We shall now seek to raise some questions and raise the lid on the high status afforded to Hadhrath Uthman in the texts of Ahle Sunnah.
Ansar.org states:
He prepared the army of Al-Essrah, and bought the will of Romah and made it free for Muslims.
Preparing armies can in no way be deemed to be a mark of superiority, since lands were also conquered under the leadership of Nasibi Banu Umayya Khailafas such as Waleed!
Whilst Abu Sulaiman seems to think that the conquest of Rome in some way benefited the Muslims, Rasulullah (s) made it clear that this conquest would lead to bad feelings, hatred and oppression of the poor. This is clearly established in Sahih Muslim Book 042, Number 7067:
‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: How would you be,0 people when Persia and Rome would be conquered for you? ‘Abd at-Rahman b Auf said: We would say as Allah has commanded us and we would express our gratitude to Allah Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Nothing else besides it? You would (in fact) vie with one another, then you would feel jealous, then your relations would be estranged and then you will bear enmity against one another or something to the same effect. Then you would go to the poor emigrants and would make some the masters of the others.
We read in Sahih al Muslim Bab Fadail Uthman – Book 031, Number 5907:
A’isha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (mav peace be upon him), and Uthman both reported that Abu Bakr sought permission from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for entrance (in his apartment) as he had been lying on his bed covered with the bed-sheet of A’isha, and he gave permission to Abu Bakr in that very state and he, having his need fulfilled, went back. Then Umar sought permission and it was given to him in that very state and, after having his need fulfilled, he went back. And ‘Uthman reported: Then I sought permission from him and he got up and raid to A’isha: Wrap yourself well with your cloth, then I got my need fulfilled and came back. And A’isha said: Allah’s Messenger, why is it that I did not see you feeling any anxiety in case of dressing properly in the presence of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) as you showed in case of ‘Uthman. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Verily Uthman is a person who is very modest and I was afraid that if I permitted him to enter in this very state he would not inform me of his need.
Whilst the filth of this narration is there for all to see we (namely that Rasulullah (s) and his wife are lying together in bed improperly clothed) we would like to pose a simple question to those who blindly quote this tradition as proof of Uthman’s high rank:
Abu Bakr was the father in law of Rasulullah (s). Now according to this narration Rasulullah (s) was conversing with his father in law (who merits respect) in a disrespectful manner. When Uthman entered the room he remembered ‘hayya’ (shyness). Can you believe that ANY individual would act in such a manner? A manner in which when his wife’s father enters his home, he fails to clothe himself properly and remains in bed with his wife? We don’t believe that any individual (no matter how progressive his ideology is) with the slightest self-respect / dignity would act in such a manner, what does Abu Sulayman think?
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 374, on the authority of Anas bin Malik:
We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, “Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?” Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down in her grave.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Fathul Bari, commenting on this very hadith sought to defend Uthman stating:
“In this tradition, there is no indication that he (Uthman) had sex (with his wife) after or before she had died, and Allah (swt) knows best”
Firstly, by raising the option of Uthman having sex with his wife after she had died, Ibn Hajar Asaqalani has himself pointed out a grave act committed by Uthman. Whilst most Uthman supporters would feel satisfied with this reply preferring not to comment any further, we feel that this matter merits closer scrutiny so that we get to the truth.
Now we read in Sahih al Bukhari Hadith No. 76, Vo. 5 that when Imam Ali (as) wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl, Rasulullah (s) voiced his displeasure, making it clear that a daughter of Rasulullah (s) CANNOT marry a man with other wives. Whilst we deem this tradition (and similar ones) to be lies that have been coined to degrade Ahl’ul bayt (as) we are entitled to cite it since the Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah is that all the hadith in al Bukhari are Sahih, hence we place this before the Nasibi. We would like to expand on this point in greater depth by citing the analysis of these traditions by modern day Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul of Qadiriyah Jilaniyah, London:
“Harith bin Abi Usama narrates from Ali bin Husayn (Zaynal Abdeen) that Ali intended to marry Ghuwara the daughter of Abu Jahl. When Rasulullah (s) received this information he said ‘No one has the right to marry the daughter of Allah’s enemy whilst still married to the daughter of the Prophet of Allah (swt).” [Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 255]
Al-Miswar bin Makhrama narrates that he heard Rasulullah (s) say on the pulpit:
‘Hashim bin Mugheera’s sons have seeked my permission for Ali to marry his daughter (Abu Jahil bin Hasham’s daughter Ghuwara) but I will not allow this, I will not allow this. I will not allow this. Fatima is part of my body, whoever puts her in doubt, puts me in doubt, whoever causes her pain, cause me pain” [Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 359; Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 255; al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 159; Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 188].
