called Hams, they saw a man coming from Medina. They carefully considered the man and came to know that he was Warsh, Uthman’s servant. When they checked him, they found that he was carrying a letter from Uthman to Ibn Abi Sarh. In the letter Uthman had commanded him to punish the people severely. They carefully read the letter, and they came to know that it was written by Marwan. As a result they returned to Yathrib and decided to remove Uthman or kill him.

Most surely Uthman had planned his death by himself, drawn the tribulation against himself, subjected the community to misfortunes and disasters for the sake of his family and strengthening their entity. If he had responded to Imam ‘Ali’s viewpoint and of those who advised him, and if he had removed the Umayyads from the offices of government, he would have been safe from that revolt that brought about his death, opened the doors to discords among the Muslims, divided their unity, and made them into parties. Each party was delighted with that which with them. With this topic we will end our speech about Uthman’s governors and rulers whom he had appointed for nothing except out of preference and favouritism.

His Punishing The Prophet’s Companions

Uthman severely punished the good, righteous Muslims who showed extreme courage for Islam and took part in building it. That was because they had criticized him for his policy and asked him to follow the right way and the Prophet’s Sunna. However he did not respond to their teachings and their advice, so they severely opposed him. As a result he wreaked his wrath upon them, went too far in oppressing and exhausting them. They are as follows:

1. Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud

Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud was the most similar of all the people to Allah’s Apostle (S) in guidance and behavior97. In respect of him Allah’s Apostle (S) has said: “Whoever wants to be pleased in reciting the Qur’an as fresh as it had been revealed, then let him recite it according to the recitation of Ibn Umm Abd.”98 Some people praised Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud in the presence of Imam ‘Ali. So he (‘a) said: “I say as to him just as they have said: ‘He is the best of those who recite the Qur’an, follow the lawful things in it, and refrain from the unlawful things in it. He is a jurist in religion and knowledgeable in the Sunna99. He was among those concerning whom this verse was revealed100:

“[As for] those who responded [at Uhud] to the Call of Allah and the Apostle after the wound had befallen them, those among them who do good [to others] and guard [against evil] shall have a great reward” (Qur’an, 3:172).

He is also among those concerning whom this verse was revealed101:

“And do not drive away those who call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening. They desire only His favour; neither are you answerable for any reckoning of theirs, nor are they answerable for any reckoning of yours, so that you should drive them away and thus be of the unjust” (Qur’an, 6:52).

Most surely Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud was among the leading Muslims in his guidance, righteousness, piety, and clinging to the religion. Umar sent him along with Ammar Ibn Yasir to Kufa. In respect of him he wrote a letter to the Kufans. He has mentioned in the letter: “I have sent Ammar Ibn Yasir as an Emir and Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud as a teacher and helper. They are from among the highborn, from among the companions of Allah’s Apostle, from among the men of (the Battle of) Badr. Therefore, follow, obey, and listen to them. I have preferred you to myself in respect of Abdullah.”102

Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud stayed in Kufa throughout the Caliphate of Umar. He explained to the Muslims their religion, taught them the Book of Allah, gave them knowledge of Islam, and guided them to the right path. Meanwhile he was a treasurer. When Uthman became caliph and sent Waleed as a governor over Kufa, a warm argument took place between him and Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud. We have mentioned the argument when we talked about Waleed’s authority over Kufa. The heated argument required Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud to resign his office. He stayed in Kufa for a time, and then he left it. They Kufans escorted him and showed sorrow at his departure. When they saw him off, they said to him: “My Allah reward you good! You have taught our ignorant ones, fixed our learned ones, made us recite the Qur’an, and made us understand the religion. Therefore, you are the best brother in Islam and the best bosom friend!”

Then they saw him off and went away. As for Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud, he continued traveling to Yathrib. When he arrived there, Uthman was sitting on the pulpit of Allah’s Apostle (S) and delivering a sermon. When Uthman saw him, he indicated with his hand to him and said to the Muslims: “An evil small reptile has come to you…!”

Why were such bitter words said to the companion of Allah’s Apostle (S)? Why did Uthman receive him with such estrangement for the sake of Waleed, who betrayed Allah and His Apostle, and plundered the Muslims’ properties?

Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud answered him, saying: “I am not such, but I am the companion of Allah’s Apostle (S) on the Day of Badr and of the Homage of the good Pleasure (Bay‘at al-Ridwan).

Uthman’s words made the people angry, so A’isha hurried to say: “O Uthman, why do you say this to the companion of Allah’s Apostle?”

However, Uthman commanded his policemen to take the great Companion out of the mosque violently. Abdullah Ibn Zam‘a rose and knocked him down. It was said that Yahmum, Uthman’s servant, knocked him down and broke his rib.

As a result, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) became excited. He opposed Uthman and said to him: “O Uthman, why have you done this to the companion of Allah’s Apostle (S) according to the speech of Waleed Ibn Aqaba?”

“I have done this not according to Waleed’s words,” replied Uthman, “but I had sent Zubayd Ibn al-Salt al-Kindi to Kufa, and (Abdullah) Ibn Mas‘ud said to him: ‘Most surely it is lawful to shed Uthman’s blood.’”

“You have depended on Zubayd with no certainty,” retorted the Imam103.

Imam ‘Ali (‘a) carried Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud to his house and looked after him until he got well. As for Uthman, he turned away from and abandoned him. He did not permit him to leave Yathrib. He also stopped his pay. Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud became ill and was about to die, so Uthman visited and asked him:

-Of what you are complaining? -My sins. -What do you want? -My Lord’s mercy. -Shall I call a doctor for you? -The doctor has made me ill. -Shall I order a pay to be given to you? -You deprived me of it when I was in need of it, and you want to give it to me,while I am in no need of it! -It will be given to your children. -Allah undertakes their livelihood. -Ask Allah to forgive me, O Abu Abdurrahman. -I ask Allah to take my right from you.

Uthman went away and did not obtain his good pleasure. When Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud became critically ill, he ordered the people to prevent Uthman from praying over him and to ask his companion Ammar Ibn Yasir to perform the prayer over him. When he passed away, some good companions of his buried him in the cemetery of al-Baqee‘ and did not tell Uthman. When he knew of that, he became angry and said: “You preceded me!” Ammar Ibn Yasir answered him, saying: “He had recommended that you would not pray over him!”

Ibn al-Zubayr said to him: I know that you will mourn for me after death, while you have not supplied me with my food during my lifetime!

Uthman wreaked his wrath upon Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud. He abused, abased, abandoned and him, and stopped his pay, commanded his policemen to hit him, imposed on him a house arrest in Yathrib, and did not pay attention to his similarity to the Prophet in his guidance and behavior, his great jihad and extreme courage for Islam. He harbored malice against him

because he had criticized him for his giving the Muslims’ properties to Waleed, while he was entrusted with them. And he (Abdullah) found no justification for this playing with the public treasury, so he, according to his religion and faith, criticized and condemned Uthman for his behavior.

