Or it is that all of them forgot that statement and conveyed him to where
they conveyed him?!
Or someone reminded them of this tradition, but no one paid any attention?
Or they did not lend their ears to him? It was when all of them are supposed to be
decent!
The condition is that Uthman himself was from those who was supposed to
have heard this statement. Then why he feared going back to Mecca, lest he
becomes from those about whom the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said:1
“There is a man in Mecca, who would apostatize, and would become
deserving for half the chastisement of all the people.”
7. Ibne Adi2 has narrated from Ammar bin Harun Abu Yasir Mustamili3
from Ishaq bin Ibrahim Mustamili from Abu Wael from Huzaifah that: “The
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) sent someone to Uthman and sought his assistance
for a battle; so Uthman donated ten thousand dinars to His Eminence. His
Eminence placed the monies before himself and while sifting through it
supplicated for Uthman: ‘O Uthman, Almighty Allah will forgive for you what
you concealed and what you made apparent, and whatever is to occur till
Judgment Day, and after that Uthman never cared about his conduct.’”
Ibne Kathir has mentioned this tradition in his Tarikh4 and as per his habit,
he remains silent about the weakness of narrators of the tradition as it is in favor
of those, to whom his loyalties lie. Ibne Hajar has quoted this tradition in Fathul
Bari5 and remarked: “The chain of narrators of this tradition is extremely weak.”
And he states: “Its chain of narrators is fake and weak.”6
Allamah Amini says: If in the chain of narrators of this fabricated tradition,
there had been no one other than Muhammad bin Qasim, who according to Ajali7
was Uthmani, it would have been sufficient for its weakness.
Did it remain concealed for Ibne Kathir, who has reasoned through this
traditional report that Nasai8 said regarding Muhammad bin Qasim: “Indeed, he
is not trustworthy, and Ahmad has regards him a liar.” Or the statement of
Tirmidhi that: “Ahmad has made a statement about him and regards him a liar.”
Or the statement of Abu Hatim9 that: “He is not strong and his traditions are not satisfactory.” Or the statement of Abu Dawood that: “Indeed, he is not trustworthy and reliable and his traditions are fake.”?
And this is sufficient for the weakness and falsity of chain of narrators even
if we overlook the other people of Shaam present in it and who were inimical to
Ahle Bayt (a.s.) or that the tradition being narrated without chains of narrators.
Leave aside getting permission to commit disobedience of God till Judgment
Day, as mentioned in the text of the tradition, it is opposed to established norms
of Islam; because this allowance is a cause of encouragement to commit sins in
future and which man is infallible, who can be told: Any sin that you commit in
future would be pardoned, and your lust should not impel you to commit that sin
regarding it light? And lust is a human desire, which pulls him towards
destruction all the time and only that one is safe, who is protected by Almighty
Allah.
Yes, how rightly it is said: The conduct of Uthman testifies to this traditional
report; because his conduct resembles that of one, who after having committed
every kind of sin, is told that his sins are all forgiven and he can now do anything
he likes.
Good deeds can cause forgiveness of sins one has committed in the past, but
they should not be sins regarding rights of others and greater sins, which take one
out of the pale of Islam. But which good deed is there in Shariat – and I don’t say
only good deeds from acts of Uthman – that permit the doer to commit any act till
Judgment Day and he is given its glad tidings today itself!
In the pan of balance, there is nothing heavier than faith and in spite of that
faith does not have precedence over other deeds, that it can guarantee forgiveness
of future sins, on the contrary it only mentions what has occurred before:
لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
“And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in
what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth
from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and
improve their condition.”10
If not, all warnings and threats addressed to believers would be of no use.
And we don’t find in the acts of Uthman any good deed, which demands this
exaggeration and extremism that is outside the principles of Islam; other than the
claim that he donated for the Battle of Tabuk, if it had really occurred, and other
than that the digging of well in the desert. While there were folks other than him
who donated for other expeditions11; and how numerous were those, who financed the digging of wells and canals, which they endowed for Muslims.
If Uthman can get his sins forgiven till Judgment Day then these people
would deserve that their sins may be forgiven for a period longer than that, but
luck favored Uthman and did not favor them. So note this and be amazed!
And whether companions were aware of this forgiveness and even then they
condemned him for such acts; and inspite of being just, they opposed the
commands of God and His Prophet and did not forgive him those errors? Or that
they heard this lie and ignored it?
In my view this falsehood was not in existence at that time; and it appeared
only during the time of Muawiyah and later.
8. In his Hilyatul Awliya,12 Abu Nuaim has narrated from Ibrahim bin Sadan
from Abu Bakr bin Bakkar Basri from Isa bin Musayyab from Abu Zara from
Abu Huraira that: “Uthman bin Affan purchased Paradise from Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.) twice, like buying and selling of people when he dug the well of
the desert and when he donated funds for the Battle of Tabuk.”