CHAPTER 1
Caliph Uthman bin Affan
(644-656 C.E.) (23 AH-35 AH)
The Ibadhis are sometimes criticized for finding faults in Caliph Uthman
for his handling of the administration. Therefore it would be wise to trace the
historical events from the time of his rule, for the first signs of Islamic
disunity began to appear in his Caliphate. Seyyidna Uthman was one of the close
Companions (Sahabas) of the Holy Prophet and the third Caliph who ruled from
the year 23 to 35 AH (644-656 C.E). He had married the two daughters of the
Prophet (Peace be upon him), first Ruqayya and after her death Umm Kulthum, for
which he was known as Dhu-Nurain (the possessor of two lights).
Caliph Uthman bin Affan was a wealthy merchant who always made generous
contributions for the cause of Islam whenever the need arose. But the most
important contribution he made was the commissioning of the Companion Zeid bin
Thabit and other Sahabas to produce an authentic version of the Qur’an in the
standard Arabic dialect prevailing in Mecca at the time of revelation. As a
result of this sacred assignment, the final version of the Qur’an was completed
and all previous copies were destroyed. If it was not for this noble effort on
his part, there would have been different versions of the Holy Book and
sectarian differences would have multiplied, if not intensified.
But Seyyidna Uthman, in spite of his outstanding achievements, was after
all a human being, and like all other human beings, he was prone to make
mistakes, a simple truth, which some Islamic scholars tend to ignore or forget.
And so in his administration of the Islamic state, there were a number of
instances of public corruption (misuse of public funds) and nepotism
(distribution of public offices to relatives and friends); in other words high
positions of state were awarded not on the basis of merit but through kinship
and friendship (القرابة
والصداقة).
At this juncture it would be well to quote from Prof. Masud-ul-Hassan of
Pakistan in his book, The History of Islam (Vol. 1 pp. 125-126), about the
situation: -
“By 652 C.E. disaffection mounted very high
among the people. Hadhrat Uthman commissioned his agents to visit Kufa, Basra,
Damascus and Egypt, and report about the genuineness of the complaints against the administration. The agents deputed to Basra, Kufa, and Damascus
reported that the complaints were frivolous and did not merit any
consideration. The agent deputed to Egypt... came to hold the view that the complaints
were genuine, namely:
(1) That the distinguished Companions (Sahabas) had been removed from high offices
and in their places inexperienced young men belonging to the Umayyad clan and
closely related to Caliph Uthman had been appointed;
(2) That the money from the Bait-ul-Mal had been misused, and his favorites
had been awarded large amounts out of public funds… … ... … … .
(3) That copies of the Holy Qur'an had been burnt which
(3)was sacrilege;
(4) That in the matter of prayers on the occasion of the pilgrimage certain innovations
had been introduced which carried no religious sanction;
(5) That his uncle Hakam bin Al Aas who had been exiled by the Holy Prophet
had been recalled by him (Uthman) to Medina and honoured;
(6) Hadharat Abu Dhar Ghifari, an eminent companion who was a vehement
critic of Othman’s financial administration was banished to a remote village in
the interior of Hejaz where he spent the rest of his life in prayers and
meditations.”
Professor Masud-ul-Hassan goes on: -
“Unfortunately things were allowed to drift
and the situation steadily deteriorated. The rebels from various parts of the
country swarmed Medina. Hadhrat Uthman was besieged in his house. The Umayyads
betrayed the cause of Hadhrat Uthman and fled to Syria. On 17th June,656 CE, the besiegers scaled the walls, entered
the room where Hadhrat Uthman was reading the Qur’an. Hadhrat Uthman was
martyred by his own men who professed to be Muslims.”
But Jalalu Din Assuyuti, the author of تاريخ الخلفاء
(The History of the Caliphs 2nd Edition p.144) gives the following
detailed version of the tragedy: -
وجاء علي إلى إمرأة عثمان فقال لها من قتل عثمان؟
قالت لا أدري, دخل عليه رجلان لا أعرفهما ومعهما محمد بن أبي بكرو وأخبرت
عليا والناس بما صنع محمد, فدعا علي محمدا فسأله عما ذكرت إمرأة عثمان؟
فقال محمد: لم تكذب, قد دخلت عليه وأنا أريد
قتله فذكرني أبي فقمت عنه وأنا تائب إلى الله تعالى, والله ما قتلته ولا أمسكته
فقالت إمرأته صدق ولكنه أدخلهما.
“(Seyyidna)
Ali came to the wife of (Caliph) Uthman and asked her, Who killed Uthman?,
She said, I do not know, two men entered upon him with Muhammad bin Abu
Bakr, I do not know them. She informed Ali and the people what Muhammad had
done. Ali called Muhammad and asked him about what Uthman‘s wife had mentioned.
