Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Aabiss_Shakari

Exploitation Of Treasury By Usman Bin Affan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

EXPLOITATION OF PUBLIC TREASURY BY USMAN BIN AFFAN

It has been written in the book of Tarikh Tabari –quoted by Abdullah ibn Amir– that: “I broke my fast in the holy month of Ramadan. He brought foods that were more soft and delicious than Umar’s foods. Grilled young goats were provided in Uthman’s table every night.[1]

It has been quoted in the book of Ansab al- Ashraf –quoted by Salim Abu Amir– that: “Uthman put on a cloak that was worth one hundred Dinars”.[2]

It has also been written in Tabaqat al- Kubra –quoted by Muhammad ibn Rabi’ah ibn Harith– that: “I saw Uthman wearing a flamboyant furry cloak which it was worth two hundred Dirhams, and he said: “this is my wife’s, Na’ilah , I dressed her in it and now I am wearing it to make her happy”.[3]

It has been quoted in the book of Al- Sawa’iq al- Muhariqah that: “Abu Musa brought some jewels made of gold and silver to Uthman, and he shared all of them among his wives and daughters. He spent most of Muslim public treasury on his farms and houses”.[4]

It also has been written in Akhbar al- Muwafaqiyat –quoted by Zuhri– that: “when people brought the jewelry of Kasra [belonged to the king of Iran] to Umar, he said: “because it is so expensive, we put it in Muslim public treasury, maybe Allah enriches Muslims in the future, and one of them can buy that. Umar was killed, and that jewelry was in that state, and when Uthman became caliph, he took it and made it jewel of his daughters”.[5]

It has been stated in the book of Duwal al- Islam that: “Uthman has acquired many properties and had one thousand slaves”.[6]

It is mentioned in Muruj al- Zahab that: “Uthman built his house in Medina, stabilized it with stone and lime, and put some doors made of Saj[7] and sylvan cedar, and he took properties, springs and gardens in Medina”. Abdullah ibn Utbah says that: “in the day that Uthman was killed, one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars and one million Dirhams were in his treasurer’s hand, and his lands in Wadi al- Qura, Hunayn and etc were worth one hundred Dinars, he left many horses and camels”.[8]

It also has been quoted from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utbah in the book of Tabaqat al- Kubra that: “in the day that Uthman was killed, thirty million and five hundred thousand Dirhams and one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars were in his treasurer’s hand. He left one thousand camels in Rabazah[9], and lands that he left in Baradis and Khaybar[10] and Wadi al- Qura[11] were worth two hundred thousand Dinars”.[12] [13]

References

[1] - Tarikh Tabari, vol. 4, p. 401.

[2] - Ansab al- Ashraf, vol. 6, p.102; Al- Tabaqat al- Kubra, vol. 3, p. 58 æ Ýíå "ÈÑÏÇ íãÇäíÇ Ëãä ãäÉ ÏÑåã" “and in that Yamani cloak is worth one Dirham”.

[3] - Al- Tabaqat al- Kubra, vol. 3, p. 58; Ansab al- Ashraf, vol. 6, p. 102 æ Ýíå "ãäÉ ÏíäÇÑ" ÈÏá "ãäÊí ÏÑåã" “and in that Dinar is instead of Dirham”.

[4] - Al- Sawa’iq al- Muhariqah, p. 113; Al- Sirah al- Halbiyah, vol. 2, p. 78 æ Ýíå "Șáíå" ÈÏá "ÈÍáíå" “and in that balance is instead of ornament.

[5] - Al- Akhbar al- Muwafaqiyat, p. 612, tradition no. 396; Sharh Nahj al- Balaghah, vol. 9, p. 16.

[6] - Duwal al- Islam, p. 16.

[7] - Saj is kind of sylvan tree that is high, big and having a hard and resistant wood, and it is used mostly to make ship (Al- Durus, vol. 2, p. 1154).

[8] - Muruj al- Zahab, vol. 2, p. 341.

[9] - It is one of the villages of Medina near to Zat Irq in the way of Hijaz which the distance between it and Medina is three nights (Mu’jam al- Baldan, vol. 3, p. 24).

[10] - The area at a distance of 200 kilometers from Medina to Damascus (Mu’jam al- Baldan, vol. 2, p. 409).

[11] - It is a prairie between Medina and Damascus from dependencies of Medina, and many villages are placed in that (Mu’jam al- Baldan, vol. 5, p. 345).

[12] - Al- Tabaqat al- Kubra, vol. 3, p. 76; Tarikh al- Islam lil- Zahabi, vol. 3, p. 461, äÍæå æ áíÓ Ýíå ãä "˜Çä ÊÕÏÞ" Çáí "ÇáÞÑí"; Al- Bidayah wa al- Nahayah, vol. 7, p. 192 æ Ýíå "ÈÆÑ ÇÑíÓ" ÈÏá "ÈÈÑÇÏíÓ".

[13] - Muhammad Muhammadi Ray Shahri, The Encyclopedia of Amir al- Muminin, vol. 3, p. 99 – 103.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that Saiyidina Uthman Ghani radiyallahu anhu collected so much wealth from his caliphate while he was given the title of 'Ghani' from Rasoolullah s.a.w which means he didn't love money for himself and was very generous. Should we accept testimony of some hypocrite reporters or of Rasoolullah s.a.w?

If Uthman radiyallahu anhu had collected so much wealth and had a palace in Madinah, why he didn't do anything to protect this property and wealth when rebels had invaded Madinah? Why didn't he command his battalions to kill the culprits so that his life and wealth would remain with him?

Hatred and falsehood blinds people, this thread is one example of that. They refuse to use common sense, accept whatever they are taught by their guides.

Wasn't this the same Uthman who gave his armour to Ali so that Ali would sell it and arrange for his valimah feast?

Wasn't this the same Uthman who was from the nobles of Quraysh, a rich trader, who had given away lots of things to the Prophet of Islam for the sake of Allah?

Edited by Sonador

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uthman may have become a muslim for the right reasons and undoubtly was generous in his contributions to muslims in his early years but this does give him a monopoly to treat the treasury like his personal wealth in his later years, nor does this justify his harsh treatment of several early companions.We ted to forget uthmans servents murdered a companion Niyar b Iyad who was surrounding his house and that led to th brawl which resulted in his murder, if uthman had accepted the demands of the revolutionaries from kufa /Egypt his life would have been spared and no bloodshed would hav occurred.IT WAS UTHMANS MEN WHO DREW FIRST BLOOD !

Also notice how uthmans corruption is contrasted with the strict policies and austere lifestyle of umar b khattab

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the information we have of the wedding banquet of Imam Ali and Sayyida Fatima:

On the night of wedding, the Prophet said to Ali, ‘ O Ali, there must be a banquet for the bride.’

Imam Ali (a.s.) had nothing in order to prepare the banquet. Sa’d bin Ubadah offered a sheep and some men from the Ansar offered some corn. Food was prepared and Muslims were invited for dinner. The Prophet gave some dirhams to Ali and asked him to buy some oil, dates, and cheese. When Ali bought those things, the Prophet uncovered his arms and began splitting the dates and mixing them with the oil and cheese and so he made “heiss” and offered it to the invitees.

After having dinner, the invitees congratulated Ali and prayed Allah to bless his marriage.

The Prophet said to his daughter Fatima, “Do you know Ali’s position to me? He supported me while he was twelve years old, stroke with the sword before me when he was sixteen, killed heroes when he was nineteen, relieved my grieves when he was twenty, and plucked up the gate of Khaybar when he was twenty-two years old.”

Sources being:

Noor al-Absar, p.42, ar-Riyadh an-Nadhirah, vol.2 p.183, Thakha'ir al-Uqba, p.29.

Khashf al-Ghummah, vol.358.

Kanzul Ummal, vol.7 p.14.

