Companions after Mohammad [PBUH]'s Death - 6

-6-

العواصم القواصم

أبو بكر بن العربي‎

Death: 543H 1148

DEFENCE AGAINST DISASTER by QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI

Accurately Determining The Position Of The Companions After The Death Of The Prophet, May Allah Bless Him And Grant Him Peace AL-`AWASIM MIN AL-QAWASIM


They sent observers and spies to watch his movements, although his house was constantly open. One day he had some of the poets of the north come as his guests. There was a Christian among his uncles from Taghlib in the land of the peninsula and he had become muslim at the hands of al-Walid. The spies of those who sought revenge thought that this poet who had been christian must be one of those who drank wine and perhaps al-Walid honoured him because of that. They called Abu Zaynab, Abu’l-Mawra’ and their companions and broke into al-Walid’s house from the mosque side, even though the house did not have a door. When they burst in, he pushed something under the bed. One of them reached under with his hand and brought it out without the permission of the master of the house. When he got it out from under the bed, it was a plate on which were some separated grapes. Al-Walid had put it away out of modesty lest the plate be seen with only separated grapes on it. They began to blame each other out of shame. People heard the story and began to curse and abuse them but al-Walid covered up for them, kept it from `Uthman and was silent about it and patient.

Then the machinations of Jundub, Abu Zaynab and Abu’l-Mawra’ were repeated. They seized on every event and gave it a bad interpretation and forged lies. Some of those who were officials in the government left, so al-Walid removed them from their offices due to their bad behaviour. They went to Madina and began to complain about al-Walid to the Amir al-Mu’minin and to seek his dismissal from Kufa. While those men were in Madina, Abu Zaynab and Abu’l-Mawra’ entered the Amir’s house in Kufa with some other gullible people. They remained in it until al-Walid came back to rest. The rest of the people left and Abu Zaynab and Abu’l-Mawra’ remained until they were able to steal al-Walid’s ring from his house and then they left. When al-Walid woke up, he could not find his ring. He asked his two wives about it. They were in a bedroom looking at the visitors of al-Walid from behind a curtain. They said that the last who remained in the house were two men, and they described their appearance and clothes to al-Walid. He recognised that they were Abu Zaynab and Abu’l-Mawra’ and realised that they had only stolen the ring for some trick which they were contriving. He sent someone to look for them but they were not to be found in Kufa.

They had travelled immediately to Madina as witnesses against al-Walid, stating that he drank wine (and I think that they took their false testimony from the details of the event which had already happened to Qudama b. Maz`un during the khalifate of `Umar). `Uthman said to them, "How did you see him?" They said, "We were in his retinue and we came in and he was vomiting wine." `Uthman said, "Only the one who drinks wine vomits it." Al-Walid was brought from Kufa and he swore to `Uthman and told him about them. `Uthman said, "We carry out the hudud and the false witness invites himself to the Fire." This story about al-Walid being suspected of drinking wine, as in the events of 30 A.H. in the history of at-Tabari, had nothing in it except for this according to various old sources. The elements of the report according to at-Tabari are that the witnesses against al-Walid were two of the men who sought revenge and there are many witnesses to their rancour against him. No mention of the prayer has come in the testimony at all, let along whether it was two or four rak`ats. The addition of the mention of the prayer is something else extraordinary. Its report is transmitted from al-Hudayn b. al-Mundhir (one of the followers of `Ali). He was with `Ali and `Uthman when the hadd punishment was carried out on al-Walid. This report is transmitted from him, Muslim wrote it in his ‘Sahih’ (‘The Book of the Hudud’ chap. 8, pt. 38, pt. 5, p. 126) with the words, "I saw `Uthman b. `Affan when al-Walid was brought to him. He had prayed Subh with two rak`ats. Then he said, ‘Shall I make it more?’ Two men testified against him. One of them was Hamran and he testified that he drank wine. The other testified that he saw him vomit." The two witnesses did not testify that al-Walid prayed Subh with two rak`ats and then said, "Shall I make it more?", that is something Hudayn said. Hudayn was not one of the witnesses and he was not in Kufa at the time of the alleged event.

So this particular course of suspicion does not have any isnad to anyone who is known. It is a wonder that the same report which is in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim comes in three places in the ‘Musnad’ of Ahmad, related from Hudayn. What he heard from Hudayn in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim is what was heard from him in the ‘Musnad’ of Ahmad in three places. The first and second places (pt. 1, p. 82 and 140, first edition, pt. 2, no. 264 & 1184, 2nd edition) contain no mention of the prayer on the tongue of Hudayn, let alone from anyone else. Perhaps one of the transmitters after him knew the discussion about the prayer was not the words of the two witnesses and was content to mention the hadd punishment.

