`Ali and `Uthman in Nahj al-Balaghah

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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.

Why is it you always oppose & think you know better than your own no.1 Imam?
So disgraced are you that you belittle your own Imams out of arrogance.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in nahj ul balagha sermon 92 (just after Uthman’s may Allah be pleased with him assination & appointment of Ali as his successor):

“Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible.

Clearly Ali, may Allah be pleased with him has answered your questions: he could not pinpoint who did what.

If you want to mock my answer then you are mocking your no.1 Imam too. If you are not happy with the answer then maybe you can ask him to explain on the day of judgement.

[iceman]

Why is it you always oppose & think you know better than your own no.1 Imam?
So disgraced are you that you belittle your own Imams out of arrogance.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in nahj ul balagha sermon 92 (just after Uthman’s may Allah be pleased with him assination & appointment of Ali as his successor):

<b> “Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. “<\b>

Clearly Ali, may Allah be pleased with him has answered your questions: he could not pinpoint who did what.

If you want to mock my answer then you are mocking your no.1 Imam too. If you are not happy with the answer then maybe you can ask him to explain on the day of judgement.

Well for heavens sake give it a rest then. Why do you keep banging on about why Ali didn't do this or why he didn't do that. If the matter has many faces and the situation is cloudy then put the case to rest and move on.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Well for heavens sake give it a rest then. Why do you keep banging on about why Ali didn't do this or why he didn't do that. If the matter has many faces and the situation is cloudy then put the case to rest and move on.

Ijtaba & yourself asked for details regarding Uthman’s killers.
You’ve been answered by none other than your own no.1 Imam.
Comprehend?

[iceman]

Ijtaba & yourself asked for details regarding Uthman’s killers.
You’ve been answered by none other than your own no.1 Imam.
Comprehend?

Absolutely and the matter isn't clear. It's cloudy, it's confusing, it has many faces etc. Not my words by the way.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Absolutely and the matter isn't clear. It's cloudy, it's confusing, it has many faces etc. Not my words by the way.

Then we have reached an agreement on this particular aspect of the matter.

[Ijtaba]

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.

 

During the Caliphate of 'Uthman he was ruling people who are considered best generations of Muslim Ummah i.e. Sahabas and Tābi'een. So the question is who were the manipulating, snakes, treacherous, canning characters at play at the time when Muslim Ummah had its best generations (Sahabas and Tābi'een)?

Why is it you always oppose & think you know better than your own no.1 Imam?
So disgraced are you that you belittle your own Imams out of arrogance.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in nahj ul balagha sermon 92 (just after Uthman’s may Allah be pleased with him assination & appointment of Ali as his successor):

“Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible.

Clearly Ali, may Allah be pleased with him has answered your questions: he could not pinpoint who did what.

If you want to mock my answer then you are mocking your no.1 Imam too. If you are not happy with the answer then maybe you can ask him to explain on the day of judgement.

Imam Ali (a.s) said this when people decided to make him Caliph and not when asked about the identity of unknown rebels (who were involved in the murder of 'Uthman).

Sermon 92: Leave me and find someone else ...

When people decided to swear allegiance1 at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of ‘Uthman, he said:

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-92-leave-me-and-find-someone-else

[zaid_ibn_ali]

During the Caliphate of 'Uthman he was ruling people who are considered best generations of Muslim Ummah i.e. Sahabas and Tābi'een. So the question is who were the manipulating, snakes, treacherous, canning characters at play at the time when Muslim Ummah had its best generations (Sahabas and Tābi'een)?

Imam Ali (a.s) said this when people decided to make him Caliph and not when asked about the identity of unknown rebels (who were involved in the murder of 'Uthman).

Can you prove that?

The events were interchangeably linked. I thought that was obvious?

[Ijtaba]

Can you prove that?

The events were interchangeably linked. I thought that was obvious?

Sermon 92: Leave me and find someone else ...

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of ‘Uthman, he said:

Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not listen to the utterance of any speaker or the reproof of any reprover. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.