In another narration Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: states Rasulullah (s) said:
‘I do not declare forbidden (Haram) what is lawful (Halal) and make lawful what is forbidden, but, by Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Messenger and the daughter of the enemy of Allah can never be combined at one place’.
From Al-Miswar bin Makhrama’s first narration we learn that Rasulullah (s) made it Haram for Ali to marry with another woman whilst he was married to Sayyida Fatima. According to the second narration ‘I do not declare forbidden (Haram) what is lawful (Halal)’, there is a clear contradiction between these two traditions because Rasulallah (s) making it Haram for Ali to marry someone whilst he is married to Fatima but at the same time He (s) is also saying that ‘I do not declare forbidden (Haram) what is lawful (Halal)’ which means that it is among the jurisdiction of Rasulallah to make something Haram or Halal. Thus he (s) made it Haram for Ali to marry some other whilst he was married to Fatima. As for the statement ‘I do not declare forbidden (Haram) what is lawful (Halal)’, this means that he (s) does not perform any act which is in opposition to an instruction of Allah (swt). Therefore, Allamah Nawawi (d. 676 Hijri) writes:
‘By his ‘I do not declare forbidden (Haram) what is lawful (Halal)’, Rasulullah (s) was saying that ‘I do not say anything which is in opposition to an instruction of Allah (swt), thus if I declare anything Halal, then I do not make it Haram, and if I declare anything Haram, then I do not make it Halal and I do not adopt silence in declaring anything Haram because my silence about anything means declaring something Halal. And it is amongst the Mahrmaat (prohibitions) in the issue of marriage to gather the daughter of Allah’s Prophet and the daughter of Allah’s enemy, means I say what the instruction of Allah (swt) says and the instruction of Allah (swt) is that the daughter of Allah’s prophet and the daughter of Allah’s enemy can never be gathered in a house. [Sharh Muslim, Volume 2 page 290].
Now there is no more contradiction in the two traditions because is written in the first tradition ‘I do not deem it permissible for second marriage whilst Fatima is also in marriage’ and according to the second tradition ‘I do not say anything that is in opposition to the instruction of Allah and this is according to the instruction of Allah that I am saying that the daughter of Allah’s Prophet and the daughter of Allah’s enemy cannot be gathered in a house.’ So the meaning of both of the traditions becomes same i.e. it is amongst the maharmaat (prohibitions) in the matter of marriage to gather the daughter of Allah’s Prophet and the daughter of Allah’s enemy in a house. Therefore Mullah Ali Qari stated:
’Shaykh Abu Ali Sanji stated in Sharh Talkhees that it is Haram (for men) to marry again whilst married to the daughters of Rasulullah, as this pains Rasulullah (s) and to cause pain to Rasulullah (s) is Haram’ [Mirqaat, Volume 11 page 375].
Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3 pages 154 – 156
From these traditions and the comments of Sunni Ulema it has been established that it is haraam for a man to marry again whilst he is still married to a daughter of Rasulullah (s). If Imam Ali (as) could not marry again, then the same rule applies to Uthman (if we accept the Ahle Sunnah claim that he was married to a daughter of Rasulullah).
On the basis of this prohibition, we have proven that Uthman did not have any other wife, to do so would be haraam. If Uthman did then we challenge the followers of Mu’awiya to prove this, cite her name, the name of her father and the date when she married Uthman.
The harsh reality is Uthman had only one wife at that time, and the result is either:
On the night prior to the funeral he committed zina – if the Ahle Sunnah accept this then it destroys Uthman’s character,
Or:
He had sex with his deceased wife.
Now the question arises ‘did Uthman commit this act whilst his wife was alive or when she had died?’ If it was whilst she was alive then there would have been no reason for Rasulullah (s) to have been displeased with Uthman. In the authentic “Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari” Volume 8 page 75, by Badruddin al Aini we read that:
“It has been said that Uthman at that night had sexual intercourse with his slave girl. Hence Allah’s Messenger knew about that. Therefore He was displeased because he (Uthman) was distracted from nursing the dying patient who was Um Kulthum the daughter of the Prophet. Therefore He didn’t want him (Uthman) to get down in her grave as a expostulation.”
The Imam of Ahle Sunnah is correct in saying that Holy Prophet (s) was displeased with Uthman but in order to absolve his beloved caliph from the sin of having intercourse with a dead or dying patient, Badruddin al-Aini has offered the excuse that Uthman was busy having sex with a slave-girl that is a feeble defence, since the Prophet (s) had clearly asked “Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?”