As for the third place from the ‘Musnad’ of Ahmad (pt. 1, pp. 144-145, lst edition, pt. 2, no. 1229), it comes on the tongue of Hudayn that "Al-Walid prayed Subh with four rak`ats with the people." It contradicts what comes on the tongue of Hudayn himself in the ‘Sahih’ of Muslim. There is change in one of the two riwayats and Allah knows best the reason for it. In both cases, the mention of the prayer is only according to the words of Hudayn, and Hudayn was not a witness and he did not relate from a witness, so this part of what he said is not considered. After you know the business of those who sought revenge from what at-Tabari transmitted from the shaykhs, I will add for you the knowledge of the business of Hamran. He was one of the slaves of `Uthman who rebelled against Allah before he testified against al-Walid. In the city of the Messenger, he married a divorced woman and went to her bed while she was still in her `idda from her first husband. `Uthman got angry at him for this and for other matters before it and he drove him out of his courtyard and expelled him from Madina. He went to Kufa to spread corruption there. He visited the right-acting slave, `Amir b. `Abda’l-Qays and forged lies against him with the men of the government and he was the reason that b. `Abda’l-Qays travelled to Syria. By my ijtihad, I think that witnesses like these do not cause the hadd of Allah to be carried out on anyone, even among the ordinary people who are under suspicion, so how could it be with a strong striving Companion in whose hands the khalif placed the trust of an area and the leadership of armies? Part of the opinion regarding him is good conduct with the people and sincere preservation of the trusts of Allah. He was trusted by three of the most perfect khalifs of Islam: Abu Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthman. The kinship of al-Walid to `Uthman which the liars claim was the reason for his partiality, was the proof according to them that `Uthman showed preference for his relatives. In any case, the witnesses who testified before `Uthman did not allege the story of the prayer, even though they themselves were not people who feared Allah and the Last Day.

It was said to `Uthman, "You appointed al-Walid because he is your brother by your mother Arwa bint Kurayz b. Rabi’a b. Habib b. `Abdu Shams." He said, "Rather it was because he is the nephew of the Messenger of Allah by the Prophet’s aunt Umm Hakim al-Bayda’, the grandmother of `Uthman and the grandmother of al-Walid by their mother Arwa. Umm Hakim was the twin of `Abdullah, the father of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. How can a man be forbidden to appoint the brother of his kin?

93. It preceded that the Amir al-Mu’minin, `Ali b. Abi Talib appointed the Amirs in the period of his khalifate in many cities of his rule from people who were his kin and that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, appointed men of the Banu Umayya and their youths. That is now Abu Bakr and `Umar acted. `Uthman only acted according to what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his two Companions had done before him. When `Uthman carried out the hadd on his brother for the sake of his community, he did something we do not think anyone else would have done on the testimony of biased witnesses who did not desire Allah by their testimony. The witnesses against al-Walid were of this biased type. A Qadi among the greatest Walis of Islam in knowledge, excellence and justice, Imam `Amir b. Sharahil ash-Sha`bi, testified to that. At-Tabari (5:60) related that ash-Sha`bi first heard about the bravery of Musallima b. `Abdul Malik, the grandson of al-Walid b. `Uqba in his jihad.

Ash-Sha`bi said, "How would it be if you were to meet al-Walid when he commanded and raided? He used to raid and he reached far in these raids. No one said anything against him until he was dismissed from his office, certainly not when he was ‘at the door’ (i.e. at ad-Daraband which is beyond the Caspian Sea in Russia and is one of the strongest fortresses in the world) along with `Abdu’r-Rahman alBahili who was the greatest of his generals. Some of what `Uthman gave to people at the hand of al-Walid was that he returned to every slave in Kufa some of the extra money in the treasury three times every month which they could enjoy without any cost to their masters."

This is a testimony from ash-Sha`bi for al-Walid about his victorious jihad and his kindness to his people. The false ones are dealt a heavy blow and the Salihun are delighted. The Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman confirmed the state of his wronged brother’s heart when he said, "We carry out the hudud and the false witness calls for the Fire". As for his giving the Khums (fifth) of North Africa to one person, that is not true.

94. The truth is that he gave a fifth of the Khums to `Abdullah b. Abi Sarh as a reward for his jihad. Then he retracted it and asked for him to return it. It comes in the events of 27 A.H. of the ‘History’ of at-Tabari (5:49, Egypt, 1:2814-2815) that when `Uthman commanded `Abdullah b. Sa`d b. Abi Sarh to advance from Egypt to Tunis to conquer it, he said to him, "Allah will open North Africa to you tomorrow and you shall have a fifth of the Fifth (Khums) of the booty which Allah gives to the muslims." He went out with the army until he passed through Egypt and pressed into the land of North Africa and conquered it, both the flat land and the mountains. `Abdullah shared with his army what Allah had given him as booty taking a fifth of the Fifth and sent the four-fifths to `Uthman with Withayman an-Nasri. A delegation of those who came with him complained to `Uthman about what `Abdullah b. Sa`d had taken. `Uthman said to them, "I commanded him to do that. If you are resentful, it will be returned." They said, "We resent it." So `Uthman commanded `Abdullah b. Sa`d to return it and he returned it. `Abdullah b. Sa`d returned to Egypt having conquered North Africa. Even though Malik and a group believe that the Imam can have his own opinion regarding the Khums and use it for whatever his own ijtihad leads him to. If he gives it to someone, that is permitted. We have made this clear in its proper place.

