The first point worth attention in these traditions is that: Those, who
laid siege to Uthman were Muhajireen and Ansar from companions and only four
persons had been mentioned,1 and these were people of Egypt, Kufa and Basra,
who had no other option, except to make efforts to make him repent, prevent his
heresies and stop his crimes.
They united with the protestors, who had come from other cities, comprising
of elder companions and prominent persons. They were very important
personalities, who could not be sidelined or anything can be said against their
religion. They were leaders of that group and were those, who instigated people
against the life of Uthman.
The struggle, protests and discussions that took place in these confrontations
were all sourced in the capacity and piety of those people, and that they had
become infuriated for the sake of Almighty Allah and had only called for his
matter.
They staged an uprising only to remove weakness, straighten crookedness
and purify it from heresies. And greed for rulership or rank or material wealth
had not impelled them to take this step. That is why whenever the Caliph
expressed that he would fulfill their demands, and stop his acts and remove the
defects they found in him, they used to agree to that; but every time he went back
on his word and he continued to break his pledge again and again.
This provoked their anger till they became certain that this man will not give
up the crimes he was committing and would never change his character. So they
became sure that they had no other option, except to stage an uprising against
him. So they rose up against him and confronted him against what they regarded
as evil, so that they may remove it, till what was destined came to pass.
If these people had any other aim than what we mentioned, Maula Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) would not have praised the people of Egypt in the letter he wrote
regarding them:
“To those who were infuriated for the sake of God, when disobedience of
Allah is done on the earth and truth is destroyed…”
Books of history and other books mention their stance and clear and
apparent attitude, he do not mention them, except in positive terms.
The second point seen in this tradition is that: The Caliph had committed
such crimes, which Muslims regarded as evils and they told him to desist from
such acts and he confessed to his errors and regretted having committing those
acts, and after that went back on his repentance and committed those acts again.
Marwan hatched a plot and went on the pulpit and said: These Egyptians had
received a report regarding their imam and when they understood that it was
incorrect, they returned to their city.
Third: He dishonored the pledges and emphasized promises after what he
committed for which they condemned him, and wrote a letter after they had
dispersed in the country, because as was mentioned in the statement of Maula
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.),2 he knew that there was turmoil in the country. After
that not much time passed, but that after that the like of Maula Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.), Muhammad bin Muslima and senior companion guaranteed that
he would honor that pledge.
But he broke that pledge again. And it was when a large number of
companions had witnessed that document. Then, as if he didn’t think that
honoring the pledge and covenant was necessary; and paid no regard to those,
who had stood sureties and did not think it was a shameful act to go back on his
word. And perhaps he had some justification for this dishonor?
In any case, the Muslims – at whose forefront were just companions – did
not approve this and committed that act without being aggrieved and without
feeling any remorse.
Fourth: His undertaking to act according to Quran and Sunnah, which he
has mentioned in the pledge during the first siege – and it was when he had
agreed to give up what he had done before and the besiegers upon him and those
who took his pledge against his acting against the Quran and Sunnah had been
infuriated; that guides us that he had been opposed to Quran and Sunnah before
that undertaking and this much is sufficient for degradation of a person that his
character should contradict Quran and Sunnah.
Fifth: One, who was driven away and the son of the driven away or say in
the words of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.):3 Lizard, son of lizard; accursed, son of
accursed; that is Marwan Ibne Hakam, had influenced the character and traits of
the Caliph as Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) said:
“He has turned him away from religion and reason and made him into a
stray camel [a saddled camel which goes anywhere it is pulled]. And he continued in the same way till his breaking of pledges brought destruction upon
him.”
It is amazing from the Caliph that he should be under the influence of his
temptations, whereas he knew his rank in religion and his position with regard to
faith and his rightfulness, and he knew that he and his like were those, who had
brought these troubles upon him. And had brought him to the verge of destruction
and that he was such that the water was at his lips, but he was left thirsty. He
knew all this at a time when he was in the final period of his life yet he still
allowed the instigations of Marwan and this is indeed an astonishing situation.
More astonishing is the fact that he was influenced in this manner and yet
did not pay attention to the advices of well wishers, like Maua Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.) and numerous other just companions – who had warned him of
the anger of people and asked him to keep away from deceit of Marwan, who was
taking him to destruction and to listen to their advices.
But he disregarded their advice and after the argument was complete and no
excuses remained, he paid no attention to them, whereas he knew that they did
not leave the enjoining of good and forbidding evil, and they invited him to that
in which lay his success and prosperity of Ummah.