Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

What About Uthman ?

Rate this topic


IQRA07

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I keep reading about the different opinions between Sunni and Shia and even between different groups of Shia regarding the 1st two Kalifas Abu Bakr and Umar but I don't see anything about Uthman .

Why is that ?

What do the Shia (Twelver & Zaidi) say/think about Umar and why is his name so often left out of the discussion of the 1st kalifas ?

It seems to me that if Abu Bakr and Umar wrongfully usurped leadership of the Umma(and I believe they did) then surely we must also say that Uthman did as well. After all Ali was the 4th to hold the title. Sunnis hold that Uthman was "rightly guided". I can't be the only Shia who disputes this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

first of all umer abubakar and uthman were man made kalifas.....they were just humans..........Mola Ali (A.S) is the kaliph made by Allah and His Holy Prophet (SAWW)..............uthman was one of those who snatched the place of Mola Ali (A.S)....... this reason is enough to hate him despite there are many other reasons too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I just think it's funny that he isn't mentioned AT ALL in the literature that I see. The other two are mentioned but not him. Just wondering why.

And I think he was in error but I don't hate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I guess less is needed to argue against Uthman. His position is already manifest in history. During the rebellion none of the companions tried to force the rebels out of Medina. In fact some of the companions participated in the siege against Uthman. Installing the corrupt Ummayad slayers of Hussein works against him. Favoring his personal relatives and mismanaging the state. Also being buried far away from the prophet doesn't help either.

Its hard to believe that people still hold Uthman as greater than Ali. "Four rightly guided caliphs", interestingly the Egyptian rebels, Talha, Zubayr, and Aeysha never held such believes, the rebelled openly against the rightly guided caliph.

Edited by pakistanyar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

even though i dont like habib, i thought the video was hilarious! The sad part is in sunni islam the good and bad are put together so im not surprised this happens all the time.

Agree with you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I guess less is needed to argue against Uthman. His position is already manifest in history. During the rebellion none of the companions tried to force the rebels out of Medina. In fact some of the companions participated in the siege against Uthman. Installing the corrupt Ummayad slayers of Hussein works against him. Favoring his personal relatives and mismanaging the state. Also being buried far away from the prophet doesn't help either.

Its hard to believe that people still hold Uthman as greater than Ali. "Four rightly guided caliphs", interestingly the Egyptian rebels, Talha, Zubayr, and Aeysha never held such believes, the rebelled openly against the rightly guided caliph.

Good point. This brings to mind the question of why the "sunnis" call the 1st 4 Kalifas "rightly guided" when clearly this is not the case. Even their own scholars have to acknowledge that Uthman was corrupt.

They even uphold Ayesha even though she rebelled against Ali(AS) when even they acknowledge that Ali (as) was rightly guided. How can they uphold her KNOWING that she not only did wrong but shed blood within and divided the Umma as a result of her wrong ? It makes no sense. That's a good part of the reason that even though I originally took shehaddah and worshipped amongst the salafis I decided to become Shia. Their position is just silly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Scroll down to Chap 58 to get a good Shia historical perspective on him as Khalifa.

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/

Also, I remember reading about him causing trouble during the building of the Prophet's (pbuh) mosque. He got jealous at Ammar e Yasir for working too hard and got rebuked by the Prophet (pbuh) for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
It seems to me that if Abu Bakr and Umar wrongfully usurped leadership of the Umma(and I believe they did) then surely we must also say that Uthman did as well. After all Ali was the 4th to hold the title. Sunnis hold that Uthman was "rightly guided". I can't be the only Shia who disputes this ?

Well, technically, after the death of Omer, there was a 6 man 'shura council' (selected by Omer while on his deathbed) to appoint the next caliph. Ibn Awf was designated the 'tie-breaker' and selected Osman on the basis that he would adhere to the sunnah of Abu Bekr and Omer (Ali aleyhis sallam stated he would only adhere to the sunnah of the Prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam).