95. i.e. In his other books when he goes into details about this question regarding the rules of Islamic fiqh. Imam `Amir b. Sharahil ash-Sha`bi said, "The fiefs take the form of booty making up a fifth of what Allah gives as booty." He said, "`Umar gave Talha, Jabir b. `Abdullah and ar-Rabbil b. `Amir fiefs. `Umar gave Abu Mufazzar a fief of Dar al-Fil." Among those to whom `Umar b. al-Khattab gave a fief was Nafi`, the brother of Ziyad and Abu Bakra by their mother. He gave him a fief of some land in Basra (whose area was ten jurbas), as pasture for his horses and his camels. (Look at the biography of Nafi` in the Isaba). Qadi Abu Yusuf said in ‘The Book of the Kharaj’ (p. 61) "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave fiefs and brought people close to Islam." The Khalifs after him gave fiefs to those they thought it was correct to give fiefs. (Abu Yusuf gives examples of this). Look at ‘The Book of Fiefs’ on pp. 77-78 of ‘The Book of the Kharaj’ by Yahya b. Adam al-Qurashi, published by as-Salafiyya. Imam ash-Sha`bi mentioned some of those to whom `Uthman gives fiefs. He said, "He gave a fief to az-Zubayr, Khabbab, `Abdullah b. Mas`ud, `Ammar b. Yasir and Ibn Habbar in the times of `Uthman. If `Uthman was mistaken, those before him erred as well, and they were those from whom we take our deen, (at-Tabari 4:148). `Ali b. Abi Talib gave a fief to Kardaws b. Hani’ al-Kardawsiyya and he gave a fief of land to Suwayd b. Ghafala and his relatives. How can they object to `Uthman and then be silent about `Umar and `Ali? Qadi Abu Yusuf has some apt discussion on this subject in ‘The Book of the Kharaj’ (pp. 60- 62, Salafiyya).

As for people’s claim about `Uthman loving his relatives and giving things to them, his love for his kin was one of his virtues. `Ali praised `Uthman for being the one who was closer to his family than the other Companions. `Uthman explained this position of his when he said. "They say that I love the people of my house and give to them, but it has not led to injustice. I give them what they are due. As for my giving to them, I give them from my property. I do not make the property of the muslims halal, nor myself, nor anyone else. I gave the great desired gift, the bulk of my own property, during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Abu Bakr and `Umar. Should I be avaricious and mean today? Is it a time that when the nobles from the people of my house come to me and when my life has passed, I should omit what I owe my family since the deniers say what they say?" At-Tabari (5:103) said, "`Uthman divided up his property and his land among the Banu Umayya and he gave his son the same as he gave the others. He began with the Banu Abu’l-`Asi and gave to the men of the family of al-Hakam fifteen thousand each. So they took one hundred thousand. He gave the same to the Banu `Uthman and he divided the rest among the Banu’l-`Asi and the Banu’l-`Is and the Banu Harb. Ibn Taymiyya took the broadest possible view and he said in the Path of the Sunna (3:187-188) that some of the fuqaha’ believed that the relatives had a portion by virtue of their kinship with the Imam, as al-Hasan and Abu Thawr said. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to give to his relatives by the principle of guardianship. It was said that that was the privilege of those appointed to rule after him. He said, "In general, most of those who undertook to rule after `Umar singled out some of their relatives, either for appointment or money." Then he said in 3:237, "What `Uthman did regarding the property has three sources.

One of them is that he was the agent for it and the agent has a due even when he is wealthy. The second is that those of kinship are those with kinship to the Imam. The third is that they (i.e. the relatives of `Uthman) were a numerous tribe unlike the tribe of Abu Bakr and `Umar. He needed to give to them and appoint them more than Abu Bakr and `Umar needed to appoint their relatives and give to them." This is part of what is transmitted from `Uthman in evidence for him. As for their statement that he beat with the staff, I have not heard it from anyone – neither rebel nor obedient. It is a falsehood which is related and a lie that is told.

96. The report and hadith are divulged: made public and evident. "Natha" is like praise, but it is in both good and evil. Praise is only for good. By Allah, it is prohibited. As for his going above the step of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, I did not hear it from any of those who have taqwa. It is an objectionable rumour that is related and mentioned. The heart of the one who changes is changed. Our `ulama’ said, "If it is sound, this does not contain anything that makes his blood allowable." It is not impossible that that is true, but if that is the case then the Companions did not object to him doing it so they must have thought that it was permissible in the first place, or there must have been a reason which called for it. If that was not the case then there is no discussion.

97. The mosque of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had a narrow courtyard in the time of the Prophet and the Khalifate of Abu Bakr. One of the virtues of `Uthman in the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was that when the number of Companions increased, he purchased some land for a courtyard with his money by which the mosque of the Prophet was enlarged. Then the `Amir al-Mu’minin `Umar widened it and included the house of al-`Abbas b. `Abdu’l-Muttalib in it. Then the number of those who prayed increased with the number of the inhabitants of Madina and those who came to visit. The Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman widened it again and made its length one hundred and sixty cubits and its width one hundred and fifty cubits and renewed its foundations. The capacity of the mosque and the increase in the number of those who attended it and the distance some of them were from the mimbar in the khutba could be the reason for making it necessary to raise the speaker so that he could see them and they could see him and listen to him.