2. Abu Dharr

Abu Dharr is the greatest personality the Islamic History has ever known. All the abilities, elements, and fundamentals of Islam were embodied in him. He was fully aware of the essence and reality of Islam. He was from the first ones to embrace and believe in Islam104. He openly announced the shahada105 before Quraysh. The tyrannical men from Quraysh severely flogged him, to the extent that he was about to die106. However such a punishment did not turn him away from his faith; rather he bravely summoned his people to believe in Islam and to abandon idols. He was the most prominent of the Prophet’s companions in knowledge, piety, and clinging to the religion. It has been narrated from Allah’s Apostle (S) that he has said in respect of Abu Dharr: “None under the sky and on earth is more truthful than Abu Dharr. Whoever wants to be pleased at looking at the asceticism of Isa Ibn Maryam has to look at Abu Dharr.107”

Abu Dharr was the best of people in renouncing the worldly pleasures, the least of them in taking care of the profits wherein, and the greatest of them in fear of Allah and turning away from the false things in life. Allah’s Apostle (S) trusted him when he trusted none and confided secrets to him when he confided no secret to anyone108. Abu Dharr was among the three persons whom Allah loved and ordered His Prophet to love109. He is also one of the three persons for whom the Garden yearns110.

When the discords took place and Uthman and the Umayyads alone possessed the Muslims’ properties, heaped them for themselves, bought many country estates, and built many palaces, Abu Dharr, the hero of the Muslim community, criticized and threatened Uthman. He summoned the Muslims to revolt against Uthman, to topple the government, and return the Islamic regime full of all the elements of advancement and progressive, and apply its constructive policy to the real life.

Most surely Abu Dharr’s outcry was an outcry of an aware man who understood Islam, knew its objectives, and encompassed its reality. It is not an act of Islam that the Muslims’ properties are selfishly used, given to the prominent persons to enjoy and to spend them lavishly, while poverty prevailed the Muslims, hunger, neediness, and unemployment dominated their countries. As a result, Abu Dharr opposed such acts and rushed, according to his faith, to announce his outcry that stunned Uthman and which his exploitative followers denied. Professor Sayyid Qutub has said: “Most surely Abu Dharr’s outcry was a gush of the Islamic essence which those, whose hearts were corrupt, denied. The like of them from among the mounts of exploitation are still denying it during these days. This outcry was the awareness of a conscience which the ambitions did not deceive before an excessive inflation in wealth that divided the Muslim groups into classes and destroyed the foundations which this religion has established.111”

Abu Dharr went out to continue his criticizing and opposing the standing government paying no attention to it and to its severe terrorism and rudeness. He stood in front of those whom Uthman endowed with his gifts and recited this Qur'anic verse:

“And (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful punishment” (Qur’an, 9:34).

Marwan Ibn al-Hakam told Uthman about this act of Abu Dharr’s. Uthman sent someone to Abu Dharr to prohibit him from saying this verse, but he said:

“Does Uthman prevent me from reciting Allah’s Book? By Allah, if I please Allah through displeasing Uthman is more lovable and better to me than displeasing Allah through pleasing him!”

Uthman became angry with him, but he restrained his rage. Abu Dharr’s affair fatigued Uthman who was unable to stand it.

Uthman Banishes Abu Dharr To Al-Sham

The companion of Allah’s Apostle went on propagating his message. He did not flatter nor did he show favouritism; rather he wanted the truth and sought Allah’s favour and good pleasure. However Uthman became angry with him and ordered him to be banished to Sham. Narrators have said: “Most surely the reason for that is that Uthman asked those who attended his gathering: ‘Is it permissible for one to take (money) from the public treasury and return it when he becomes rich?’”

Ka‘b al-Ahbar answered: “I think that there is no harm in that.”

When Abu Dharr came to know that Ka‘b al-Ahbar intervened in the affairs of the religion, while he was Jewish in tendency, and had doubt of his faith in Islam, he became angry with him and said to him: “O son of the Jewish parents, do you teach us our religion?”

Accordingly, Uthman became excited and said to him: “How great your harm is! How fond of (troubling) my companions you are! I will write a letter concerning banishing you to Sham!”

Abu Dharr went to Sham. When he reached it and came to know of Mu’awiya’s abominable acts and innovations, he criticized him, censured the Umayyad policy, and spread Uthman’s evil deeds and behavior which was far from that of the Prophet and his Sunna. He was angry with Mu’awiya when he said: “The wealth is Allah’s.” So he said to him: “The wealth belongs to the Muslims.” He criticized him for his building his palace al-Khadra’, saying to him: “O Mu’awiya, if this house was built through from Allah’s wealth, then it is a treason, and if it was from your money, then this is extravagance.”

Abu Dharr wakened the people and urged them to revolt against Mu’awiya. He said to the Syrians: “By Allah, some things happened that I have never known. By Allah, the acts are not available in Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Apostle. By Allah, I can see that the

truth is extinguished, falsehood is given life, truthfulness is refuted, and preference without fear of Allah, and other things are preferred to righteousness.”112

People listened to Abu Dharr’s speech and believed his talk. Mu’awiya was afraid of that, and he wrote a letter to Uthman and told him about this danger in Sham. Accordingly Uthman commanded him to send Abu Dharr on rough, rude camel. Mu’awiya sent Abu Dharr with some people who did not know his position, nor did they respect his rank. They brought him by night, to the extent that his thighs sloughed, and he was about to die. When Abu Dharr arrived in Medina, he continued propagating his message. He severely condemned Uthman, saying to him: “You have appointed boys as governors, protected your relatives, and showed favour to the children of the released ones.”113

He explained to the Muslims what he had heard from Allah’s Apostle: “When the Umayyads become thirty men, they will seize Allah’s land, enslave Allah’s servants, and spoil Allah’s religion.”

Uthman prohibited the people from sitting, speaking, and associating with Abu Dharr.

Uthman Banishes Abu Dharr To Al-Rabatha

Abu Dharr overburdened Uthman, and he was unable to stand him. He aroused the people and made them aware, to the extant that they were ready to revolt against Uthman and topple the standing regime, which gave the money of the state to the rich and did not spend it on the public interests. Accordingly, there was no balance in the economic life, and poverty and hanger spread all over the country.

Uthman thought that the best way to get rid of this danger threatening him was through banishing Abu Dharr from Yathrib and the rest of the Muslim cities. He decided to banish him to unknown village with few people. He sent for him. When Abu Dharr came, he said to him: “Woe unto you, O Uthman! Have you not seen Allah’s Apostle, Abu Bakr, and Umar?

Have you come to know that they behaved in such a manner? Most surely you are going to punish me severely!”

Uthman interrupted and shouted at him:

-Leave our city! -Are you going to drive me away from the sanctum of Allah’s Apostle (Medina)? -Yes, in spite of you! -Shall I go to Mecca? -No! -To Basrah? -No! -To Kufa? -No! -Where shall I go? -To al-Rabatha until you die there.

He ordered Marwan to exile him immediately from Medina in a humiliating and disrespectful manner. He prevented the Muslims from escorting and seeing him off. However the men of truth disobeyed Uthman. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) along with Aqeel, Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn hurried to see him off. Marwan said to al-Hasan: “O Hasan, did you not know that Uthman prevented from speaking with this man? If you did not know, then know that!”

Accordingly, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) rebuked him and hit his camel on the ears. He shouted at him, saying: “Set aside! May Allah make you head for the fire!” Marwan escaped to Uthman and told him about what had happened.