Bihar al-Anwar, vol.43 p.132

Amaali as-Saduq, p.483.

I'll ask you to note, no record of Uthman doing anything from either the Sunni or the Shi'a sources.

Number one, no one contributed their wealth like Khadija did, no one protected the Prophet like Abbas, Abu Talib, and Hamza. Also, if Uthman did, then so what? He still messed up severely, and there is no forgiveness.

 

 

Finally, now I know the truth about the wedding feast. As taught in school, I believed the sunni version. Thank You for the post, Al-Ajal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

EXPLOITATION OF PUBLIC TREASURY BY USMAN BIN AFFAN

It has been written in the book of Tarikh Tabari –quoted by Abdullah ibn Amir– that: “I broke my fast in the holy month of Ramadan. He brought foods that were more soft and delicious than Umar’s foods. Grilled young goats were provided in Uthman’s table every night.[1]

 

 

 

Walaykum as salaam,

When it comes to Tarikh Tabari, the narrations cannot be taken as authentic and must be verified.  But even if we were to accept this narration, where does it say that Uthman [ra] bought grilled young goats with the State's money?  Is it a sin for a wealthy person to eat, and live, well?

 

 

 

It has been quoted in the book of Ansab al- Ashraf –quoted by Salim Abu Amir– that: “Uthman put on a cloak that was worth one hundred Dinars”.[2]

 

 
Again, a wealthy man cannot wear nice clothes?  Is it haraam?  This is if we take the narration at face-value!
 
 

It has also been written in Tabaqat al- Kubra –quoted by Muhammad ibn Rabi’ah ibn Harith– that: “I saw Uthman wearing a flamboyant furry cloak which it was worth two hundred Dirhams, and he said: “this is my wife’s, Na’ilah , I dressed her in it and now I am wearing it to make her happy”.[3]

 

 

For another narration, I had to look for Tabaqat al-Kubra and the view is that the volume is not free from spurious and weak narrations.  But let us entertain this one as well.  We will accept the narration but ask one more time, can a wealthy person not live by his or her own standards?
 
 

It has been quoted in the book of Al- Sawa’iq al- Muhariqah that: “Abu Musa brought some jewels made of gold and silver to Uthman, and he shared all of them among his wives and daughters. He spent most of Muslim public treasury on his farms and houses”.[4]

 

 

This book, I just found out, is deeply critical of Shia views and beliefs.  I am almost led to believe that Ibn Hajjar Al-Haytami might be quoting an allegation against Uthman [ra] to refute it.  Would be nice if we were to actually have the book.
 
 

It also has been written in Akhbar al- Muwafaqiyat –quoted by Zuhri– that: “when people brought the jewelry of Kasra [belonged to the king of Iran] to Umar, he said: “because it is so expensive, we put it in Muslim public treasury, maybe Allah enriches Muslims in the future, and one of them can buy that. Umar was killed, and that jewelry was in that state, and when Uthman became caliph, he took it and made it jewel of his daughters”.[5]

 

 

Not sure about this narration.  Again, I am only refuting most of these narrations based on the matn itself and some superfluous research.  I have not found anything regarding this book or narration.

 

 

It has been stated in the book of Duwal al- Islam that: “Uthman has acquired many properties and had one thousand slaves”.[6]

 

From who?

 

 

It is mentioned in Muruj al- Zahab that: “Uthman built his house in Medina, stabilized it with stone and lime, and put some doors made of Saj[7] and sylvan cedar, and he took properties, springs and gardens in Medina”. Abdullah ibn Utbah says that: “in the day that Uthman was killed, one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars and one million Dirhams were in his treasurer’s hand, and his lands in Wadi al- Qura, Hunayn and etc were worth one hundred Dinars, he left many horses and camels”.[8]

 

 

What is wrong with this?  Am I missing something here?  Someone please correct me if I am wrong but it says that Uthman [ra] took properties and the method of acquiring is not described.  Was it by force, deceit or robbery?  It further states how much Uthman [ra] had and how much was in the hands of his treasurer.  
 
Is the treasurer not in charge of the money belonging to the State?
 
 
It also has been quoted from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utbah in the book of Tabaqat al- Kubra that: “in the day that Uthman was killed, thirty million and five hundred thousand Dirhams and one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars were in his treasurer’s hand. He left one thousand camels in Rabazah[9], and lands that he left in Baradis and Khaybar[10] and Wadi al- Qura[11] were worth two hundred thousand Dinars”.[12] [13]
 
 
 
 
Same as above!
Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have clear cut testimony of one of the Imams of Ahle Sunnah namely Ali bin al-Ja'ad regarding corruption of Uthman. We read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 13 page 286:

 

حدثنا هارون بن سفيان المستعلى المعروف بالديك قال كنت عند علي بن الجعد فذكر عثمان بن عفان فقال: أخذ من بيت المال مئة ألف درهم بغير حق

 

 “Ali bin al-Ja’ad mentioned Uthman bin Afan and said: ‘He unjustly took one hundred thousand Dirham from the treasury’

 

It is said that "friend" knows his "friend" inside out better than any one else. Thats why we see that Umar had grasped the mentality of Uthman in his life thats he why had once passed the following comments:

 


 

وأقبل على عثمان فقال له أما أنت فوالله لئن وليت هذا الأمر لتحملن بني أبي معيط على رقاب الناس وليأكلن مال الله ولتسيرن العرب إليك ولتقتلنك

 

Then he (Umar) looked at Uthman and said to him: ‘If I appoint you (as Caliph), you will thrust Bani Abi Moit over the people and they will steal the money of Allah and the Arabs will rise against you and kill you’.

Tamhid al-Awael, page 510 by  Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-Tayeb al-Baqelani (d. 403 H)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We have clear cut testimony of one of the Imams of Ahle Sunnah namely Ali bin al-Ja'ad regarding corruption of Uthman. We read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 13 page 286:

 

 

 

Tarikh al-Baghdad is not authentic since 2253 out of 4385 narrations (in the volumes) is not found in Sahihain and/or in the other four books of Sunnah.

 

The book is also critical of Abu Hanifa [rah], thanks to weak and forged narrations in it, and scholars have made a case, that these narrations (criticizing Abu Hanifa [ra]) were interpolations, to exonerate Al-Khatib.

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tarikh al-Baghdad is not authentic since 2253 out of 4385 narrations (in the volumes) is not found in Sahihain and/or in the other four books of Sunnah.

 

The book is also critical of Abu Hanifa [rah], thanks to weak and forged narrations in it, and scholars have made a case, that these narrations (criticizing Abu Hanifa [ra]) were interpolations, to exonerate Al-Khatib.

 

Wow what a logic. Since this book contains criticism of Abu Hainfa by various other Imams of Ahle Sunnah thus the book itself becomes unreliable? What kind of reasoning is this? Smoking something? For your kind information this is not the only book which contains condemnation of Abu Hainfa !! The book has been revised by Salafi scholar Bashar Awad Maruf who has declared most of those condemnation of Abu Hainfa as Sahih. So come out of dream. The bottom line is that Imam of Ahle Sunnah pointed out corruption of Uthman. 

 

And from where do yiu bring this logic that if hadiths is not mentioned in sahihain then it is to be rejected? There are so many narrations in Mustadrak al Hakim after recording of which Hakim declared them sahih and clearly stated that authors of sahihain did not include such and such hadith in their books. 

Edited by B-N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Wow what a logic. Since this book contains criticism of Abu Hainfa by various other Imams of Ahle Sunnah thus the book itself becomes unreliable?

 

2.  What kind of reasoning is this? Smoking something?

 

3.  So come out of dream. The bottom line is that Imam of Ahle Sunnah pointed out corruption of Uthman. 

 

4.  And from where do yiu bring this logic that if hadiths is not mentioned in sahihain then it is to be rejected? There are so many narrations in Mustadrak al Hakim after recording of which Hakim declared them sahih and clearly stated that authors of sahihain did not include such and such hadith in their books. 

