Uthman bin Affan

[Pakhtunzai]

Thanks Mr Scholar.

[randolph85]

1) Uthman's tribe became super wealthy during his Khilifah, and appointed his family to high positions throughout his empire to people who didn't deserve it. Muhammad in his lifetime banned Marwan I (Uthman's relative) from Medina but Uthman overturned this ruling and even made him his secretary. Uthman refused to punish his relative when he was caught drunk in the streets. When Umar was a caliph he flogged his own son for a lesson to others that no one is save when they break the rules.

2) it is actually historically written that Aisha was against his Caliph as he mostly helped his tribe more than the average Muslim. Your think of Zubayr, not his son Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. The third person your thinking of is Talha. The latter two first pledged allegiance to Ali than turned their back on him to instigate Aisha to declare war on Ali with his followers leading to the battle of Al Jamal.

3) no one is denying that Uthman helped organize the Quran to what it is know.

Uthman was highly disliked that is why during his final days the people of Medina besieged his house protesting him to abdicate the Khilifah.

what is the source of the umar story? i read many variations of the same story but with no legitimate sources.

[کیش]

Where are these books you have read from, I want their authors too.

Manana.

Author Rogerson, Barnaby.
Title The heirs of Muhammad : Islam's first century and the origins of the Sunni-Shia split / Barnaby Rogerson.
Imprint Woodstock, NY : Overlook Press, 2007,c2006.
Description xvi, 415 p. : genealogical tables, maps ; 22 cm.


Author Hazleton, Lesley, 1945-
Title After the prophet : the epic story of the Shia-Sunni split in Islam / Lesley Hazleton.
Imprint New York : Doubleday, c2009.
Description 239 p. : map, geneal. table ; 25 cm.


Non-Sunni/Shia biasnbooks written by actual historians, with footnotes. But I don't have them right now as I rented them from the library.


Origins and early development of Shiøa Islam / S. Husain M. Jafri.
Imprint London ; New York : Longman, c1979.
Description xii, 332 p. ; 23 cm.

Book also has a copious amount of references

I'm not a Sunni/Shia so I look both stories coming from these times.

They're more. I just have to re dig some of them again.

[کیش]

what is the source of the umar story? i read many variations of the same story but with no legitimate sources.

The historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (923 CE) in his Tarikh[11] writes:
“ Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." ”
—al-Tabari, Tarikh
The translator’s commentary on this event provides the following background:
“Although the timing of the events is not clear, it seems that ‘Ali and his group came to know about the Saqifah after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatima’s house. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. ‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatima was furious."[12]

The History of al-Tabari, Volume IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, p186-187, SUNY Press.

Ibn Qutaybah (276 AH/889 CE) in al-Imama wa al-Siyasa writes:
“ Umar said: 'I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, either you come out or I will burn this house down!' The people said: 'Abu'l Hafs, Fatima is also in this house'. Umar replied: 'Even if she is...'[9]

ibn Qutayba, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa (Egypt: Maktabt al-Tijaria al-Kubra), 13.


Also, read about the secret Saqifa meeting held right after the Prophet's death.

[کیش]

Here's my discussion with a brother who is also knowledgable:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarakzaiAbdali and me thrown in there.
In many senses Mujib is spot on though.

Mujib and others cases is to continue ignoring why Muslims splited into Sunni and Shia.

The way we discuss our histories divides us and does not unite us. Compare us to the Americans for instance. The bloodiest war between two democracies was that between the Republic and the Confederacy. Yet do southerners and northerners fight against their common interest over this issue even though they still review it historically?

Not studying the history is the reason why we are still split for over a thousand years. Most Sunni's don't even consider their Shia brothers as Muslims and vice versa. Both say "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger"

Right now, Muslim lands are being ravaged. Take for instance Syria. The real winners in the Syrian conflict are not sunnis or Shiites, but others (Russia with her arms, Western powers dividing the peoples of the mid east and central asia against one another and weakening their ability to resist outsiders, Israel).

If all Muslims study the Battle of Siffin which occurred in Syria. They would understand that Muawiya is the sole reason of the schism in Islam. He had no claim to the Khilifah, and Ali was the rightful caliph.

Instead of all the parties, Iran and Saudi and all the various groups coming to the most important consensus that their resource rich lands and unity to sustain their common way of life against imperialists - they are fighting a bloody internal battle that is further sharpening the lines.

I cannot for the life of me not see why many do not understand that these British drawn lines that they decided to believe in coupled to their ferocious defense of memes by backing these constructs will only hurt them in the long run.

