Jump to content

Talk:Uthman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment from anonymous user

Moved the following text from the article here:

This article is very inaccurate! -- user:70.21.61.121

--S.K. 16:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Propose move

I propose that this page be moved to Uthman. He is by far the most famous Uthman (the first Ottoman sultan is normally called "Osman," as are his like-named successors), and his filiation is not generally known to English speakers. I am proposing the same for Umar and Ali. john k 20:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


I see what you are saying, and i agree to 100% that he is the most known Uthman, but i dont agree that we move them. Not Uthman, and not Ali. I actualy propose that we move Aisha to Aisha bint Abu Bakr and the same for Muhammad.

--Striver 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a violation of wikipedia naming policy, which says that we put people at where they are best known in English. None of these people are even slightly known in English by their filiations. john k 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


hmm... oki. I still dont like the idea, since im trying to write about all the sahaba, and the best way to do it is to write the entire name for them. But i wont persist, it dosn't matter that much to me.

The Sahaba article can still use the full names - you can either pipe, or take advantage of the redirects. john k 23:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Pipe? what is that? who do i do it? --Striver 23:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

The older version of the article, to which various people have been reverting, is certainly better written and more encyclopedic than Striver's version. However, it is quite Sunni in emphasis. I have rewritten it completely so that it is -- I hope -- more even-handed between Sunni and Shi'a accounts. I still have to add references. If anyone out there has a paper copy of Reza Aslan's book, I would appreciate a page number for the reference to the election. My copy is an e-book, and the pagination is completely different. Zora 23:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


It nice, it deleted some shia views that are importat, and also deleted the detail about his burial, but i can have that under the "Shia view". Why not include that his uncle beat him? Its certanly a merti to Uthman that he became a muslim even though that he became fysicly punished for it, and he souldent be denied credit for that.

--Striver 23:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Zora, i need to ask you: Why did you delet what you did? Im sure that you know it was agains WP guidlines, so i would be intresting to hear that. I mean, you did not move it to the Shia view, you just erased it al together.

--Striver 00:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora, You mentioned that my contribution is highly contentious. I first thought that my input was deleted by someone else rather than the editors and that is why I reposted it again. Could you clarify what you found most polemic and I will be more than happy to discuss it.

Mfyuce 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Mfyuce

Hi,


I think we must move the page to Uthman ibn Affan, because there is many Uthman or Osman in the history. How we gonna manage it.. For me, the best is to create a disambiguation page at Uthman, redirect Osman to Uthman. Anyone who searches the article, can get whoever Uthman it wants. For Example, it can be like that..

  • Uthman ibn Affan
  • Osman I
  • Gazi Osman Pasha
  • Ottomans
  • etc...

Take care...

a little skepticism is in order

It is highly unlikely that Uthman would not have broken the siege if he could. Further, the account that he was sitting reading the Qur'an as he was slain is hagiography which should not be presented as fact.Timothy Usher 20:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Muawiyyah assasinated Ali?

I agree that Muawiyyah might be reasonably suspected of having a hand in this - just as Ali probably had a hand in Uthman's death, as was alleged at the time - but this is usually attributed to the Kharajites, who supposedly were trying to assasinate Muawiyyah as well.Timothy Usher 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

you are correct that Ali's assassination is traditionally blamed on the Kharijites. I think that's what the sentence was trying to say; the phrasing was poor, that's all. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I see. Duh. Thanks for clearing up the language.Timothy Usher 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

references

I just added some "citation needed" tags. There are hardly any references on this page. If anyone has sources, try to add them using footnotes. Cuñado - Talk 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

I removed some quotes that Striver added. They do not represent the state of serious academic scholarship at all. Margoliouth is an OLD source, and unfriendly to Islam. He was a Church of England divine, after all. The Soviet writer, B-whatever, wants to depict Uthman as an early capitalist, oppressing the poor so that he could live in luxury. The "Non-Muslim" section is also severely lop-sided, but I left the quote from Lewis. I'll try to find some other quotes to balance him out.

Quotes should be representative, not cherry-picked from obscure sources to support one's thesis (in this case, hatred of Uthman) and presented as neutral.