Imam ‘Ali (‘a) saw Abu Dharr and said some words to him that comforted him in that barren area throughout his lifetime. He said to him: “O Abu Dharr, you showed anger for Allah; therefore, have hope in Him for Whom you became angry. The people were afraid of you for their world, while you feared them for your religion. Then leave to them that for which they were afraid of you and get away from them taking away what you fear them about.

How needy are they for what you dissuade them from! And how needless you are toward that from which they have prevented you! You will shortly know who the gainer is tomorrow (on the Day of Resurrection) and who is more enviable. Even if these skies and earth were closed on some individual and he feared Allah, then Allah would open them for him. Only rightfulness will attract you while wrongfulness will detract you. If you had accepted their worldly attractions, they would have loved you; and if you had shared in it, they would have given you asylum.”

In these wonderful words, Imam ‘Ali has specified the great attitude Abu Dharr took toward Uthman. He has indicated that his attitude was not for material, nor was it for the rest of the other considerations whose affair returns to earth. Rather it was for the original doctrines and the ideals Islam has brought, and that requires rulers and the responsible not to possess alone the Muslims’ properties. However Uthman turned away from that and followed a special policy based on preference and favouritism. For this reason Abu Dharr revolted and battled against him. Uthman feared him for government and authority, while Abu Dharr feared him for his religion and faith. Imam ‘Ali had commanded Abu Dharr to leave that which was in their hands and to escape along with his religion, that he might be safe from the people’s wickedness and sins.

In his words the Imam has also indicated Abu Dharr’s direction and tendencies. He has mentioned that nothing attracted him except rightfulness, and nothing detracted him except abominable acts and wrongfulness. If Abu Dharr had changed his direction, made peace with the people, and had been friendly to them, they would have loved him, been loyal to him, spent lavishly on him, and given him enormous wealth.

Imam al-Hasan hurried to Abu Dharr to shake hand with him and see him off. He said to him some words resulted from his heart showing sorrow at this separation. He said to him: “O uncle, the one who sees off should keep silent and say short words though sorrow is long! The people have brought you what you see. Leave the world by remembering its going tobe finished, and its calamities through hoping for that which is after it. Be patient until you meet your Prophet and he is pleased with you.”

Imam al-Hasan (‘a) ordered Abu Dharr to be patient toward the misfortunes the people had poured upon him, that he might meet Allah’s Apostle (S) while he was pleased with him.

Abu Dharr looked at the Prophet’s Household with a look full of pain, sorrow, and regret. He said to them some words showing that his heart was melted by that bitter separation: “May Allah have mercy on you, O household of mercy! When I see you, I remember through you Allah’s Apostle (S). I have none in Medina other than you. I have overburdened Uthman in al-Hijaz just as I had overburdened Mu’awiya in Sham. Uthman hated to let me neighbor his brother and his cousin in the two districts114. He is afraid that I might move the people against them. Accordingly, he wants to banish me to an area where I have neither supporter nor protector except Allah. By Allah, I do not want anyone to be as a friend except Allah, and I fear no loneliness along with Allah.”

Abu Dharr went away as an outlawed in the deserts. He was exiled from the sanctum of Allah and of His Apostle. The blind policy sent him far and separated him from the Prophet’s Household for whom he showed sincere love for the sake of his beloved One and his Companion, Allah’s Apostle (S).

Abu Dharr went to al-Rabatha to die there out of hunger, while Uthman had the gold of the earth. He spent it on the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family and deprived the like of Jesus the son of Mary in guidance.

Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and his sons saw off Abu Dharr and returned home. They were sad. Some people Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and told him that Uthman was angry with him, for he had disobeyed his commands and went out to see Abu Dharr off. However the Imam said: “ (Like) the anger of horses with the bridles!”115

Uthman said to the Imam: What made you oppose my messenger!

-As for Marwan, he opposed me and I opposed him. As for your command, I did not disobey it.

-Did you not know that I prevented the people from escorting Abu Dharr? -Is the obedience to Allah in all that which you command us (to follow), while the truth is in opposing it? We have followed your command in respect of it. -Did you punish Marwan? -How did I punish him? -You flogged his camel on the ears. -As for my camel, it is over there. If he wanted to flog it as I had flogged his camel, let him do. By Allah, if he cursed me, I would curse you in turn with something of which I was not accused of lying, and I say nothing except the truth. -And why would he not curse you? By Allah, you are not better than him in my viewpoint!

Imam ‘Ali became angry with Uthman because he made him equal to Marwan, while he was in the same position with respect to the Prophet as Aaron was to Moses. It is worth mentioning that Marwan was a wicked man and was cursed by Allah’s Apostle (S) when he was in his father’s back. Imam ‘Ali said to Uthman:

-Are you saying these words to me? Are you making him equal to me? By Allah, I am better than you are. My father was better than yours, and my mother was better than yours.

Uthman kept silent. As for the Imam, he went away, while he was grieved and sad, for Uthman had not respect his position when he made him equal to Marwan.

3. Ammar Ibn Yasir

Ammar was a unique, great, and leading Muslim figure. He was the companion of Allah’s Apostle (S). He performed great jihad and showed extreme courage for the sake of Islam. He and his parents suffered too much. The Qurayshi tyrants deemed them as weak. They poured upon them a lot of painful torture. They fogged them, put heavy rocks on their chests, and poured upon them water. When the Prophet (S) passed by Ammar and his parents, he saw them suffering from severe torture, so his soul melted out of sorrow and sadness. He said to them: “O Yasir’s family, be patient; you are promised the Garden!”116

Sadness exhausted him, and he said: “O Allah, have mercy on Yasir’s family….”117

This family, who sacrificed their lives for Allah, remained under torture and fatigue. They paid no attention to the painful, severe torture. They insisted on their faith, propagated the message of Muhammad (S), and disparaged the idols of Quraysh. Accordingly, Abu Jahl burst with anger. He stabbed Sumaya’s heart with his spear, and she immediately died as the first martyr in Islam. Then this sinful person (Abu Jahl) intentionally killed Yasir.

As for Ammar, he remained under torture, to the extent that he became exhausted. As a result, Quraysh asked him to curse the Prophet, and he reluctantly responded to them. They pardoned him, and he went to Allah’s Apostle (S) weeping. Allah’s Apostle, rubbed his eyes and said to him:

“If they (Quraysh) returned to you (to curse me again), repeat to them what you had said.” Allah, the Most High, has revealed this verse in respect of him: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith” (Qur’an, 16:106).118

Ammar’s soul was full of faith in Allah; the religion was a piece of his nature and an element to straighten his mood. Allah has revealed other verses in the Qur’an in respect of him. All the verses have praised, lauded, and glorified Ammar. Allah, the Exalted, has meant him in His words:

“What! He who is obedient during hours of the night, prostrating himself and standing, takes care of the hereafter” (Qur’an, 39:9).119

The Holy Verse has been revealed in respect of him:

“Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people” (Qur’an, 6:122).120

Concerning praising him and dispraising Waleed, this Verse has been revealed:

“Is he to whom We have promised a goodly promise which he shall meet with like him whom We have provided with the provisions of this world’s life, then on the day of resurrection he shall be of those who are brought up?” (Qur’an, 28:61).121

The Prophet (S) took great care of Ammar. He raised his importance, lauded him, and preferred him to others. He came to know that Khalid spoke rudely to him, so he burnt with grief and said to him: “Whoever is hostile to Ammar is hostile to Allah, and whoever detests Ammar detests Allah.”122 A heated argument took place between a person and Ammar. The person said to Ammar: “I will hit you with this stick on your nose!” When Allah’s Apostle (S) heard of that, he became angry and said: “There is a great difference between them and Ammar. Ammar summons them to the Garden, and they summon him to the fire….”123 He has also said in respect of him: “When Ammar is made to choose between two affairs, he chooses the wiser one.”124

The Prophet went on taking care of Ammar and respecting him, for he knew that Ammar was loyal, and had renounced the world, and loved the truth.