 

 

1.  The logic is two-fold.  One, the collection has narrations more than half of which are not found in our main six books of sunnah.  And two, it even criticizes Imam Abu Hanifa [rah].  What are the odds of you accepting a hadith, from Shia books, which criticizes any of the Imams [ra]?  Lastly, scholars have made a case for the narrations (that criticize Imam Abu Hanifa [rah]) to be later interpolation.

 

2.  No, I do not smoke.

 

3.  Other than one narration, I refuted all the cut-paste narrations, off the top of my head, based on their matn.  For someone who is said to be dreaming, I am doing really well compared to those who are awake and not smoking - like yourself - and yet cannot read what is, and what is not, in the matn of the narrations.

 

4.  The hadiths in Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain are said to have been authenticated using the conditions of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or both.  But that is not true.  Al-Dhahabi [rah] and Al-Asqalani [rah] both disagree with the authenticity of Mustadrak Hakim.

 

Al-Dhahabi [rah] said that half of Mustadrak is authentic while one-fourth of it contains narrations with authentic chains but some defect in them.  And the remaining one-fourth contains rejected and unauthentic narrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  The logic is two-fold.  One, the collection has narrations more than half of which are not found in our main six books of sunnah.  And two, it even criticizes Imam Abu Hanifa [rah].  What are the odds of you accepting a hadith, from Shia books, which criticizes any of the Imams [ra]?  Lastly, scholars have made a case for the narrations (that criticize Imam Abu Hanifa [rah]) to be later interpolation.

 

2.  No, I do not smoke.

 

3.  Other than one narration, I refuted all the cut-paste narrations, off the top of my head, based on their matn.  For someone who is said to be dreaming, I am doing really well compared to those who are awake and not smoking - like yourself - and yet cannot read what is, and what is not, in the matn of the narrations.

 

4.  The hadiths in Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain are said to have been authenticated using the conditions of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or both.  But that is not true.  Al-Dhahabi [rah] and Al-Asqalani [rah] both disagree with the authenticity of Mustadrak Hakim.

 

Al-Dhahabi [rah] said that half of Mustadrak is authentic while one-fourth of it contains narrations with authentic chains but some defect in them.  And the remaining one-fourth contains rejected and unauthentic narrations.

 

1. Again you have deceitfully tried to avoid the opinion of a sunni imam according to whom uthman did corruption. This is not going to leave you unless you come up with something substantial in this specific regard. By the way, the testimony of sunni imam is not record in Tarikh Baghdad only :)

 

2. It seems you are living in some sort of dream that only Tarikh Baghdad contains condemnation of Abu Hainfa hence the book shall be rejected. Here is a gift for you, keep rejecting all books:

 

Ahmad ibn Hanbal recorded in Al-Elal, Volume 2 page 546:
 
Awzai said: ‘No one was born into Islam more harmful than Abu Hanfia’
Salafi scholar Dr. Wasiullah who is the margin writer of the book declared this tradition to be ‘Hasan’.
 
3. Your logic about comparison of hadiths recorded in Tarikh Baghdad with sahihain is totally flawed. Sahihain is not just not two sunni hadith books to look up to, if that is the case then throw all of these out and condemn their authors for compiling hadiths while Sahihain should have been enough:
 
4.  Again you deviated from the point so let me repeat, there are numerous hadiths authenticated by Hakim and Dhahabi both and which contain statement of Hakim that Shaykhayn didnt record such and such hadith though it was sahih according to their standards. But anyways, plz come to the topic instead of going here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should know that there are many critics of Abu Hanifah... Imam al Sadiq (as), Malik ibn Anas and others so don't put down a book just because it has criticisms of Abu Hanifah. 

Edited by Haidar :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Again you have deceitfully tried to avoid the opinion of a sunni imam according to whom uthman did corruption. 