I also removed several "Prophet"s and PBUHs. Zora 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill try to re-arrange it so that only the factual part is on the main article, and the more opinionated ones go to views section. I would appreciate if you had done that, or just aired your concerns in the talk page, instead of removing information only for being in the wrong section. For example, you reverted several improvements such as the links to the migration to Medina article. --Striver 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Im sure that we all agree that all information needs to be there, the question is only were and how it is presented. --Striver 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to comlain about the user striver, he seems to be vandalising articles related with islam. - Imranal
Please do not remove information. If it is to much, propose a sub-section. If it is to quoty, change it to prose. If you believe it is giving the wrong impression, then complement it with the information you feel is missing. But do not remove information. --Striver 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Move

This article was rename, i am moving it back per Muhammad,Ali,Umar and Abu Bakr, a desicion taken by consensus long time agoe. If you still want to change this, check first to see if the consensus has changed. --Striver 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Caliph

"third caliph is international, not just Sunni.". Iran is a country, and it does not agree. You dont want to know what they call him. And lets not talk about other countries... --Striver 00:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to look up the definition of consensus. International scholarly consensus lists Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman as the first 3 Caliphs. Some 80% of Muslims and a consensus of neutral international academics, scholars and historians list them as the first 3 Caliphs. Shia doctrine is mentioned in the inrto, that is more than enough. This has been covered again and again in most of the caliphate-related articles.--AladdinSE 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen any consensus for your opinion, just you stating there is one. No way. He is NOT my caliph, and i say that as a Muslim, and there is no chance in the world that he is the caliph of ISLAM! No way. Those 80% are either Sunnis or don't know much about Shi'as, and we have already a practice of viewing Shi'a reservations as notable. --Striver 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC NON-ISLAMIC NEUTRAL SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS. Of course those 80% are Sunnis. They happen to be the vast majority of Muslims. If you open any hisotry book in the Western World, they list Ali as fourth Caliph of Islam. This has been covered again and again in the articles related to the Succession. And of course Shia reservations are notable, that's why I noted it in the intro. Please once and for all shed your emotional attitude in editing. --AladdinSE 07:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Full of Original Research

It looks like this article is written by a very biased Shia. It is full of negative POV and has very little matter. Why are 20th century historians quoted and references from early history books is not given? I see no credibility in this article Hassanfarooqi 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been rewritten by a Shi'a. I think if you went back a few months you might find a better article. I used to clash with Striver regularly, but I just can't edit 1000 articles on a daily basis, and Striver has had a free hand for a while. I removed those quotes a while back and he put them back in. They're grossly misrepresentative of the academic POV on Uthman -- it's discussed earlier in the talk page. Zora 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i dont own the article. What is the problem? Lets talk about it and i fix it. This article is not going to be as i want, but neither as you want. I can't add that Uthman bribed and stole money, but you cant remove all references that you don't like either. So lets talk, i want to talk about this. --Striver 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For starters, the name of this section: What part of the article is OR? --Striver 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We can remove references not supported by reliable sources. Striver, can't you stop viewing Wikipedia as some sort of crusade to publish religious doctrinal grievances and revisionist propaganda? --AladdinSE 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to expand the article, that is all. I do not see any other trying to do the same. Now, if my expansion has cause somebody to disagree with the material added, the correct thing to do is to talk about it and reach some agreement, not to unitarily just remove it with some generic reference to some policy. What is the problem, please be specific, so we can talk about it.--Striver 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, again are people removing content witout dialog. People, i here writing and talking, please answer instead of rv'ing. You know that i will rv mute removal of info, so start the dialog please. --Striver 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Caliph of Islam

It is Sunni POV to write that he was the "Caliph of Islam". I have elaborated on this on the talk page of Abu Bakr. --Striver 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on that Talk page. I have provided you with no less than 8 highly respected academic and journalistic references illustrating what the international historical consensus is regarding who was the first Caliph. You may not delete referenced material. As I have said time and again with these ridiculous revisionist crusades regarding Caliphate-related articles, just because the first 3 caliphs are listed as Caliphs, does not change that Shia Islam considers Ali as the first legitimate Caliph. But they still RULED before him (he even served in their administrations) and thus they are listed in all major histories as the first three Caliphs. Shia doctrine has been clearly denoted in all these articles. Now please stop.--AladdinSE 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'sunni scholar'

The 'sunni scholar' quoted is no Sunni scholar: he was a Soviet anti-religious propagandist.

The fantastic figures about Caliph 'Uthman's supposed wealth are Shi'ite fabrications, accepted uncritically by him in line with 'socialist' critique.

Sunni sources agree that 'Uthman's later life was as ascetic and frugal as that of 'Ali's.


...Rizwanullah Khan, lecturer, Karachi University.

Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information, never reference it :D 216.99.60.104 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Views section

I have deleted this, shia should not be commenting on people they dont follow this is an encyclopedia not a discussion i will keep deleting any further shia views becouse they are not relavent to the biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rami.b (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).--Rami.b 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason based on Wikipedia policy that this section should be removed? If it's a religious objection, that isn't an appropriate reason to delete content from the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They have no right to write his biography otherwise we may as well allow anyone who doesnt like anyone to say anything. Shia make up 5% of the muslim population there view can hardly be called mainstream or orthodox islam. would a christian like me to edit any christians pages simply becouse i dont agree or is the reason for an encyclopedia simply to inform rather than to propagate.--Rami.b 11:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand your objection. Is there something in that section which is not appropriately referenced, or is not true? Anyone can edit any Wikipedia article; that's sort of the point of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there should be a views section altogether why should people who make a point of cursing him have a say in his biography.--Rami.b 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If some groups disagree about his significance, that's important enough to write about. When I read that section, it came across clearly that different people see this person differently- to leave that out would keep readers from knowing that there is disagreement on the matter, and the disagreement seems pretty significant. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true for any person and besides the point, Shiaism is a sect in Islam not orthodox Islam they make up about 5% of the entire muslim population which barely rates as a minor difference of opinion among muslims. No one is trying to deny people voicing there opinion but since this is a biography and not a discussion forum it stands to reason that this structure is followed. Read the shia view section carefully and look at how is worded it reads more like a rebuttal than simple scholarly impartial ism.--Rami.b 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new to the Wikipedia thing, so please bare with me. Why is there a Sunni and Non-Muslim section but no Shia section here? I thought each page showed each sects' point of view. And Jaffari is one of the recognized 5 schools of scholarly thoughts. So no reason it should be denied, if it's not denied in other historical people's biography views. Is this some sort of censorship in regards to certain pages? Different views exist as different scholars or critics do(even if it's one outspoken critic,he or she gets a credit). It is part of the scholarly debate. If views did not matter, then neither did the sections on Sunni and non-Muslims(but oddly both are left intact). Your argument is not compelling. I do not follow Buddha yet I know enough from reading history,experience,different groups views and anecdotal facts to comment on him which may reflect him in either positive or negative light. Shias comment on Uthman because they are affected by his historical role in Islam which goes for Sunni's as well. Sunni show positive,Shia show negative,non-Muslims show whatever. As a journalist you need to know why.If the wordings of the Shia section are not agreed,then it should reach a compromise...not a total censorship and suppression of that view. You can say the same thing about evolution having just one view, but there are different views. A view can be a rebuttal of what a scholar or critic sees as inaccurate information or falsehood. Consider Protestants deleting a section on Mormon's view. That's not right. Consider that the Shia sect is the second largest to the Sunni sect, and hence should be taken into account. Consider writing a page on Jesus and omitting the Jewish view out because they are smaller than the other two religions. I can't help but wonder if there is a bias on the user's part who is deleting,censoring and suppressing this section. And make no mistake, not showing or saying something, is censorship. Encyclopedias consider all facts, and there is factual evidence that may be disputed nevertheless has strong support and must let the readers decide. P.S. I'll be happy to take advice from anyone on how to contribute. If I made any mistakes on my first post, I'm sorry and please let me know.Thanks. --Bigsaf 22:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rami, you are deleting it of the wrong reasons. Of course the "view" should not be deleted. You are only making the article inferior if you keep deleting the different views. Please put it back on. The shias are not 5% but 10-15% and growing, so their view should be in this article too, since shias disagree a lot with sunnis regarding Uthman. 85.82.233.73 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"His Character" and "Among `Uthman’s sayings"

I have added the above two sections as well as added some material in the death section.--Rami.b 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A question

while writing an article on Uthman on military expansion section i got stuck on a point,
at its peak wather uthman's empire was upto tunisia(north africa) in west ( as famous usually) or it was upto the moroco in north africa and Andulusia (spain) ????
i found it in tabari and ibn aksir that uthman's empire was upto moroco when king george of north africa was killied in battle of subetila by abdullah ibn zubair, the whole of north africa submitted to muslims and muslims made it "vessale state". King george's state's frontiers were from tunisia to moroco, according to above mention sources Uthman send his two generals via sea to spain to conqured it and they manage to conqured coastal areas of andulisia, uthman in his letter to them wrote that "constantino pole will be conqured from the side of land so march farward" but he died before the expedition. now i ask opinion of you guys that how far his empire reached in west to tunisia or to spain ???? as far as i know tabari and ibn aksir are trusted sources and authentic too. Mohammad Adil 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Asalamualikum.
i am writing a new and more comprehensive article of Caliph Uthman, inshallah will be here with in a week.... having following headings:

1 Biography
 2 Early life
2.1 Conversion to Islam
2.2 Migration to Abyssinia
2.3 Migration to Medina
2.4 Life in Madinah
2.5 Treaty of Hudaibiyah
2.6 Prophet Mohammad's last years
3 Caliph Abu Bakr's era (632–634)
4 Caliph Umar's Era (634–644)
5 Election of Uthman
6 Reign as a Caliph (644–656)
7 Reforms of Uthman's era
7.1 Economic reforms
7.2 Public work
7.3 Administration
7.4 Qur'an
8 Military expansion
9 Agitation Against Uthman
9.1 Background
9.1.1 Seditionist movement
9.1.2 Uthman's measures
9.1.3 Uthman's emissaries to the provinces
9.1.4 Uthman's further measures
9.1.5 Agitation in Madinah
10 Armed revolt against Uthman
10.1 Rioters in Madinah
10.2 Siege of Uthman
11 Death
11.1 The funeral
11.2 The burial
12 Legacy
13 Family of Uthman
13.1 Sunni view of Uthman
13.2 Non-Muslims
14 References
15 External links
16 See also