There you have it. The discussion is all about people making a decision to select Imam Ali (a.s) as their ruler and Imam Ali (a.s) responding to the request of the people's decision by making them realize to ponder carefully on their decision and make informed decision. He (a.s) is saying to them he (a.s) is better to them as counselor rather than chief because if they were to make him (a.s) ruler then he would lead them as he (a.s) wills and would not care about reproof of any reprover. No mention of 'Uthman nor assassins of 'Uthman nor about unknown rebels (involved in activities which led to murder of 'Uthman.)

[zaid_ibn_ali]

There you have it. The discussion is all about people making a decision to select Imam Ali (a.s) as their ruler and Imam Ali (a.s) responding to the request of the people's decision by making them realize to ponder carefully on their decision and make informed decision. He (a.s) is saying to them he (a.s) is better to them as counselor rather than chief because if they were to make him (a.s) ruler then he would lead them as he (a.s) wills and would not care about reproof of any reprover. No mention of 'Uthman nor assassins of 'Uthman nor about unknown rebels (involved in activities which led to murder of 'Uthman.)

Okay lets dumb it down for you.

The turmoil Ali is mentioning is the backdrop of Uthman’s assination.

To say the two events are not linked is like talking about the property market in 2010 & saying the challenges faced has nothing to do with the preceding financial market crash in 2009.

[Ijtaba]

Okay lets dumb it down for you.

The turmoil Ali is mentioning is the backdrop of Uthman’s assination.

To say the two events are not linked is like talking about the property market in 2010 & saying the challenges faced has nothing to do with the preceding financial market crash in 2009.

 

This sermon has got nothing to do with people involved in the assassination of 'Uthman.

Following sermon (which brother Hani posted in the first post of this thread) is related to people involved in the assassination of 'Uthman.

Sermon 168:

When a group of `Ali's companions requested that he punishes those who assaulted `Uthman. He answered: O brothers, I am not ignorant of what you say. However, how can I accomplish this when those who assaulted are in the height of their power? They are dominant over us not we over them. They are now in the position that even your slaves have risen with them and Bedouin Arabs too have joined them. They are now among you and are harming you as they like. Do you see any way to be able to do what you aim at!?

From this sermon it seems like those who assaulted 'Uthman were known to Imam Ali (a.s) and those Companions of Prophet (s.a.w.w) who requested Qisas of 'Uthman from Imam Ali (a.s) (those Companions referred in this sermon) and they (assaulters) were not unknown/obscure.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

This sermon has got nothing to do with people involved in the assassination of 'Uthman.

Following sermon (which brother Hani posted in the first post of this thread) is related to people involved in the assassination of 'Uthman.

Sermon 168:

When a group of `Ali's companions requested that he punishes those who assaulted `Uthman. He answered: O brothers, I am not ignorant of what you say. However, how can I accomplish this when those who assaulted are in the height of their power? They are dominant over us not we over them. They are now in the position that even your slaves have risen with them and Bedouin Arabs too have joined them. They are now among you and are harming you as they like. Do you see any way to be able to do what you aim at!?

From this sermon it seems like those who assaulted 'Uthman were known to Imam Ali (a.s) and those Companions of Prophet (s.a.w.w) who requested Qisas of 'Uthman from Imam Ali (a.s) (those Companions referred in this sermon) and they (assaulters) were not unknown/obscure.

This supports what I said. Also supports the sermon where Ali said they are obscure.
If they aren’t obscure then why is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) not mentioning them by name rather than as ‘they’? Why is he alluding to them as infiltrators who have infiltrated the ranks of the people without the people knowing?
Clearly there was an uprising & mutiny against Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), by tribes who had their particular grievances & concerns but also infiltration of sinister people at work (most muslims accuse the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba & his likes).
No one is saying all was hunky dorey with the 3rd caliphs policies.
Some tribes were genuinely grieved at his policy to have family members being the ruling class, some wanted land that wasn’t given, some were mercenaries who only joined Islam for the spoils of war, others were instigators of fitna like Abdullah ibn Saba etc.

The sermons support what I am saying, not you.

[Ijtaba]

This supports what I said. Also supports the sermon where Ali said they are obscure.
If they aren’t obscure then why is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) not mentioning them by name rather than as ‘they’? Why is he alluding to them as infiltrators who have infiltrated the ranks of the people without the people knowing?
Clearly there was an uprising & mutiny against Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), by tribes who had their particular grievances & concerns but also infiltration of sinister people at work (most muslims accuse the likes of Abdullah ibn Saba & his likes).
No one is saying all was hunky dorey with the 3rd caliphs policies.
Some tribes were genuinely grieved at his policy to have family members being the ruling class, some wanted land that wasn’t given, some were mercenaries who only joined Islam for the spoils of war, others were instigators of fitna like Abdullah ibn Saba etc.

The sermons support what I am saying, not you.

The sermons support what I am saying, not you.

According to you, Companions of Prophet (s.a.w.w) instead of requesting to find out who the unknown rebels are so that they may be punished requests Imam Ali (a.s) to punish unknown unidentified people. Somehow Imam Ali (a.s) and those requesting Qisas know that unknown unidentified people are in the height of their power, are dominant and even know that slaves and Bedouin Arabs have joined those unknown and unidentified people. 

In the Best Generation of Muslim Ummah uprising & mutiny against 3rd Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman occurred. Its astonishing to know that in one place rebels are unknown and at other place Abdullah ibn Saba and his likes are accused. Can you provide evidence of involvement of Abdullah ibn Saba and his group behind activities of Fitna during the rule of 'Uthman? And if Abdullah bin Saba and his group were involved in Fitna... were they punished for their crimes?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

The sermons support what I am saying, not you.

According to you, Companions of Prophet (s.a.w.w) instead of requesting to find out who the unknown rebels are so that they may be punished requests Imam Ali (a.s) to punish unknown unidentified people. Somehow Imam Ali (a.s) and those requesting Qisas know that unknown unidentified people are in the height of their power, are dominant and even know that slaves and Bedouin Arabs have joined those unknown and unidentified people. 

In the Best Generation of Muslim Ummah uprising & mutiny against 3rd Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman occurred. Its astonishing to know that in one place rebels are unknown and at other place Abdullah ibn Saba and his likes are accused. Can you provide evidence of involvement of Abdullah ibn Saba and his group behind activities of Fitna during the rule of 'Uthman? And if Abdullah bin Saba and his group were involved in Fitna... were they punished for their crimes?

This was a rebellion. With various factors & factions involved.
Some just looking to protest, others who murdered.
So tell me the names of who did what? Instead of asking here & being unsatisfied with sunnis answers, you tell me from your books & evidences who did what.
If it was so clear cut then why is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) referring to ‘them’ & ‘they’ rather than specific names?
Show me proof that Ali knew exactly who did what?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

In politics not all is black & white.
Those who attacked the house of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), were not one person.
Were there those who genuinely were protesting as well as those who wanted to kill him?
Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr was amongst those who went there. But was he guilty of anything more than just demanding more equitable & just policies in the administration of the caliph?
Was he more culpable than this?
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was caught in a hard position. Who does he punish for murder? Its said there were upto 2000 people there. Some people amongst Ali’a supporters like Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. But also those who were not obedient to Ali’s wishes as they murdered Uthman despite Hassan & Hussain protecting the house on Ali’s orders.
Everyone has an opinion when it comes to politics. With just good people on opposing sides
sometimes, in other cases a mix.

[Abu Muhammad]

When a Twelver raises fitna incidents after the death of Uthman, this is what my usual response to him:

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ ۖ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُمْ مَا كَسَبْتُمْ ۖ وَلَا تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

(Abdul Haleem)
That community passed away. What they earned belongs to them, and what you earn belongs to you: you will not be answerable for their deeds.

-Sura Al-Baqarah, Ayah 134

It got nothing to do with my iman and I won't be questioned about what had happened, for sure.

[iceman]

When a Twelver raises fitna incidents after the death of Uthman, this is what my usual response to him:

تِلْكَ أُمَّةٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ ۖ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَلَكُمْ مَا كَسَبْتُمْ ۖ وَلَا تُسْأَلُونَ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

(Abdul Haleem)
That community passed away. What they earned belongs to them, and what you earn belongs to you: you will not be answerable for their deeds.

-Sura Al-Baqarah, Ayah 134

It got nothing to do with my iman and I won't be questioned about what had happened, for sure.

The only people raising fitna are the ones running this site and you rude boys as side kicks and cheer leaders. Don't tell me this site is all about worship and good deeds. 😀

[iceman]

In politics not all is black & white.
Those who attacked the house of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), were not one person.
Were there those who genuinely were protesting as well as those who wanted to kill him?
Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr was amongst those who went there. But was he guilty of anything more than just demanding more equitable & just policies in the administration of the caliph?
Was he more culpable than this?
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was caught in a hard position. Who does he punish for murder? Its said there were upto 2000 people there. Some people amongst Ali’a supporters like Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. But also those who were not obedient to Ali’s wishes as they murdered Uthman despite Hassan & Hussain protecting the house on Ali’s orders.
Everyone has an opinion when it comes to politics. With just good people on opposing sides
sometimes, in other cases a mix.

In this case Usman really messed up, that's what it sounds like. Are you saying he really failed as Caliph and let the Muslims down by favouring his own clan (Banu Umayya) in government jobs. Well that's what he did, he helped and favoured his own. This is where Banu Umayya grew strong.

[iceman]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DmYRvk9Gxsvg&ved=2ahUKEwjUw-WGvcDcAhXBGewKHYYdCBwQwqsBMA56BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw1y3f0Ddac1LZnCEXrgDdjc

[Ijtaba]

This was a rebellion. With various factors & factions involved.
Some just looking to protest, others who murdered.
So tell me the names of who did what? Instead of asking here & being unsatisfied with sunnis answers, you tell me from your books & evidences who did what.
If it was so clear cut then why is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) referring to ‘them’ & ‘they’ rather than specific names?
Show me proof that Ali knew exactly who did what?

My point of asking in this forum about the assassins of 'Uthman and on them being punished is because I want to know the views of Ahlul Sunnah regarding them. I already know about what we Shias believe. Requesting me to provide evidence from my books is irrelevant. I am here to learn Ahlul Sunnah's side of story surrounding 'Uthman's assassination and those involved in his murder.

If Imam Ali (a.s) did not know the rebels then why did he not say to those who requested Qisas that he does not know who is behind 'Uthman murder and he is going to start investigation to find out criminals so that they can be brought to justice.

[Ijtaba]

In politics not all is black & white.
Those who attacked the house of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), were not one person.
Were there those who genuinely were protesting as well as those who wanted to kill him?
Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr was amongst those who went there. But was he guilty of anything more than just demanding more equitable & just policies in the administration of the caliph?
Was he more culpable than this?
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was caught in a hard position. Who does he punish for murder? Its said there were upto 2000 people there. Some people amongst Ali’a supporters like Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. But also those who were not obedient to Ali’s wishes as they murdered Uthman despite Hassan & Hussain protecting the house on Ali’s orders.
Everyone has an opinion when it comes to politics. With just good people on opposing sides
sometimes, in other cases a mix.

This matter is of great importance because two wars within Muslims were waged on basis of taking Qisas for 'Uthman's murder. Its really strange that Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w) fought war with Rightful Caliph of their time for punishing unknown people?

The first course of action for any sane person would be to identity criminals with evidence and present them to Caliph so that criminals could be punished. After the criminals are proved guilty the Caliph decides not punish criminals due to filmsy excuses then it would make sense for the people to rebel against the Caliph & fight him so that he acts justly by punishing the criminals.