Ammar fought along with the Prophet at all the Battles such as Badr and Uhud. He took part in building the Prophetic Mosque. Each Muslim carried a brick, while he carried two and said: “We, the Muslims, build mosques. The Prophet repeated some of his words, saying: “Al-Masajid (the mosques)!” He also took part in digging the trench, and the Prophet rubbed the dust from him. In such a manner was Ammar on top of the companions of the Prophet (S) in his faith, loyalty, extreme courage, and effort for the sake of Islam. When the Prophet passed away, Ammar followed Imam ‘Ali. He was sincere in showing love for him. He thought that none was worthier of the caliphate than him. For this reason he did not pledge Allegiance to Abu Bakr and he protested against him. We have previously mentioned that. When Uthman became a caliph and deviated from the right path, Ammar was displeased with him, severely opposed him, and criticized him. Accordingly, Uthman severely punished him, transgressed against him, and said to him obscene words. That was in various situations of which are the following:

1. When Uthman alone possessed the ornaments in the public treasury and adorned with them some of his womenfolk, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) criticized him for that. As for Ammar, he supported his opposition to him, as we have already mentioned. Uthman said to him: “How dare you say such a thing, O son of al-Matkaa’?”125 Then he commanded his policemen to take him, and they took him and made him came in to him. Uthman hit Ammar Ibn Yasir, to the extent that he fainted, while he was a weak, old man. Ammar was carried to the house of Umm Salama, the Prophet’s wife. He did not recover consciousness due to the intense hitting, to the extent that he could not perform the noon and afternoon prayers. When he recovered consciousness, he performed the ritual ablution and performed the evening prayer and said: “Praise belongs to Allah! This is not the first day when we are harmed for the sake of Allah!” For this reason A’isha became angry. She took out some hair of Allah’s Apostle, a garment of his, and a sandal, and then she said: “How quickly you have abandoned the Sunna of your Prophet! These are his hair, garment, and sandal! They have not worn out yet!” Accordingly, Uthman became angry, to the extent that he did not know what to say and how to apologize for his action126.

2. The prominent companions of the Prophet wrote a letter to Uthman. In the letter they told him about his bad actions, his policy contrary to that of the Sunna, that they would battle against him if he did not repent and change his plan. It was Ammar who handed him the letter. Uthman took the letter. When he read the first lines, he burst with anger and said:

-Have you come to me on their behalf? -Most surely I am the most loyal to you of them. -You have told a lie, O son of Sumayya! -By Allah, I am the son of Sumayya and Yasir!

Anyway, Uthman commanded his boys to knock Ammar down, and he kicked him on the testicles and caused to him a hernia. As Ammar was weak, he fainted127.

3. When Uthman exiled Abu Dharr, the companion of Allah’s Apostle (S), to al-Rabatha, and he died their a stranger, and the news of his death reached Yathrib, Uthman said before some companions of the Prophet: “May Allah have mercy on him!”

Ammar hurried to say: “Yes, may Allah have mercy on him from all our souls!”

Accordingly, Uthman became angry and said obscene words to Ammar: “Do you think that I have repented of banishing him?”

Then he commanded his boys to push Ammar and to fatigue him. He also ordered him to be banished to al-Rabatha. When Ammar was ready to set out, the Banu (tribe of) Makhzum went to Imam ‘Ali (‘a) and asked him to go to Uthman to speak to him in respect of Ammar’s affairs. The Imam went and said to Uthman: “Fear Allah! You have already banished a righteous Muslim (Abu Dharr) and he died due to your banishing him. Now you are intending to exile his equal.”

Uthman became angry and said to the Imam: “You are worthier of being banished than he is!”

“Do that if you wish!” retorted the Imam.

The Muhajirin met with Uthman. They criticized and blamed him for that. He responded to them and pardoned Ammar.128

Uthman went too far in persecuting and exhausting Ammar. He severely hit him and rudely spoke to him. He paid no attention to his extreme courage for Islam and his supporting the Prophet in all the battles and situations. He paid no attention to that the Prophet took care of his affairs and preferred him to others. He was hostile to Ammar and harbored malice against him, for he (Ammar) asked him to follow justice, the clear truth, and to be moderate in his policy.

With this matter we will end our speech about Uthman’s severe punishments against the leading companions of the Prophet. It is worth mentioning that the Prophet’s companions were among those who were early to believe in Islam and they greatly struggled for it. Without doubt they had no desire for the government over some Muslim cities and regions or for obtaining some money. All these things did not move them to blame Uthman. Rather they came to know that Uthman performed some deeds not available in Allah’s book nor in the Sunna of His Prophet. They came to know that the truth was extinguished, falsehood was given life, truthfulness was refuted, preference was given to others without fear of Allah, as Abu Dharr said. For these things they openly criticized and blamed him, asked him to follow the clear, straight path and the Prophet’s Sunna.

Fabricated Lies Against Imam Al-Hasan

Some historians have spoke evil of Imam al-Hasan. They have claimed that he was Uthmani in inclination, that he harbored deep love, friendship, and loyalty to Uthman, and that he showed great sorrow at his death. Among them is Dr. Taha Husayn, who has said: “Al-Hasan did not separate himself from his sorrow at Uthman. He was Uthmani in the exact meaning of this word. However he did not draw a sword to avenge his blood, for he thought that he had no right to do that. Perhaps he went too far in following Uthman, to the extent that he someday said some words that his father did not like. Narrators have reported: ‘Ali passed by his son while he was performing the ritual ablution and said to him: ‘Perform the ritual ablution properly!’ So al-Hasan answered him with this bitter statement: ‘Yesterday you killed the man who properly performed the ritual ablution.’ ‘Ali increased nothing more than saying: ‘May Allah prolong your sadness over Uthman.’”129

Most surely the policy that Uthman followed and the dangerous deeds issued from him made him without a bosom friend in the country. All the Muslims were displeased with him. They were afraid of him for their religion. A’isha took out the garments of Allah’s Apostle (S) and said to those who visited her: “This is the garment of Allah’s Apostle. It has not worn out yet, while Uthman has worn out his (the Prophet) Sunna!” Talha, al-Zubayr, Abdurrahman Ibn Awf, and other than them, from among those, upon whom Uthman lavishly spent, harbored malice against him. Uthman had no friend and none to defend him except the Umayyads and Abu Ma’eet’s family.