As for his being routed on the day of Hunayn, his flight of the Day of Uhud, his absence from Badr and the pledge of Ridwan, `Abdullah b. `Umar clarified the principle of the judgment about the pledge, Badr and Uhud. As for the Day of Hunayn, there was only a handful who stayed by the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, there is no explanation in the ‘Sahih’ of the matter regarding those who stayed. There are various statements. One of them is that the only ones who remained with him were al-`Abbas and his sons, `Abdullah and Quthum. This disagreement is all you need to know. The Companions shared in this event. Allah and His Messenger forgave him. It is not lawful to mention what Allah and His Messenger and the believers have dropped. Al Bukhari related,

98. In ‘The Book of the Virtues of the Companions’ (Book 62, chap. 9, pt. 4, p. 208) from the hadith of Sa`d b. ‘Ubayda. "A man came to Ibn `Umar and asked him about `Uthman. He mentioned the good things he had done. He said, "Perhaps that vexes you?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘May Allah abase you.’ The he asked him about `Ali and he mentioned the good things which he had done. He said, ‘That is his house in the middle of the houses of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’ He said, ‘Perhaps that vexes you?’ He said, ‘Certainly.’ He said, ‘May Allah abase you.’ He left." `Ali had exerted all his effort. It was already stated in the hadith, "Islam is built on five." There is more in it by al-Bukhari on `Ali and `Uthman.

99. Perhaps the author is indicating the hadith of Ibn `Umar in the book of the tafsir of the ‘Sahih’ of al-Bukhari (book 65, chap. 2, the ‘Tafsir’ of al-Baqara, hadith 30, pt. 5, p. 157). Al-Bukhari also related,

100. In ‘The Book of the Virtues of the Companions’ (book 26, chap. 7, pt. 4, pp. 203-204). from the hadith of `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Mawhad who said "A man came from the people of Egypt intending to go on the Hajj to the House. He saw some people sitting and he said, ‘Who is the shaykh among them?’ They said, ‘`Abdullah b. `Umar.’ He said, ‘Ibn `Umar, I will ask you something. Relate it to me! Do you know that `Uthman fled on the Day of Uhud?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you know that he was absent from Badr?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you know that he was absent from the pledge of Hudaybiyya and did not attend it?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Allah is greater.’ Ibn `Umar said, ‘Come and I will make it clear to you. As for his flight on the day of Uhud, I testify that Allah has forgiven him and pardoned him. As for his absence from Badr, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was his wife and she was ill. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, told him, ‘You will have the reward and share of a man of those who are present at Badr.’"

101. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent the good news of the victory in Badr with Zayd b. Haritha to `Uthman in Madina. Usama b. Zayd said (in what at-Tabari [2:276] related), "The news came to us while we were levelling the earth over Ruqayya, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who was married to `Uthman b. `Affan. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, left me in charge of her along with `Uthman b. `Affan. Then is Rabi’ al-Awwal, the year following the Battle of Badr, `Uthman married Umm Kulthum, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah. She went to live with him in Jumada al-Akhira. As for his absence from the pledge of Ridwan, if anyone had been more respected in Makka than `Uthman, he would have sent him in his place. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent `Uthman....

102. Before he sent `Uthman, the Prophet wanted to send `Umar b. al-Khattab to Makka to convey what he brought to the nobles of Quraysh. `Umar said, "Messenger of Allah, I fear for myself with the Quraysh. There are none of the Banu `Adi b. Ka`b in Makka to protect me. But I will show you a man who is more esteemed than me there, `Uthman b. `Affan." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, summoned him and sent him to Abu Sufyan and the nobles of Quraysh......and the pledge of Ridwan occurred after `Uthman had gone to Makka.

103. Because when `Uthman conveyed his message in that journey, he was detained for some days and did not return to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, at the time he was meant to return. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard that his ambassador had been killed. Therefore the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, summoned the Companions to the Pledge of Ridwan to help `Uthman. He intended to go with his Companions to Makka and deal with the idol worshippers because of the news of `Uthman’s murder. The Pledge of Ridwan was one of the marks of honour accorded `Uthman. What honour is greater? The forces of Islam gathered under the leadership of the greatest Messenger to take revenge for this man who was beloved to the muslims and who had the high position with the first and the last. When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, later learned that `Uthman was alive at the moment in which the Companions had gathered to take the pledge, he proceeded to complete the pledge according to his Sunna, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. When he began a business, he completed it, even if the reason for it had gone. Then `Uthman had a doubled honour since the hand of the Messenger of Allah represented his hand in the contract of the pledge for him.

So the pledge of Ridwan was to help `Uthman and all of the Companions took a contract with their own hands except for `Uthman, and the noblest hand in existence took his place and gave his pledge for him. If `Uthman had no other honour in his life except this, it would have been enough. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, held out his right hand, saying, "This is the hand of `Uthman." Then Ibn `Umar said to him, ‘Take this with you now.’"

104. It is extraordinary to find a community where ignorant men censure `Uthman for being absent from the Pledge of Ridwan when they include men who were aware of his courage when people advanced to shed the blood of this merciful Khalif for various reasons - and this was one of them. Since a man who came to worship Allah in the Hajj has this sort of ignorance which he then openly stated to a group of the Companions of Quraysh whose leader was `Abdullah b. `Umar, it is not surprising that there still was a need to clarify the truth in the time of Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi. People like us in this time are aware that `Uthman is still in a position, with regard to part of his community, which demands justice, and he still needs to be defended from bad words. This is what leaves us in our current state among the nations and the state in which we will continue to sink. "Allah does not change a people until they change what is in themselves." As for his preventing `Ubaydullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab from being killed for al-Hurmuzan, that is false.