surely will need help for making article neutral and for spelling/grammer/and style stuff from you guys. Mohammad Adil 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi pal, I just had a look at your work on Uthman and need to say that there are many deliberate omissions of the fact that his nepotism and appointing his relatives (whom a couple of them were declared apostates by the prophet himself). In addiction to the fact that later on, his kin were the ones who solely benefited from his reign. All that was underlying reason for many companions to first protest and then raise in revolt against him, and rather than doing that, a fanciful picture of Uthman reign is depicted, and hadn’t for “conspiracy of Abd Allah b. Sa’ba” Uthman’s rule would have been an-uneventful one .

I’m not sure why you choose to rely on the fictional rule of Abd Allah b. Saba’a in the murder of Uthman, which has been widely discredited by modern Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike and repressing the fact that A’ashia, Amr b. Al-As, Talha and Zubair were among those who ignited against Uthman which ended in his assassination. Why don’t you read the standard work in the academia and here in the Wikipedia for this era, The Succession to Muhammad by Wilferd Madelung, rather than relying on some fictional accounts and the conspiracy theories of Sayf b. Umar Al Tamimi.

I will check the rest of the article with respect to Uthman life pre to his caliphate period and get back on that soon.

Cheers, --Suhrawardi 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Asalamualikum. thanks for comments, i needed it. i am not sure about abdullah ibn saba's stuff that wather he is fictional (as claimed by shia) or real as mention in historical sources. and one thing more, as far as i know ONLY shia claim that "abdullah ibn saba" was a fiction made by historians..... i guess it was 1st claimed by egyptian writer taha hussain in his book recently published in past decade...... still i am unable to understand what was the real problem with uthman's governers.. i mean i have found shia sources saying that they were courpt, and in the same way have find muslim sources justifying the claims over them. the most amazing thing i have come across is that uthman appointed only 4 ummayed governers him self, other were appointed by Caliph umar, he appointed abdullah ibn saad, not uthman. and kore over there were 12 provinces and only 4 were governed by his kinsmen. though those provinces were of great importance.As far me, i agree with the theory of those historians who says that uthman's governers were fine and there was political dis-balance in the state due to which it all happned, and that political disbalance originated due to lack of any perticular office to handle that sudden political dilema, and it happned due to the the fact that muslims became financially strong in uthman's reign and few of them had nothing to do ......... any ways whats i suggest is that in the portion of agitation against uthman, we should make two section under each sub-heading one giving shia views and other with sunni views.,
A’ashia,.......? who is he ???? as far as your statement that Amr b. Al-As, Talha and Zubair were beside the agitaion against uthman, then dude thats totally wrong in which world you live ????lolzzz for amr ibn al-aas its ture he was behind it and was an active member, because of his dispossal from the post of governer of egypt. and by the way he was also uthman's relative, he was his brother-in-law. Talha and Zubair were not involved, that can be proved simply from historical facts. may be you are reffering to Marwan ibn hakam's statement in battle of jamal when he said kill talha i saw him uprising the rebels to kill uthman ...lolzzz thats funny even a kid can understand the conspiracy behind it lolzz, didn't marwan ibn hakam remmembered it that talha was one involved in killing of uthman when Talha, Zubair, Abdullah ibn Zubair and other campanions after the capture of busra went in streets to investigate and to search the killers of uthman, and they killed 4000 suspected killers of uthman or those who were involved in agitation against him ??????? whats the answer that marwan forgotted it that time ????lolzzz thats funny. i also came the narration saying that Umm al momenin Ayesha said to rebels .... kill this old fool man ...lolzz thats a rear statement, but i also came across the narration in which she came to uthman's palace during seige to provide him food and water, and thats more acurate in favour of the wive of prophet. Mohammad Adil 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)



Good morning pal, It seems to me that you have misread and at time not even reading the numerous history references and the traditionalist works of great Sunni scholars. In addition to the works of many modern Sunni scholars.