All the Muslims harbored malice against Uthman, so how was al-Hasan, who followed the guidance of his grandfather, the Apostle, Uthmani in the exact meaning of this word, as Dr. Taha Husayn says? Most surely al-Hasan was among those who harbored malice against Uthman and one of those who criticized him, for he saw what the companions of his father such as Abu Dharr, Ammar, and Abdullah Ibn Mas‘ud met from Uthman. He saw what his father himself met from him such as making light of his right and the aggression against him when he went out to see Abu Dharr off. After these things, how was al-Hasan Uthmani or excessive in showing love for Uthman? Which expression of depression and sadness appeared on al-Hasan’s face after Uthman’s murder? Was it during his heroic role in moving the people and sending them to the Battle of al-Jamal? It is worth mentioning that the Battle of al-Jamal was moved to avenge the blood of Uthman. Ammar Ibn Yasir supported him in all those attitudes. He blamed Uthman and accused him of his religion and said in respect of him: “We killed Uthman because he was an unbeliever.”130

Al-Hasan supported him and confirmed his words. Did sadness for Uthman appear on al-Hasan’s face at the Battle of Siffin which was created by Mu’awiya to avenge the blood of Uthman? Therefore, in which attitude Imam al-Hasan showed his sadness and sorrow at Uthman? As for the narration on which Dr. Taha Husayn depended to confirm his speech, it was reported by Al-Baladhuri on the authority of al-Mada’ini131, who was famous for showing enmity toward Ahl Al-Bayt and fabricating narrations in respect of the Umayyads132. The reason for fabricating this narration is that he wanted to give a garment of sacredness to Uthman and to make him a balance of love in the souls of the good Muslims. The narration is weak, besides it faces the following criticisms:

1. Most surely Imam ‘Ali (‘a) was kind to his son al-Hasan when he addressed him, explained to him the religious precept, and did not face him with bitter words. Therefore what made al-Hasan face him with those bitter words, while he was the inheritor of the Prophet (S) and similar to him in his noble moral traits, and noble natures?

2. Most surely Imam al-Hasan was among those who defended Uthman, as he said, and that was according to an order from his father; therefore, how did he accuse him of killing Uthman?

3. Most surely there was no relationship between Imam ‘Ali and the murder of Uthman and the plot against him. Rather, Uthman’s deeds killed him, and the events that he did finished him off; therefore how did al-Hasan accuse his father of killing Uthman?

As we have understood what we have mentioned, the narration has no value in respect of its chain of authorities and in its meaning. It is strange that Dr. Taha Husayn depended on it without considering it carefully nor did he carefully consider the other narrations which were intentionally fabricated by those who inclined to the Umayyads and the hirelings of the authority.

The Revolt

In their gatherings the Muslims talked about Uthman’s evil deeds, his events, dictatorship in respect of their affairs, wasting their wealth, punishing the good, prominent companions of the Prophet, the play of Marwan and the Umayyads with the affairs of the state, and other heavy events. Displeasure and grumbling spread all over the country. Accordingly, the influential people and the early Muslims held a meeting. They wrote letters to the cities and asked them for help and to send some armed forces, that they might overthrow the then government. The text of their note to the Egyptians is the following:

“From the early Muhajirin and the remainder of the Consultative Committee. To those from among the companions (of the Prophet) and the successors in Egypt. Well, come to us and set right the succession after Allah’s Apostle before its men are deprived of it. The Book of Allah has been altered, the Sunna of His Apostle has been changed, and the regulations of the two caliphs have been altered. Therefore, we adjure before Allah the remainder of the companions of Allah’s Apostle and their good successors who read our letter. Come to us, take the right for us, and give it to us. Come to us if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. Establish the truth according to the clear method of your Prophet and of the caliphs. Our right has been overcome, our Fay’ has been controlled, and we have been prevented from our (right of) authority. The caliphate after our Prophet was the caliphate of prophethood and mercy, while today it belongs to a tyrannical monarchy; whoever overcomes a thing, he (the king) takes the thing….”133

This letter has mentioned the dangerous events with which the Islamic world was afflicted because of the then government. They are as follows:

1. The Book of Allah was altered and its just laws were cancelled.

2. The Sunna of the Prophet (S) was changed and what was reported from him in the world of government and policy was neglected.

3. Uthman turned away from the behavior of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar).

4. The authority alone possessed al-Fay’ and spent it on its private interests.

5. The Islamic caliphate was turned away from its constructive precepts, and its rich abilities. It was undertaken by a monarch who did not take care of the objectives and interests of the community.

Of course, these events shook the Islamic entity and threatened the Islamic life with destruction. So those who harbored malice against Uthman went on waging their struggle against him. They sent another letter to those stationed in the fortified borderline cities from among the companions of the Prophet. They asked them to go to Yathrib to set right the caliphate. The following is the text of their letter:

“Most surely you have gone out to wage holy jihad for the sake of Allah, the Great and Almighty. You have sought the religion of Muhammad (S). However, the religion of Muhammad has been spoiled by your caliph; therefore, set it right!”

The Muslims in the Islamic cities responded to this letter. They sent delegations to Yathrib to understand the situation and to study the attitude and the treatment it needed. The delegations who went to Medina were:

A. The Egyptian Delegation

The Muslims in Egypt sent a delegation of four hundred people, and it was said that the number was more than that. The delegation was headed by Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr and Abdurrahman Ibn Udays al-Balawi.

B. The Kufan Delegation

The Muslims in Kufa sent a delegation. The delegation was headed by Malik al-Ashtar, Zayd Ibn Sohan al-Abdi, Ziyad Ibn al-Nadhr al-Harithi, and Abdullah Ibn al-Assam al-Amiri. They all were headed by Amr Ibn al-Ahtham.

C. The Delegation Of Basrah

The Muslims in Basra sent a delegation of a hundred men. Hakeem Ibn Jabalah headed the delegation. Then fifty men followed them. Among them were Dhurayh Ibn Abbad al-Abdi, Bishr Ibn Shurayh al-Qaysi, Ibn al-Muhrish, and the like of them from among the prominent figures.

The companions (of the Prophet) welcomed the delegations. They received them with delight and they thanked them. They mentioned to them Uthman’s actions, which apparently and really did not agree with the Islamic religion. They urged them to attack and finish him off, that the community might get rid of his government quickly. However the Egyptian delegation thought that they had to submit a note to Uthman to ask him to turn to Allah in repentance and to follow a straight policy. They wrote the note as follows: “Well, know that surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition. Therefore (fear) Allah! Then (fear) Allah! That is because you are in world; therefore, complete with it the hereafter. Do not forget your share in the hereafter. Do not admire the world. Know that we have become angry for Allah and are pleased for Him. We will not remove our swords from our shoulders until you sincerely turn to Allah in repentance. This is our statement and affair to you. May Allah excuse us in respect of you. With greetings.”134

Uthman became disordered. He carefully read the letter. The revolutionists surrounded him. Al-Mughira hurried to him. He asked him to permit him to speak to them. He permitted him, and he went to them. When they saw him, they shouted at him: “O one-eyed, go back! O dissolute, go back! O sinner, go back!”

He unsuccessfully went back. Then Uthman summoned Amr Ibn al-Aas and asked him to speak with the people. He went to and greeted them. They did not reply to his greetings and said to him: “O enemy of Allah, go back! O son of al-Nabigha (whore), go back! We do not trust you!”