Muhammad said, she is not lying, I have by Allah entered upon him (Uthman)
and I wanted to kill him. But he reminded me of my father and so I left him and
I now turn to Allah in repentance. By Allah, I did not kill him nor seize him. Uthman’s wife said, he speaks the truth,
but he brought both of them inside. (Translation by the author).
The administration of Caliph Uthman has
engendered a great deal of comments and controversy and Jalalu Din Assuyuti has
conveyed to us the following reports in his book, The History of the Caliphs
(pp.139, 141): -
وفي سنة خمس وعشرين عزل عثمان سعدا عن الكوفة, وولى الوليد بن عقبة بن أبي
معيط وهو صحابي أخو عثمان لأمه وذلك أول ما نقم عليه, لأنه أثر أقاربه بالولايات,
وحكى أن الوليد صلى بهم الصبح أربعا وهو سكران, ثم ألتفت إليهم فقال أزيدكم؟
“And
in the year 25 H, Uthman discharged Sa’ad from (the governorship of) Kufa
and appointed Al Waleed bin Uqba bin Abi Mu’iit who was a Companion and maternal
brother of Uthman. And that was the first complaint against him because he
favoured his relatives in the administration of districts. And it is reported
that Al Waleed led their morning prayers with four (prostrations) while he was
drunk, then turned to them and said, shall I lead you some more (rakaat)?” (Translation
by the Author)
وفي سنة خمس وثلاثين كان مقتل عثمان.
وقال الزهري: ولي عثمان للخلافة اثنتي عشر سنة يعمل ستة سنين لا ينقم الناس
عليه شيئا, ثم توانى في أمرهم وأستعمل أقرباءه وأهل بيته في الستة الأواخر, وكتب
لمروان بخمس أفريقية, وأعطى أقرباءه وأهل بيته المال, وتأول في ذلك الصلة التي أمر
الله بها, وقال: إن أبا بكر وعمر تركا من ذلك ما هو لهما, وإني أخذته فقسمته في
أقربائي, فأنكر الناس عليه ذلك, أخرجه إبن سعد.
"And in the 35th year, Uthman was
assassinated. Azzuhairy said, Uthman took charge of
the Caliphate for twelve years. For (the first) six years there was no complaint
against him … ... ... He then neglected them in their affairs and employed his
relatives and his household in the last six years. He allotted one-fifth of the
African (booty) to Marwan, and gave wealth to his relatives and members of his
household, and attributed that to what Allah has ordered (given) as gift. And
(Uthman) said, Abu Bakr and Umar renounced what was their entitlement, while I
have taken it and divided it up among my relatives. The people censured him for that (it was
stated by Ibn Sa’ad)”. (Translation
by the Author)
The above accounts were presented by non-Ibadhi
scholars on the situation prior to the murder of Caliph Uthman. Let us now see
what an Ibadhi scholar, Dr. Amr Khalifa Ennami of Libya has written in his
book, Studies in Ibadhism (pp.l5l-152):
“Ibadhi authorities reported five detergent
(?) (divergent) attitudes held by the Companions (Sahabas) concerning the
question of Uthman: -
a)
Those who held that Uthman deserved to be
killed by Muslims for his innovations. The Muslims tried for six years to make
him change them, and keep the path of his predecessors or resign. When he refused
to agree with them they killed him. Among this group were the Companions
Abdullah bin Masud, Ammar bin Yasir, Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, Abdul Rahman bin Awf,
Amr bin Muhammad bin Maslamah, and Zaid bin Thabit and most of the Ansaris.
b)
Those who held that the question of civil
war (fitna) was a matter of personal judgment (Ijtihad). Some even say that both
sides were correct. This later opinion is ascribed to Ali bin Abi Talib.
c)
Those who say that Uthman had repented for
his innovations, and that he was killed after he had repented, therefore his
opponents were wrong. This was the opinion of the Companions Talha, Al- Zubair and A’isha.
d)
Those who reserved their opinion on the
civil war and refused to take part in it. . .Among those were Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas,
Abdullah bin Umar, Muhammad bin Maslamah and others.
e)
Finally, the attitude of Ma’awiya and Amr
bin Al’As who held that Uthman was right all the way and claimed revenge for
his death”.
It is important to bear in mind that at the time of the murder of Caliph
Uthman there were no Khawarij. They were simply all Muslims. The Ibadhi scholar
Dr. Amr K. Ennami has merely summarized the position of different Companions
who were contemporaries of the event. Ibadhi scholars might have later adopted
the opinions of the first group of Sahabas who held strong views against
Uthman’s administration. They did not form an independent opinion of their own
on the issue but merely agreed with the stand taken by the first group of Companions.