 

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal recorded in Al-Elal, Volume 2 page 546:

 
Awzai said: ‘No one was born into Islam more harmful than Abu Hanfia’
Salafi scholar Dr. Wasiullah who is the margin writer of the book declared this tradition to be ‘Hasan’.
 
3. Your logic about comparison of hadiths recorded in Tarikh Baghdad with sahihain is totally flawed. Sahihain is not just not two sunni hadith books to look up to, if that is the case then throw all of these out and condemn their authors for compiling hadiths while Sahihain should have been enough
 
4.  Again you deviated from the point so let me repeat, there are numerous hadiths authenticated by Hakim and Dhahabi both and which contain statement of Hakim that Shaykhayn didnt record such and such hadith though it was sahih according to their standards. But anyways, plz come to the topic instead of going here and there.

 

 

1.  Supposing what you say is true, the Sunni imam stands against our aqeedah so his opinion is rejected.  Again, that is if it is true.  Otherwise, I see it as cut-paste tactic and given that you - an avid opponent of Uthman [ra] - are bringing such narrations, I would say that my refutation of the cut-paste (from the matn of narrations) is enough for people to see the truth.

 

2.  Ibn Hanbal [rah] reports from Awzai.  Who is Awzai?  I ask because I am sure in some twisted way, someone would try to pass this off as Ibn Hanbal's [rah] opinion.

 

 By the way, before you reach out to ShiaPen (et cetera) for more spurious claims regarding Imam Abu Hanifa [rah], please visit the following link to save yourself, and me, from future headaches.

 

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f20/crit-cism-khatib-baghdadi-others-imaam-abu-11971/

 

3.  Two-thirds of Al-Kafi is not authentic, according to our Shia brothers.  Should you also throw it out?  Tarikh Baghdad contains weak narrations.  More than 50% of it is weak.  But we do not throw it out because we have a system of authentication.  As long as the system is in place and conditions are applied, narrations can be addressed.

 

4.  Al-Dhahabi [rah] made an abridgment of the Mustadrak in which he left out the weak, doubtful and rejected narrations.  So the status of Mustadrak is clear.

 

As for the topic itself, I am sorry but all the narrations in the original post, except one, has been refuted from the matn (of the narrations).

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the matn (of the narrations).

 

I'm sure you'll understand that your opinion on the matn means nothing to anyone unless you can back it up with substantial evidence :)

Edited by Haidar :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you'll understand that your opinion on the matn means nothing to anyone unless you can back it up with substantial evidence :)

 

 

Of course my opinion does not mean anything.  However, the narrations themselves do not prove that which the original poster said they do.  However, some of us insist that the narrations prove something against Uthman [ra].  So now we have two opinions, your opinion versus mine.  If you re-read the narrations - without any bias - you will see that my opinion trumps yours.

 

Not to mention I have addressed most, if not all, of the sources from which the narrations are taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I am quite curious, so usman isn't following the sunnah prophet (s) or Abu bakr and umar. He is living a life of luxury. It is the duty of the ruler to live humbly and not having a grilled roasted goat every night. Extravagance is against the teaching of Islam.

Iirc prophet yousef(as) used to eat less because he was worried that there might be someone more hungry then him. And he wasn't even the ruler then but an advisor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I am quite curious, so usman isn't following the sunnah prophet (s) or Abu bakr and umar. He is living a life of luxury. It is the duty of the ruler to live humbly and not having a grilled roasted goat every night. Extravagance is against the teaching of Islam.

Iirc prophet yousef(as) used to eat less because he was worried that there might be someone more hungry then him. And he wasn't even the ruler then but an advisor.

 

 

SubhanAllah!  You are curious and now, all of a sudden, I, too, am curious to know what caused the change of heart?  Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] were those who lived humbly?  Do you see how quickly you shift positions, brother?  