105. By the testimony of al-Qamadhban, the son of al-Hurmuzan, at-Tabari related (5:43-44, Egyptian edition) from Sayf b. `Umar with his isnad to Abu Mansur. He said, "I heard al-Qamadhban speak about the killing of his father. He said, ‘When `Uthman was appointed, he called me and gave me power over him (i.e. `Ubaydullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab). Then he said, "This is the one who killed your father. You are more entitled to him than me, so go and kill him." I took him out and everyone in the land went with me. They were begging for him. I said to them, "Can I kill him?" They said, "Yes," and they abused `Ubaydullah. I said, "Do you have anything to prevent it?" They said, "No," and they abused him. So I left him to Allah and to them and they took me away. By Allah, I only reached the house at the head and shoulders of men.’" These are the words of the son of al-Hurmuzan. Every just person believed (and perhaps the son of al-Hurmuzan also believed) that the blood of the Amir al-Mu’minin `Umar lay on the neck of al-Hurmuzan and that Abu Lu`lu`a was only an implement in the hand of this Persian. If he did not do it, there were many companions (of his Khalifate). This business also occurred at the beginning.

106. `Uthman acted in this matter after he had consulted the Companions about it. At-Tabari said (5:41), "`Uthman sat at the side of the mosque and called `Ubaydullah while he was sitting in the house of Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas. He is the one who took the sword from his hand. `Uthman said to a group of the Muhajirun and the Ansar. ‘Tell me what I must do in this matter which splits Islam?’ `Ali said, ‘I think that you should kill him.’ One of the Muhajirun said, ‘`Umar was killed yesterday and then his son is to be killed today!?’ `Amr b. al-`As said, ‘Amir al-Mu’minin, Allah would have forgiven you if this had happened while you had power over the muslims. However, this took place before you had power.’ `Uthman said, ‘I am their guardian. I make it a blood-wit and I will pay it with my own money.’" It was said, "Al-Hurmuzan worked to provoke the murder of `Umar. He carried the dagger and it was seen under his garment.

107. In ‘The History’ of at-Tabari (5:42), is the hadith of Sa`id b. al-Musayyib. He related that `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr as-Siddiq said on the morning when `Umar was attacked, "Yesterday evening I passed by Abu Lu`lu`a, Jufayna (who was a christian from the people of Hira and a tutor to Sa`d b. Abi Waqqas) and al-Hurmuzan were with him. They were speaking secretly. When I approached them, they jumped up and they dropped a dagger. It had two heads and the handle was in the middle. Look and see what dagger `Umar was killed with." A man from the Banu Tamim went out to investigate. The Tamimi came back to them. He had pursued Abu Lu`lu`a when he left `Umar and caught him. He brought the dagger which `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Abi Bakr had described. `Ubaydullah b. `Umar heard that. He held back until `Umar died. Then he girded on his sword and went to al-Hurmuzan and killed him.
`Ubaydullah killed him when `Uthman was not the ruler. Perhaps `Uthman did not think that `Ubaydullah deserved punishment since the state of al-Hurmuzan and what he did was not proven.

108. Similarly the sage of the community, `Abdullah b. `Abbas, held the opinion that it was permitted to kill the unbelieving Persians who were in Madina without exception. Ibn Taymiyya said in the Path of the Sunna (3:200), "`Abdullah b. `Abbas spoke when `Umar was attacked and `Umar said to him, ‘You and your father used to want many infidels to come to Madina.’ Ibn `Abbas had more fiqh and more deen than `Ubaydullah b. `Umar and was much more excellent. He asked `Umar for a general permission to kill the infidel Persians who were in Madina when they were suspected of corruption. He believed that this sort of thing was permitted. If al-Hurmuzan was among those individuals who had assisted in `Umar’s murder, he was one of those who corrupt the land. Therefore he should have been killed for that. If he had found that the slain man was someone whose blood was protected, then it would have been forbidden to kill him. However, the killer thought and believed that it was lawful to kill him by this clear suspicion. That suspicion which he had, averts punishment from the killer (i.e. from `Ubaydullah b. `Umar). I said, "`Uthman believed this when he spared him the blood-wit and paid it from his own property." `Ubaydullah b. `Umar killed al-Hurmuzan. He also killed the daughter of Abu Lu`lu`a. He also killed Jufayna an-Nasrani because he was also suspected of that. The enemies of `Uthman, May Allah be pleased with him, said that he did not take any retaliation from `Ubaydullah for that.

The answer is that the daughter of Abu Lu`lu`a was a magian and Jufayna was a christian. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, as has come in al-Bukhari, "A muslim is not killed for a kafir." `Uthman defended their deen when he paid the blood-wit of al-Hurmuzan after al-Hurmuzan’s son had forgiven `Ubaydullah as we saw elsewhere. If something like the murder of the Amir al-Mu’minin `Umar b. al-Khattab had occurred in any other land, no matter what the level of its civilization, they would not have done what the Companions did in their forbearance, which went to the very limit, even to the extent of killing the son of the Amir al-Mu’minin who had been murdered by treachery, depravity and blameworthy attack.

If noone undertook to demand it, how could it be sound to look into an unproven business
when all these possibilites existed? As for their statement that a letter was found with the rider or with his slave (and noone at all says that it was his slave).....

109. They said that he was a slave in charge of the zakat, i.e. he was one of the herdsmen of the zakat camels. The camels of the zakat numbered many thousands and they had hundreds of herdsmen. If it is said that he was one of the herdsmen of the zakat camels, even their leaders did not know their names because of their great number, let alone the Amir al-Muminin, his great agents and helpers, assuming that he actually was one of the herdsmen of the zakat camels. How easy it would be for those rebels to hire him for their purposes. It is proven that al-Ashtar and Hukaym b. Jabala remained behind in Madina when the rebels left it, after they were content with the answers and proofs of `Uthman.