Agreed

In my ideal world, Sunnis would say to Shiites and vice versa: there are too many of you and neither can you exterminate all of us nor can we do this to you. We will coexist and avoid intermarriage and other affronts to our individual ways, but we will also make a truce so that no one can take advantage of our weaknesses and make us fight one another. We will make trade agreements and share resources that will allow the region to become self sustaining. Educational exchanges will occur at the university level if need be, but no one will be harassed etc.

The only issue that would come up is that their perception depends on leadership resting in the sayyid lineage. I think that is against meritocracy personally, but that is their issue so long as they don't force it on others.

And I think where Mujib is right is that these various things the Shiites pose about Muhammad (S) preparing to write Ali's name on a paper and Umar and Abu Bakr blocking this - its based on sparse traditions that never mentioned Ali initially and were modified by subsequent Shiite propaganda.

But Abu Bakr and Umar did block the final wishes of Muhammad. This is based on hadiths from Bukhari. But I do agree that Shias should let this issue pass, as Ali worked as an advisor for both of them.

So I don't think Sunnis are shy of discussing the early history, and many of the early sources do so very openly. The issue is, in the current era, where does it guide us?

This is how Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr and the other two assassins killed Uthman Sunni's should discuss why did it come to that. It wasn't random, their had to be some justification for his execution.

I would never endorse this, but lets say worst case scenario nauzubillah, every sunni somehow came to the conclusion that Shiite claims about the early history being marred in intense malicious conflict were true... what then? Are sunnis going to be made to bow down to Ayatollah Khamanei? That can never happen and should never happen.

Moreover, with all the difficulties in Shiite traditions and the lack of authenticity, as well as the recent academic reviews of the sanaa fragments cementing scholarship against some of the early Shiite claims regarding the Quran - why should sunnis have to see things through Shiite eyes with respect to their revered figures?

I'm still studying the origins of the Shia sect, but Sunni's aren't right to continually disrespect Shia's. Shias revered figures are Hussein and Hassan, who were both respected scholars, and we're both brutally massacred by Sunni's figures of Muawiya and Yazid. I have never heard of Sunni's condemning the massacre at Karbala

Remember, Kish, the region will be in perpetual slavery unless and until people from the Persian gulf to the Caspian sea realize, or even the two blocks of the middle east and then the other of central asia and Persia realize they would be a formidable super power should they unite and put their common interests first.

Ideally, even in Syria, Bashar Assad and these guys should think to themselves their absurdity of their situation. Why does Assad think its fair that his minority clan dominate and subjugate the sunni masses? And the sunnis should also allow the allawites to exist in their area and permit fair trade and have collegiality. That conflict typifies the damage being done by playing these groups off against one another.

Bashar Assad and his family are exactly what the Umayyads had done to the Banu Hashim and supporters of the Shiat Ali. Sunni's need to condemn the actions of the Umayyads, so the Shias can see the crimes of Bashar Assad as identical.

And trust me I know I am about to get a lot of responses about how Iran and certain Labanese militias are in cahoots with all of these powers. I never denied that was the case. But I insist that they are doing this for the same reason that sunni powers are in cahoots as well, self preservation and dominance. But both sides are short sided and malignant in a way that is hurting their regional autonomy and permits interventionalism to ravage their resources.
Couldn't have said it any better than you.
Sunni's and Shias need to respectfully read and understand both views. The latter cannot continue to denigrate the former and vice-versa. One of them needs to be the better Muslims and admit fault so we all could be in the same page.

Sunni's need to stop cursing Shias, and Shias need to stop cursing Sunni's. Remember all Muslims believe in "there is not God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." this statement should unite us into the one sect, and that is in the believe of Allah, his Quran and the final Messenger.

Shias also need to read several of Ali's sermons which he criticized his followers of being unloyal and cowards. The Nahjul Balagha has several of these speeches.

Shias need to read the Quran and the Prophet's word when they said the Prophet's or other humans burial grounds shouldn't be considered sacred or a pilgrimage isn't Islamically correct thing to do.

Sunni's need to study the Ummayads, their crimes and sins. It's the same as what the Alawites are doing today. And Shias need to remember that the Alawites are repeating the same Muslims against Muslims theme.

I hope I was alil clear as this issue is a big and complicated. But continuing the studyings will bring to the conclusion that both Sunni and Shia are guilty of creating schisms that Allah has warned us not to in the Quran.

I also thank you for not cursing or ignoring me as most users are doing. Engaging in this dialogue will only bring us closer the closing the disunited Islam.

