Ibadhism, The Cinderella of Islam (Chapter1)

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 17^th 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 2^nd 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 35^th 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)

Reference:

Ibadhism, The Cinderella of Islam, by Soud H. Al Ma'awaly, pg: 13-20.