 

Today you are saying Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] lived humbly but I spent the entire weekend defending Abu Bakr [ra] over the matter of Fadak.  During the weekend, he was a usurper, someone who stole the land belonging to Fatima [ra].  Two days later, he is deemed as humble so long as the third one (Uthman [ra]) is proven gluttonous and far from the Sunnah.

 

I want to remind you that I took the narrations at face-value (although most of them come from questionable sources) and at best, they prove that Uthman [ra] led a wealthy lifestyle.  There are two problems with that.  One, living wealthy does not place you outside Islam.  Two, the narrations do not prove your case (in other words, they do not prove that Uthman [ra] stole from the State's treasury).

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother (salam).
No I never ever said the first two didn't live humbly. They were stricken by 'ujb and kibr that's what let them down. They thought they were better then the ansars to rule as they are from quraish. And they envied the ahlulbayt(as).

Those who are proud and envy others can't enjoy neither this world or the other.
And pride is the worst of the sins.


My post was never even mentioned him stealing from the treasury. I just asked is one of the greatest companions of the prophet(s) not even living by his(s)'s Sunnah. And you are OK with it?

I hope you understand my position.
May Allah guide us All

(wasalam)  

Edited by Lordofgemini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother (salam).

1.  I just asked is one of the greatest companions of the prophet(s) not even living by his(s)'s Sunnah. And you are OK with it?

I hope you understand my position.

May Allah guide us All

(wasalam)  

 

 

Walaykum as salaam,

Well since you have chosen to include the words "one of the greatest companions of the Prophet [saw]", do you think Uthman [ra] lived lavishly (as mentioned in the narrations)?  Is that the definition of "one of the greatest companions"?

 

These narrations come from questionable sources.  

 

Lastly, I am glad that you never charged him with stealing from the treasury.  You are wiser than most in this topic who have accused Uthman [ra] of doing just that.

 

So to recap, the narrations prove nothing since they come from questionable sources.  At the worst, or best (depending on who you side with), they prove that Uthman [ra] lived lavishly.  Still, that does not mean that he was a thief or apostate.

 

May Allah [swt] bless you.

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 By the way, before you reach out to ShiaPen (et cetera) for more spurious claims regarding Imam Abu Hanifa [rah], please visit the following link to save yourself, and me, from future headaches.

 

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f20/crit-cism-khatib-baghdadi-others-imaam-abu-11971/

 

Assalamu Alaykum

 

I just wanted to give my two cents to the discussion that I found interesting here, regarding the status of Abu Hanifa within Sunnism. It is evident throughout the sources that the ancient Muslims did perhaps have a dislike of Abu Hanifa. I read the article you posted, I will admit there are points in it where he has good arguments, but there are also where he just argues upon his own opinion, i.e., what sounds right to him (e.g., View of Malik, Criticism No. 1). And the crux of his argument is that the three A'imma of the Madhahib did not insult Abu Hanifa, however, there were many more opinions declared Sahih in Tarikh Baghdad (though perhaps he could continue his style of quoting later books to weaken these ahadith matn wise). I do personally stand by the point that the early Muslims did not like Abu Hanifa and evidence can be found for this. A really good example - apart from the narrations the article tried refuting - is Al-Musannaf of Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shayba Al-Abasi. The largest chapter in this book is named "Kitab Al-Radd Ala Abi Hanifa/كتاب الرد على أبي حنيفة" (The book of refutation upon Abi Hanifa) (a link to it), in which he would bring forward the Fatwa given by Abu Hanifa and present the Ahadith of the Prophet which contradicted this. In all fairness to the point, Dr. Gibril F. Haddad pointed out that this chapter has been refuted by people, for example Muhammad Zahid Al-Kawthari, however, my point isn't whether he was right or not, but it is rather what was thought of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These narrations come from questionable sources.

Fair enough.

But IF any companion is living lavishly he doesn't deserve to be respected at all. Being so close to the prophet(s) and yet is still after worldly pleasures.

And as for accusing someone of something he didn't do is one of the greater sins. So without definite proof we should refrain from saying anything about any one.

May Allah(swt) bless you too.

(Wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...