While al-Ashtar and Hukaym b. Jabala remained, the plot involving the letter and its carrier was completed as a means of renewing the sedition and to bring back the rebels. None except al-Ashtar and his companions had any profit in renewing the sedition. How many tricks they used which were more tortuous than simply hiring a herdsman who tended the zakat camels! They have mentioned that Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa, the fosterling of `Uthman al-Abiq by his favour, was at that very moment in Egypt provoking people against the Amir al-Mu’minin and forging false letters ascribed to the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. He took camels and emaciated them, and put men outside the houses in Fustat with their faces towards the sun so that their faces would look like those of travellers. Then he commanded them to go out to the Hijazi road in Egypt and send a messenger to tell people that they were coming. When they met them, they said that they were bringing letters from the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, complaining about the rule of `Uthman. These letters were read out in the mosque of `Amr in Fustat to the assembly of the people although they were forged and false. Those who carried them had been in Egypt the entire time and they had not gone to the Hijaz at all. (Look at ‘The Book’ by Sadiq `Urjun about `Uthman b. `Affan, pp. 132-133). Forging letters in the tragedy of the attack on the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman was one of the weapons that the attackers used on every side and in all cases. We have had one example of that, and more will come later.

....addressed to `Abdullah b. Sa`d b. Abi Sarh, telling him to kill its bearers.

110. How can he have written to `Abdullah b. Sa`d b. Abi Sarh when he had given `Abdullah permission to come to Madina and knew that he had left Egypt (at-Tabari, 5:122) and he knew that the one with power in Fustat was Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa, the head of the rebels and their chief in the region? The transmitters of the reports are also confused about the contents of the forged letter when they try to specify its contents. That will all be discussed later. `Uthman said to them, "Bring two witnesses to that. If not, I swear that I never wrote it nor did I command that."

111. Ibn Taymiyya said in ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (3:18), "Everyone who knows anything about the state of `Uthman knows that he was not one of those who would command the death of Muhammad b. Abi Bakr or men like him. It is not even known that he killed anyone like this. These men strove to kill him (i.e. to kill the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman) and Muhammad attacked him with them. He did not command that they be killed in order to protect himself, so why would he instigate the execution of someone whose blood was protected? It might have been written in `Uthman’s words, done in his handwriting and sealed with his seal.

112. Something similar happened in the time of `Umar as al-Baladhari related in ‘The Conquest of the Lands’ (p. 448, pub. 1350) and Ibn Hajar in the ‘Isaba’ (3:358, pub. in 1328). They said, "Then surrender Marwan to us." He said, "I will not do it." If he had surrendered him, that would have been unjust.

113. Ibn Taymiyya said in ‘The Path of the Sunna’ (3:189), "If `Uthman had commanded that Muhammad b. Abi Bakr be killed, he deserved to be obeyed more than those who sought to kill Marwan because `Uthman was an Imam of guidance and a rightly-guided Khalif who must put his people in order and kill those whose evil can only be averted by execution. As for those who sought to kill Marwan, they were kharijite people who were corrupting the earth. They did not have the right to kill anyone nor to carry out any hadd-punishment. Marwan was no nearer to sedition and evil than Muhammad b. Abi Bakr. Ibn Abi Bakr was not more famous in knowledge and the deen than Marwan. The people of the Sahih volumes related a number of hadith from Marwan. He spoke with the people of fatwas. They disagree about whether he was a Companion. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr did not have this position with the people, furthermore, Marwan was one of the associates of Ibn az-Zubayr, etc." They must seek their right against Marwan and others (from him). It is firm that he executes and takes. He empowers the person who takes his right. In addition to his precedence, excellence, and position, nothing is proven against him to necessitate that he be dismissed, let alone killed.

The most likely of what is related in his story is that because of the previous decision, certain people conspired against him with malice which was believed by those who wanted something and did not get it and who harboured a great envy whose sickness showed. A person is moved to that by lack of the deen, lack of certainty, and preference for this world before the next world.

114. The Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali b. `Abi Talib described them in a similar way in the speech in which he addressed the new men in his army in Kufa when the warrior of jihad and Companion, al-Qa`qa` b. `Amr at-Tamimi was seeking to finish the task which `A’isha, Talha and az-Zubayr had sought to complete. At-Tabari related (5:194) that `Ali mentioned Allah’s blessing to the community through agreement on the Khalif after the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the next one after him and the next one after him. He said in the presence of those who had murdered `Uthman, "Then this event took place. It was brought on the community by certain people who desired this world. They envied the excellence Allah had given him and wanted to reverse things." Then he mentioned that he would travel the next day to Basra to meet with the Umm al-Mu’minin and his brothers Talha and az-Zubayr. He said, "None should travel tomorrow to assist `Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, with anything in any of the matters of the people. Let the fools protect themselves from me." When you look at this, you will clearly see the baseness of their hearts and the falseness of their business.