[کیش]

Hadith about the pen and paper that was requested by the prophet for a final will so the ummah will never in-fight

Muhammad became ill in the year 632 and his health took a serious turn on a Thursday. It is reported that Muhammad asked for writing materials to write a statement that would prevent the Muslim nation from going astray forever. The first person to reply was Umar, answering that there was no need for the statement, arguing that Muhammad was ill and that the Muslims had Alkitaab "Hasabuna Kitaab Allah (the Book of Allah is enough for us)".[1]
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."
—Muhammad al-Bukhari,*Sahih al-Bukhari[1]
Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Sa'id b. Jubair reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: Thursday, and what about Thursday? Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as it they were the strings of pearls. He (the narrator) said that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and inkpot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray. They said: Allah's Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness.
—Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj,*Sahih Muslim[2]
Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sahih Muslim.

Sorry about the Wiki sources. I have Bukhari but it'll take forever to locate specific hadiths?

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."

Sahih Muslim
Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

at-Tabari writes in his introduction that all of the narrations reported in his book are collections of existing stories. However, Tabari never says that he verified everything he wrote. He merely collected information. Basically in the introduction, he explains that you cannot use his narrations as evidence because the information is not verified.

This is of course something most people dont know because most people dont read books. This is why children of Mut'ah use Tabari as their main Sunni source when they like to deceive people.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Hadith About the (Non)Incident of the Pen and Paper [A Sunni Perspective]

[کیش]

Hadith about the pen and paper that was requested by the prophet for a final will so the ummah will never in-fight



Sorry about the Wiki sources. I have Bukhari but it'll take forever to locate specific hadiths?

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise."

Sahih Muslim
Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could not write (or dictate) the document for them.

These are Bukhari and Muslim hadiths. Where are you getting your misinformation from?

[Ansari1]

The History of al-Tabari, Volume IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, p186-187, SUNY Press.

Chain of narration is: ابن حميد قال حدثنا جرير عن مغيرة عن زياد بن كليب

And it's extremely weak.

ibn Qutayba, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa (Egypt: Maktabt al-Tijaria al-Kubra), 13.


Also, read about the secret Saqifa meeting held right after the Prophet's death.

Ibn Qutaybah is not the author of Imaama wal siyaasa, its a forgery.



----

In the time of Uthman’s ruling there were approximately 47 governors in the different places of Islamic caliphate.


And ONLY EIGHT from them were his close relatives.
1) Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.
2) Said ibn al-As.
3) al-Walid ibn Uqba.
4) Abdullah ibn Ammar ibn Kurayz.
5) Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abu Sarkh
6) Abdullah ibn Samurah.
7) Ali ibn Ade
8.) Marwan ibn al-Hakam.


These governors didn’t rule in the same time. For example Uthman take al-Walid from his place and appointed Said ibn al-As instead of him. Close to his death time, Uthman discarded Said as well. When Uthman died only 3 governors from banu umeyah were ruling. Muawiya, Abdullah ibn Sad and Abdullah ibn Amir.


Also it’s necessary to note, that Muawiyah wasn’t appointed by Uthman, he was governor from the time of Umar.

sourcehttp://gift2shias.com/2010/05/17/did...in-government/




Umayyads appointed by Uthman

1. Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.
2. Said ibn al-As.
3. al-Walid ibn Uqba.
4. Abdullah ibn Ammar ibn Kurayz.
5. Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abu Sarkh
6. Abdullah ibn Samurah.
7. Ali ibn Ade
8. Marwan ibn al-Hakam.

Among them, Mu'awiyah and Waleed were governors appointed by Umar, RA, during his lifetime. And Said ibn Aas was appointed in place of Waleed bin Uqbah when the latter was removed from his post.


Now lets see the Umayyads who were appointed by the Prophet (peace be upon him)
1. Utab bin Usaid Umwi
2. Abu Sufyan bin Harb Umwi
3. Khalid bin Saeed Umwi
4. Uthman bin Saeed Umwi
5. Abaan bin Saeed Umwi


So from this , we come to know that Five Umayyads were appointed by the Prophet (peace be upon him), Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) also appointed five rulers. And the rest were non Umayyads. So from this we come to know that the blame of nepotism on Uthman was wrong.

And the number of relatives whom Uthman appointed were not more than the number of relatives whom Ali appointed.

1. Ubaidullah bin Abbas -- Yeman
2. Ma'bad bin Abbas -- Meccah
3. Qatham bin Abbas -- Madina
4. Abdullah ibn Abbas -- Iraq
5. Ja'd bin Hubairah (his son-in-law) -- Khurasan
6. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (his step-son) -- Egypt
7. Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah -- Commander of Army



This whole theory has no basis what so ever. This is actually a habit of the khawaarij and the rawaafid to attack the son in law of the Prophet sallalahu aleyhi wasallam.