What about him? same as for others,for us he is one of the rightfully blessed caliphs,for shias he is hated

Can you explain what Osman was thinking here:

Sa’id b. al-Musayyab reported that ‘Ali and ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with them) met at ‘Usfan; and Uthman used to forbid (people) from performing Tamattu’ and ‘Umra (during the period of Hajj), whereupon ‘Ali said: What is your opinion about a matter, which the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) did but you forbid it? Thereupon Uthman said: You leave us alone, whereupon he (‘Ali) said: I cannot leave you alone. When ‘Ali saw this, he put on Ihram for both of them together (both for Hajj and ‘Umra).

Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2816:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I keep reading about the different opinions between Sunni and Shia and even between different groups of Shia regarding the 1st two Kalifas Abu Bakr and Umar but I don't see anything about Uthman .

Why is that ?

What do the Shia (Twelver & Zaidi) say/think about Umar and why is his name so often left out of the discussion of the 1st kalifas ?

It seems to me that if Abu Bakr and Umar wrongfully usurped leadership of the Umma(and I believe they did) then surely we must also say that Uthman did as well. After all Ali was the 4th to hold the title. Sunnis hold that Uthman was "rightly guided". I can't be the only Shia who disputes this ?

Uthman's name is left out of discussion on the 1st Khalifa because he wasn't involved. It was only Umar & Abu Bakr along with the grave digger who went to Saqifa where Ansars were holding a discussion.

Even though Uthman's election to the caliphate is dependent on what transpired at Saqifa but since he wasn't directly involved in that debacle his name is not taken along with that event.

Eminent personalities from both Sunni & Shia school have unanimously agreed and written in detail about the heights of nepotism & corruption which existed during Uthman's caliphate and this finally resulting in him being murdered & not being allowed to be buried in a Muslim burial ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well, technically, after the death of Omer, there was a 6 man 'shura council' (selected by Omer while on his deathbed) to appoint the next caliph. Ibn Awf was designated the 'tie-breaker' and selected Osman on the basis that he would adhere to the sunnah of Abu Bekr and Omer (Ali aleyhis sallam stated he would only adhere to the sunnah of the Prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam).

Can you explain what Osman was thinking here:

Sa’id b. al-Musayyab reported that ‘Ali and ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with them) met at ‘Usfan; and Uthman used to forbid (people) from performing Tamattu’ and ‘Umra (during the period of Hajj), whereupon ‘Ali said: What is your opinion about a matter, which the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) did but you forbid it? Thereupon Uthman said: You leave us alone, whereupon he (‘Ali) said: I cannot leave you alone. When ‘Ali saw this, he put on Ihram for both of them together (both for Hajj and ‘Umra).

Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2816:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ كَيْسَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ سَالِمَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ، سَمِعَ رَجُلاً، مِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ وَهُوَ يَسْأَلُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ عَنِ التَّمَتُّعِ بِالْعُمْرَةِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ هِيَ حَلاَلٌ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الشَّامِيُّ إِنَّ أَبَاكَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ كَانَ أَبِي نَهَى عَنْهَا وَصَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَأَمْرَ أَبِي نَتَّبِعُ أَمْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ بَلْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَقَدْ صَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم

Salim bin Abdullah narrated that he had heard a man from ash-Sham asking Abdullah bin Umar about Tamattu after Umrah until Hajj, so Abdullah bin Umar said: "It is lawful." The man from ash-Sham said: "But your father [1] prohibited it." So Abdullah bin Umar said: "Is the order to follow my father [1] or is the order (to follow) for the Messenger of Allah?" The man said: "Rather it is for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)" So he said: "Indeed the Messenger of Allah did it."