115. We already summarised the characteristics of those who attacked `Uthman. The first to uncover their secret and look at their faces with the light of Allah and think ill of them was that man of Islam, the transmitter of hadith, Amir al-Mu’minin `Umar b. al-Khattab. He had perspicacity which did not err. At-Tabari related (4:86) that when `Umar reviewed the armies for jihad in 14 A.H., the tribes of the Yemeni inhabitants passed before him with Kinda. They were led by Husayn b. Numayr as-Sakuni and Mu`awiya b. Hudayj, one of the Companions who conquered Egypt and later was one of its governors. `Umar did not like them. There were some young men among them with dark lank hair. He turned away from them and then he turned away again and turned away a third time, until he was asked, "What is wrong between you and those men?" He said, "I am doubtful about them. None from the Arabs has passed by me which I disliked more than them." They included Safwan b. Haran abd Khalid b. Miljam. Both of them were among those who attacked `Uthman. Al-Ghafiqi al-Misri was the Amir of the people.

116. He is Ghafiqi b. Harb al-`Ukki, one of the sons of the nobles of the Yemani tribes who stayed in Egypt after it was conquered. When Ibn Saba’ appeared with his partisanship for `Ali and did not find a breeding-place for his occupation in the Hijaz, nor in Syria, he contented himself with placing some helpers in Basra and Kufa. He chose to reside in Fustat. This al-Ghafiqi was one of his recruiters. They won him over by means of his desire for leadership and rank. Muhammad b. Abi Hudhayfa b. `Utba al-Ummawi was the fosterling of `Uthman al-Abiq. He was his right hand in carrying out the plans of the Saba’ites in Egypt. Al-Ghafiqi was in charge of dispatch and vengeance. In Shawwal of 35 A.H., they made their preparations to advance from Egypt to Madina with four groups of men who numbered about six hundred altogether. There was a leader in charge of every group. Their general leader was this al-Ghafiqi. They pretended that they were intending to go on Hajj. In Madina, their agitations developed until the business got out of control and they prevented `Uthman from praying with the people in prayer (at-Tabari, 5:107). When Shaytan induced them to undertake the greatest crime, al-Ghafiqi was one of those who dared to do it and struck `Uthman with a sword he had and struck the Qur'an with his foot and turned it around (at-Tabari, 5:130). After the murder of `Uthman, Madina remained for five days while its Amir was al-Ghafiqi b. Harb (at-Tabari 5:155). Kinana b. Bishr at-Tujibi,

117. This was also one of the recruiters of Ibn Saba’ in Egypt. When `Uthman sent `Ammar to Egypt to investigate the rumours and to ascertain the real situation, the Saba’ites won him over. Kinana b. Bishr was one of them (at-Tabari, 5:99). When the mobs from the tribes gathered to attack Madina under the pretext of the Hajj in Shawwal of 35 A.H., they split up into four groups in Egypt. Each group had an Amir. Kinana b. Bishr was the Amir of one of these groups (at-Tabari, 5:103). Then he was in the front of those who attacked the house of `Uthman, holding a torch (soaked in naphtha), in his hand. He entered by the house of `Amr b. Hazm and the torches were carried in after him, (at-Tabari, 5:123). Kinana at-Tujibi reached `Uthman and stabbed him with a broad arrowhead and blood splashed on the ayat, "Allah will be enough for you against them," (at-Tabari, 5:131). Muhammad b. `Umar al-Waqidi said, "`Abdu’r-Rahman b. al-Harith b. Hishan al-Makhzumi al-Madini (died 43 A.H.) said, ‘The one who killed the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman was Kinana b. Bishr b. `Attab at-Tujibi, (at-Tabari, 5:132). Al-Walid b. `Uqba b. Abi Mu`ayt says on it: Isn’t the best of creation after the three, the one who was murdered by the Tujibi who came from Egypt? Kinana was to be slain in the war which broke out in Egypt in 38 A.H. between Muhammad b. Abi Bakr as-Siddiq, the representative of `Ali and `Amr b. al-`As and men from the army of Mu`awiya b. Hudayj as-Sakuni (at-Tabari, 6:51-59 and 60).

Sawdan b. Hamran,

118. As-Sakuni, one of the tribes of Murad of Yemen who stayed in Egypt. It was already
stated that in 14 A.H. he was one of those who came during the khalifate of `Umar to do jihad with the armies of the Yemen under the leadership of Husayn b. Numayr and Mu`awiya b. Hudayj. When the Amir al-Mu’minin reviewed them, his glance fell on Sawdan b. Hamran and his colleague Khalid b. Miljan. He felt that there would be calamity from them and so he disliked them. When the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman sent `Ammar to Egypt to investigate the source of the false rumours and ascertain the real situation for him, the Saba’ites embraced `Ammar.

Sawdan b. Hamran was one of them, (at-Tabari, 5:99). When the Saba’ites moved the volunteers in the sedition from the Yemani mobs in Egypt during Shawwal of 35 A.H. towards Madina and they divided them into four groups, Sawdan was the leader of one of those groups, (at-Tabari, 5:103). When these rebels reached Madina and Muhammad b. Maslama went out to them to stress the right of `Uthman and to point out that they were bound by the homage which they had given to him, he saw that they followed four men. This man was one of them, (at-Tabari, 5:118). In 5:131 of ‘The History’ of at-Tabari, he described how Sawdan and some others scaled the wall from the house of `Amr b. Hazm to reach the house of `Uthman. In 5:130, there are some of the details of what Sawdan did when they committed the terrible crime. When they finished murdering the Amir al-Mu’minin, Sawdan left the house shouting, "We have killed `Uthman b. `Affan!" (at-Tabari, 5:123)

