Nasb-and-the-Nawasib

His Absence in the Pledge of Riḍwān
Deeming his absence in the pledge a demerit is astonishing when considering
that the pledge took place because of him. Nabī H sent him to negotiate
with the polytheists of Makkah and upon his delay rumours abounded that he
was killed. At that time Nabī H took the allegiance of the people to fight
the people of Makkah and himself pledged allegiance on behalf of ʿUthmān I,
out of precaution that he might be alive. So on what legitimate basis can he be
criticised? 1
Demarcating a Sanctuary
He did not demarcate the sanctuary for his personal interests and gains, owing
to which criticising him would be legitimate. Rather he demarcated it for the
camels of charity specifically. In addition, this was not his initiative, rather it was
previously done by ʿUmar I. The only difference is that he increased the area
of the sanctuary over that which ʿUmar I had increased due to the camels of
charity increasing owing to the immense booty Allah E had granted the
Muslims during his era.
If criticising ʿUthmān I is allowed on this basis then criticising ʿUmar I
should also be allowed, but because ʿUmar I was not criticised it would be
invalid to criticise ʿUthmān I. 2
Compiling the Qurʾān
This compilation materialised after Ḥuzayfah I came to him seeking help
saying:
أدرك هذه المة قبل أن يختلفوا في الكتاب اختالف اليهود والنصارى في الكتب
1 Fitnah Maqtal ʿUthmān 1/61.
2 Maqtal al-Shahīd ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān p. 194; Fitnah Maqtal ʿUthmān 1/70.
133