______________________

Sunni - Salafi References:

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Tahqiq of Imam Albani, page 201, Hadith Number # 824

Grading: ( Sahih )

Grading of Albani: ( Sahih )

[1] Umar ibn Khattab

Edited by Rasul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، عَنْ صَالِحِ بْنِ كَيْسَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ سَالِمَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ، سَمِعَ رَجُلاً، مِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ وَهُوَ يَسْأَلُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ عَنِ التَّمَتُّعِ بِالْعُمْرَةِ إِلَى الْحَجِّ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ هِيَ حَلاَلٌ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الشَّامِيُّ إِنَّ أَبَاكَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ كَانَ أَبِي نَهَى عَنْهَا وَصَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَأَمْرَ أَبِي نَتَّبِعُ أَمْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ بَلْ أَمْرَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَقَدْ صَنَعَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم

Salim bin Abdullah narrated that he had heard a man from ash-Sham asking Abdullah bin Umar about Tamattu after Umrah until Hajj, so Abdullah bin Umar said: "It is lawful." The man from ash-Sham said: "But your father [1] prohibited it." So Abdullah bin Umar said: "Is the order to follow my father [1] or is the order (to follow) for the Messenger of Allah?" The man said: "Rather it is for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)" So he said: "Indeed the Messenger of Allah did it."

______________________

Sunni - Salafi References:

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Tahqiq of Imam Albani, page 201, Hadith Number # 824

Grading: ( Sahih )

Grading of Albani: ( Sahih )

[1] Umar ibn Khattab

Yeah, there's much more that Omer did (started). But specifically in Osman's case, the Sunni claimed he was rightfully blessed. How is that possible when you're not even following the Prophet saws, but only deviations? It's clearly stated. Do they know what happens to deviators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side point, how would you explain Bhukhari, already being accused of fabricating hadiths and hiding the truth, including such narrations that put the Caliphs as in such a negative light? Sunnis his narrations that spoke of the true Imams but forgot to get rid of these narrations about Umar and Uthman deviating from the sunnah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

God i love this video and i like yasser al habib. I cant stop laughing when i heard that.

(wasalam)

WOW !

SubhanAllah ! I never saw a video like that. If I hadn't already been a Shia when I saw it I would be after it. Or at least doing some serious research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

As a side point, how would you explain Bhukhari, already being accused of fabricating hadiths and hiding the truth, including such narrations that put the Caliphs as in such a negative light? Sunnis his narrations that spoke of the true Imams but forgot to get rid of these narrations about Umar and Uthman deviating from the sunnah

The onus is not on me (or any shia) to explain Bokhari. Literature explaining the bidah of the first caliphs is recognized in both sets of sources.

A sunni will believe this hadith to be true and thus should explain what Osman is doing. It's clear bidah to the sunnah of the Prophet SAWS, but yet there will be some empty justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onus is not on me (or any shia) to explain Bokhari. Literature explaining the bidah of the first caliphs is recognized in both sets of sources.

A sunni will believe this hadith to be true and thus should explain what Osman is doing. It's clear bidah to the sunnah of the Prophet SAWS, but yet there will be some empty justification.

I beg to differ. Many shias will happily accuse Bukhari of hiding the truth or purposely including fabricated narrations to support the sunni position. Common sense dictates that if that's being done, the opposite would also be true ie. narrations that are critical or imply negative actions or judgements from the Sahaba, particulary the Caliphas, would be removed.

Sunni scholars worked together in a huge conspiracy to remove and hide narrations from the Ahlul-Bayt to cover the real Islam, but forgot to take out narrations like this? That doesn't make much sense. Rather, the narrations in sunni books need to be explained by sunni scholars who actually know what they're talking about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Rather, the narrations in sunni books need to be explained by sunni scholars who actually know what they're talking about...

To Sunni standards of validity, Osman changed what was allowed in regards to tamattu'. Changing the sunnah equates to being a deviant. How can you reconcile that with being righteous and blessed?

A typical Sunni response, would be that there's a hadith that says to follow the sunnah of the caliphs after them. However, according to the sunni interpretation, this is in direct conflict with one of the fundamentals of Islam, if the sunnah of the caiphs is different from the sunnah of the Prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam.. and then we come back to the question, how is this all reconciled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Didn't Bukhari cover up issue of alcohol selling sahaba (Samra) and Ibn Mas`ud's claim, that they (i.e., Falak & Nas) are Du'a and not Surah from Quran?

_________________________

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/77243

Sunnah is wahy (Revelation) from Allaah

Edited by Rasul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Didn't Bukhari cover up issue of alcohol selling sahaba (Samra) and Ibn Mas`ud's claim, that they (i.e., Falak & Nas) are Du'a and not Surah from Quran?

_________________________

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/77243

Sunnah is wahy (Revelation) from Allaah

Alcahol selling sahabi? they are not maasum my friend, so why should he cover that up. What surprises me is that the 12er school is full off biddah, so what makes it right for you to point fingers?

What about taking blessing from Dhul Jannah? doing sajdah to it? like in the sub-continent? drawing his pictures and keeping them like tabrook like in Iraq? reading Alliyun Waliullah in the Athan and etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Sunni standards of validity, Osman changed what was allowed in regards to tamattu'. Changing the sunnah equates to being a deviant. How can you reconcile that with being righteous and blessed?

A typical Sunni response, would be that there's a hadith that says to follow the sunnah of the caliphs after them. However, according to the sunni interpretation, this is in direct conflict with one of the fundamentals of Islam, if the sunnah of the caiphs is different from the sunnah of the Prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam.. and then we come back to the question, how is this all reconciled?

It may well be a typical response of sunnis today, but they'll also add that the sahaba weren't infallible and were able to make mistakes. In fact, the opinion that sunnis have today of sahabas has developed over time, much like how shias have developed their thought as well. In any case, they also argue that this is a matter of fiqh, and doesn't neccesarily mean anything.

There are also narrations, although I don't know the authenticity, that Uthman considered himself a resident of Mecca, so did not see the need to pray 2 rakaats.

You should know that when it comes to hadiths, whether sunni or shia, you can't base opinions and form views on narrations without knowing which ones are linked and the context behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It may well be a typical response of sunnis today, but they'll also add that the sahaba weren't infallible and were able to make mistakes. In fact, the opinion that sunnis have today of sahabas has developed over time, much like how shias have developed their thought as well. In any case, they also argue that this is a matter of fiqh, and doesn't neccesarily mean anything.

There are also narrations, although I don't know the authenticity, that Uthman considered himself a resident of Mecca, so did not see the need to pray 2 rakaats.

You should know that when it comes to hadiths, whether sunni or shia, you can't base opinions and form views on narrations without knowing which ones are linked and the context behind them.

How are they rightly guided then? Why should the shia follow them if they are wrong to begin with? Why do they get made if we call them hypocrites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Rightly guided doesn't mean infallible.

Allah says in the Quran, All of Muhammad's A.S actions are Allah's will and choice. If your saying Muhammad choose them, your saying Allah choose them. Now we can derive whom Allah chooses in the Quran, and what their characteristics are. By the way, if they make mistakes, why do you kill us for not following them or hating them?

Edited by pureethics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allah says in the Quran, All of Muhammad's A.S actions are Allah's will and choice. If your saying Muhammad choose them, your saying Allah choose them. Now we can derive whom Allah chooses in the Quran, and what their characteristics are. By the way, if they make mistakes, why do you kill us for not following them or hating them?

Who is "you"? Rejecting the Caliphas does not make one a kafir so their blood isn't 'halal'. From a sunni point of view the sahabas could make mistakes and sometimes did but that doesn't automatically cancel them out. If you reject them for that reason, I'll be expecting you to tell me that your marja is an infallible, otherwise why would you follow them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I follow my marja because they are the most knowledgeable, and have the most taqwa, until Imam Mahdi comes. They can derive religious conclusions based on their life time knowledge of the quran and hadith. Following a marja is not required but to be on the safe side you should. They hold themselves liable on judgement day, meaning as long as you follow them, your safe. If you become your own marja, well, you hold yourself liable and you must be in the most cautious state. I see marja as chairmen of Imam Mahdi. The three caliphs, i dont know where to get started....to many lies and scandals, injustice... You, is the same people who condemn us and want us dead, who agree and follow the same extremists, whose scholars are quiet yet always spreading propaganda...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I follow my marja because they are the most knowledgeable, and have the most taqwa, until Imam Mahdi comes. They can derive religious conclusions based on their life time knowledge of the quran and hadith. Following a marja is not required but to be on the safe side you should. They hold themselves liable on judgement day, meaning as long as you follow them, your safe. If you become your own marja, well, you hold yourself liable and you must be in the most cautious state. I see marja as chairmen of Imam Mahdi. The three caliphs, i dont know where to get started....to many lies and scandals, injustice... You, is the same people who condemn us and want us dead, who agree and follow the same extremists, whose scholars are quiet yet always spreading propaganda...

