`Ali and `Uthman in Nahj al-Balaghah

[iceman]

Did I touch a painful nerve? 😊 And a very painful nerve by the sound of it. You only like to mention and tell one side of the story and tale. Why not both or all sides 😊

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/general-islamic-topics/115473-death-of-uthman-ra

[muslim720]

Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
"Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever."
References:
History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
Sharh al-Nahj, by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, "Dhikr Jamal"
Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
Qamus page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 "Dhikr Jamal"
Shaykh Mudheera page 163

While "dumb Shia moron" and "dip$hit" best describe you, there are more adjectives I can throw at you but save yourself some embarrassment and read this: http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/rebuttals/nathal.html

Now I know you are not into reading counter-rebuttals so I'll highlight the main points here.

History of Ibn Athir - wrong title; the correct name you were looking for is "al-Kamil fi al-Tareekh" which is a secondary source quoting directly from, in fact based upon, Tareekh At-Tabari.  The introduction in Tareekh at-Tabari clearly states that the author reported everything without authenticating any of the reports. 

If you click on the link I've shared with you, it establishes the weakness of the narration.

Lisan al-Arab - a dictionary, you dimwit!  Since when did we establish history and beliefs from dictionaries?

al-Iqd al-Fareed - a literary novel replete with elements of fiction.

Sharh Nahj-ul Balagha - you have tried to pass this off in the past as a Sunni source but for the 3rd time, the author was a Mu'tazilite Shi'i.

Manaqib by Khawarzmi - no such narration in his book.  By the way, also a secondary source.

Tadkhirath al-Khawwas - the dumb moron you (and the Shias who fed you these sources) are, this book was written by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, the Hanafi turned Shia, not the Ibn al-Jawzi (the famous Sunni scholar).

Asadul Ghaba - more like Usd ul-Ghaba, you dip$hit but your blunders are too many to keep track of!  Again, a secondary source without a chain of narration for the report.

Al-Istiab - secondary source; narration without a chain.

Al-Nahaya - another dictionary, like Lisan al-Arab.

Qamus - dictionary, yet again!

Iqd al-Fareed - already refuted; a literary novel full of fiction!

Shaykh Mudheera - trying to pass off an anti-Sunni book as a Sunni book?  This book was written by the contemporary heretic Mahmud Abu Rayya.

Did I touch a painful nerve? 😊 And a very painful nerve by the sound of it.

You did not touch a nerve.  You only proved to us that you deserve every harsh word ever said to you on this forum.

[iceman]

What happened to Usman. He got murdered. By whom and why. Where were the Umayads who he favoured and brought into government positions. Where was the Muslim army and the security personal. Where were the Sahaba and most of all where was the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah.

Nobody went out to protect Usman when he was alive but when he got killed they showed concern to the level that they took up arms and turned Muslims against Muslims. I've left out the question marks since I know they're too painful for you fellas.

Multiple question, yes I know they seem to bother you. You can't even answer one so its obvious that many will definitely kill you.

[muslim720]

....and no acknowledgment of his blunder, let alone an apology!

[iceman]

....and no acknowledgment of his blunder, let alone an apology!

Absolutely no blunder on my behalf.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Absolutely no blunder on my behalf.

You don’t acknowledge the blunders pointed out by the brother?
Caught red handed & still in denial.
Pathetic.

[Abu Muhammad]

Nobody went out to protect Usman when he was alive but when he got killed they showed concern to the level that they took up arms and turned Muslims against Muslims. I've left out the question marks since I know they're too painful for you fellas.

Another terrible blunder? Do some readings before you talk...

[iceman]

Another terrible blunder? Do some readings before you talk...

Get some knowledge and information, do some homework, develop and open mind and use sense and logic, once you've done that you won't even need to discuss anything. The ANTI SHIA FEVER will disappear automatically. 😊

[Ijtaba]

Leaving the letter aside, until we establish its authenticity or lack thereof, this is why you should appreciate Muawiyah's haste (in the matter of Uthman's qisas).  I do not know how much did Muawiyah follow up on this matter but there is a saying among people from the subcontinent which loosely translated goes: you hammer the iron when its hot (in reference to blacksmiths).  By the time Muawiyah became the leader, the matter had gone cold and the culprits were scattered all around, perhaps more influential than before.

Battle of Siffin was fought 4 years before Muawiya came into power. It's really surprising to know that in four years the murder of 'Uthman had gone cold.

I thought that the differences that Muawiya had with Imam Hassan (a.s) was same as he had with his father Imam Ali (a.s) i.e. to punish the assassins of 'Uthman. If the matter had gone cold when Muawiya became the leader (which was in the same year Imam Hassan (a.s) had become leader of Muslims) then why did Muawiya intend to wage a war with Caliph of his time? I need to know what was the reason which made Muawiya to wage a war with Imam Hassan (a.s)?

Having said all that, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah position is that Imam Ali (ra) was upon haqq.  However, I only wanted to highlight the fact that Muawiyah's concerns (demand for qisas and being hasty in the matter) were not invalid.

So you are saying Imam Ali (a.s) was upon haqq by not punishing the assassins of 'Uthman but taking bayah from assassins of 'Uthman and letting them join his (a.s) forces to fight with those who were seeking qisas for 'Uthman's murder?

[Abu Muhammad]

Nobody went out to protect Usman when he was alive but when he got killed they showed concern to the level that they took up arms and turned Muslims against Muslims. I've left out the question marks since I know they're too painful for you fellas.

Again, another terrible blunder?

Get some knowledge and information, do some homework, develop and open mind and use sense and logic, once you've done that you won't even need to discuss anything. The ANTI SHIA FEVER will disappear automatically. 😊

And as usual again, never acknowledging his blunder nor admitting his mistake.

