He was one of the ten persons to have received glad tidings of Paradise and
was a senior member of Shura committee, and also a combatant from the Battle
of Badr.
1. Balazari has narrated from Saad: When Abu Zar passed away in Rabdha,
Ali and Abdur Rahman bin Auf discussed the conduct of Uthman. Ali (a.s.) said:
“This is your job.” [you and your like caused the calamity by allowing Uthman to
come to power]. Abdur Rahman said: “If you want, you can fight him with the
sword and I will also fight. Indeed, he has not honored the pledge he gave to me.”
2. Abul Fida says: When Uthman gave away governorships of cities to
youths from his relatives, it is narrated that Abdur Rahman bin Auf was told: “All
this is because of you.” He replied: “I didn’t think that he would do this, but I
would never speak to him again.” Abdur Rahman died while he had severed all
contacts with Uthman. Uthman visited him during his illness, but Abdur Rahman
turned to the wall and did not speak to him.
3. It is narrated from Saad that Abdur Rahman made a bequest that Uthman
should not pray on him. So Zubair or Saad bin Abi Waqqas prayed on him. He
died in 32 A.H.1
4. Tradition of Talha and Zubair
1. In some statements of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), it is mentioned
regarding these two persons:
“By Allah, they did not find any disagreeable thing in me, nor did they do
justice between me and themselves. Surely, they are now demanding a right,
which they abandoned and blood, which they themselves shed. If I partook in it
with them then they too have a share in it, but if they committed it without me,
the demand should be against them.
The first step of justice is that they should pass verdict against themselves. I
have my intelligence with me. I have never mixed matters nor have they appeared
mixed to me. Certainly, this is the rebellious group, in which there is the near one
(Zubair), the scorpion’s venom (Ayesha) and doubts, which veil (facts).”(2)(3)
It is mentioned in the letter, which Ibne Abbas wrote in reply to Muawiyah that:
“As for Talha and Zubair, those two raised an army against him and
constricted his throat; after that they came out and broke their pledge and became
desirous of rulership. So we fought those two due to their breaking of pledge, as
we fought your trespasses.”4
Hakim has mentioned in Mustadrak through his chains of authorities from
Israel bin Musa that he heard Hasan say:5 When Talha and Zubair came to Basra,
people asked: “What has brought you here?” They replied: “We are seeking
revenge for the killing of Uthman.” Hasan said: “Very fine, it is amazing they
have no sense to tell them that by God, no one other than them had killed
Uthman?”
4. It is mentioned in some statements of Malik Ashtar that:
“O Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), by my life, the issue of Talha, Zubair and
Ayesha is not concealed for us, and indeed these two entered in what they entered
and they separated, without you initiating a heresy or committing an injustice.
After that if they think that they are avengers of killing of Uthman, they should
take retaliation from themselves, because those two were first to instigate people
against him, and who deceived them to shed his blood.”
Allamah Amini says: Analysis of these reports, which number more than
fifty, teaches us that these two persons were the root and base in the story of
Uthman; and it were these two, who raised fire of mischief against him. And they
did not see any fault in shedding his blood. They did not leave Uthman till they
had him killed. Talha at that time, as is well know, committed such acts; like
stopping water supply to Uthman, which was common property of all Muslims.
When Uthman greeted him, he did not reply, whereas replying to Salam is
obligatory on all. He prevented Uthman’s burial for three days in the cemetery of
Muslims, whereas Islamic Shariat had made it obligatory to hasten in the burial
of Muslims.
He ordered that those who try to bury him, should be stoned to death.
Whereas the sanctity of a Muslim after his death is like his sanctity when he was
alive. Finally, Talha did not agree, except that Uthman should be buried in the
cemetery of Jews in Hash Kaukab.
Whether after defending the nobility and companionship of these two and
regarding all companions as just, and accepting traditional reports narrated about
these two persons, based on the fact that these two are from the ten persons given
glad tidings of Paradise; this act has any reasoning?
Except that it should be said: These two did not regard Uthman a Muslim,
otherwise his being a companion, justice, glad tidings of Paradise, would have
prevented them from committing such act regarding any Muslim, what to say
about Caliph of Muslims?
As for the repentance they expressed after breaking allegiance, which was
correct and legal:6 If this repentance was correct and that victim was a protected
life, they should have surrendered themselves to the heirs of the victim or imam
of the time, so that he may take retaliation, and not that they should have created
a great mischief in which blood would be shed of those, who had nothing do with
shedding of Uthman’s blood.
Indeed, they committed sin after sin and not repentance, which if their view
was correct – it would have erased the first sin; on the contrary the later sin was
greater in view of Allah, because in the incident of Jamal, blood was shed from
people of both sides, of people who had nothing to do with killing of Uthman.
The sanctity of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) was trespassed due to bringing
out of one of his wives from her seclusion, as His Eminence had prohibited his
wives from this. That woman was brought at the place of gathering of soldiers
and in intense battle and they wanted to kill the imam of the time, whose
obedience was obligatory on all:
يَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوْبِهِمْ
“They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts…”7
وَاللَّهُ مِنْ وَرَابِهِمْ تُحِيْطٌ
“And Allah encompasses them on every side.”8