Yes, I know why one should follow a marja but you, I think, know what my point was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Yes, I know why one should follow a marja but you, I think, know what my point was.

actually, your point is still invalid because in sunni islam they take the caliphs as their "imams". While we dont take our marja as our imams. They believe prophet muhammad choose the caliph, yet there is over 200, one being in Bahrain and Saudi now, it just doesnt make any sense. They also believe prophets make mistakes and sin....their whole system is flawed. You cannot compare them following their caliphs to shias following their marja because we draw a fine line on divine appointment and its rationality...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, your point is still invalid because in sunni islam they take the caliphs as their "imams". While we dont take our marja as our imams. They believe prophet muhammad choose the caliph, yet there is over 200, one being in Bahrain and Saudi now, it just doesnt make any sense. They also believe prophets make mistakes and sin....their whole system is flawed. You cannot compare them following their caliphs to shias following their marja because we draw a fine line on divine appointment and its rationality...

Lets not do word play here otherwise it'll be a quick ending to this.

Yes, they do say that the Caliphs were also Imams, but Imams as in leaders and elders of the community. Not infallibles. Again, if you keep generalising you can't complain if sunnis generalise. And there isn't anything rational about current shia beliefs.

Anyone can argue anything from the Quran but that doesn't make it the correct belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Lets not do word play here otherwise it'll be a quick ending to this.

Yes, they do say that the Caliphs were also Imams, but Imams as in leaders and elders of the community. Not infallibles. Again, if you keep generalising you can't complain if sunnis generalise. And there isn't anything rational about current shia beliefs.

Anyone can argue anything from the Quran but that doesn't make it the correct belief.

Yes, anyone can argue in their favor, including yourself but at the end of the day it comes down to rationality...We all agree the quran is the self checker, it literally is the litmus test to all beliefs in islam. If you are sooo sure there isnt anything "rational" about shia beliefs, I challenge you to create a thread and expose them. At least create a thread on why wouldnt Allah make imams or whats so irrational about it. I hate how people that are on a shia forum always disagree and argue against shias yet they always back off after what they have to say and attack later. Or that they hide their beliefs because they are "afraid", yet they are the first to attack in quiet ways. Its honestly laughable.

Edited by pureethics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, anyone can argue in their favor, including yourself but at the end of the day it comes down to rationality...We all agree the quran is the self checker, it literally is the litmus test to all beliefs in islam. If you are sooo sure there isnt anything "rational" about shia beliefs, I challenge you to create a thread and expose them. At least create a thread on why wouldnt Allah make imams or whats so irrational about it. I hate how people that are on a shia forum always disagree and argue against shias yet they always back off after what they have to say and attack later. Or that they hide their beliefs because they are "afraid", yet they are the first to attack in quiet ways. Its honestly laughable.

Not particulary, some people prefer to attack shiaism or sunnism either because they think it proves their own belief or through ignorance and biased loyalty. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I want to create threads to refute them or whatever. As I've said before, I suspect that you, like millions of people everywhere, toe the party line. If shiaism said there were 15 Imams, then right now you'd be arguing that it was true and Allah swt appointed 15 Imams and to be brutally honest it's rather dull to be discussing anything with someone who only sees black and white.

How do you explain the colours of a rainbow to a blind man?

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...