Ahmad has narrated through his chains from Matraf from Imran bin Husain
that he said:
“I prayed behind Ali (a.s.) and was reminded of the prayer, which I had
recited behind Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Uthman. So I went
and prayed with Abu Najid and saw that when he prostrated and when he rose up
from genuflection, he recited the Takbeer. I said: O Abu Najid, who was the first
to omit Takbeer? He replied: Uthman, when he was aged and his voice became
weak, he stopped reciting it.1
Allamah Amini says: Very soon,2 we will present complete discussion
regarding Takbeer at the time of every sitting and getting up during prayer, and
will say that Takbeer is proven Sunnah of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), a
practice on which the whole Ummah has consensus and companions acted upon
it and leaders of different schools have consensus on it.
This traditional report informs us that the first to omit it was Uthman; and
Muawiyah and Bani Umayyah followed him and people willingly or unwillingly
adopted this practice till the proven Sunnah was lost and forgotten and whoever
acted according to this was regarded as idiot, as if he has acted against the
Shariah.
The result of all this was upon the Caliph, who omitted the divine practice
and initiated unacceptable change.
Justification that the Caliph recited the Takbeer softly [and did not give it up
completely] is improper, because the term of ‘he omitted’ is clear. Ibne Husain
has informed about recitation of Takbeer by Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) at the time
of bending and arising and not recitation of Takbeer aloud, and also he asked
about the first one to stop recitation of Takbeer and not one who recited the
Takbeer softly.
Conclusion of the discussion
These were some examples, which fabricators of history have propagated.
We consider history to be the offender; because these realities for the sake of
personal attachment and has concealed their conduct due to their inner desires,
whereas history should be independent and not conceal facts.
But in recording history, Ahle Sunnat distorted words and only left what was
in accordance to their personal wishes and removed what they did not like.
In his Tarikh, Tabari writes: “We have omitted a large part of what killers of Uthman deemed as evidences to justify his killing.”3
And he has written:4 “When Muhammad bin Abu Bakr became governor of
Egypt, he wrote a letter to Muawiyah and exchange of letters took place between
them, which I do not like to mention, because they contain points, which majority
of people cannot bear.”
Waqidi writes about the argument between Ali (a.s.) and Uthman:5 “Uthman
replied him in such vile words, that I do not like to quote them and Ali (a.s.) also
replied in the like manner.”
Ibne Kathir writes in Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya:6 “During this year – that is 33
A.H. – Uthman exiled some people of Basra to Shaam and Egypt due to the fact
that he regarded this lawful, because they had opposed him and helped the
enemies in insulting the honor of Uthman and speaking against him; and they
committed this atrocity, while Uthman was a righteous and rightly guided one [he
was strict in the path of truth and religion].”
And Dr. Ahmad Farid Rufai has written in Asrul Mamun:7
“Don’t expect us to mention our view about Uthman, because he was a
respectable companion of Prophet and has lasting contribution in collecting
Quran and in other things, and he had a lenient faith, which was unblemished. Religion has not obliged anyone to spend their lives in poverty and
abstemiousness and we are not duty bound to prove the weakness of Uthman’s
rule. On the contrary, we are only obliged to mention the incidents as they were.”
Then he hints at some points on which Yaqubi criticized Uthman and
mentions the report of Tabari from Sirri, the liar, from Shuaib, the unknown,
from Saif, the unreliable and useless, and who was accused of apostasy and
infidelity, or other people like them, to save Uthman from condemnation.
To these books, add the large number of history books written in past and
present, books written by hands of fabricators and dishonest to religion; and
perhaps through the few examples, which we mentioned in this book, it will be
sufficient to conclude the conduct and manners of Uthman from different aspects
and the quantum of his knowledge and piety.
All who were his contemporaries and those, who interacted with him, are
aware of all this; that is why their statements regarding him are similar, and the
treatment they meted out to him are similar to each other. We present some
examples of his conducts, which occurred during that period, a period which
became dark through great calamities and extremely negative acts. Among them
being: