Whilst this article is primarily a refutation of Ansar’s article on Uthman, it shall also take the opportunity to address the common Nasibi accusations pertaining to the topic of the murder of Uthman. We shall refute such lies in by:

1. Refuting the baseless notion that a Jewish character namely Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers were involved creating an atmosphere of agitation against Uthman that subsequently resulted in his murder.

2.Identifying those prominent Sahabah whose role in agitation against Uthman and then in his murder has been preserved in the annals of history.

Like his ancestors, the gist of Ansar.org’s author Abu Sulaiman is to absolve the Sahaba of any wrongdoing in the killing of Uthman. He has done his utmost to locate sources that protect the leading companions, for he knows too well that failure to do so, in effect raises serious questions on the Ahle Sunnah’s aqeedah on the justice of the Sahaba. Just like other Nasibi endeavors, this is yet another feeble attempt to protect specific corrupt companions and point the finger at other quarters in hope that he can convince his readers that the Shi’a are liars. Yet again Abu Sulaiman has used dishonesty, and yet again his lies shall be exposed.By the end of the article, readers will realise the ancestors of our opponents had themselves killed their caliph and yet up till today they insist he was an innocent oppressed victim. What is even more tragic is the fact that the murderers attributed the murder to an innocent party and unjustly waged war on them.

Chapter Two:

Refuting the defence card of Abdullah Ibn SabaThe role of some of the prominent Sahaba in the agitation and murder of Uthman has always acted as a thorn in the throats of our opponents that they neither could swallow nor spit. It acts as a wound, which has reappeared whenever our opponents have sought to apply a cure to it. Hence as a means of cure, they had to ‘invent’ some medication and after extensive sessions, they came up with a medicine known as ‘Abdullah Ibn Saba’ but since the ingredients of this medicine contained a large portion of fiction and lies, therefore the wound became further exposed. In order to save their future generations from the objections against those companions who led a prominent role in the murder of Uthman, the ancestors of our opponents invented the character Abdullah Ibn Saba and also fabricated various stories associating him with a campaign of incitement that led to the murder of Uthman. Having invented this mystery killer, they took the opportunity attribute this killing to their opponents [the Shi’a] by suggesting that their founding forefathers were Sabaies, the followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. Some of the main points of such stories include the fact that: Abdullah Ibn Saba was a Jew who appeared during the reign of Uthman.

Ibn Saba misguided people by suggesting that Mawla Ali [as] was the successor of the Holy Prophet [s] and the preceding Caliphs usurped His [as] legal right. Ibn Saba started his activities in Kufa and Syria during the reign of Uthman. Later, he went to Egypt and prepared an army of rebels there. A great number of prominent Sahaba, like Ammar Yasir and Abu Dhar Ghafari went astray and became his students and they assisted the Sabaies in their activities against Uthman. The Sabaies that came from Egypt engulfed Madina and utlimately killed Uthman. During the wars of Jamal and Siffeen, both parties were close to agreeing a peace treaty but the Sabaies attacked both sides during the darkness of the night that caused the beginning of the war etc.In this chapter, we shall analyse the narrations and shall highlight the flaws that our opponents ancestors failed to consider whilst fabricating such stories. We shall also identify the personalities involved in this fabrication.

Sayf Ibn Umar – The fabricator of the storyIf one analyses the chains of narrations of all these fairy tales, you will notice that one name Sayf Ibn Umar is at the centre of such stories, whilst there are some narrations in this regard that don't even have any chains of narration. There are also some narrations about Abdullah Ibn Saba which are not transmitted through Sayf Ibn Umar, but these narrations do not mention the involvement of ‘Sabaies’ in the murder of Uthman rather they are only cite the existence of one such person and this is totally different from the fairy tale painted by Sayf Ibn Umar. There is an ijma (unanimous opinion) amongst the Ahle-Sunnah that the narrator Sayf Ibn Umar was a cursed person who narrated all types of lies. They have written all types of negative remarks about him that include Zandiq, Kadhab (liar) and untrustworthy and his traditions have no value and they all are weak. For example Imam of Salafies Al-Albaani declared him a liar (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p184) so did Mahmood Abu Raya (Adhwa ala alsunnah, p139).

Imam Ibn Abi Hatim (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadil, v4 p278), Imam al-Haythami (Majm'a al-Zawaed, v8, p98) and Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout (Margin of Siar alam alnubala, v3 p27) declared him Matruk while Yahya Mukhtar al-Ghazawi said: ‘There is an agreement on him being Matruk’ (Foot note of Abdullah bin Uday’s book al-Kamil, v3 p435). Those who declared him weakare Imam Ibn Hajar (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p408), Imam Yahya ibn Mueen (Tarikh Ibn Mueen, v1 p336), Imam Al-Nesai (Al-Du'afa, p187) and Al-Aqili (Al-Du'afa by Aqili, v2 p175) while he has been decalred as ‘Very weak’ by Al-Salehi al-Shami (Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, v11 p143).