From this reference its clear that Rasulullah’s displeasure at the time of burial was on account of Uthman’s failure to climb down into his wife’s grave, this is clear proof that Uthman had not participated in this action whilst his wife was still alive. Intercourse whilst she was alive would have been perfectly normal, and would not have been a matter that would incur the anger of Rasulullah (s). Rasulullah’s displeasure clearly indicates that Uthman had slept with his wife after she had died, but before she was washed and placed into her coffin. We ask these Nawasib, was Uthman – the shy rightly guided khalifa’s act of sleeping with his dead wife a halaal or haraam action? We all know that still waters run deep. If it was haraam then we congratulate you for deeming a nechrophiliac to be your Khalifa. If his action was halaal, then we would urge Abu Sulaiman and his comrades to reinstate this Sunnah of Uthman and copulate with their dead wives, as a means of attaining blessing for Uthman’s spirit.
Worthy of note is the fact that the Salaf Imams have gone some way towards reintroducing Hadhrath Uthman’s Sunnah. Al Hafidh Jalaladin Suyuti in “al Rahmat” page 135, Chapter 133 states:
“The great Shaykh’s have through their experience proven that to have sex with a woman with a fever is more enjoyable, particularly if done so while she has a temperature”.
At least the Nawasib are heading in the direction of their Imam, but of course few can reach the pinnacle that Hadhrath Uthman (ra) had reached.
We would strongly urge Abu Sulaiman the self-proclaimed expert on Shi’aism who enjoys placing Shi’a beliefs under the microscope, to examine his own narrations first. The Uthman that you exalt as a man of shyness and have also crowned as a rightly guided khalifa of Rasulullah (s) had sex with his dead wife. We would like to ask Abu Sulaiman, ‘what right do have to attack the Shi’a when you are the defender of a madhab, whose Imam copulated with his dead wife?’
If this is Ahle Sunnah’s example of hayya then one shudders to think how they define a pervert.
If the incident of Uthman having sex with someone while his wife was lying dead in the house is true, then this was not the first incident in the history of the sweet Sahaba that our opponents venerate but we can see one another similar example wherein a pious Sahaba couple kept performing intercourse to increase their progeny whilst the dead body of their child was lying in their house. In Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 388 we read the following tradition about Sahabi Abu Talha and his wife Um Sulaim (sister of Um Haram) who was also a popular Sahabiyah (female companion):
Narrated Anas bin Malik: One of the sons of Abu Talha became sick and died and Abu Talha at that time was not at home. When his wife saw that he was dead, she prepared him (washed and shrouded him) and placed him somewhere in the house. When Abu Talha came, he asked, “How is the boy?” She said, “The child is quiet and I hope he is in peace.” Abu Talha thought that she had spoken the truth. Abu Talha passed the night and in the morning took a bath and when he intended to go out, she told him that his son had died, Abu Talha offered the (morning) prayer with the Prophet and informed the Prophet of what happened to them. Allah’s Apostle said, “May Allah bless you concerning your night. (That is, may Allah bless you with good offspring).” Sufyan said, “One of the Ansar said, ‘They (i.e. Abu Talha and his wife) had nine sons and all of them became reciters of the Quran (by heart).’ ”
Now we can understand how the najis Nawasib of Sipah Sahaba (kr-hcy.com) are preparing large number of Qaris i.e. reciters of the Quran (by heart). The women of these Nawasib have still kept alive the sunnah of Abu Talha’s wife while their males have kept alive the sunnah of Uthman!
For this section we shall rely on the following texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah:
Let us begin with Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 Hadith 510:
“Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to ‘Uthman, ‘O chief of the Believers! Set this people right before they differ about the Book (Quran), as the Jews and the Christians did before’. Then ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may copy the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsah sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-’As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zayd bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish, as the Quran was revealed in their tongue’. They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt”
Is this respect for the Word of Allah (swt)? In the same way that Muslims hearts are set ablaze when they see images of Hindus setting the Quran on fire, there is no doubt that the Muslims of that time were just as angered when Uthman set fire to the Quran. To those Nasibi groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba who often allege that the Shi’a ascribe to Tahreef and burn the Quran in private, we suggest that they look carefully at this reference. These groups are even responsible for inciting sectarian hatred, by falsely alleging that the Christians have set fire to the Quran so that they can terrorise the minority Christian community in some countires. What these Nasibi Mullahs fail to point out to their followers is that your great Khalifa had no qualms about setting fire to pages of the Quran, and initiated a campaign of collating copies and lighting them.
We read in Al Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 68 “Khilafath Uthman”:
Amongst the objections raised against Uthman is one that he set fire to books that included the Quran. Our reply to this is that Uthman’s burning these Quran is just one virtue that can be counted amongst many of Uthman’s virtues.
Our reply to these Nasibi who loudly proclaim that the Shi’a ascribe tahreef to the Quran is that they should clean their own house first. You are the adherents of those Salaf Imams that deem their khalifas act of burning the Quran to be one his virtues.