Abd Allah b. Saba

It was truly ironic to state with all the confidence in the world that “as far as i know ONLY shia claim that "abdullah ibn saba" was a fiction made by historians”. I’m not sure how the following would fall into the quoted self-assertion. The narrator of the supposed involvement of Abd Allah b. Saba in the rebellion against Uthman is Sayf b. Umar Al Tamimi, whom the prominent SUNNI traditionalists like Ibn Hajar Al Askalani, Ibn Adi, Imam al Hakim, Ibn Nomair, Al Barakani, Al Dar Khotni, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Adb Rab, Al Albani, and al-Thahabi, denounced the narrations of Sayf b Umar on the grounds of being “a liar, a fabricator of hadith and was accused of blasphemy”

Wilferd Madelung, the eminent historian states on the sources for the crisis of the caliphate of Uthman that:


(The Succession to Muhammad p 374, Cambridge University Press, 1997)

While M.G.S. Hodgson explains further that

(Abd Allah b. Saba in Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 © 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands)


Also why don’t you check the works of

  • Sunni Saudi historian Hassan b Farhan al-Maliki’s In Salvaging the Islamic History نحو انقاذ التاريخ الاسلامي in which he repudiates those Wahhabis who still stick to Ibn Saba’s fictional role in the upheaval. And his second book,Companions and Companionshipالصحبة و الصحابة
  • Sunni scholar of Al Ahzhar Univeristy, Shaikh Mahmmud Abu Rayah’s Lights on Muhammadian Sunnaاضواء على السنة المحمدية
  • Renowned professor of Arabic literature of Ain Sham University of Cairo Hamid Hanafi Dawad in two works, A glances into the celebrated booksنظرات الى الكتب الخالدة and With Ahmad Amin مع احمد امين.
  • Tyrant الطاغية by the Sunni writer Imam Abd Al Fatah Imam who is director of the Philosophy Department in Kuwait University ,
  • Egyptian Sunni Islamist Muhammad Amarah’s chapter The social changes in the reign of Uthman, in Social thought of Ali b. Abi Talib.الفكر الاجتماع عند علي بن أبي طالب
  • The secular Syrian Sunni author Nabil Fayad’s The day the Camel degenerated from Sakifah)

يوم انحدر الجمل من السقيفة

To name but a few of the works of modern revisionist Sunni scholars.


My recommendation for you pal, is rather than being truly self-assertive without being accustomed to the basic methodological principles of Islamic history in which the chain of narrators plays a fundamental role, and speaking of “historical facts” which at times they sound more like histrionics, you need to go on and study what in Arabic they call ilm Al Rijal(which is the assessment of narrators of hadiths and historical reports) in order to learn about who is saying what and how reliable the narrator is in the eyes of the classical Sunni traditionalists. I know that this does not seem an easy task, but this is the very magnitude and prerequisite of Islamic historiography. If you want we can divide the article into Sunni and Shiite view, that is fine with me. As the Shiite section will be complemented with the views of the most renowned SUNNI traditionalists, eminent Western scholars as well as contemporary well-known Sunni authors from a wide range of spectrum.


Uthman’s reign and its discontent.

As for the reason of the discontent of many prominent Companions INCLUDING A’isha and Talha, I restore to the work of the Wilferd Madelung whose book The Succession to Muhammad is considered a standard reference both in the academia and here in Wikipedia,( note his mastery of both the historical references and detailed critical assessment of chain of narrators for each report based on Sunni references)

And I will start from the question that bewildered you, namely what was wrong with Uthman, Madelung explains that:

(The Succession to Muhammad pp 87-88)

As for his role and the governors he appointed, Madelung observes that:


(The Succession to Muhammad pp 81, 86-87)

On some of those companions who early showed their oppositions to his conduct, Madelung states that:

( The Succession to Muhammad pp93-94)

Talha

Now coming to the really juicy part, which seems to go in contradiction of your fanciful world of great Companions, on Talha, Madelung articulates that:


((The Succession to Muhammad pp 98-99)


(The Succession to Muhammad p100)

A’isha


(The Succession to Muhammad pp 100-1 )


So much for delivering water to the besieged Uthman,ha???


Having said that I would conclude with what Wilferd Madelung and Bernard Lewis had to say about Uthman’s reign the former draws the following conclusion

(The Succession to Muhammad p 140)

While the latter argues that:

(The Arabs in History, p 59)

Cheers, --Suhrawardi 06:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The new article is here !

i have pasted here my new article, it need correction in spelling, grammer, and style etc. also one should try to make it more neutral.

Mohammad Adil 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Amirul Mu'mineen?

i really dont think the article starts out well by calling him by that title. How was he the commader of believers? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


    • Well, yes he was amir ul momenin perhaps the last amir ul momenin ... as he was the last caliph to enjoy the muslim unity, it was his official title, and its no mater if after hundreds of years of his death shias deny his being amir ul momenin... its here the matter of belives ok, and the title was official, so his name must be writen along with thew title.

Mohammad Adil 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats going on with the info-box of the article ???

The size now, is i think ideal, in most of the articles with info box i found it of this size. Mohammad Adil 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quran and Shia

Some Shia accuse Uthmān of removing some part in the Quran that talk about Ali. I think it should be mention in the section about the Quran in this Article.87.69.77.82 11:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes it should be added but it would be more acurate to add it in the section of "Shia view" as its a purely shia belive.

Mohammad Adil 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslim Scholars missing

Hi there. There's been great detail added about Uthman which is great from the last time I saw the article months ago. However there were at least 3-4 different Non-Muslim Scholars quotations in the 'Non-Muslim Scholars' section. There is only one now. Who deleted them and why? We need all the outside academic recognition about the Caliphs as we can. Bigsaf (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsaf (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the MEMRI link; MEMRI, in my opinion, is a biased and untrustworthy source. The latest link is Shi'a doctrine and I've so labeled it. I didn't want to delete it, as the Shi'a viewpoint should be represented.

More links would be nice. Zora 22:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI just translates material from Arabic media.Nothing can be bias in that.

~~It is biased in its selective translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufisticated (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

age of Caliph Uthman

No one actually knows what his real age was. the traditions that historians recieved were based totaly on the assumptions made by those who saw him in his later age. they mention his age to be 86, 84, 82 and 63.

86 is too old. and 63 is too young for him. it should be noted that before islam he had four wifes. mean he was at his mature age, so 63 is too less for him.

when he accepted islam, his uncle beated him, and this indicate that he wasn't too old that time or no one will beat a man in mid 30s !!!

he probably was, when he accepted islam, between 25-30 years of age. thus was supposedly born between 581-586 A.D so he was between 70-75 years old when he died. and if you see a man in mid 70s he might look more old if he wasn't a strong "wrestler" type man in his youth,Uthman wasn't a strong man, nor he was a soldier, he was a merchant.

these are still assumptions.



views needed.


regards.


Mohammad Adil (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assassination - Burial - section is unclear

The "Burial" sub-section, under the "Assassination" section is unclear. It states that he was buried in a nearby Jewish cemetery, yet shows a picture of Jannat ul-Baqi stating that he was buried there. The article on Jannat ul-Baqi also states that he was buried there. It's an important difference which needs to be clarified and referenced.--Buyoof (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


"Islamic coins"?

In 651, the first Islamic coins were struck during the caliphate of Uthman, these were the Persian dirhams that had an image of the Persian emperor Yazdgerd III with the addition of the Arabic sentence Bismillah (بسم الله) (in the name of Allah). However the first original minting of the Islamic dirham was done in 695 during Umayyad period.

With all due respect, what is "Islamic" about these coins? They depict on the obverse a Persian king, and on the reverse a fire-altar with two priests. Both of these symbols - especially the latter - clearly belong to another religion, the Zoroastrism of the Sassanid Empire, a religion which is not even Abrahamitic and considered as pagan by Moslems. The inscription in Arabic "in the name of Allah" is actually not Moslem per se as "Allah" is of course the generic Arabic word for god, used for instance also by Christian Arabs. The god of the Qur'an has AFAIK never been associated with the fire-altar.

These coins were issued forty years after Uthman allegedly converted to Islam; if they can be associated with his rule they say a great deal about his religious attitudes. What more, such coins are contemporary evidence about Uthman's policies, unlike the literary sources, which AFAIK are usually later than Uthman's life. Apparently he thought it suitable that the Arab soldiers of his army were paid with coins depicting a Sassanid king and with a Zoroastric priest and altar on the reverse.

This certainly puts the question mark on the origin of the so-called "rigorous Uthmanic tradition" of aniconism. If Uthman was such a devout Moslem and aniconist as the (Islamic) sources have portrayed him as, why didn't he think these coins were blasphemous as they depict not only persons but pagan rites?

In the very least, I think that the coins should be renamed "Caliphate coins" or "Arabic coins". Sponsianus (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uthman Ibn Affan → Uthman ibn Affan — Given that the current article uses lower-case "ibn" throughout, I think the page title ought to be lower-cased as well. Does anyone know a reason to keep "Ibn" capitalized here? — Quuxplusone (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why my editing was rolled back?

Yesterday I added something under "Reign As Khalifah", as regards the appointment of "Waleed Ibn Uqbah", allowing "Marwan Ibn Hakam" to enter madina, and role of Marwan in problems that Hazrat Uthman faced in his last days. But RavShimon rolled it back immediately. Please let me know the reasons or issues so that I may remove them and add the stuff again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.234.226 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fitna

I think the fitna and the controversy surrounding it, entitles that particular topic to a new page. I will start it soon. It is worth remembering that the revolt against Uthman has had many repurcussions including what Sunni Muslims would describe as the birth of Shi'a Islam. (see Abdullah ibn Saba) And Shi'a Muslims beleive in an plot against Uthman that involves some of the most notable sahabah.

ghshsj dyjued ghh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.156.165 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uthman -> Othman

All articles on Wikipedia spell his name as "Uthman" and that is the correct transliteration. Please discuss reasons for moving it to Othman. → AA (talk) — 18:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some mistakes

The article contains some mistakes: "The most prominent of these were Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who despite being an Umayyad like Uthman, was raised in Ali's house, and Ammar ibn Yasir, who supported the right of Ali to become caliph because of his close relationship with Muhammad. The campaign was also supported by some companions who had a personal grievance with Uthman, like ‘Amr ibn al-’As, also an Ummayad, who was stripped of the governorship of Egypt by Uthman"

Neither Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, nor ‘Amr ibn al-’As were Ummayyad.

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was from Banu Taym branch of the Quraysh tribe (see Abu Bakr article) ‘Amr ibn al-’As belonged to the Banu Sahm clan of the Quraysh tribe (see ‘Amr ibn al-’As article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.247.2 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Rashidun Empire

"most notably as the third Caliph of the Rashidun Empire, Prophet's son-in-law and the compilation of the Qur'an."

this should be changed to rashidun caliphate, there is no such thing as a rashidun empire and if so it only lasted 30 years, hardly an empire.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction of a historical figure must reflect a summery of all aspects of his/her whole life. In case of Uthman, It's important to report his origin, his role in during around 17 years companionship of Muhammad, after Muhamad's death and during his Caliphate in addition with how he baceme Caliphate, what he did during that and main occasions, what caused general dissatisfaction against him and its aftermath including how and why he was killed. --Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a bogus argument. You are simply presenting views compiled from "neutral" sources that support your Shia views and inserting them into the lede. The lede should state the significance of the subject of an article, not present the views of one particular scholar which contradict the remainder of the article. Your deceptive use of Wikipedia policy to reinforce your promotion of views reflecting a very specific POV is rather obvious.Supertouch (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You present your quotes from Brodley as though they are objective when they have just been cut and pasted from [1] which is clearly a pro-Shia website. When you failed to provide page numbers to your references I assumed that this is what you were doing. Are you still going to claim your material is from neutral sources?Supertouch (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Uthman and Textual Variants

Uthman standardized the Quran, collecting seven different versions of the text, choosing one, thereby eliminating textual variants. There was not merely a tribal dialectic difference among the versions, there were real variants in the messages of the texts. Why is this information not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.160.2 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Uthman, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uthman ibn Affan → Uthman – See above. I was just asked to implement the move but when I came here saw that it's been opposed. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. —innotata 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been a discussion on my talk page about moving this article to just Uthman, which is now a redirect. A Google books search shows this as more common than Uthman ibn Affan, so I don't see it as controversial, but wanted to mention it here before doing it. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the discussion referred to is archived at User talk:Dougweller/Archive 32#Uthman.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

He is known to the living world by the name of Uthman ibn Affan and this is his real name. He is coined by the muslim world and its scholars for centuries by Uthman ibn Affan. So it is not appropriate to change the title of this article. Owais khursheed (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Uthman ibn Affan is clear and to the point. The proposed change has no benefit. Many other people are called Uthman - see Uthman (name).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: Just as there are many people named Muhammad, and I have a friend who was christened Jesus in South America where he tells me this is not uncommon (he calls himself Joshua in Australia). The question is, are these many other people famous enough (taken together) to call into doubt the claim that this Caliph is the primary meaning of the name? Evidence has been presented above that this is the primary meaning. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Of course this proposed change has benefit. In English Wikipedia, people's articles are listed under their most common names. And about Uthman, just "Uthman" is common not "Uthman ibn Affan". Many other people are also called Aisha, Ali or Umar but as you see their articles' titles are their most common names which are their first names. Keivan.fTalk 09:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Battle of Nakhla not relevant to topic

I have removed the paragraph on the Battle of Nakhla, as the information about Uthman's brother being a captive in this event was inaccurate and not supported by sources.

On 4 October 2014 user:Misconceptions2 added the 'Battle' section.

On 5 October 2014 user:Misconceptions2 deleted the paragraph about Nakhla with explanation 'fixed mistake'.

On 5 October 2014 user:Doug Weller undid the deletion with explanation "not an acceptable reason for deleting sourced text, take it to the talk page"


The source cited for the paragraph about Uthman's brother being captured at this event [1] does not actually contain any data about Nakhla, Uthman, or his brother. The author himself deleted the paragraph a day after adding it. The information presented is not supported by any other data I can find, and wouldn't even make sense - it would imply that the attacking Muslims captured one of their own people, rather than members of the caravan.

I do not believe deletion of this paragraph should be controversial, but please let me know if I am wrong. Zeeteepee (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zeeteepee: Sure, go ahead. The editor didn't reply to my warning about removing it, so I assumed the removal was a bad removal. The editor got blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman, Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz' 2 (Part 2): Al-Baqarah 142 to Al-Baqarah 252 2nd Edition, p. 139, MSA Publication Limited, 2009, ISBN 1861796765. (online)

Nothing in the article on the compilation of the Quran allegedly by Uthman?