Accordingly, Uthman came to know that he had none to resort to except Imam ‘Ali. He sought help from him and asked him to ask the people to cling to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Apostle. The Imam responded to him, but he stipulated that he had to give to him Allah’s promise and covenant, that he might fulfill what he had said. Uthman gave that to the Imam. So the Imam went to the people. When they saw him, they said to him:

-Go back! -No, but forward! You keep to Allah’s Book and blame him (Uthman) for that with which you are displeased. He told them about what Uthman had said. -Do you guarantee that on his behalf? -Yes. -We are satisfied.

The leading personalities of the people went with Imam ‘Ali. They came in to Uthman. They blamed him for his deeds, and he apologized to them for them. They asked him to write them a document to oblige himself to follow Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet and to secureal-Fay’ to the Muslims. He responded to them and wrote them the following document: “This is a letter from the servant of Allah, Uthman, the commander of the faithful, to the believers and the Muslims who have become displeased with him. I stipulate to you that I should act among you according to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet. I should give (money) to the deprived, give security to the fearful, repatriate the exiled, not send armies, and secure al-Fay’.’Ali Ibn Abi Talib will guarantee me toward the believers and the Muslims. Uthman should fulfill what is in this letter.”

The people who bore witness as to the letter were al-Zubayr Ibn al-Awwam, Talha Ibn Abdullah, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Zayd Ibn Thabit, Sahl Ibn Hunayf, and Abu Ayyub Khalid Ibn Zayd. The document was written in Dhu ‘l-Qa’ida, in the year thirty-five A. H. The people took the document and went away135. Imam ‘Ali (‘a) asked Uthman to go out to the people and announce to them that he had responded to the people and accomplished their requests. Uthman did that and promised the people that he would behave among them according to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Prophet, secure to them al-Fay’, and not prefer any of his kin. The Egyptians went back home. Then Marwan came in to Uthman and said to him: “Talk and make the people know that the Egyptians have come back, and that what they have heard in respect of their Imam was false. That is because your sermon will spread throughout the country before the people come to you from their cities; therefore, he whom you cannot repel will come to you.”

Marwan asked Uthman to announce something untruthful and say something other than the truth. In the first place Uthman refrained from responding to him but he finally yielded to his speech. He went out and went up on the pulpit and said: “Well, surely those people from among the inhabitants of Egypt had heard an affair about their Imam. When they came to know that the affair was false, they went home.”

However the Muslims blamed him for that. Umar Ibn al-Aas said to him: “Fear Allah, O Uthman! You and we have followed destructive things. Therefore, turn to Allah in repentance, and so shall we.”

However Uthman rebuked him and shouted at him: “Are you there, son of al-Nabigha? Your jubbah has become lice-infested since I removed you from the work!”

From all the sides of the Mosque, the Muslims shouted in one voice: “Fear Allah, O Uthman!”

Accordingly, his abilities collapsed, and he found no escape from turning to Allah in repentance for such a lie. He went down the pulpit and went to his house136.

This attitude indicates that Uthman was weak and had a weak will, that Marwan played with his policy and controlled all his affairs, that he (Uthman) had no ability to disobey and to overcome him.

His Seeking Help From The Cities

When the revolutionists became active and besieged him in his house, he sought help from Mu’awiya and called him for help. He wrote him this letter: “Surely the people of Medina have disbelieved, violated the obedience (to me), and broken the pledge of allegiance. Therefore, send me Syrian fighters on every camel.”137

When Mu’awiya read the letter, he waited. He did not hurry to help or respond to him. He forgot the favours that Uthman had rendered to him and his family.

As Mu’awiya was late in responding to Uthman and he did not take a measure to help him, Uthman sent a letter to Yazid Ibn Asad Ibn Karz and the people of Sham. He asked and urged them to go out for helping him. When the letter reached them, they hurried to go out to help him under the leadership of Yazid al-Qasri. However Mu’awiya commanded him to camp at Thi Khashab and not to exceed it. The Army stayed their until Uthman was killed. Mu’awiya wanted to use the murder of Uthman as means that the Umayyads might take the reins of the caliphate. Most surely Mu’awiya was among those who schemed against Uthman. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari has referred to that during his speech with Mu’awiya: “Most surely, it was you who waited for (the murder of) Uthman and discouraged Yazid Ibn Asad from helping him.”

Anyway, Uthman wrote many letters to the cities and to those who attended the season of the Hajj in Mecca. He asked them to help him.

The Day Of The House

The Egyptian delegation returned home. But when they came to know of the plot planned against them, they came back. They besieged Uthman’s house, demanded overthrowing and removing him from the rule. However Marwan came out to them. He cursed and defamed them. He said to them: “What is the matter with you? It is as if that you have come to plunder. May your faces be disfigured! Do you want to take our authority from our hands? Go away!”

These words inflamed the fire of the revolt in their souls. They surrounded Uthman and wanted to kill him. Uthman sought help from Imam ‘Ali, and he went to him. Imam ‘Ali had heard of Marwan’s words so he said: “You are not satisfied with Marwan, nor is he satisfied with you except through deviating you from your religion and your reason. He is like the camel of travel which is led wherever it is driven. By Allah, Marwan has no opinion of his religion and of his own soul. By Allah, I can see that he will lead you but not release you. I will not return after this coming of mine to blame you. Your honor has been taken away, and your affair has been overcome.”

Most surely it was Marwan and the Umayyads who killed Uthman. This has been mentioned by Na‘ila, Uthman’s wife, when she said to the Umayyads: “By Allah, you have killed him and orphaned his children.”

She advised her husband not to obey Marwan, saying: “If you obey Marwan, he will kill you!”

Uthman took a great part in killing himself. He knew that he was weak-willed, had no ability to overcome the events, the Umayyads had controlled his affairs, and the Muslims hated him. Therefore, it was incumbent on him to leave the authority to someone other than him, to resign his office, and not to distress the community through his murder. The revolutionists were sure that there was no room to reform him. If he decided something,

Marwan would cancel it. Accordingly, they insisted that he had to remove himself from the caliphate, but he refused and said: “The caliphate is a garment that Allah has clothed me with!” Really it was a garment which Umar and Abdurrahman Ibn Awf had clothed him with.

Anyway the fires of the revolt broke out and their heat reached the head. That was when the revolutionists decided to kill him after he had refused to remove himself from the caliphate. As a result, Talha withdrew the water from him and controlled the public treasuries. The revolutionaries surrounded his palace. Some of them climbed the walls, throw stones at him, and went too far in cursing him.

Imam Al-Hasan’s Attitude

Some historians have claimed that Imam al-Hasan defended Uthman on the Day of the House (youm al-daar) according to his father’s order, and that he showed extreme courage in this respect, to the extent that he was stained with his blood. Without doubt this is among the things fabricated by the Umayyads. That is because Imam al-Hasan (‘a) and the rest of the righteous Muhajirin and of the Ansar isolated themselves from Uthman; rather they were among those who harbored malice against him. None was present to defend him except the Umayyads and some opportunists. If Uthman had had any popular base in the society, the revolutionists would not have been able to kill him.

All the companions of the Prophet deserted him. None of them hurried to help and support him; rather they glorified the revolt against him and urged the revolutionists. According to these attitudes, how was it possible for Imam al-Hasan to violate the unanimous resolution and go to defend Uthman?

Anyway al-Amini, a researcher, has falsified such a report and regarded it as among the fabricated ones138.

Uthman Is Finished Off

The revolutionists finished Uthman off. He was killed by some revolutionists on whose head was Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr, who was the greatest of them in showing malice against Uthman. He drew the sword before him and said to him:

-Which religion have you followed, O Na‘thal?

-The Islamic religion! I am not Na’thal. I am the Commander of the Faithful!

-You have changed Allah’s Book!

-Allah’s Book is between you and me!

He took him by his beard. He drew him towards the ground and said to him: “On the Day of Resurrection it will not be accepted from us that we say: O our Lord, surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path.”

Then the people attacked Uthman. They killed him, and he weltered in his blood. They left him as a motionless body139. They did not bury him nor did they allow anybody to bury him. Some of his special associates talked with Imam ‘Ali (‘a) about burying him. The Imam interceded for them with the revolutionists, and they permitted them to do that. However they did not allow them to bury him in al-Baqee‘ cemetery, so they buried him in Hash Kawkab140.

The Muslims were severely tried in respect of Uthman’s affair. His murder caused them heavy sufferings. During the days of his government and after his murder opportunist parties were formed. The parties paid attention to no thing except reaching the government, that they might use it as means for obtaining wealth. They caused mischief in the land. They plotted against the Muslims’ interests. They destroyed their unity, and created in the society difficulties and problems to the extent that it was difficult for Imam ‘Ali (‘a) during his government to set right the then situations, and return the Prophet’s Sunna and behavior among the people. Those problems became more difficult during the time of Imam al-Hasan. He believed that he had no plan better than making peace with Mu’awiya. We will mention that in detail in the following chapters.

With this matter we will end our speech about the time of Uthman. We have elaborated on his affairs and spoken at great length about his policy. It is worth mentioning that his policy kindled the fire of the most dangerous discord, and opened the door to the disagreements and disputes among the Muslims. It paved the way for the Umayyads to intervene in the Muslims’ affairs, usurp the authority, go too far in killing the righteous and pursuing the reformers, and destroy all the rules the religion had brought.

We have also mentioned some criticisms on Dr. Taha Husayn’s researches on Uthman and justifying his policy. We, Allah knows, have mentioned that not because of fanaticism and harboring malice against Uthman. Rather our pioneer is loyalty to the truth only and to serve the Islamic case. That is because many modern writers have tried to justify those events with some far explanations not confirmed by proof and evidence. We are in urgent need of studying the Islamic history as it is and pondering on the events happened during the early Islamic times, that we may understand the good people who served Islam and hoisted its flag. And that we may distinguish those whom the authority and wealth deceived, and they turned away from their religion and community for the sake of their own interests. We hope that these researches, which we have exactly and honestly planned, have explained to us the events that took place during those times.