What an ego.

[Abu Muhammad]

So you are saying Imam Ali (a.s) was upon haqq by not punishing the assassins of 'Uthman but taking bayah from assassins of 'Uthman and letting them join his (a.s) forces to fight with those who were seeking qisas for 'Uthman's murder?

Ali (ra) took the bay'ah from the rebels and not punishing them simply because he didn't know who the rebels and who were not. So, he accepted them all.

[Ijtaba]

Ali (ra) took the bay'ah from the rebels and not punishing them simply because he didn't know who the rebels and who were not. So, he accepted them all.

So those who murdered 'Uthman and those who participated in rebelling against 'Uthman and his government as well as those who were involved in instigating against 'Uthman which led to his murder were unknown?

Was there anyone who knew who the murderers of 'Uthman were and come forward and reveal them to Imam Ali (a.s)?

[iceman]

Any news on who killed Usman and why?

[Ijtaba]

One more thing which I like to know is:

- How did Imam Ali know that rebels were in the height of their power when the rebels were unknown to him (a.s)?

- How did Imam Ali (a.s) know that unknown rebels were dominant over them (i.e. Imam Ali and Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w) who requested taking qisas for 'Uthman's murder)?

- How did Imam Ali (a.s) know that unknown rebels were in such a position that even slaves have risen with them and Bedouin Arabs have joined them? It seems like slaves and Bedouin Arabs knew who those unknown rebels were.

[Abu Muhammad]

So those who murdered 'Uthman and those who participated in rebelling against 'Uthman and his government as well as those who were involved in instigating against 'Uthman which led to his murder were unknown?

Was there anyone who knew who the murderers of 'Uthman were and come forward and reveal them to Imam Ali (a.s)?

I myself would love the hear the explanation for this event.

[Hani]

Here's the deal, those who instigated or besieged are not to be punished in the same way as those who actually went in and killed him. There was a commotion and a bunch of people entered the house, some from the roof, some scaled the walls, he was struck by several of these people. Some rumors say it was an African man from Egypt who deal the lethal blow but that's all flimsy evidence. I don't think the killers would boast and go public with it.
Mu`awiyah wanted to punish a whole group of people he suspected were behind the attack, he may have been even asking for hundreds of men to be handed to him, very difficult request. `Ali wanted things to settle before any action was taken but unlike Mu`awiyah it doesn't seem he was going to punish hundreds, just whoever he found had a direct link.

[Ijtaba]

So instigators, besiegers and killers of 'Uthman were left unpunished during the rule of Imam Ali (a.s) as well as during the rule of Muawiya? Why was there no trial of those people who were suspected of being involved in the murder of 'Uthman?

After the reading the sermon which you posted (at the start of this thread) it does not seem like Imam Ali (a.s) was ever going to punish them as he (a.s) found the unknown rebels dominant and powerful.

Also I did like to know the reason which made the unknown rebels to go against 'Uthman and his government? And why did 'Uthman and his government not take appropriate actions against those unknown rebels for creating disturbance and fitna which was harmful as this would weaken the Muslim Ummah?

[iceman]

Here's the deal, those who instigated or besieged are not to be punished in the same way as those who actually went in and killed him. There was a commotion and a bunch of people entered the house, some from the roof, some scaled the walls, he was struck by several of these people. Some rumors say it was an African man from Egypt who deal the lethal blow but that's all flimsy evidence. I don't think the killers would boast and go public with it.
Mu`awiyah wanted to punish a whole group of people he suspected were behind the attack, he may have been even asking for hundreds of men to be handed to him, very difficult request. `Ali wanted things to settle before any action was taken but unlike Mu`awiyah it doesn't seem he was going to punish hundreds, just whoever he found had a direct link.

Once again, this is not a person in charge of a group or party who got assassinated,  he was the third Caliph of the Muslims. We know the killers of both Umar and Ali and the reason and motive behind the killings, but when it cones to Usman we want to punish the killers and demand justice but who were the killers and what was the reason and motive.

Nothing seems to be clear and no one can comment on this. There is nothing clear and solid to work on. Nowa days a weak case like this wouldn't even go anywhere near court never mind about justice, that would be a long way. WHO KILLED USMAN AND WHY. WHAT WAS THE REASON AND MOTIVE. We need to look at the basics and start putting a case together before we can start accusing anyone of the killing and why didn't Ali do this or that over it.

'A bunch of people entered the house bla bla, some rumours say it was an African man from Egypt etc etc etc'

Do you see how this sounds like and is coming out as. There's nothing there to go on. Nowa days the police wouldn't be able to right a basic report on this.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Politics is the dirtiest game.
All kinds of manipulating, snakes, treacherous, caniving characters at play.
It doesn’t matter if your’re a righteous caliph or a tyrant in a kufr state,you are still in the polluted game.
I suggest you read on political history books in general to grasp just how murky & ugly complicated matter it is.
Instigations, conspiracies, etc.

[iceman]

Politics is the dirtiest game.
All kinds of manipulating, snakes, treacherous, caniving characters at play.
It doesn’t matter if your’re a righteous caliph or a tyrant in a kufr state,you are still in the polluted game.
I suggest you read on political history books in general to grasp just how murky & ugly complicated matter it is.
Instigations, conspiracies, etc.

Other matters weren't ugly and complicated so why are we using excuses here and on this occasion. The matters is clear that if you kind provide the basics then we have a very weak case. If there's nothing much to work on in fact simple and basic questions as such, WHO WERE THE KILLERS OF USMAN AND WHAT WAS THE REASON AND WHAT COULD BE THE MOTIVE BEHIND HIS KILLING, can't be answered till this very day then accusations on Ali not doing anything about it and all the rest of it should be put to rest.