We read in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 6 page 217 “Dhikr Uthman”
“Uthman introduced the Quran of his preference and then set fire to different versions that people had in their possessions”.
We read in Tareekh Asim Kufi:
“When the Egyptians surrounded Uthman’s home, he asked them ‘On what grounds do you dislike me?’ They said ‘It is on account of this fact, Rasulullah (s) expelled Hakim bin Aas from Madina and sent him in the direction of Taif, you violated the order of Rasulullah (s) and brought him back to Madina. And the other thing is you collated copies the Quran and then set them on fire”.
These references make it clear that opposition to Uthman by the Egyptians was nothing to do with the workings of Ibn Saba, rather they were outraged by the fact Uthman had set fire to the Quran. This action so outraged the Muslims that they deemed it as grounds to kill him. An individual that is killed on account of his blatant disrespect of the Word of Allah (swt) cannot be regarded as a martyr.
As evidence we shall cite the following texts:
We read in Fathul Bari:
“Ibn Batal said: ‘This hadith evidences the authority set fire to books that contain the name of God… and Abdulrazaq narrated from Tawous that he would burn the messages that contained the name of God as did Urwa”
Sharh Nawawi:
“It is permitted to burn the paper that contains the name of God for a beneficial reason as Uthman and the Sahabah did”
Al Itqan:
“There is no harm if you set it ablaze, Uthman would burn Musahif (copies of Quran) containing verses and abrogated Qira’at and nobody condemned him”
It is indeed amazing that in this day and age these Nasibi claim that setting the Quran on fire merits the death penalty whilst they are the followers of an Imam who set scores of Quranic manuscripts alight! Rather than condemn Uthman, these Nasibi praise his Quran burning exercise and deem his actions a precedent by which his followers can also do the same!
We read in Tafseer Gharaib al Quran:
“Zaid bin Thabit narrates, after Uthman set fire to the Quran people said “He did a good thing, by Allah he did a good thing”.
We read in Kirmani Sharh Bukhari Volume 18 page 9:
“Many benefits were borne out of Uthman’s setting fire to the Quran, it ensured that no differences occurred in the Ummah. Allah (swt) shall grant Uthman a high reward on account of his burning the Quran”.
We read in Lughat al Hadith:
“To set fire to the Quran does not breach rules of etiquette, Uthman had no bad intention when he burnt the Quranic manuscripts, but it was a good act for which he shall be rewarded highly”.
While discussing the manner in which the pages of Quran should be treated, Mulla Ali Qari states in Mirqaat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 7 page 104:
”It has also been said that (the better method) is melting, and the melted water should be poured into a clean place because burning is a form of disrespect”
Mirqaat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 7 page 104
We read in Tafseer al Itqan page 203 part 74:
“Qadhi Hussain confirmed the prohibition of burning since the act of burning contradicts manners and etiquette”.
We appeal to those with open minds to contemplate the seriousness of Uthman’s actions. To discard, shred and burn any honorable thing is extremely disrespectful. iI for example I was to say ‘I shall set fire to this Maulana’s beard’ such a comment would be disrespectful. It is indeed unfortunate that Uthman’s gave less respect to the Word of Allah (swt) than the Ahle Sunnah do to a Maulana’s beard. These Nasibi claim that the Shi’a are kaafir because they disrespect the Sahaba, and yet a personality that disrespects the Quran by burning is elevated in their madhab to the rank of a rightly guided khalifa.
Qadhi Iyad in ash Shifa page 441 (English translation by Aisha Bewley) states:
“Know that anyone who treats the Quran or a copy of the Quran or any part of it flippantly, or curses it or denies it, even to the extent of a letter or an ayat of it, or call any or all of it a lie or calls anything that it clearly states, or any of its judgments or reports, a lie or affirms anything it denies or denies anything it affirms with full knowledge of that or doubts any of it, he is an unbeliever by the consensus of the people of knowledge”.
We have proven from the texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah that one who disrespects the Quran is a kaafir, the Sunni Ulema have themselves acknowledged that burning the Quran constitutes disrespect. With this in mind the Ahl’ul Sunnah should be more honest and decide on what their views should be about Huraaq al Quran, Uthman ibn al Affan. By burning the Quran, Uthman disrespected the Word of Allah (swt) and Hadhrath Ayesha deemed such a man to be a kaafir.
We read in Ahle Sunnah leading work Kanz al Ummal, Volume 11 page 193 hadith number 31190:
Jabir narrates that Rasulullah said on the Day of Judgement, the Quran, the Mosque and the progeny will come. The Quran shall state ‘O Allah, the people set fire to me and shred me.’ The mosque shall state ‘I was left in a state of disrepair’. The family of the Prophet shall state ‘O Allah, we were expelled from our homes, terrorised and killed’.