Allamah Abu Naeem al-Asbahani said: ‘He is nothing’ (Al-Du'afa, by Abu Naeem, p91) and so did Imam Abu Daud (Sualat al-ajeri, v1 p214). Imam Ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘He is accused of fabricating hadith’ (Al-Mudu'at, by ibn al-Jawzi, v1 p222). Allamah Sibt Ibn al-Ejmi said: ‘He used to fabricate hadith’ (Al-Kashf al-Hathith, p131). Abdullah bin Uday said: ‘His narration is munkar’(Mezan al-Etidal, v2 p255). Al-Hakim said: ‘Sayf is accused of being a heretic. His narrations are abandoned.’ (Tarikh al-islam, v11 p161). Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki said: ‘Fabricator’ (Naho Enqad al-Tarikh, p34). Al-Dhahabi says about him: "Sayf Ibn Umar wrote two books, which have been unanimously rejected by scholars”. (Al-Mughani fil Dhufa, page 292).It is interesting that although the Ulema of Ahle Sunnah rejected this narrator and his two books that contained all sorts of stories regarding the role of Sabiees (or Shias) in the agitation and murder of Uthman, the Ulema of Ahle Sunnah have taken some stories from it and have included it in their books with then intention that they may act as a veil over the roles of certain prominent Sahabah that acted in the murder of Uthman.

The murder of the Sahaba Malik bin Nuwayrah followed by the raping of his wife by Khalid bin WalidThose who have some interest in Islamic history would be aware of the shocking incident that took place during the reign of Abu Bakr, wherein Khalid bin Walid murdered a companion Malik bin Nuwayrah and then that very night, raped Malik’s wife. One of the chains of narrations that mention this incident includes Sayf Ibn Umar and when this incident is quoted, the Nawasib abruptly scream and begin to unfold the weaknesses of Sayf Ibn Umar as a narrator. Curiously when it comes to the topic of Sabaies or Shias, the very narrator becomes the darling of deceitful Nawasib. But we should point out the the atrocities committed by the thug namely Khalid bin Walid can still be proven from narrations free of Sayf!

The traditions free of Sayf Ibn UmarAs we stated earlier, there are approximately 14 narrations wherein the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba appears, yet these traditions are narrated independent of Sayf Ibn Umar al-Kadhab. But our readers need to understand that these traditions are entirely different from the fairy tales reported by Sayf Ibn Umar as they do not mention any role of Sabaies or of Shias in the assassination of Uthman, rather they only tell us that there existed a person with the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba who appeared during the reign of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] i.e. years after the murder of Uthman, he claimed that Ali bin Abi Talib [as] was god (naudobillah) and because of this Mawla Ali [as] burnt him alive.Among the Ahle-Sunnah historians, there was only one, namely Ibn Asakir who collected some reports about Ibn Saba whilst their chains of narrations do not include Sayf Ibn Umar.

It isimportant to note that this historian belongs to 6th century whilst Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared in the earlier part of the 1st century. We appeal to just people to consider the fact that if there was indeed a man as prominent as Abdullah Ibn Saba who: commanded the loyalty of thousands of followers, has prominent Sahaba amongst his followerslead a mass movement against the caliph of the time Uthman that subsequently resulted in his assassination later on killed of thousands of Muslims during wars of Jamal and SiffeenWould there be only one historian and that too of 6th century to have written the details about him? From the 1st century until the 5th century, there existed thousands of Sunni Muhadditheen such as Bukhari and Muslim, Fuqaha such as Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik, Ulama and historians. Why is it that thet none of them wrote a SINGLE word about Abdullah Ibn Saba?

Why were Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafiyee and Ahmad bin Hanbal and hundreds of more like them were unaware of the existence of thousands of Sabaies, their dissension in Syria, Kufa and Egypt and their role in the murder of Uthman? Why didn't they written even a SINGLE word about them? Ths Sunni / Shia schism had developed into distinct schools very quickly. The Sunni state was seeking its utmost to propogate the Sunni madhab amongst the masses, and encouraged hatred towards the Shi’a. By this time the doctrine of the three rightly guided khalifas had been engrained ito Sunni deaology and was a part of faith, so that those that rejected them were deemed rafidah (rejectors). What better opportunity would there have been than to propogate amongst the masses the belief that the Shi’a madhab was founded by a Jew called Ibn Saba whose lies and Fitnah they embraced, that lead to them killing the third rightly guided khalifa.

Would the Sunni state have allowed such an opportunity go by, if this was indeed true? If we know anything about politics we know how dirty it is, with politicians inciting smear campaigns against their political rivals, on whatever flimy evidence they can find. Could there be any better smear campaign than one that attributed the orgins of a major Sect that rejected the doctrine of man made Caliphate, to a Fitnah mongering Jew? If such evidence existed, even in its weakest manner the State would have ensured that its Imams and historians cascaded such teachings to the masses. The very fact that they did not proves that this fairytale was not prominent in any shape or form during the fitsy five centuries of Sunni state rule.

It is worthy to note that the reports that were collected by this 6th century historian Ibn Asakir also do not prove the propaganda of our opponents, suggesting that the Sabaies/Shias killed Uthman and they cannot establish the building of whole fairy tale on the foundation of these reports. In order to read all these traditions recorded by Ibn Asakir that are free from Sayf Ibn Umar, one can read his book Tarikh Madinatul Damishq, Volume 29, pages 3-10. Please also note that Ibn Asakir has also quoted heavily the fairy tales from Sayf Ibn Umar. Ibn Hajar Asqalani has quoted these traditions by Ibn Asakir in his book Lisan-ul-Mizan, vol. 3, page 239, along with his comments.