`Abdullah b. Budayl b. Warqa’ al-Khuza’i,

119. His father was an aged man among those who became muslim at the conquest of Makka. `Abdullah b. Budayl will be mentioned in the sedition against the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman. At-Tabari (5:124-125), mentioned that al-Mughira b. al-Akhnas b. Shariq ath-Thaqafi, the ally of the Banu Zuhra, went out with `Abdullah b. az-Zubayr, Marwan and others to defend the Amir al-Mu’minin at the door of his house. `Abdullah b. Budayl attacked al-Akhnas b. Shariq and killed him. Ibn Hajar transmitted in his biography in the Isaba (2:280) from Ibn al-Kalbi that `Abdullah b. Budayl and his brother `Abdu’r-Rahman were present at Siffin with `Ali and killed there. It is clear that his brother was killed before him. Ibn Hajar transmitted in the Isaba (2:281) from Ibn Ishaq in the ‘Kitab al-Firdaws’ that when `Ubaydullah b. `Umar b. al-Khattab came to Kufa, (i.e. with the army of the people of Syria), he met `Abdullah b. Budayl. Ibn Budayl advised him not to shed blood in this sedition. `Ubaydullah used the excuse that he was seeking to avenge the blood of the Amir al- Mu’minin and that `Uthman had been wrongly murdered. Ibn Budayl offered the excuse that he was seeking revenge for the blood of his brother who had been wrongly killed. How could his brother have been wrongly killed when he was killed in a sedition in which he had voluntarily participated of his own free will while `Uthman, who was the Amir al-Mu’minin and ruled them by right, was attacked by Ibn Budayl, men like him and those who were less important than him. In spite of that, `Uthman did not fight anyone and he did not defend himself. He forbade people to defend him against the mob who had come to the city of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, from the different lands to perpetrate evil. Where is `Abdu’r-Rahman b. Budayl who is practically unknown in history, in relation to `Uthman whose good deeds filled the heaven and earth?

Hukaym b. Jabala from the people of Basra

120. Hukaym b. Jabala all-`Abdi was from the tribes of the `Abdu’l-Qays. Their root was in Oman and the coasts of the Persian Gulf. He lived in Basra after it was settled. This Hukaym was a brave young man. The Islamic armies which set out towards the west to spread the call and conquest came from Basra and Kufa. Hukaym b. Jabala accompanied these armies and risked himself in one of the dangerous attacks just as commandos do now. The armies of the Amir al-Mu’minin `Uthman used him in one of these operations in its attempt to conquer India. The shaykhs of Sayf b. `Umar at-Tamimi (who is the most famous of the historians of the history of Iraq) confirmed what at-Tabari quoted from him (5:90), i.e. that when the armies returned Hukaym b. Jabala was among them, he went into Persia and changed the people of the Dhimma for the worse and alienated them. He corrupted things in the land, took what he wanted and then came back. Both the people of the Dhimma and the people of the Qibla complained to `Uthman. `Uthman wrote to `Abdullah b. `Amir that he should jail him and those like him. They were not to be allowed to leave Basra until right guidance could be seen in them. They jailed him (i.e. kept him from leaving Basra). When `Abdullah b. Saba’ came to Basra, he stayed with Hukaym b. Jabala and some individuals gathered to him and he spat his poison into them. From there, Ibn Saba’ travelled to Fustat and remained there. He began to correspond with them. Some of them disagreed.

At-Tabari (5:104) mentioned that when the Saba’ites decided to advance from the cities against the city of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the number of those who came from Basra was the same as the number that came from Egypt. They were also divided into four groups. The Amir of one of these groups was Hukaym b. Jabala. They stopped at a place called Dhu Khashab. Then they threw pebbles at the Amir al-Mu’minin while he was speaking on the mimbar of the Prophet. Hukaym b. Jabala was one of them (at-Tabari, 5:106). When the rebels travelled from Madina the first time after their debate with `Uthman and listening to his defence and being content with it, they left al-Ashtar and Hukaym b. Jabala behind in Madina (at-Tabari, 5:120). That indicates a strong suspicion that they could have entered into the business of fabricating the letter ascribed to the Amir al-Mu’minin.

When `A’isha, Talha and az-Zubayr came to Basra and were about to reach an agreement with the Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali to put things in order, Hukaym b. Jabala was the one who started the fighting so that the understanding and agreement would not be completed (at-Tabari, 5:176 et seq.). He vilely murdered a woman from his own people. She had heard him reviling the Umm al-Mu’minin, `A’isha and she said to him, "Son of a wicked woman, you are more suited to that!". So he attacked her and killed her (at-Tabari, 5:179). Then his people withdrew from helping him except for some fools among them. He continued to fight until his foot was cut off. Then he was killed. All those who were in the battle from those who had attacked `Uthman were killed. The herald of az-Zubayr and Talha called out in Basra, "Whoever has anyone in his tribe who is one of those who attacked Madina, should bring him to us." They were brought a dogs are brought and then killed. The only one who was missed among them was Harqus b. Zuhayr as-Sa`di, one of the Banu Tamim (at-Tabari, 5:180).

`Amr b. Hafs related from his shaykhs that he said, "A man from al-Haddad struck the neck of Hukaym b. Jabala. He was called Dukhaym. Hukaym’s head hung down attached by the skin and his face turned around to the back of his neck (at-Tabari, 5:182).