Nothing in the article on the compilation of the Quran allegedly by Uthman? Should be added. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important event from his life.
I wonder if a previous edition of the article included this but someone deleted it?
The details of this event are controversial, and someone may have decided that it was easier to exclude it than to produce a balanced summary of the situation.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
If we have a reliable source then we should include, but just mention that it is controversial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Uthman's compilation of Quran is one of the most important events of his reign. He is even called Collector of Quran(جامع القرآن) by majority Muslims and venerated for this. That must be added. Moreover I am very disappointed to read the article on Uthman. The article seemed a chargesheet against him. At a place it is written that he was not prominent in reign of Mohammed. It is clearly wrong. There are many traditions and Ahadiths in Sunni sources about his interactions and praises by Mohammed. In fact it is well-known fact among the Muslims that he was among the best-10 of Muslims in Medinah. No mention of his generosity, no mention of his tender behavior. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and neutrality is not ignoring all positive traits of somebody mentioning only negative traits. Umerfaruk666 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Improvements

i will improve the articles gradually. hope the article ranks could be improved

Uthman compilation of Quran is one of the most important events of his reign. He is even called Collector of Quran(جامع القرآن) by majority Muslims and venerated for this. That must be added. Moreover I am very disappointed to read the article on Uthman. The article seemed a chargesheet against him. At a place it is written that he was not prominent in reign of Mohammed. It is clearly wrong. There are many traditions and Ahadiths in Sunni sources about his interactions and praises by Mohammed. In fact it is well-known fact among the Muslims that he was among the best-10 of Muslims in Medinah. No mention of his generosity, no mention of his tender behavior. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and neutrality is not ignoring all positive traits of somebody mentioning only negative traits. Umerfaruk666 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding neutrality tag to the Character section

Uthma's character is disputed among Muslim sects but this section draws primarily from Dar us Salaam publication, Riyadh, a Sunni Salafi wahhabi publication. The section therefore is not neutral but pov. Added tag. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NEUTRALSOURCE? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it says sources can be reliable but non-neutral. But what's your point? I didn't question reliability of the section but its neutrality according to one of the key content policies, WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, this section is still ridiculously hagiographic. Ashmoo (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Dar us Salaam are very reputable valid sources that are in agreement with other Islamic historians, calling something "salafi wahhabi" doesn't mean anything and those are just random buzzwords, as people who aren't Wahhabi also publish their works using this publisher 74.90.234.208 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Date of Death

@Kansas Bear:, He was killed in the middle of the days of Tashreeq, because it was reported by Abu 'Uthman al-Nahdi, a contemporary of the incident. As for other sayings, none of them are authentic, and all the chain of narrators that Ulma brought are weak, and some of them were issued by those who did not contemporary with the incident.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre:.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
When faced with what a primary source states and what a university source states, I would side with the university source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: university researched book.— Hammad (Talk!) 06:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
And not in English. We have two university sources in English, why do they need to be removed?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: Because date of death is not authentic. As researched by Islamic University of Madinah scholar.— Hammad (Talk!) 06:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I am unconvinced.
Wilferd Madelung, Madelung was Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford from 1978 to 1998. He has written extensively on the early history of Islam, as well as on Islamic sects such as the Shi'a and the Ismailis.
R. Stephen Humphreys, also teaches history of Islam.
It would appear that both of these sources are reliable for this article.
If you want to add a differing date referenced by your source, I see no problem with that, however I do not see a reason to remove the current two university sources.
Example: "17 June 656 (aged 76–77)(12<your reference>/18<the two university sources in English> Dhu al-Hijjah 35 AH)".
Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear:, I agreed, can you add other date?— Hammad (Talk!) 07:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@AaqibAnjum:— Hammad (Talk!) 02:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Short description

WP:SDSHORT says that a Short description should be short, but the current SD is far too long. WP:SDNOTDEF says that a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject. Any thoughts on how best to reduce the Short description while still being correct? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Burning the Korans

Why is it not mentioned that he ordered the burning of all Koran versions, except for one? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The burning as such was once mentioned in the article, but was removed here (in the future, you can look for this yourself if you like with the "Find addition/removal" tool one finds on every article history page). However, the removal appears to have been warranted, since it was unsourced (the Madelung ref does not support this, and I haven't been able to check the Bodley ref, but it's probably not in there, and that's a really bad source anyway).
Currently our article mentions that "other versions are believed to have been destroyed", with a bunch of (bad) refs, so it's actually in there. To be honest I have some doubts whether expert scholars regard the reports about this to be historically credible. Please feel free to look for a good source and add it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

should be careful for vandalism attempt such like this Ahendra (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uthman/Archive_1&oldid=1138504986"