• 1. Ibn Khaldun, al-‘Ibar, vol. 2, pp. 128-129. It has been mentioned in it: “Uthman sent an army to conquer Africa in the year 25 A. H. The commanders of the army were Abdullah Ibn Nafi‘ and Aqaba Ibn Nafi‘ Ibn ‘Abd al-Qays. The army went to Africa. Its number was ten thousand (fighters). When the army arrived in it, it was unable to conquer it. So it made peace with its inhabitants provided that they should pay money. Then Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, Uthman’s foster brother, asked Uthman to conquer Africa and to supply him with an army. So Uthman consulted the companions (of the Prophet), and most of them encouraged him to do that. As a result Uthman supplied him with an army from Medina. Among the army were Ibn Abbas, Ibn al-Aas, Ibn Ja‘far, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They headed for Africa and conquered it in the year 26 A. H. The author of al-Futuhat al-Islamiya has not mentioned that al-Hasan and al-Husayn joined the army.
• 2. Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, vol. 5, pp. 57-58. Al-‘Ibar, vol. 2, p. 134. Al-Futuhat al-Islamiya, vol. 1, p. 175. In all these books it has been mentioned: “Sa‘eed Ibn al-‘Aas conquered Tabaristan in the year 30 A. H. Al-Asbahad made peace with Suwayd Ibn Miqren provided that he should give him money during the days of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. When Uthman became a caliph, he prepared an army and sent it towards them. Sa‘eed Ibn al-‘Aas was the commander of the army. Al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, and the like joined the army. When they arrived in it, they conquered it.” In his book Muhadharat al-Arba‘a, al-Raghib al-Asfahani has said: “Al-Asbaheed is the owner of the mountain (sahib al-jabal); and it is the correctness, not al-Asbahad.”
• 3. Emerson, Willpower.
• 4. Dr. Taha Husayn, al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 5.
• 5. Al-Baladhuri, al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 24.
• 6. Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 141.
• 7. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 41.
• 8. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 41.
• 9. Al-Nizam al-Siyasi fi al-Islam, p. 227, quoted from al-Kharajj, p. 50, by Abu Yusuf.
• 10. Usd al-Ghaba.
• 11. Badayi’ al-Sanayi’, vol. 7, p. 245.
• 12. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 66.
• 13. Imam Kashif al-Ghita’s important commentary on al-Fitnah al-Kubra is a hand written book available at al-‘Amira Library. Taha Husayn’s defense and Kashif al-Ghita’s commentary are based on al-Tabari’s narration, which says that Uthman paid the blood money from his own wealth and did not pardon ‘Ubayd Allah.
• 14. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 67.
• 15. Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 461.
• 16. Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 2, p. 17.
• 17. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 17.
• 18. Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.
• 19. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 407.
• 20. Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, p. 52.
• 21. Al-Ansab, p. 28.
• 22. Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.
• 23. Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 67.
• 24. Ibn Kathir, Tarikh, vol. 8, p. 70.
• 25. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 27.
• 26. Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 118.
• 27. Al-Sirah al-Halabiya.
• 28. Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, p. 39.
• 29. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 27.
• 30. Al-Ya’qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 41.
• 31. Al-Ma’arif, p. 84.
• 32. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.
• 33. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.
• 34. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 2, 310.
• 35. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 30.
• 36. Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 10, p. 72.
• 37. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 479.
• 38. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 2, p. 55.
• 39. Al-Ansab, vol. 4, p. 348.
• 40. Nahj al-Balagha.
• 41. Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 168.
• 42. Al-Halabi, Sirah, vol. 2, p. 87.
• 43. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, vol. 1, p. 67.
• 44. Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 168. Al-Ma‘arif, p. 84.
• 45. Al-Baladhuri, al-Ansab.
• 46. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 28.
• 47. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 3, p. 423.
• 48. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 15, p. 77. Al-Qurtubi, vol. 10, p. 283.
• 49. Al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 4, p. 191.
• 50. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 62.
• 51. Ibn Sa ‘d, Tabaqat.
• 52. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 139.
• 53. Ibn Sa ‘d, Tabaqat.
• 54. Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 5, p. 21.
• 55. Al-Mas‘udi, Murujj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 334.
• 56. Al-Ghadir, vol. 8.
• 57. Al-Mas‘udi, Murujj al-Dhahab, vol. 1, p. 433.
• 58. Al-Sirah al-Halabiya, vol. 2, p. 87.
• 59. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 3, p. 53.
• 60. Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 46.
• 61. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 72.
• 62. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 77.
• 63. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 77.
• 64. Al-Tabari, Tarikh.
• 65. This was said by ‘Ammar Ibn Yasir, a great companion of the Prophet. See al-Ghadir, vol. 9, p. 216.
• 66. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 1, p. 186 (Egyptian Edition).
• 67. Al-Ghadir, vol. 8, p. 273.
• 68. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 21, p. 62.
• 69. Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 115.
• 70. In his book al-Isti‘ab, Ibn ‘Abd al-Bir has said: “As far as I know the men of knowledge have not differed over that the verse was revealed in respect of Waleed.”
• 71. Al-Sirah al-Halabiya, vol. 2, p. 314.
• 72. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 96-97.
• 73. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, al-Aghani, vol. 14, p. 178.
• 74. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 1, 144. Al-Bayqahi, Sunan, vol. 8, p. 318. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 5, pp. 91-92. Al-Mas‘udi, Murujj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 224. Ibn al-Atheer, al-Kamil, vol. 3, p. 42. Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 176. Al-Sayuti, Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p. 104. Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 142. Al-Isaba, vol. 3, p. 638. These are some of the sources that have mentioned the story. On which source has Dr. Taha Husayn depended when he said that it was made up and incorrect?
• 75. Al-Aghani, vol. 1, Part One, pp. 76-84 (Daar al-Fikr).
• 76. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, pp. 94-95.
• 77. In his book al-Aghani, vol. 4, p. 179, Abu al-Faraj has mentioned: “Most surely the people went to Aa’isha and sought protection with her. When Uthman woke up, he heard from her room rough voice and words. He said: ‘Have the Iraqi renegades and sinners not found a refugee except that of ‘Aa’isha?’ When she heard that, she raised the sandals of Allah’s Apostle (S) and said: ‘The Sunna (practices) of Allah’s Apostle, the owner of these sandals (a.s.) has been neglected. The people heard from each other and they came, to the extent that the mosque was filled with them. Some of them said: ‘Well-done!’ And some of them said: ‘The women have no right to do that!’ They hit each other with sandals and small stones. Accordingly, a group of the companions of Allah’s Apostle (S) visited Uthman and said to him: ‘Fear Allah! Do not cancel the prescribed punishments! And remove your brother!’”
• 78. Saforiya was a village between Akka and al-Lajoon. It was in Jordan and belonged to Tabariya. Waleed’s father, Dhakkwan, was a Jew from there.
• 79. Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 142.
• 80. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 21. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 135.
• 81. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, pp. 39-43. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 88. Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 168.
• 82. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 5, p. 282. In the book it has been mentioned the Uthman’s mother was Arwa, daughter of Kurayz.
• 83. Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 2, p. 253.
• 84. Al-Kamil, vol. 3, p. 38.
• 85. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 3, p. 192.
• 86. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 94. Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 39.
• 87. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 116.
• 88. Al-Isaba, vol. 3, p. 85.
• 89. Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 2, p. 261.
• 90. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 3, p. 192.
• 91. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 187.
• 92. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 120.
• 93. Al-Wilat wa al-Qudat, p. 11.
• 94. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, vol. 7, p. 134. Al-Shawkani, Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 134. Abi Dauwd, vol. 2, p. 220.
• 95. Al-Razi, Tafsir, 4: 96. Al-Khazin, Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 37. Al-Kashif, vol. 1, p. 461.
• 96. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, 26.
• 97. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 389. Hulyat al-Awliya, vol. 1, p. 126. Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. 7, p. 55.
• 98. Safwat al-Safwa, vol. 1, p. 156. Ibn Maja, Sunan, vol. 1, p. 63.
• 99. Al-Hakim, Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 315.
• 100. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 3, p. 108.
• 101. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 7, p. 128. Al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 3, p. 13.
• 102. Usd al-Ghaba, vol. 3, p. 258.
• 103. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 36.
• 104. Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 4, p. 161. It has been mentioned in the book on the authority of Abu Dharr: “I was the fifth to believe in Islam.”
• 105. Shahada is saying: I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, Who is unique and without partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger.
• 106. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 174. Majjma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 9, p. 329.
• 107. Ibn Maja, Sunan, vol. 1, p. 68.
• 108. Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. 8, p. 15.
• 109. Majjma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 9, p. 330.
• 110. Majjma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 9, p. 330.
• 111. Al-‘Adala al-Ijtima‘iya, p. 211.
• 112. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 52.
• 113. He has referred to Uthman’s act when he gave all the pastures around Medina to the Umayyads. He permitted their sheep to graze in them and prevented the Muslims’ ones from grazing in them. This deed is contrary to the Sunna that regards all the pastures without owners as property for all Muslims, for such pastures are among the original lawful, things. Allah’s Apostle (S) has said: “People are partners in three (things): grass, water, and fire.”
• 114. The two cities were Basrah and Egypt. Abdullah Ibn ‘Amir, Uthman’s cousin, was the governor over Basrah. Abdullah Ibn Sa‘d Ibn Abi Sarh, Uthman’s uncle, was the governor over Egypt.
• 115. This statement is given as proverb for him who gets angry for nothing.
• 116. Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. 6, p. 85. Majjma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 9, p. 293.
• 117. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 62.
• 118. The reason for revealing this verse in respect of ‘Ammar has been mentioned by Ibn Sa‘d in his Tabaqat, vol. 3, p. 178, al-Wahidi in his Asbab al-Nuzool, p. 212, al-Tabari in his Tafsir, vol. 14, p. 122, and the like.
• 119. The reason for revealing this verse in respect of ‘Ammar has been mentioned by al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir, vol. 1, p. 239, and Ibn Sa‘d in his Tabaqat, vol. 3, p. 178.
• 120. The reason for revealing this verse in respect of ‘Ammar has been mentioned by al-Sayuti in his Tafsir, vol. 3, p. 43, and Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 172.
• 121. The reason for revealing this verse in respect of ‘Ammar and Waleed has been mentioned by al-Zamakhshari in his Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 386, and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nizool, p. 255.
• 122. Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 4, p. 89.
• 123. Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, p. 114.
• 124. Ibn Maja, Sunan, vol. 1, p.66. Masabih al-Sunna, vol. 2, p. 288.
• 125. al-Mattkaa’ is a big-bellied woman who cannot control her urine.
• 126. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 48.
• 127. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 49. Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 2, p. 272.
• 128. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 54. Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 150.
• 129. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 2, pp. 193-194.
• 130. Al-Baqillani, al-Tamhid, p. 220.
• 131. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 81.
• 132. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 4, p. 240.
• 133. Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, vol. 1, p. 35.
• 134. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 64-65. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, pp. 111-112.
• 135. Al-Ansab.
• 136. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 5, p. 110. Al-Ansab, vol. 5, p. 74.
• 137. Al-Ya‘qubi, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 152. Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil, vol. 5, p. 67.
• 138. Al-Ghadir, vol. 9, pp. 218-247.
• 139. Uthman was killed on Friday, Thil Hijja 18th, in the year 36 A. H. His caliphate lasted for twelve years but twelve days. He was eighty- two years old.
• 140. Hish Kawkab was a name of a garden where the Jews buried their dead.