We find him on p. 106 describing those who sided with `Othman in the shara and who swore the oath of allegiance to him. On the same page, he mentions what indicates that they are not hypocrites but pious believers. Says he, “They abandoned `Othman when they witnessed his oppression and annihilation of the sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) and how he used to consult, regarding the affairs of the Muslims, with people such [Jews] as Ka`b al-Ahbar, and how he distributed the Muslims’ wealth to the descendants of Marwan. So, these three individuals started enticing the Muslims to kill `Othman.” He means by these three individuals Talhah, Sa`d ibn Aba Waqqas and `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. We wish he had added the reasons why they did so. Those reasons were: They did not find with `Othman the fulfillment of what they had preconditioned to him, that is, that they would always share in his decision-making process. He preferred his relatives over everyone else. Everyone knows that Talhah fought Ali (A.S.) because he did not respond to his ambitious demands. Sa`d ibn Aba Waqqas took a similar stand towards Ali (A.S.) for the same reason.

 

SECOND: Who “Elected” `Othman?

On p. 106, we find him saying, “`Othman did not get to rule except through a recommendation from `Omer and the election of only three hypocrites who were: Talhah, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas and `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf.” Yet he is in doubt about these three, too, saying on p. 61, “He was elected by three, or by two of them.” `Omer did not recommend `Othman to be his successor as the caliph, as the writer claims.

Also, his statement saying that he (`Othman) came to rule through the recommendation of `Omer and the election of three (other men) is neither harmonious nor balanced except if he wants to say that `Omer over-rode the shara so as to make the “election” of `Othman inevitable, considering doing that as recommending him to be the caliph.