In Arab tradition it is considered improper to criticize another person
especially if that person is a ruler considered infallible. Their personal
relationships are generally governed by ‘mujamala’ or flattery, which in other
cultures is considered hypocrisy. So when the so-called Khawarij publicly
voiced criticisms against Caliph Uthman previously expressed by a group of
Companions privately, they were immediately branded heretics.
Some Muslim scholars consider it heresy to criticize any of the four rightly
guided Caliphs or even some of the Sahabas. That was understandable up to about
fifty years back when people were expected to render blind obedience to rulers.
But today rulers themselves, because of the complexity of modern
administration, have established parliaments or consultative councils in which
representatives of the people sit together with Government officials to
consider, among other things, any new policies or measures to be introduced;
and if the representatives find faults in them, it is their duty to draw them to
the attention of the authorities. Constructive criticism is something to be
welcome and acceptable today in modem administration because only through such
cooperation can we avoid confrontation and repetition of the same mistakes. It
is something of a surprise that Islamic scholars of some other denominations
should censure Ibadhis for endorsing the criticisms levelled by some Companions
against Uthman’s administration. Since the first four Caliphs were regarded infallible,
public corruption and nepotism worsened during the administration of Umayyad
and Abbasid dynasties, and in many Muslim countries today it is as rampant as
it was during the last six years of Uthman’s rule because Muslims have failed
to lean from the lessons of history.
In general the issue of
the Caliphate of Uthman is a historical, though a controversial one but should
not be the cause of discord in the Muslim community today. It is irrelevant
because none of the existing sects took part in it. But enemies of Islamic
unity keep recalling it repeatedly and putting the blame on the Ibadhis as if
they were the ones who killed him. The Ibadhis recognize the Caliphate of Uthman
and have no dispute with him in the matter of religion. In fact the collection
of Hadiths by Imam Rabi’ which the lbadhis rely on has recorded several
traditions narrated by Uthman and here are some examples: -
الحديث رقم 46 من مسند الربيع, قال عثمان: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم يقول: (سيكون من بعدي أمراء يقرؤون ويعملون ما تنكرون وليس لأولئكم طاعة)
Uthman said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: -
There will come after me rulers who read as you read and do what you
disapprove; they do not deserve obedience.
***
الحديث رقم 101 من مسند الربيع, قال عثمان بن
عفان: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: (ما من أمرئ يتوضأ فيحسن وضوءه
لصلاته ثم يصليها إلا غفر الله له ما بينها وبين الصلاة الأخرى حتى يصليها)
Hadith No. 101
Uthman bin Affan Said: “I heard the Prophet (Peace be upon him) saying: -
‘No person who has taken ablution well for
his prayers, then says his prayers but Allah forgives (his sins) till he performs
the next prayers”
***
الحديث رقم 519 من مسند الربيع, قال عثمان بن عفان: سمعت رسول الله صلى
الله عليه وسلم: (لا ينكح المحرم ولا ينكح ولا يخطب).
Hadith No.5 19
Uthman bin Affan said:- “The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said,
‘A pilgrim in ritual consecration shall not
get married nor shall he give in marriage, nor shall he propose marriage”
The acceptance by Ibadhi scholars of the traditions narrated by Uthman
bin Affan has been explained by Dr. Amr K. Ennami in his book, ‘Studies in Ibadhism
(p.256) as follows:-
“Needless to say this “bara-ah” (dissociation) of the Ibadhis from such Companions
concerned only their political activities and not their knowledge of religion. Ibadhi jurists as is evident from the
Ibadhi sources presenting legal and theological opinions from Ali bin Abi Talib,
Uthrnan bin Affan and others accept their legal opinions. Even Muawiyah, of
whom the Ibadhis strongly disapprove, was one of the persons from whom Jabir
bin
Zaid narrated Traditions of the Holy Prophet”.
In other words the so-called Khawarij dissociated themselves from Uthman,
Ali and Muawiyah not on religious but on political grounds. But the Islamic community
is misled to believe that the Khawarij are apostates who have broken away from
the mainstream of Islam. When we come to Seyyidna Ali we will also quote the
Traditions transmitted through him and recognized by the Ibadhis. Most of these
traditions have been confirmed by later collectors of Hadiths.
>>>>>> (To be Continued)
>>>>>> (To be Continued)
Reference:
Ibadhism,
The Cinderella of Islam, by Soud H. Al Ma'awaly, pg: 13-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment