Uthman ibn affan The third caliph of Islam
Just before his death, Umar called Abu
Talha Ansari, and said to him:“God has given honor to Islam through
you (the Ansar), and now you take your 50 armed men to watch the members of the
electoral committee, and do not let them disperse without choosing a khalifa
which they must do within three days.”
The electors began their parleys in the
house of Miswar bin Makhrama – the nephew of Abdur Rahman bin Auf. Abu Talha
Ansari began his three-day long vigil. Amr bin Aas and Mughira bin Shaaba, also
appeared at the door of the house of Miswar, eager to take part in the proceedings
of the committee but the pickets of Abu Talha did not let them enter.
Because of the “special powers” Umar had
given him, Abdur Rahman bin Auf considered himself the key figure of the
electoral committee. In a size-up of the situation, he gathered that no one of
the other five candidates was willing to withdraw his name from the contest,
and everyone was determined to press his claim vigorously. He, therefore,
quietly developed a strategy of his own, and then told the committee that he
would withdraw his name from the list of candidates if it would, in return,
allow him to act as chairman and coordinator of its meeting(s).
Other members agreed but Ali hesitated
to give Abdur Rahman any extra powers. When others insisted that he too should
agree, he said to him:
“I shall acknowledge you as chairman of
the electoral committee if you give a pledge that you will not be a slave to
your own lusts, and that your decision will be taken only to win the pleasure
of God and His Messenger.”
Abdur Rahman readily gave his pledge for
doing so, and thus became the chairman of the committee. By withdrawing his
candidacy, he won extra leverage with the other candidates, and cast himself in
the role of a “king-maker.”
Abdur Rahman held a series of meetings
with other candidates in an attempt to find a satisfactory solution of the
problem but his efforts bore no fruit. The discussions of the other candidates
during the first two days also ended in stalemate.
On the third and the last day, Abdur
Rahman paid a visit to each member of the committee in his own house. In these
private meetings, he asked each candidate whom he would like to see as khalifa
if he himself were not elected. The answer was Uthman or Ali. This meant that
the choice was narrowed down to these two men, one of whom had to become
khalifa, but which one?
That evening, Abdur Rahman, the
king-maker, called on his old friend, Amr bin Aas, explained to him his
predicament, and added:
“I have been so perplexed in this matter
that I have known no rest for three days. Today is the last day, and I still
have found no answer to our problem. What is troubling me is the fear lest Ali
becomes the caliph. And before Umar died, I gathered from his manner and
attitude that he too was haunted by the same fear.”
Amr bin Aas was much more skillful than
Abdur Rahman or anyone else at the kind of game the latter was trying to play.
He said: “I know the move that will checkmate Ali.” He then explained the move
to Abdur Rahman. The latter welcomed the bright idea and felt happy and confident
that he would preclude Ali from becoming the caliph.
On the following morning, the Muslims
assembled in the Mosque of the Prophet. It was a momentous day in their lives
when they would know who their future sovereign was going to be. Presently the
king-maker and other members of the electoral committee also arrived and took
their seats. After a brief pause the king-maker rose. He made an announcement
of the purpose of the gathering, underscored its importance, and called upon
the Muslims to abide by the decision of the electoral committee which Umar had
appointed.
The air was charged with tension, and
every man was keyed up, ready as if to snap any moment. Abdur Rahman bin Auf,
the king-maker, turned toward Ali, held his hand, and posed to him the following
question:
“If we give you charge of the government
of the Muslims, and put you in authority over their affairs, do you solemnly
promise to act according to the Book of God, the Sunna of His Apostle, and
the precedents of Abu Bakr and Umar?”
(The proviso to act according to the
precedents of Abu Bakr and Umar was not stipulated by Umar himself. It was the
“move” which Amr bin Aas had suggested to Abdur Rahman bin Auf. He knew that
Ali would not accept it.)
Ali replied to the king-maker as follows:
“I shall act according to the Book of
God, and the Sunna of His Apostle. As for following the precedents of Abu Bakr
and Umar, I have a judgment of my own, and I am going to use it.”
Ali knew just what would happen next.
The king-maker let his hand fall. He
then turned to Uthman, and repeated the same question to him. Uthman
immediately agreed. Thereupon the king-maker himself became the first to give
him his pledge of loyalty. He congratulated him on becoming the new khalifa,
and signaled the others to give him their pledge of loyalty.
The khalifa had been chosen. The new
khalifa of the Muslims was Uthman bin Affan.
Ali let caliphate slip from his hand but
he did not compromise with a principle. He did not consider Abu Bakr and Umar
lawful successors of Muhammad, and he refused to imitate them in anything.
R. V. C. Bodley
The six counselors appointed by Omar met
as soon as the funeral was over. The caliphate was first offered to Ali with
the condition that he govern according to the Koran, the traditions of
Mohammed, and the regulations established by Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali accepted
the first two conditions, and refused the third. The offer was, accordingly,
withdrawn and Othman was approached with the same terms. Being less honest than
Ali, he accepted them without demur.” (The Messenger – the
Life of Mohammed, New York, 1946)
Abdur Rahman bin Auf knew that no one
among the companions had more knowledge of the Book of God, or was more
attached to His Apostle than Ali. But when he invoked the Qur’an and the Sunna
of the Apostle, in his offer of caliphate to the candidates, he was only
playing for the “gallery.”
His stipulation that Ali should act as
per the commandments of Qur’an and should follow the Sunna of Muhammad, was
tactical rather than philosophical; more cosmetic than basic. His real interest
was in a commitment by Ali to follow the precedents of Abu Bakr and Umar, both
of whom had made it possible for him and many others, to become rich and
powerful.
Capitalism, that “hideous pagan idol” of
the Times of Ignorance, and the other idols that the Quraysh worshipped in
Makkah, had been given a burial by Muhammad Mustafa, the Messenger of God. But
after his death, the capitalist idol was exhumed, and was “reinstated” in
Medina.
The capitalist system rapidly struck
roots in the Muslim society, and they went so deep that it became impossible to
eradicate them. After the death of Muhammad Mustafa, the capitalist system went
on growing stronger and stronger.
All members of the panel appointed by
Umar to select a khalifa, were capitalists except Ali. They knew that if Ali
took charge of the government, he would strike the death blow to the capitalist
system; would compel the capitalists to disgorge all the pelf they had already
devoured, and would revive the pristine simplicity and purity of the Islamic
society just as it was in the times of Muhammad Mustafa, the Apostle of God.
The king-maker and the nouveaux riches had no desire to return to those days of
austerity and self-denial.
But even if Umar had not wished to make
Uthman his successor, and even if he had no preference for any candidate, and
even if there had been no collusion between Abdur Rahman, the king-maker, and
Amr bin Aas, Ali still could not become the caliph.
One thing all members of the electoral
committee, and many other Muslims who made up the new aristocracy of the Arabs,
dreaded most was to see a stern, firm and strong person like Ali at the helm of
affairs. They also knew that Ali, inflexible with himself in matters of
principle, would be inflexible with them, and that he would compel the whole
umma to live in obedience to the imperatives of Qur’an.
But Uthman's style, manner, and
performance, on the other hand, had been undeviatingly consistent in being so
banal that they could be depended upon to confer mediocrity upon the khilafat.
His mediocrity was going to be a guarantee that he would not tamper with the
privileges and prerogatives of the electors. Safeguarding their interests,
therefore, was more important for them than safeguarding the interests of
Islam.
The merits of a candidate for the most
important office in Islam did not figure anywhere in the king-maker's
consideration. The truth is that the interests of Islam or the merits of a
candidate were the least important factors in his calculations. His decision
was dictated, not by the interests of Islam, but by his interest in the
maintenance of the status quo. The tug inside the electoral committee,
therefore, encompassed a trial of strength between the capitalist system and
the Islamic socio-economic egalitarianism. Ali did what he could to defend
egalitarianism but the odds were overwhelmingly against him.
Uthman's election as khalifa was a
triumph of capitalism. Umar had conceived the plan of “Shura” (electoral
committee), and he had charged Abdur Rahman bin Auf with the duty of
implementing it. The latter, as chairman of the committee, made it a
condition-precedent that a candidate for khilafat would obey not only the Book
of God and would follow the Sunna of His Messenger, but also, would follow the
regulations of Abu Bakr and Umar. He thus put the deeds of Abu Bakr and Umar at
par with the Book of God and the Sunna of His Apostle.
Ali refused to equate the deeds of Abu
Bakr and Umar with the Book of God and the Sunna of His Messenger. He refused
to follow fallible men who were the political leaders of his time knowing that
his refusal would cost him the throne of the empire of the Muslims. He spurned
at that throne because the price being demanded from him for it, was a
compromise with Truth and Justice. He declared publicly that the precedents of
Abu Bakr and Umar were not acceptable to him. If their precedents were
unacceptable to him, then their caliphate also must have been unacceptable to
him.
This is conclusive proof that he did not
take the oath of allegiance to them. But if Sunnis still insist that Abu Bakr
and Umar obtained the pledge of loyalty from him, then they must have taken it
from him on the point of the bayonet.
Ali could have declared, just as Uthman
did, that he was accepting the king-maker's conditions, and after taking the
reins of power in his hand, he could have ignored them, again, just as Uthman
did. Many politicians consider double-talk and double-cross a normal and
recognized exercise in the game of stagecraft. But Ali did not. For him the
ends did not justify the means. For him the means also had to be just as
honorable and fair as the ends themselves.
Ali said to the king-maker:
“It is not the first time that you have
deprived the heirs and the children of Muhammad, the Apostle of God, of their
rights through treachery. For this you are answerable to God. But for me, it is
better to put my trust in God Who alone is Just, Fair and Merciful.”
The king-maker made some attempt at
window-dressing for his role in the same manner as Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah had
done after Abu Bakr's election in Saqifa but it was not long before he was
cursing himself for his chicanery and duplicity in a matter upon which the
future of Islam itself had depended.
Abdur Rahman bin Auf, the husband of
Uthman's sister, lived long enough to see the fruits of his labors at
kingmaking. He saw graft spreading its tentacles like an octopus over the
empire of the Muslims, and he was “shocked” so much by the nepotism and the
incompetence of the khalifa he had chosen that he declared that he would not
talk with him (there was little else he could do then).
Sometime later, when he lay dying,
Uthman came to see him but he did not acknowledge his greetings and turned his
face toward the wall. He died in this state, without exchanging a word with the
khalifa. Dr. Taha Husain of Egypt says in his book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra (the
Great Upheaval) that Abdur Rahman bin Auf died full of shame and remorse at
what he had done as chairman of Umar's electoral committee.
Ammar ibn Yasir, the companion and the
beloved of Muhammad Mustafa, reproached Abdur Rahman and his cronies, saying:
“You have usurped the rights of the
family of your Prophet, not once but repeatedly, and you have bestowed them
upon people who are most unworthy.”
When Uthman became khalifa, the
happiness of the Banu Umayya knew no limits. Life for them, they knew, would be
all cream and peaches thenceforth, and it was. Their leader, Abu Sufyan, now
90-years old and blind, came to congratulate the new khalifa, and gave him the
following advice:
“It is after a long time that khilafat
has come to us. Now kick it around like a ball, and use it to strengthen Banu
Umayya. This new power which you now have in your hands, is everything. It is
the only reality. Nothing else is real or important. Heaven and hell are
nothing.”
Abu Sufyan's “advice” to Uthman was the
standard reflex to Islam of the Banu Umayya, and it was to remain unchanged
throughout the century of their political domination except in the three and
half years of the khilafat of Umar bin Abdul Aziz (R).
The selection of Uthman as khalifa once
again underscored the truth of the adage that where there's money, there's
power.
(Charles E. Hurwitz is a corporate
raider who buys American companies and then strips their assets to pay his
takeover debt. He rules a financial empire worth an estimated $8.5 billion in
1990. He once drained $60 million from the pension fund of the employees of a
mill. To the demoralized employees, he reminded of a “fact of life.” He said:
“There's a little story about the Golden Rule. Those who have the gold, rule.”)
The correlation of economic power and
political power is much too patent to need any further delineation or emphasis.
Umar chose the richest men in all Arabia as electors of a khalifa. The only
elector who was not rich, was Ali. Umar did not want Ali to become the khalifa
but he could not find any plausible reason to exclude him from his electoral
committee. Excluding Ali would have made his hatred of and hostility to the
family and clan of Muhammad Mustafa too obvious.
Umar lived in morbid fear lest Ali
became the caliph of the Muslims. Once it was reported to him that someone had
said that after his (Umar's) death, he would acknowledge Ali as caliph. This
greatly alarmed Umar, and he immediately warned the Muslims against doing so.
John Alden Williams
(Umar said) “I am about to say to you
something which God has willed that I should say. He who understands and heeds
it, let him take it with him whithersoever he goes. I have heard that someone
said, ‘If Umar were dead, I would hail so-and-so' (i.e. Ali - Editor).” (Themes
of Islamic Civilization, p. 61, 1971)
Just before his death, Umar had summoned
Abdur Rahman bin Auf to his chamber for a private meeting. It is not known what
did they talk about because Umar is said to have exacted a pledge from Abdur Rahman
that he would keep the subject of the matters discussed a top secret which the
latter did.
Calling upon President Nixon to resign
from the presidency, following the Watergate investigations in Washington D.C.,
Senator James L. Buckley (Republican) of New York, said on March 19, 1974:
“The character of a regime always
reflects and expresses the character of its leader, and the leader's aides and
agents do what they sense and believe he wants them to do.”
Umar's aides and agents did exactly what
they “sensed” and believed he wanted them to do. Some years earlier, Uthman bin
Affan had filled the position of private secretary to Abu Bakr. He was writing
Abu Bakr's will and testament when the former was on his deathbed.
Abu Bakr had just begun to dictate, and
Uthman had written only the words, “In the name of Allah, Most Merciful and
Most Beneficent. I, Abu Bakr, successor of Muhammad, the Apostle of God ...”
when he (Abu Bakr) lost consciousness. But before he regained consciousness,
Uthman himself added the words: “... appoint Umar as my successor and your
ruler,” and thus completed the sentence.
Uthman “sensed” and knew exactly what
Abu Bakr would have wished him to do. He went ahead and did it. His action won
the approval of Abu Bakr when he recovered consciousness.
Abdur Rahman bin Auf “sensed” and knew
exactly what Umar wished him to do, and he did it. Endowed with perception as
he was, he could read all the signals in the policy lines of Umar!
Uthman bin Affan belonged to the clan of
Umayya. He is said to have accepted Islam through the efforts of Abu Bakr, and
was one of the early converts. He was one of the richest men in Makkah.
Uthman did not take part in the battle
of Badr, and stayed in Medina.
Uthman was present in the battle of Uhud
but ran away to save his life when the Muslims were defeated. Some of the
fugitives returned to Medina but not Uthman. Shaikh Muhammad el-Khidhri Buck of
Egypt writes in his book, Noor al-Yaqeen fi Seeret Sayyed al-Mursaleen (Cairo,
p.138, 1953) that Uthman was extremely bashful and it was his bashfulness that
prevented him from entering Medina.
During the negotiations of Hudaybiyya,
the Prophet sent Uthman as his messenger to the Quraysh in Makkah. The reason
he sent him, was that Umar had refused to go, and had pointed to him as a
better envoy for the mission, knowing that he (Uthman) was Abu Sufyan's
darling, and would, therefore, be safe from any harm. His selection had nothing
to do with his fitness for the job.
Uthman is said to have taken a leading
part to equip the expedition to Tabuk. In Medina, he is said to have bought a
well and endowed it to the community.
During his caliphate, Uthman collected
the verses of Qur’an, and published it as the official version of God's last
message to mankind. There were other copies also extant but he seized them and
burned them.
Uthman's forerunners in the government
of Saqifa were Abu Bakr and Umar. Though Abu Bakr and Umar had not accomplished
anything particularly remarkable in the lifetime of Muhammad, after his death
they proved themselves to be men of extraordinary ability.
But Uthman, on the other hand, was a man
of compelling mediocrity, both before and after he ascended the throne of his
two predecessors. Apart from making some financial contribution to some
community effort, he never did anything to distinguish him from the rank and
file.
Uthman was already superannuated, being
past 72, when he became khalifa. But in his case, superannuating was not a
handicap. It was, in fact, one of his few assets. The electors were groaning
under the iron discipline imposed upon them by Umar; he had curtailed many of
their freedoms.
Now that he was dead, they had no
intention of returning to those days of stress, and they wanted to enjoy their
freedom. They, therefore, opted for a weak and aged khalifa whose grip on
government, they knew, would always be loose.
Uthman's selection as khalifa, was an
inevitable reaction against the excessive rigors of the times of Umar.
Uthman narrated 146 traditions of the
Prophet of Islam.
At one time there were three girls
living in the household of Khadija. Their names were Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm
Kulthoom. Zainab, the eldest of the three, was married to one Abul-'As ibn
er-Rabi' of Makkah. This man fought against the Prophet in the battle of Badr,
and was captured by the Muslims.
To ransom his freedom, his wife sent to
the Prophet, a necklace which at one time had belonged to Khadija, and she had
given it to her as a present on her marriage. Abul-'As was set free; he
returned to Makkah, and sent Zainab to Medina as he had promised to do. Zainab,
however, died soon after her arrival in Medina. Later, Abul-'As also went to
Medina, accepted Islam, and lived with the Muslims.
The other two girls, Ruqayya and Umm
Kulthoom, were married to Utba and Utaiba, the sons of Abu Lahab and Umm Jameel.
Umm Jameel was the sister of Abu Sufyan, the chief of the clan of Umayya. Abu
Sufyan, therefore, was the maternal uncle of Utba and Utaiba.
It is not known with any degree of
certainty who were these three girls. Most of the Sunni historians claim that
they were the daughters of Muhammad and Khadija. According to some other
historians, they were the daughters of Khadija by an earlier marriage.
The Shia Muslims disagree. They assert
that Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom were not the daughters of Muhammad and
Khadija; in fact, they were not even the daughters of Khadija by any earlier
marriage; they were the daughters of a (widowed) sister of Khadija. Khadija's
sister also died, and upon her death, she brought the three girls into her own
house and brought them up as her own children.
According to the Shia Muslims, Muhammad
and Khadija had three and not six children.The first two of them – Qasim and
Tayyeb or Tahir – were boys, and both of them died in their infancy. Their
third and the last child was a girl – Fatima Zahra. She was their only child
who did not die in infancy.
The girls – Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm
Kulthoom – could not have been the daughters of the Prophet of Islam. If they
were, he would not have given them in marriage to the idolaters which the
husbands of all three of them were. It's true that all three girls were married
long before the dawn of Islam. But then he did not violate any of the
imperatives of Qur’an at any time – before or after he was ordained God's
Messenger. And Qur’an is explicit on the prohibition of the marriage of a
Muslim woman to a pagan.
The proscription of the marriage of a
Muslim woman and a polytheist occurs in the following verses of Qur’an:
Do not marry (your girls) to
unbelievers. (Chapter 2; verse 221)
They (believing women) are not lawful
(wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the (unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for
them. (Chapter 60; verse 10)
There are other verses in Qur’an which,
without referring specifically to marriage, make it impossible for a Muslim to
give his daughter or daughters to an idolater. Some of them are:
...the curse of God is on those without
faith. (Chapter 2; verse 89)
...God is an enemy to those who reject
faith. (Chapter 2, verse 98)
O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are
unclean. (Chapter 9:verse 28)
Can a Muslim, even if he is a “marginal”
or a “statistical” Muslim, believe that Muhammad, the Bringer and the
Interpreter of Qur’an, would give his daughters to those men whom God has
cursed; whose enemy He is; and who are unclean?
To a believer, the verses of Qur’an
quoted above, are incontrovertible proof that Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom,
all three married, at one time, to three idolaters in Makkah, were not the
daughters of Muhammad Mustafa and Khadija.
It should also be noted that the Apostle
who was very fond of children, never said anything about Zainab, Ruqayya and
Umm Kulthoom. The parents give the same love to all their children, and do not
make any distinction between them. But he was bestowing encomiums only upon his
daughter, Fatima Zahra. Judging by the traditions, he was not even aware that
three women called Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom existed.
Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom were still
living with their husbands when a new revelation, the Chapter 111 of Qur’an,
came from Heaven. In this chapter Abu Lahab and his wife, Umm Jameel, the
in-laws of Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom, were cursed for their perversity.
The new revelation roused the anger of
the old couple, and they ordered their sons to divorce their wives, and to send
them back to Khadija's home. The boys obeyed their parents, divorced their
wives and they (the wives) returned to Khadija's home. Sometime later, Ruqayya
was married to Uthman bin Affan. She died in A.D. 624. After her death, her
sister, Umm Kulthoom, was also married to Uthman. She died a few years later.
The years in Makkah, after the
proclamation of Islam, and the early years in Medina, were fraught with peril
for Muhammad. Everyday brought new challenges to him. He put his life in the
line of fire as soon as he stepped out of his house. And yet, Ruqayya and Umm
Kulthoom are never mentioned as giving any service to their father.
On the other hand, Fatima Zahra helped
her father in various emergencies, both in Makkah and Medina. Ruqayya and Umm
Kulthoom both were many years older than Fatima, and they ought to have cheered
and comforted their father whenever he was oppressed by the idolaters in Makkah
or was wounded in battles in Medina but they never did.
The Sunni historians have bestowed upon
Uthman the grandiloquent title of Dhun-Noorayn which means
“the owner of two lights,” because he married, according to them, two daughters
of the Prophet, an honor not attained even by Abu Bakr and Umar!
Uthman became the owner of two lights
after marrying Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom. But both of these girls were married
to two idolaters, i.e., Utba and Utaiba, the sons of Abu Lahab, before they
were married to Uthman. Therefore, each of the two sons of Abu Lahab ought to
be called Dhun-Noor – the owner of one light. Each of them,
Utba and Utaiba, was the owner of one light which he passed on to Uthman, thus
making him the owner of two lights. After all, the lights remained the same;
only the ownership changed!
In A.D. 645, there were rebellions in
the provinces of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and they were quelled.
In 647, Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan, Uthman's
governor in Syria, invaded Asia Minor and captured Ammuria.
In 648, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh,
Uthman's governor in Egypt, captured Tripoli in Libya.
Both Muawiya and Abdullah bin Saad bin
Abi Sarh built fleets and challenged the naval power of the Byzantine in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
In 649, Muawiya's fleet conquered
Cyprus.
In 651, Uthman's generals conquered
Herat in Afghanistan.
In 652, the first official copy of
Al-Qur’an al-Majid was published in Medina, and its copies were distributed in
all provinces.
In 652-54, Abdullah bin Aamir, Uthman's
governor in Basra, sent his general, Abdur Rahman bin Samra, to the east, where
he conquered Balkh in Khurasan, and Kabul and Ghazni in Afghanistan. These new
conquests made the empire of the Muslims contiguous with the sub-continent of
Indo-Pakistan.
Uthman loved the members of his own
clan, the Banu Umayya, to a point where his love became an obsession. The
Umayyads were the arch-enemies of Islam, and they had fought against its
Prophet for more than two decades. Now suddenly, Uthman made them masters of
the empire of the Muslims. He himself became their puppet, and they took the
reins of the government in their own hands. The real rulers of the empire, in
the khilafat of Uthman, were Marwan (the cousin and son-in-law of Uthman) and
Hakam bin Abul-Aas (Uthman's uncle and Marwan's father).
Uthman opened the gates of the public
treasury to his relatives. He gave them rich presents, vast estates and high
ranks. Then, as if he had not done enough for them, he forbade the citizens of
Medina to graze their camels and cattle in the pastures around the city. These
pastures had been made a public endowment by the Prophet but according to the
new ordinance of Uthman, only those animals could graze in them which belonged
either to himself or to the Banu Umayya.
The Prophet had told the Muslims that
all those lands which were irrigated by rain, were the property of the whole umma,
and therefore, the animals of all its members could graze in them. He had also
told them that these lands could not be appropriated by anyone for private use
as was done in the Times of Ignorance.
Al-Qur’an al-Majid has told the story of
Prophet Saleh in its seventh chapter (Al-'Araf - the Heights). According to
this story, the haughty and the mighty of the times of the Prophet, Saleh,
prevented the access of the humble and the weak people and their cattle, to the
springs. It was only through the intervention of Saleh that the latter could
obtain water from the springs.
Like water, pasture was also considered
to be a free gift of God to His creatures but the arrogant ones denied it to
them. What was done in the times of Saleh by the rich and the powerful of the
Thamud, was now being done in Medina by the rich and the powerful of that city
– the Umayyads. They formed the new clique, grasping all the levers of power.
The government in Medina had become an
inter-locking directorate of the cousins, the in-laws and the other relatives
of Uthman. Other Muslims had no share in it. Principal figures in the
“directorate” were:
Hakam was Uthman's uncle. In Makkah, he
was one of the neighbors of Muhammad, and was one of his tormentors. He made a
mockery of the Word of God, and ridiculed His Messenger.
In 630 the Apostle captured Makkah
whereupon Hakam, his son Marwan and many other Umayyads “accepted” Islam. But
Hakam and his son could never overcome their animosity to Islam and its Prophet.
If they could hurt Islam, they did.
Eventually, the Prophet banished them
from Medina. When he died, and Abu Bakr became khalifa, Uthman requested him to
allow his uncle and his son-in-law to return to Medina but he refused. When
Umar became khalifa, Uthman begged him to let the two pariahs come back to
Medina but he too refused. Then Uthman became khalifa, and he, of course, lost
no time in bringing them back to Medina, and in bestowing the greatest honors
upon them.
Yaqoobi, the historian, says that when
Hakam entered Medina, he was wearing dirty tatters like a beggar but when he
left Uthman's palace, he was dressed in the richest silks and brocade.
Uthman appointed Hakam as collector of
the poor-tax from the tribe of Banu Qaza'a. Baladhuri, the historian, says that
Hakam collected 300,000 dirhems and when he brought it to the khalifa, the
latter gave it back to him to keep and to spend.
Yaqoobi has quoted a certain
Abdur Rahman ibn Yasir in his history as follows:
An officer's duty was to collect taxes
from the merchants of the markets in Medina. One evening I noticed that Uthman,
the khalifa, came to him, and asked him to pay to Hakam all the money which he
had collected that day. It was Uthman's practice to bestow gifts from the
public treasury to members of his family.
The tax collector tried to fob off
Uthman and said that he would pay when he had collected all the dues. But
Uthman said to him: “You are my treasurer, and do what I tell you to do.” The
collector retorted that he was the treasurer neither of Uthman nor of his
relatives but only of the Muslims. On the following morning, the same officer
came into the Mosque, and addressing the congregation, said: “O Muslims! Uthman
says that I am his treasurer. I am not. I am the treasurer of the Muslims. I do
not want to be his treasurer.” He then threw the keys of the treasury before
Uthman, and walked out. Uthman picked up the keys, and gave them to Zayd bin
Thabit.
Marwan was Hakam's son and Uthman's
first cousin. He was married to Uthman's daughter, Umm Aban.
Marwan was Uthman's “prime minister.” He
distributed gifts from the public treasury to whomsoever he pleased, and he
distributed positions of authority in the government to his favorites. He also
kept the privy seal of the khalifa in his possession and made free use and
abuse of it. Uthman was in his grip, and acted upon his advice blindly.
After a successful campaign in Africa,
one of Uthman's generals sent the spoils of war to him in Medina. This was
estimated to be a half-million pieces of gold. Uthman gave all of it to Marwan.
Baladhuri, the historian, has quoted
Abdullah bin Zubayr as follows:
“In 27 Hijri, Uthman sent us to the
front in Africa. His foster brother, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, was the
general of the army. He captured vast quantities of booty; kept four-fifths of
it for the army, and sent one-fifth to Uthman in Medina. Uthman gave it all to
Marwan.”
On another occasion, Uthman gave his
son-in-law four million dirhems out of the public treasury. He also made the
estate of Fadak a gift to him.
Marwan was to reveal himself one of the
most rapacious grafters in the khilafat of Uthman, and manifested a
vampire-like mentality of extortion.
Harith, the younger brother of Marwan,
was married to the second daughter of Uthman. He received a gift of 300,000
dirhems from the treasury. Baladhuri says that once some camels were sent to
the khalifa as part of the poor-tax, and he gave them to Harith.
Abdullah bin Khalid was another of
Uthman's sons-in-law. When he gave him his daughter, he ordered Abdullah bin
Aamir, his governor in Basra, to pay him (Abdullah bin Khalid) 600,000 dirhems
from the public treasury.
Walid was the son of Aqaba bin Abi
Mu'ait. Aqaba was the first or second husband of the mother of Uthman. In
Makkah, he was also a neighbor of Muhammad, and like Umm Jameel, he too
collected garbage and threw it at his door. He fought against the Prophet at
Badr, was captured, and upon his orders, was executed.
Walid and his brothers – the siblings of
Uthman – accepted Islam when Makkah was conquered.
On one occasion, the Prophet sent Walid
to the tribe of Banu Mustalaq to collect taxes. He left Medina but soon came
back and told the Prophet that the Banu Mustalaq had repudiated Islam, and had
refused to pay their taxes.
The Prophet was surprised to hear this.
But before he could investigate the matter, the leaders of Banu Mustalaq
themselves arrived in Medina to pay their taxes. They assured the Prophet that
they were sincere Muslims. Walid had never visited them.
It was after this incident that the
following verse was revealed to the Messenger of God:
O ye who believe! If a fasiq (wicked
person) comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people
unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.
(Chapter 49; verse 6)
It was the Book of God which called
Walid a fasiq, and it was by this name that he was known
ever-after.
Umar bin al-Khattab had told Uthman that
if he became khalifa, he should appoint Saad bin Abi Waqqas the governor of
Kufa. Uthman became khalifa, and he appointed Saad governor of Kufa as per
Umar's wish. But within a year, Uthman dismissed Saad and appointed Walid in
his place as the new governor.
As soon as Walid found himself in
control of the rich province, he became drunk, both with power and with wine.
He was a compulsive drinker. He was drunk even when he led the Muslims in
prayer. One morning he entered the mosque in a state of drunkenness. He led the
prayer, and then vomited in the alcove of the mosque. The reports on his
drunkenness became so persistent that even Uthman was unable to turn a blind
eye on them, and he was compelled to recall him to Medina. In his stead, Uthman
appointed Saeed bin Aas as the new governor of Kufa.
Saeed's father, a rabid enemy of the
Apostle of God, was killed in the battle of Badr. After his death, Uthman
adopted his son, and brought him up in his own home. In 30 Hijri Uthman
dismissed Walid and appointed Saeed the new governor of Kufa. He also gave him
a present of 100,000 dirhems from the state treasury.
Like other members of his clan, Saeed
also considered public funds as his private wealth, and spent them as he
pleased. If anyone protested, he silenced him with his “police” powers. He
could get any man beaten up and he could get anyone's house burned down.
The governors were plundering every
province in the empire. They seemed to have the tacit blessing if not the
explicit encouragement of the khalifa. Inevitably, agitation began to simmer
and smolder. Uthman was told that someday there would be an explosion. Alarmed
by the growing discontent and the crescendo of protests, he convened a
conference of all his governors.
They came, gave him some perfunctory
advice, and dispersed. Saeed bin Aas was also among them. But after the
conference when he returned to Kufa, the citizens of that city stopped him near
Qadsiyya, and told him that they would not let him enter Kufa. He could not
enter Kufa, and went back to Medina. In his place, Uthman appointed Abu Musa
al-Ashari as the new governor.
This Abdullah was the foster-brother of
Uthman. His father, Saad bin Abi Sarh, was one of the munafiqeen in
Medina.
Abdullah, at one time, was one of the
secretaries of the Prophet. When the latter dictated to him any verse of
Qur’an, he distorted it by changing its diacritical marks or the letters or the
words. Soon he was caught and the Prophet banished him from Medina. He
repudiated Islam, went to Makkah, and began to spread the story that Muhammad
himself made up the verses of Qur’an, and claimed that they are revelations
from Heaven.
When Makkah was conquered, the Prophet
ordered that Abdullah should be executed as an apostate even if he was in the
Kaaba itself. But Uthman managed to conceal him in his own house. Later, when
conditions became normal, he brought him before the Prophet and said that he
sought pardon and also wished to take the oath of loyalty. But the Prophet did
not put out his hand, and maintained a studied silence for a considerable time.
Uthman importuned him to pardon Abdullah.
Eventually, he pardoned him. But as soon
as Uthman and Abdullah were out of his sight, he turned to those around him,
and said: “I was silent for such a long time hoping that one of you would kill
him.” Baladhuri writes in his book, Ansab-ul-Ashraf (p. 358):
“The Apostle said: ‘Was there no one
among you who would kill this dog before he got a pardon?'
Umar bin al-Khattab answered: ‘O
Messenger of God, if you had signaled to us, we would have killed him.' The
Apostle said: ‘I could not signal to you. Doing so would be unworthy of me.'“
When Uthman became khalifa, he appointed
Abdullah the governor of Egypt. With his appointment, a reign of tyranny and
exploitation began in Egypt. The fortunes of Egypt turned into misfortunes;
prosperity turned into adversity. Everyone turned against the new governor. The
latter also ran afoul of Muhammad ibn Hudhaifa.
Muhammad's father, Hudhaifa, was one of
the earliest converts to Islam. He died fighting in the battle of Yarmok. At
his death, Uthman took charge of Muhammad, his young son, and brought him up.
When he grew up, he sought permission to go to the foreign wars. Uthman allowed
him to accompany Abdullah bin Saad to Egypt as one of his aides.
Muhammad bin Hudhaifa was a very pious
and God-fearing man, and spent most of his time in devotions. When graft and
corruption reared their head in the administration, he admonished Abdullah, and
urged him to restore good government. But Abdullah did not respond to sincere
admonition.
Nevertheless, Muhammad persisted in his
efforts to reform him. Abdullah, however, appeared to have, like Marwan, a
streak of perversity in his character, and took pleasure in doing just what he
was forbidden to do.
Eventually, Muhammad gave up hope. From
a friendly and sympathetic admonisher, he turned into a disillusioned and a
bitter critic – first of Abdullah bin Saad, and later of Uthman himself for
appointing as governor of Egypt an apostate whose execution had been ordered by
the Apostle of God himself.
The people of Egypt loved Muhammad ibn
Hudhaifa for his uprightness and his courage in criticizing the errant
governor, and they rallied round him. Abdullah wrote to Uthman that the young
man he (Uthman) had brought up, was spreading sedition against the government,
and that if nothing was done to stop him, the situation would get out of hand.
Uthman did not know what to do. It
occurred to him that he might silence Muhammad's protests with gold and silver.
He, therefore, sent to him 30,000 dirhems and many expensive pieces of fabrics
as a present. This gambit, unfortunately for Uthman, backfired upon him.
Muhammad brought the money and the material into the great mosque, piled them
on the ground before the Muslims, and said:
“O Muslims! Do you see what Uthman is
trying to do? He is trying to buy my Faith. He has sent these coins and these
goods to me as a bribe.” (Tarikh Kamil: Kamil ibn Atheer, Vol.3, p.135)
Uthman wrote many placatory letters to
Muhammad, and reminded him that he was under a debt of gratitude to him. But
Muhammad ignored them, and the agitation against Abdullah bin Saad went on
gathering momentum.
The leaders of the Egyptian Muslims held
a meeting at which they decided to send a delegation to Medina to demand from
Uthman the dismissal of Abdullah bin Saad.
After the departure of the Egyptian
delegation, the position of Abdullah became rather untenable. Fearful of
revolution, he too left Egypt for Medina, partly, to defend himself at the
court of the khalifa. In his absence, Muhammad ibn Hudhaifa took charge of the
government.
When Abdullah reached Elath, he heard
that Uthman's palace was under siege, and that he was confined to it. He
figured that it would not be safe for him to go to Medina, and he decided to
return to Egypt. But at the border, he was informed that Muhammad ibn Hudhaifa
had given orders to stop him, and not to let him reenter Egypt.
Thereupon, he went to Palestine awaiting
the outcome of events in Medina. In the meantime, Uthman was killed in Medina,
and when Abdullah heard the news, he left Palestine, and went to Damascus to
live under the protection of Muawiya.
During the first year of Uthman's
caliphate, Saad bin Abi Waqqas was the governor of Kufa. Then Uthman dismissed
him, and appointed his own half-brother, Walid bin Aqaba, as the new governor
of Kufa.
Umar had appointed Abu Musa al-Ashari as
the governor of Basra. Uthman dismissed him, and appointed his own cousin,
Abdullah bin Aamir, as the new governor.
Umar had appointed Muawiya bin Abu
Sufyan as his governor of Syria. Uthman confirmed him as his governor in that
province.
Amr bin Aas had conquered Egypt, and
Umar had appointed him its governor. Uthman dismissed him, and in his stead, he
appointed his own foster-brother, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh. This man was
an apostate, and the Prophet had ordered his execution but had suspended the
sentence when Uthman pleaded for him. Thus Uthman first saved the life of an
apostate and then made him a governor over the Muslims.
Following is the report of some of the
modern historians on graft, corruption, nepotism and abuse of power in the time
of Uthman, the third khalifa of the Muslims.
E. A. Belyaev
The undisguised plunder of the Moslem
treasury met with protests from those few companions of the Prophet who deemed
that all receipts belonged to the Moslems and should be divided equally between
them. The most outstanding of these opponents of inequality of wealth was
Abu-Dharr al-Ghiffari.
In the period of conquest, this old
‘companion' whom, according to tradition, Mohammed set as an example to other
Moslems, had gone to Syria where he publicly decried the viceroy and the war
leaders for appropriating booty and tribute which in his opinion was ‘the property
of Allah,' belonging to all Moslems (p. 143).
Moawiya asked the Caliph Uthman to
remove this dangerous agitator, who was becoming increasingly popular among the
rank-and-file, from Syria. Recalled by Uthman, Abu-Dharr settled in Medina,
but, on learning there that the caliph had given generous gifts out of the
Moslem treasury to his nephew (sic) and son-in-law, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, while
granting 300,000 dirhems from the same source to another nephew, Harith ibn
al-Hakam, and 100,000 dirhems to one Zaid ibn Thabit, he began to criticize him
sharply, promising all four, on the strength of Qur’an,
punishment in the flames of Hell.
Pursuing his criticism, this
irreconcilable and incorruptible tribune (Abu-Dharr) declared that rich men
increase their riches by despoiling the poor. The caliph ordered the
“trouble-maker” deported to an out-of-the-way place, where he died in extreme
poverty, leaving his widow without even the means to pay for his modest burial.
During the rule of Uthman, his
relatives, members of the Meccan slave-holding aristocracy, seized governmental
posts and landed estates in the conquered countries. Historical tradition
assigns a particularly pernicious role to the caliph's nephew and son-in-law,
Marwan, who, profiting from his father-in-law's senility, took over the actual
power of government in Medina and connived in every way with the arbitrary
deeds of his avid, plundering relatives. These kin of the caliph, members of
the Umayya clan, had been appointed by Uthman as viceroys and war leaders; they
appropriated those lands considered the property of the Moslem community.
Such seizures of land, together with the
spoliation, blackmail and violence committed by these rulers, gave rise to a
growing discontent, expressed most forcefully by those friends of Omar who had
been displaced from their influential and lucrative positions. Their
displeasure was shared by Arab tribes (especially in Irak) whose material
interests suffered from the arbitrary dissipation of state funds at the hands
of Uthman's appointees.
The Caliph Uthman himself set the
example of misuse of governmental receipts for the benefit of his own family;
when his daughter was married to Abdullah ibn Khalid, for instance, Uthman
granted them 600,000 dirhems out of the Basra bait-ul-mal, while when Abdullah
ibn Sarh sent 3000 qanatir of gold from Ifriqiya, he ordered this gold to be
given to the family of al-Hakam (p. 144). (Arabs, Islam & the Arab
Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages, New York, 1969)
Sir John Glubb
In 646 Osman appointed his half-brother,
Waleed ibn Uqba, governor of Kufa. His father, Uqba, had been taken prisoner at
Bedr fighting for Quraish and had been condemned to death by the Prophet
himself. To his anguished cry, “Who will take care of my little children?”
Mohammed had replied coldly, “hell fire.”
The new governor of Kufa was one of
those little children whom the Apostle of God himself consigned to the infernal
regions. Waleed also had a reputation for insobriety. Criticism of Osman's
appointments was growing in volume. His foster brother, Ibn Abi Sarh, had been
made governor of Egypt, though the Prophet had pronounced him worthy of death for
apostasy... (pp. 290-291)
In the Islamic theocracy the state was
not an impersonal organization but (in theory at least) the chosen instrument
of God. No sophistry could justify a man preferring the material interests of
his relatives to the service of God Himself.
The manifest impiety of many of Osman's
nominees, and the fact that they or their fathers had been the bitterest
opponents of the Prophet, offended the many sincerely religious Muslims in
Mecca and Medina. The companions were still fairly numerous, not to mention the
men who had fought at Bedr and Uhud, or who had sworn the oath of the Tree
between the hands of the Apostle of God at Hudaybiyya. All these now saw the
theocracy of Islam ruled by the Prophet's enemies, who likewise enjoyed those earthly
rewards which were the proper guerdon of the faithful believers. (p. 297).
An example of what the strict Muslims
felt about the age of Osman is provided by the case of Abu Dharr. This man had
been an early convert and had lived out his life as a genuine ascetic. He now,
first in Damascus and then in Medina, began to preach sermons denouncing the
demoralization of the times.
In Syria, in Iraq, and even in Medina,
the leading Muslims lived in marble palaces, surrounded by slaves and
concubines, clad in luxurious clothing and indulging in sumptuous food. There
can be no doubt that Abu Dharr was right in his charge that all this wealth and
luxury was undermining the former hardy and frugal Arab virtues. But the rulers
of the empire alleged that his words were inciting the people to revolt, and
Osman decreed his banishment to a lonely oasis in Central Arabia. There two
years later, he died in want, and his memory was soon venerated as that of a
saint. (The Great Arab Conquests, London, 1963)
If Uthman could not lavish enough love
upon such enemies of Muhammad Mustafa and Islam as Hakam, Marwan, Walid and
Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, he also could not expend enough animosity upon
such true believers, lovers of God, and sincere friends of Muhammad Mustafa, as
Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn Masood. Their story
will make this point clear.
It was reported to Uthman that Abu Dharr
el-Ghiffari had spoken before the Muslims in the Mosque as follows:
“I am Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, companion
of Muhammad, the Last Messenger of God. Allah has elevated Adam, Noah and the
children of Abraham and Imran over and above the rest of mankind. Muhammad has
inherited the legacy of all these prophets. He combines in his person all their
qualities, attributes and achievements. A
nd Muhammad's successor is Ali ibn Abi
Talib. O ye Muslims, who are bewildered today, if after the death of your
Prophet, you had put him (Ali) ahead of others, as Allah put him ahead of
others, and if you had put those men behind whom Allah has put behind, and if
you had left authority and power at its source, i.e., in the house of your
Prophet, then you would have received the blessings of Allah.
There would not have been any one poor
or destitute. Nor any two men would have disagreed on the interpretation of the
Message of Allah, and everyone would have carried out his duties toward Him,
and toward the other members of the community, as was done in the times of His
Messenger himself. You would have found guidance and enlightenment at its
fountainhead, i.e., in the house of Muhammad. But you allowed the authority and
the power of the house of your Prophet to be usurped, and now you are paying
the penalty.”
The informers also told Uthman that Abu
Dharr was drawing attention of the Muslims to his (Uthman's) deviations from
the practices of the Prophet as well as from the practices of Abu Bakr and
Umar.
Uthman ordered Abu Dharr to leave
Medina, and to go to Syria and to live there.
In Syria, Muawiya had consolidated his
position, and he had cultivated a secular instead of an Islamic lifestyle. Abu Dharr
witnessed many foul and unIslamic practices at the court of Syria. He noticed
that the gold and silver of the province was being squandered in Damascus on
the luxuries of the nobles while there were many Muslims who were starving.
Muawiya soon learned that Abu Dharr was no less irrepressible in Damascus than
he was in Medina. Abu Dharr recited those verses of Qur’an in which the
hoarders of wealth are denounced. He was blunt in his criticism and spoke the
truth regardless of cost to himself. Muawiya had built a palace for himself.
Abu Dharr said to him:
“If you built this palace out of the
funds which belong to the Muslims, then you have betrayed a trust; and if you
built it from your personal wealth, then you have been guilty of extravagance
and vanity.”
Abu Dharr told Muawiya and the Syrian
nobles that they would be branded in hell with the gold and the silver which
they were hoarding.
At last Muawiya's patience reached the
breaking point, and he wrote to Uthman:
“I fear that Abu Dharr may incite the people
to rebellion. If you do not want rebellion in the country, then you should
recall him to Medina immediately.”
Uthman agreed. Muawiya mounted Abu Dharr
on a camel without a howdah, and he ordered the camel-driver to travel non-stop
to Medina. Abu Dharr arrived in Medina half-dead with wounds, exhaustion and
exposure.
But even in this state, Abu Dharr could
not acquiesce in falsehood, injustice, exploitation and disobedience to the
commandments of God. The love of truth and justice burned in his heart like a
flame. If any case of embezzlement came to his attention, he denounced it, and
castigated its authors publicly. At last Uthman could take it no more. He
summoned Abu Dharr to his court and the following exchange took place between
them:
Uthman: I will banish you from Medina.
Abu Dharr: Will you banish me from the
city of the Prophet?
Uthman: Yes.
Abu Dharr: Will you send me to Kufa?
Uthman: No.
Abu Dharr: Will you send me to Basra?
Uthman: No.
Abu Dharr: Where else can you send me
then?
Uthman: Which is the place that you
dislike most?
Abu Dharr: Rabza.
Uthman: That's where I will send you.
Uthman kept his word, and banished Abu
Dharr el-Ghiffari to Rabza. He also issued orders that no one should talk with
him or walk with him. But Ali came to see him, and to talk and walk with him.
With Ali were his own sons, the sons of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib, and his nephew,
Abdullah ibn Jafar.
It was a heart-breaking scene. Ali was
parting company with his bosom friend, and the friend and beloved of Muhammad
Mustafa. His own heart was full of sadness, but he tried to comfort his friend
with the following words:
“O Abu Dharr, you were angry with these
people because they deviated from the course charted by Allah. Therefore Allah
Himself will recompense you. They are afraid of you because they think you
might deprive them of their gold and silver. But if you were also like them,
they would have become your friends.”
Then Husain, the younger grandson of
Muhammad Mustafa, turned his misty eyes toward the beloved of his grandfather,
now going into exile, and said:
“O my uncle, Allah will change even a
time like this. Your enemies have ‘saved' their worldly interests from you but
you have saved your Hereafter from them. What they have saved is utterly
worthless but what you have saved, is something that will last forever.”
Ali and his companions walked in silence
with Abu Dharr, and when time came to part, the latter said:
“O poeple of the House of Muhammad! May
Allah bless you. Whenever I see you, recollection comes to me of my friend and
beloved, Muhammad, the Apostle and beloved of Allah.”
Abu Dharr, his wife and his slave, were
banished to Rabza in the desert, and sometime later, he died there. His wife
and slave covered his face, turned it toward the Kaaba, and sat by the roadside
not knowing what to do. Presently, they saw some riders coming from the
direction of Iraq. These riders were Abdullah ibn Masood, an old friend of
Muhammad, and some other travelers. They were going to Medina. When they saw
Abu Dharr's widow, they halted and asked her who she was and what she was doing
in that desolate place.
Abu Dharr's slave told them who they
were, and informed them that the body of Abu Dharr was lying unburied as the
ground was rocky and they were unable to dig a grave.
Abdullah ibn Masood burst into tears and
lamented the death of his own friend, and the friend of the Apostle of God.
Abdullah ibn Masood and his companions
dug a grave, arranged a simple funeral, said prayers, and buried Abu Dharr
el-Ghiffari.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq
Burayda b. Sufyan al-Aslami from
Muhammad b. Kaaba al-Qurazi from Abdullah b. Masood told me that when Uthman
exiled Abu Dharr to Rabza, and his appointed time came, there was no one with
him except his wife and a slave. He instructed them to wash his body and to
drape it in a shroud, and lay him on the surface of the road, and tell the
first caravan that passed who he was, and ask them to help in burying him.
When he died, they did this. Abdullah b.
Masood arrived with some other men from Iraq on pilgrimage when they saw the
bier on the roadside. The slave rose and said, “This is Abu Dharr, the Apostle's
friend. Help us to bury him.” Abdullah b. Masood broke out into loud weeping,
and said: “The Apostle was right; you walked alone, and you died alone, and you
will be raised alone.” Then he and his companions dismounted from their camels
and buried him, and he told them his story and what the Apostle had said on the
road to Tabuk. (The Life of Muhammad)
Dr. Taha Husain
“Abu Dharr was one of the earliest
converts to Islam, and he was one of those who were loved and admired by the
Prophet himself. The Prophet used to say: “The blue sky never held its canopy
over a man who was more truthful than Abu Dharr.”
Abu Dharr learned that Uthman gave a lot
of money to Marwan bin al-Hakam; and he gave to his brother, Harith bin
al-Hakam 300,000 dirhems; and he gave to Zayd bin Thabit Ansari 100,000
dirhems. Abu Dharr criticized all this, and he told the hoarders how they would
be burned in hell. He read the verse of Quran: Give tidings of torture
to those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend their wealth for the sake
of Allah (9:34).
Marwan bin al-Hakam informed Uthman what
Abu Dharr was reading. Uthman sent his slave to Abu Dharr and forbade him to
read the Qur’anic verse in question. Abu Dharr said: “Does Uthman forbid me to
read the Book of Allah, and to forget His commandments? If I have to choose
between the pleasure of Allah and the pleasure of Uthman, I shall certainly
choose the pleasure of Allah.”
Abu Dharr was persistent in his
criticism of the hoarders of wealth, and he called upon the Muslims not to be
spendthrifts.” (al- Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great Upheaval}, published in
Cairo in 1959 p.163)
Abu Dharr struggled against the
merchandising school of politics. In Islam, his voice was the first one that
rose in protest against religious and political totalitarianism, and economic
exploitation, and his was also the first voice to rise in defense of the Muslim
“under-dog.” His voice was stifled but his ideals could not be stifled. He
lifted his ideals out of Al-Qur’an al-Majid. Any attempt to stifle his ideals
is an attempt to stifle Al-Qur’an al-Majid.
Abu Dharr's voice was the voice of the
Conscience of Islam, and his platform was the Rights of Man. May God bless him
to all eternity.
Ammar ibn Yasser was also one of the
earliest converts to Islam. As noted before, his mother and father were
tortured to death by the pagans in Makkah. They were the first and the second
martyrs of Islam, and this is a distinction that no one in all Islam can share
with them. Like Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar was also one of the few favorites
of Muhammad, the Apostle of God, who once said:
“Ammar is the embodiment of all Iman
(Faith)”
Just like Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari and a
few others, Ammar also was not very popular with the brokers of economic and
political power of his time, and a head-on collision between him and them was
inevitable.
Dr. Taha Husain
“Ammar migrated first to Abyssinia, and
then to Medina. He was the first Muslim to build a Mosque. He built it in
Makkah itself, and he prayed in it. And he built, with others, the Mosque of
the Prophet (in Medina). While other Muslims carried one brick at a time, he
carried two. He also dug, with others, the trench at the siege of Medina. He
was covered with dust. The Apostle of God himself removed dust from his head
and face.
When Ammar heard the news of the death
of Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, he mourned for him. Uthman interpreted his
lamentations (for Abu Dharr) as a reproach to himself. He was highly incensed,
and ordered him also to leave Medina, and to go to Rabza (in exile).
When Ammar got ready to leave Medina,
the Banu Makhzoom whose client he was, were infuriated. Ali was also
displeased. He went to see Uthman, reproved him for banishing Abu Dharr, and
told him not to do the same to Ammar. Uthman said to him: “You are no better
than Ammar, and you too deserve to be banished from Medina.” Ali answered: “Go
ahead, and do that.” Then the other Muhajireen intervened and told Uthman that
he could not banish everyone with whom he happened to be displeased.
On one occasion, Uthman had taken a
piece of jewelry from the treasury for his own family. Among those men who
raised objection to this act, was Ammar ibn Yasir. Uthman was beside himself
with rage. “How do you dare to question me?” he roared. He then ordered his
slaves to seize him. They seized him, and Uthman beat him up brutally until he
lost consciousness. He was taken from the mosque in that state to the house of
Umm Salma, the widow of the Prophet. Ammar was unconscious the rest of the day.
When he regained consciousness at last,
he rose, took ablutions, offered his prayers, and said: “Thank Allah, it's not
the first time that I have been tortured for speaking the truth.” (the first
time when Ammar was tortured for upholding the truth of Islam, he was in
Makkah. In those days, it was Abu Jahl who tortured him).
On another occasion, some companions of
the Prophet drafted a letter of advice to Uthman, and they requested Ammar to
present it to him. When Ammar presented the letter to Uthman, he again lost his
temper. Once again, he ordered his slaves to knock him down. They knocked him
down, and Uthman kicked him in his groin, and beat him up until he fainted.” (al-
Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great Upheaval}, published in Cairo in 1959)
Abdullah ibn Masood was one of the
principal companions of the Prophet. As noted before, he was the first man who
read Qur’an in Kaaba in the presence of the leaders of the Quraysh, and was
beaten up by them for doing so. He was one of the most knowledgeable men in
Medina. He spent much time in the company of the Prophet, and had more
familiarity with his practices and precedents than most of the other
companions. It was for this reason that Umar had asked him to be with him at
all times. There were many occasions when Umar did not know how the Prophet had
solved a problem or had taken a decision in some matter. On such occasions, he
consulted Abdullah ibn Masood, and acted upon his advice. In his later years,
Umar had appointed him treasurer of Kufa.
Dr. Taha Husain
Abdullah ibn Masood was the treasurer of
Kufa when Saad bin Abi Waqqas was its governor. Uthman dismissed Saad, and made
Walid bin Aqaba the new governor. Walid took a loan from the treasury. When the
stipulated time had passed, and the loan was not returned, Ibn Masood asked him
to pay it. He informed Uthman about it. Uthman wrote to him: “You are my
treasurer. Do not demand the loan from Walid.” Ibn Masood resented this. He
threw away the keys of the treasury, and stayed at home.
From that time, Abdullah ibn Masood
became a critic of Uthman's fiscal and political policies. Walid wrote to
Uthman about him, and the latter asked him (Walid) to send him (Ibn Masood) to
Medina.
Ibn Masood arrived in Medina, and went
into the Mosque. When he entered the Mosque, Uthman was reading the sermon.
When Uthman saw him entering the Mosque, he said: “A foul and despicable beast
is coming toward you.” Ibn Masood said: “That is not so. I am the companion and
friend of the Apostle of God. I fought at Badr, and I am a Companion of the
Tree.” Ayesha also heard in her chamber what Uthman had said, and she cried
out: “Is this the kind of language you use for a companion of the Apostle of
God?”
Uthman ordered Abdullah ibn Masood to
get out of the Mosque of the Prophet. Uthman's slaves threw him out of the
Mosque, and down on the ground breaking his ribs.
Ali rose to upbraid Uthman, and said:
“You have hurt a friend of the Apostle merely at a report from Walid. You know
that Walid is a liar.” He then carried Ibn Masood to his home.
But Uthman was not satisfied with what
he had done. After breaking the ribs of Abdullah ibn Masood, he stopped payment
of his pension, and forbade him to leave Medina. Ibn Masood wished to go to
Syria and to take part in the campaigns but Uthman repeated what he had heard
Marwan saying: “He has created enough trouble in Kufa; do not let him do the
same in Syria.” (p. 160) (al- Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great Upheaval},
published in Cairo in 1959)
As noted before, Abdullah ibn Masood had
made his own collection of the verses of Qur’an, and he had arranged them in
chronological order. But Uthman had appointed his favorite, Zayd bin Thabit, to
collect and to arrange the verses of Qur’an. He did not “recognize” the
collection of Ibn Masood, and ordered him to surrender his copy. Abdullah ibn
Masood refused to do so whereupon the slaves of Uthman broke into his house,
and forcibly seized the copy of Qur’an from him. This copy was burned at
Uthman's orders.
Uthman used the powers of state in
dealing with men like Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn
Masood because they refused to compromise with their principles. All three of
them had to pay a penalty for this refusal but they gladly paid it.
Uthman, however, also tangled with some
of those men who were not too finicky about such things as principles. Among
them were Abdur Rahman bin Auf and Amr bin Aas. Both of them were directly
responsible for his accession to the throne.
Uthman ought to be grateful to these two
men who had made him khalifa of the Muslims. But if he was grateful to them, he
did not show it. Instead of showing gratitude to them, he cruelly disillusioned
one of them, and he made the other an implacable enemy for himself.
When Muslims lost all hope that Uthman
would mend his ways, they turned, in sheer frustration, to Abdur Rahman bin
Auf; told him that nothing in Dar-ul-Islam was right, everything was going
wrong, and the responsibility for this state was entirely his since it was he
who had made Uthman a khalifa.
Abdur Rahman admitted that what he had
done was wrong, and he added:
“I never expected such shameful conduct
from Uthman. He has disappointed us. And now let God be a Witness that I will
never talk with him again.”
Abdur Rahman's refusal to talk with
Uthman could not undo the harm that had been done nor could it change anything
for anyone. But he upheld his “principle” and did not talk with Uthman to show
him how he resented his (Uthman's) deeds.
Amr bin Aas had conquered Egypt on his
own initiative. After the conquest, he was appointed Egypt's governor by Umar.
Some time before his own death, Umar had sent Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh,
the foster-brother of Uthman, to Egypt, to share fiscal responsibility with Amr
bin Aas.
When Umar died and Uthman became
khalifa, Abdullah bin Saad wrote to him that Amr bin Aas was manipulating
public funds. Uthman immediately dismissed Amr, and made Abdullah the new
governor and commander-in-chief of the army in Egypt.
After Amr's dismissal, the Byzantine
emperor sent a fleet to Egypt which succeeded in capturing Alexandria in A.D.
646. Abdullah bin Saad could not defend the province, and Uthman was forced to
reinstate Amr as governor and commander-in-chief. Amr defeated the Byzantine
forces, and reoccupied Alexandria. But as soon as Egypt was cleared of the
Byzantine troops, Uthman dismissed Amr again, and gave all powers in Egypt to
his foster-brother.
Egypt was the first love of Amr bin Aas.
His greatest ambition in life was to rule Egypt. Denied now, not only the
fruits of his labors but also the recognition of his great services, he
returned to Medina, a most embittered, resentful and frustrated man. Since in
Medina he had nothing to do, he occupied himself with the castigation of, and
intrigue against, the author of his frustrations – Uthman. When the latter was
killed by the rebels, he openly boasted:
“I am Abu Abdullah. When I make up my
mind to do something, there is nothing that can stop me.”
Sir John Glubb
“Amr ibn al-Aas, twice conqueror of
Egypt, who had been summarily dismissed by Osman in favor of his
foster-brother, was busy spreading disaffection in Medina.” (The Great
Arab Conquests, p.299, 1963)
“Amr ibn al-Aas, the conqueror of Egypt,
had been living in Medina since his dismissal by Osman, and had been among the
most acid critics of the old khalifa.” (The Great Arab Conquests,
p.324, 1963)
Amr bin Aas had many a sharp encounter
with Uthman in the Great Mosque and in the latter's palace. In one of them, he
demanded from him a public apology (Tauba) for his questionable conduct in
governmental affairs.
Sir John Glubb
“Amr ibn al-Aas, when consulted (by
Osman), replied brutally, ‘You have subjected the whole nation to Beni Umayya.
You have gone astray and so have the people. Either make up your mind to be
just or give up the job.” (The Great Arab Conquests, p.300, 1967)
Amr bin Aas denounced and cursed Uthman
publicly, and did not spare even his father. Curiously, it never occurred to
Uthman to use the same powers of state against him that he had invoked against
Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn Masood. He had, not
one, but numerous confrontations with Amr bin Aas, and yet, he never threatened
to banish him to Rabza, and he never ordered his slaves to throw him out of the
Mosque or his palace, and to break his ribs.
Perhaps Uthman figured, like a man of
prudence that he was, that the tongue-lashing that Amr bin Aas gave him, did
not break any bones in his body after all and, therefore, it was not necessary
to chastise him. Furthermore, they differed but they differed within the
conventions of the exclusive “club” to which both of them belonged. But Abu
Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn Masood, were “non-members.”
Therefore, the same rules did not apply to them which applied to a “member”
like Amr bin Aas.
Uthman was khalifa for twelve years. The
power grid which he had inherited from Umar, worked relatively well for the
first half of his reign. There was peace for him and for the Muslims. But in
the second half, discontent began to build up against him, and it went on
building up until it reached the flash point in A.D. 656 when an enraged and
outraged mob killed him in his own palace in Medina.
The people had genuine causes for their
discontent. They knew that unlimited quantities of gold and silver were coming
into the treasury from the provinces but they did not see any of it. All of it
disappeared into the private coffers of the members of the ruling class.
The ruling class was made up exclusively
of the members of the clan of Banu Umayya – the clan to which Uthman himself
belonged. The Umayyads, under Uthman, reached undreamed of affluence and the
ultimate arrogance of power. The Muslims resented their arrogance, ostentation
and hauteur, and the vulgar and inflammatory display by them of their riches
and power.
Uthman dismissed all the governors and
commanders who had been appointed by Abu Bakr and Umar, and in their stead, he
appointed those men whose only “credentials” were that they were Umayyads. The
people in the provinces groaned under the heels of these new governors and
commanders. Drunk with power as they were, their excesses and highhandedness
knew no bounds. They considered themselves above and beyond the reach of law.
Private purposes of the Umayyads took
precedence over public purposes, and their “rights” to depredate, dominated the
rights of the Muslim umma. The umma knew them to be only impious opportunists
and arrant parasites who had seized control of the physical apparatus of Islam
– the government of Medina. The provinces, therefore, were riddled with
disaffection and rebellion.
The original patrons of the Umayyads
were Abu Bakr and Umar. It were both of them who had, as it were, uncorked the
bottle, but now it appeared to the umma that there was no way
to squeeze the genie back into it.
Uthman also changed the balance of
political equation by alienating such old party war-horses as Abdur Rahman bin
Auf and Amr bin Aas. He antagonized Banu Ghiffar and its allies by banishing
Abu Dharr to Rabza where the latter died. He antagonized the Banu Makhzoom and
their allies by savagely beating up Ammar ibn Yasir, and he made the Banu
Hudhail and the Banu Zuhra his enemies by having Abdullah ibn Masood beaten up
by his slaves.
Uthman was safe as long as he banished
or beat up such friends of the Apostle of God as Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar
ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn Masood. They did not belong to powerful tribes and
Uthman had nothing to fear from them. But then he dismissed Amr bin Aas, the
governor of Egypt. By doing so, he wrote his own prescription for disaster. Amr
bin Aas raked up a hornets' nest for him.
Uthman appeared to be anxious to find
new enemies. A new “recruit” into the ranks of his enemies was Ayesha, the
widow of the Prophet. In the times of her father and Umar, she had been treated
like a queen. But Uthman didn't show the same solicitude for her that they did.
He even reduced her pension, and thus roused her anger. She called him Na'athal
(a Jew of Medina), and openly incited the people against him by saying: “This
Na'athal has relapsed into paganism. Kill him. May God kill him.”
R.V.C. Bodley
Othman had never been an outstanding
figure when Mohammed was alive. Today he showed that he lacked the qualities of
his predecessors. He was easily swayed and had no scruples in replacing
military leaders and governors by his favorites, regardless of their
competence. He also made the mistake of offending Aisha.
The slight in itself was small, but it
was of a kind to arouse all of Aisha's most vindictive instincts: Othman
reduced her pension to the level of that of the other widows!
Aisha had always deemed herself
Mohammed's favorite. During her father's and Omar's reigns, she had been held
in the same regard as when her husband was alive. But with her two protagonists
dead, she knew that it might require all her wit to maintain her position.
When, therefore, Othman made his
indirect attack, Aisha resolved that he was no worthy successor to her husband.
Once she had settled that, all that remained was to find the best way to get
rid of the enemy. The excuse or the methods employed had no bearing on the situation.
When Aisha wanted something done, it was carried out regardless of ethics. In
this case Othman gave Aisha every assistance. (The Messenger – the
Life of Mohammed, New York, 1946)
Medina, once the symbol of piety and
austerity, had changed. The city of the Prophet had become, after his death,
the symbol of all the evils that foreign conquests and unrestrained capitalism
bring in their wake. It must not be assumed that the Muslims of Medina
acquiesced in all these aberrations and deviations from pristine Islam. They
did not. But they had no power to check the abuse of power in the government.
They protested but their protests fell on deaf ears.
The voices of Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar
ibn Yasir and Abdullah ibn Masood which rose in protest against the tide of
materialism threatening to engulf Islam, were silenced by brute force. Finding
themselves at a dead-end, the companions who were in Medina, began in 654 a
campaign of writing letters to the Muslims in the provinces, asking them to
make representations to the khalifa against the crimes of Marwan and the
provincial governors, and to request him to remove them.
The Muslims in the provinces, themselves
victims of tyranny and terror, and at a loss to know what to do, decided, after
exchanging some letters with the companions, to send delegations to Medina to
present their grievances to the khalifa, and to request him to remedy the
situation. Uthman knew about the letters which the companions had sent to the
provinces. But instead of taking remedial action, he committed a faux pas.
Tabari, the historian, says that Uthman wrote to Muawiya, his governor in
Syria, as follows:
“The people of Medina have relapsed into
apostasy; they have broken the pledge of loyalty to me. They are now
contemplating treason. You, therefore, send to me immediately in Medina, the
fierce warriors of Syria, mounted on swift animals.” (History, Volume
III)
But Muawiya had no intention of obliging
Uthman. Tabari further says:
“When Muawiya received Othman's letter,
he decided to watch the situation, and he preferred not to oppose the
companions of the Prophet openly because he knew that they were all united in
their opposition to Othman.”
Muawiya was watching the situation how
it would play into his hands. He was not the man who would be deterred by any
moral compunctions to oppose the companions of the Prophet. He had the ability
but he did not have the willingness to help Uthman.
Abul Fida, the historian, says that in
656 a delegation of 700 members came to Medina from Egypt, and similar
delegations also came from Kufa and Basra. They came seeking redress of
bureaucratic misrule and profligate mismanagement of public funds both in
Medina and in the provinces.If Uthman had given them audience, had heard their
grievances, and if he had only assured them that he was in sympathy with them,
they would have been satisfied, and they would have returned to their homes.
But unfortunately, he did not do so.
The Egyptian delegates who were encamped
at the outskirts of Medina, sent a letter with an emissary to Uthman, asking
him to give them audience. In the letter they had requested him to remove his
foster-brother, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, from his position as governor of
Egypt, and to institute certain administrative reforms. But instead of
considering the request, Uthman ordered his slaves to throw the Egyptian
emissary out.
The Egyptians then entered the city, and
they told the other people what Uthman had done. The delegations of Kufa and
Basra were already in Medina, and they declared their support for the
Egyptians. All three delegations then pitched camp within sight of the palace
of the khalifa. On the following Friday, Uthman led the congregational prayers,
and he read the sermon. He could not have been more gauche and tactless.
Standing in the pulpit, and addressing the delegations from Egypt and Iraq, he
said:
“The Apostle of God had predicted that
mischief-mongers would, one day, come to his city to disturb its peace. He
cursed them all, and now you can see what you are doing.”
The congregation bridled at these
remarks, and there was much commotion in the mosque. Someone threw a rock at
Uthman which caught him in the face; he fell from the pulpit, and was carried out
of the mosque to his palace.
After this incident, Uthman was in a
state of siege in his palace. But he could go into the Mosque, and he still led
the prayers. A few days later, however, the Egyptians and the Iraqis forbade
him to enter the Mosque unless he listened to what they had to say, and they
appointed a certain Ghafiqi, a member of the Egyptian delegation, to lead them
in prayer.
In his distress, Uthman sought Ali's aid
in dispersing the besiegers. Ali said to him:
“Their grievances are genuine, and their
demands reasonable. They will not disperse merely because I ask them to
disperse. They will disperse only if you can give them your pledge to accept
their demands.”
Uthman said:
“I give you the authority to negotiate
with them. Whatever may be your terms of agreement with them, I will accept
them.”
Ali met the leaders of the Egyptian
delegation and talked with them. They agreed to return to Egypt if Uthman
recalled his foster-brother, the infamous Abdullah bin Saad, and if, in his
stead, he appointed Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr as the new governor. Ali told Uthman
what he would have to do if he wished the Egyptians to leave Medina.
Uthman agreed to appoint Muhammad ibn
Abu Bakr as the new governor of Egypt. This satisfied the Egyptians. Muhammad
ibn Abu Bakr left Medina to take charge of his new duties, and many of the
Egyptians accompanied him. Uthman could once again enter the Mosque and lead
the Muslims in prayer. The incident, apparently, was closed.
But unfortunately it was not. Uthman's
alter ego, Marwan, exhumed it, zombie-like. When he heard that the Egyptians
had left Medina with the governor of their own choice, he gave Uthman the
following advice:
“Some of the Egyptians have left Medina
but those who came from the other provinces, are still here. The example of the
Egyptians will encourage them also to put forward impossible demands. To
prevent this from happening, you must make a speech in the Mosque saying ‘The
Egyptians had only heard some rumors in their country. When they came to
Medina, they discovered that whatever they had heard, was nothing but
falsehood. They were satisfied and they went back to their homes. Now you too
should leave Medina, and return to your homes.'“
Uthman did not want to tell such a
brazen lie but Marwan had the power to make him do anything. After some
hesitation, he agreed. He led a prayer, and after the sermon, said:
“O Muslims! The Egyptians had heard some
false reports about their khalifa, and they came to Medina to verify them. Here
they noticed that whatever they had heard, was all lies. They were, therefore,
satisfied, and they went back to Egypt. Now you too should return to your
homes.” (Tabari, History, Volume III)
These words were scarcely out of
Uthman's mouth when pandemonium broke loose in the Mosque. Everyone began to
yell at him: “Uthman, repent! Uthman repent! You are lying. Fear God. You are
lying in God's Own House, and in the pulpit of His Messenger.”
Uthman was seized with panic, and not
knowing what to do, he had to “repent.” He begged God to forgive his sin, and
then went home.
Ali was shocked beyond belief at
Uthman's volte-face, and at his brazenness in making a false statement in the
Mosque. Nevertheless, he called on the old man once again, and chided him for
what he had done. Uthman begged him to intervene once again on his behalf with
the Muslims.
Ali told him that he (Uthman) could, if
he wished, still win the confidence and respect of the Muslims if he admitted
his errors, and if he sincerely apologized for them. He also warned him that if
he did not, then the strangers who were in the city, might besiege him in his
palace, and if they did, then he (Ali) might not be able to conciliate them.
Uthman, in a chastened mood, assured Ali
that he would indeed do as he had advised. Ali, in turn, assured the Iraqis,
the Egyptians and the other Muslims that the khalifa would accept all their
demands, and he reminded them that they too had some duties, such as showing
respect to him, obeying him and supporting him.
On the following day, Uthman went into
the Mosque, admitted his errors, sought pardon and mercy from God, resolved not
to repeat the errors, and promised to take immediate action upon the demands of
the Muslims for reforms in the government.
The audience was deeply moved by the old
khalifa's regrets, and by his assurances, and many tears were shed on both
sides as a mark of a “change of heart.” It appeared that the tears had washed
away the rancors, the resentment and the bitterness of all concerned.
Through Ali's efforts, a reconciliation,
apparently, was achieved, and it was a miracle. But as it turned out, it was a
very short-lived miracle.
Uthman left the Mosque with many pious
resolutions. But when he entered his palace, he found Marwan, his chief policy
planner, awaiting him to give him a new piece of advice. But before he could
say anything, Uthman's wife, Naila, who was also present, stopped him, and the
following exchange took place between them:
Naila: For heaven's sake, you now keep
your mouth shut after all the harm you have already done. If you don't, you
will, without a doubt, compass the destruction of this old man (Uthman).You
are, by your perversity, pushing him to the edge of the pit of death.
Marwan: Who are you to meddle in these
affairs? Have you forgotten that you are the daughter of a man who did not even
know how to take ablutions for the prayer?
Naila: You are the most unmitigated
liar. Before mentioning my father, you ought to remember that you and your father
are the accursed ones of God and His Apostle. If I were not exercising
restraint because of this old man (Uthman), I would have taught you a lesson.
Naila then turned to her husband, and
said to him:
“Do not listen to this foul and wretched
man. What is he? Who gives him a hoot? If you want your own safety, then act
upon Ali's advice. Don't you see how much prestige and influence he has among
the Muslims?”
This was the most sagacious advice that
Uthman ever received from any member of his own family but he didn't accept it.
Naila then left the presence of her husband. As soon as she was out of sight,
Marwan said to Uthman:
“You have committed a major blunder in
the Mosque by admitting your errors, and by 'repenting' in public. Admission of
your sins has now brought the crowds from the Mosque to the gate of your house.
They are here only because they have seen your weakness. If you had been
'firm,' with them, they would not have dared to come here. The only way to deal
with them, and to impress them with your power and authority, is to be 'firm'
with them.”
A crowd of Muslims had, in fact,
gathered outside the palace of the khalifa. But it was a peaceful crowd. Many
Muslims from in and out of town had gathered hoping to hear some important
announcement relating to changes in policy and administration. Uthman should
have gone out to greet them. But he did not. Instead, he gave Marwan his
permission to face them, and to “impress” them with his “firmness.”
Marwan's idea of being firm with the
Muslims was to use violent, abusive and threatening language. With the new
“carte blanche” from Uthman, he went out, and facing the crowd which was
peaceful and friendly, said:
“Why have you gathered here? What are
your intentions? Have you come to attack us or to rob us and to plunder us? If
you have, then listen to this with attention. You will not succeed. You cannot
wrest power and authority from our hands. We shall not be intimidated by you or
by anyone else. Now begone from here. May God curse you.”
This time Uthman and Marwan had gone
beyond the point of no return!
The Muslims were petrified with shock
and horror at the insolence of Uthman's son-in-law. But they did not linger to
palter with him. Instead, they went to see Ali, and reported to him the
substance of Marwan's “speech.”
Ali was aghast to hear the story. Was
there anything he could still do to arrest the declension of the situation? He
pondered the question, and then called on Uthman and said to him:
“Is this the hospitality that you have
offered to your brother Muslims? If you have lost all good sense before them,
you ought, at least, to fear the wrath of God. In your anxiety to shield an
apostate and a liar, you have lost that fear also, and now you can tell lies
publicly and in the Mosque, and you can break solemn pledges without batting an
eye. You have allowed Marwan to lead you wherever he wants to.
Remember, he will lead you into the pit
of iniquity if he hasn't already done so, and you will never be able to
extricate yourself from it. Now I shall not try to mediate between you and the
Muslims. I shall take no interest in your affairs. This is my last visit to
you. You do what you like. But if you still need me, then first you will have
to get rid of Marwan. I shall dissociate myself with you as long as Marwan
stands between you and me.”
Ali left Uthman's palace never to
return. When Naila, the wife of Uthman, saw him leaving, she was deeply
troubled. Events had proved that she had a better judgment than most of those
around Uthman. Though her advice had not been accepted, she was still anxious
to salvage whatever she could, and said to her husband:
“How many times I have told you to get
rid of Marwan. He is a curse around your neck. You know that he is a man of
bankrupt reputation, bankrupt morals and bankrupt sense. The situation is
extremely dangerous, and is rapidly getting worse. You have lost your own
credence by betraying the trust of the Muslims. Now if there is any man who can
still save you, that man is Ali. If he doesn't help you, then you are lost.”
Flustered as Uthman was by the incident,
he realized that what his wife had told him, was the absolute truth. He,
therefore, sent a messenger requesting Ali to come. But Ali refused to go
whereupon Uthman decided to go himself to see him. Not to be seen by anyone, he
went at night.
Before Ali, the old khalifa poured out
the story of his own helplessness, and apologized for his many errors, and gave
him assurance that he would, in future, stand by his word, if he (Ali) would
mediate between him (Uthman) and the Muslims. Ali, however, said:
“You stand in the pulpit of the Apostle
of God, and make a false statement. You give the Muslims your pledge to walk in
truth, and then you break it. Now everyone has seen how you honor your
commitments. If Muslims want to see you and talk with you, Marwan abuses them
and curses them. How do you expect me to trust you now with such a record as
you have? I do not accept any responsibility for any of your acts. The
alternatives are there, and the choice is yours. Get rid of Marwan. If you
cannot do that, then do not expect anything from me. With Marwan at your side, and
as your chief adviser, there is nothing I can do for you anyway.”
Uthman loved his son-in-law too much to
part with him. Ali's terms, therefore, were not acceptable to him, and he
returned home. (Ali was not asking Uthman to banish Marwan from Medina as the
Apostle of God had done; he was only asking him not to be misled by him.)
While Marwan was jousting with the
Muslims in Medina, Uthman had been writing letters to all his governors asking
them to send their troops to Medina so he could “discipline” the “rebels.” His
best hopes lay in Muawiya, and to him he wrote numerous letters, urging him to
bring his warriors to Medina or to send them with his trusted officers. But
neither Muawiya nor any other of his governors responded to his signals of
distress.
One day a man saw Uthman outside his
palace, and remarked: “How I wish I could drag you and those around you in
dirt.” Uthman said that those who were around him, were none other than the
companions of the Apostle of God. He retorted that those “companions” must be
Hakam, Marwan, Walid bin Aqaba, Saeed bin Aas, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh,
and the rest of the brood. Uthman murmured: “Let the army come, and then I will
teach you a lesson.”
But the army never came. Muawiya
temporized, and figured that if there was chaos in Medina, he would maneuver in
it, and if possible, would run away with the khilafat itself.
When these events were taking place in
Medina, bad news came from the north. Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, the governor
designate of Egypt, had reached Elath on the Red Sea arm called the Gulf of
Aqaba, and was soon going to enter Egypt. He was camping in Elath when some
members of his entourage noticed a lone camel-rider coming from Medina.
They stopped him for interrogations, and
finding his answers evasive, frisked him. A long search of his person and
baggage yielded a letter hidden in a leaden tube at the bottom of his
saddlebag. The letter was addressed to Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh, the
governor of Egypt, and it bore the seal of the khalifa himself. They brought
the letter and the letter-carrier before Muhammad. The latter broke the seal,
and was startled to read the following message:
“When Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and members
of his party arrive in Egypt, seize them, and kill them all, and you carry on
your duties as governor of Egypt.”
(As noted earlier, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn
Abi Sarh was not in Egypt at this time; he was in Palestine.)
At first Muhammad could not believe his
own eyes. How could Uthman order his governor to kill him and his companions?
He read and reread the letter until its meaning began to sink in his mind.
Muhammad decided to return to Medina. In
Medina, he went into the Mosque of the Prophet, and placed the letter before
the companions for their perusal. Some of them and members of Muhammad's party,
called on Uthman, to show him the letter, and the following exchange took place
between them:
The companions: Did you write this
letter?
Uthman: No.
The companions: Whose seal is on this
letter?
Uthman: Mine.
The companions: Whose writing is this?
Uthman: My secretary's.
The companions: Whose slave is this
letter-carrier?
Uthman: Mine.
The companions: Who sent him to Egypt?
Uthman: I do not know.
The companions: The seal on the letter
is yours; the writing is your secretary's; the slave Egypt. If you are so
unaware, then it would be both in your interest who carried it, is yours; and
still you do not know who sent him to and in the interest of the Muslim umma
that you abdicate from khilafat. Let some other man, conscientious and fit for the
job, take charge of the government of the Muslims.
Uthman: Khilafat is a robe that God has
given me, and I cannot take it off under any circumstance. What I can do,
however, is to 'repent.'
The companions: Your repentance cannot
hoodwink us any more. Already you have repented many times. You, therefore,
quit and make room for someone worthier than you for the high office of
khalifa. You say that you do not know who sent this letter. If you are telling
the truth, then it cannot be anyone other than your son-in-law who is your
secretary. He wrote it and he sent it. He is the real criminal who was going to
take the lives of many innocent Muslims. Now if you are sincere, then surrender
him to us so that we may investigate him, and uphold justice.
Uthman: I cannot surrender Marwan to
you.
The companions: We then understand that
you are an accomplice in the crime, and you too wanted innocent Muslims to be
killed upon their arrival in Egypt merely because you and Marwan do not like
them.
The companions then went to the Mosque
to report to the Iraqis and the Egyptians the outcome of their parleys with the
khalifa. The Egyptians, thereupon, laid siege to Uthman's palace. The delegates
who came from Kufa and Basra also pitched their tents around the palace of the
khalifa, and declared that he would be their prisoner until he gave up Marwan
to them for trial and judgment.
During the siege, drinking water ran out
in the palace. Uthman appealed to some of the companions to send water but they
ignored his appeals. Finally, he sent word to Ali, and the latter sent water
with armed guards. The guards had to fight their way into the palace to deliver
the life-giving and life-saving fluid.
Uthman still hoped that one of his
governors, probably Muawiya, would send his troops who would annihilate the
unruly and presumptuous rebels. The rebels, in the meantime, were tightening
their noose around his neck.
Many minor incidents occurred during the
siege of the palace of Uthman. There were occasions when he saw with his own
eyes some of the principal companions of the Prophet among the besiegers urging
them to keep their pressure on the besieged.
One day it occurred to a certain Ibn
Ayyadh, one of the companions of the Prophet, to mediate between the besiegers
and the besieged in an attempt to restore peace to Medina. He came to the
palace gate and called Uthman by his name. Uthman peeked out of the window
above, and acknowledged the call. Ibn Ayyadh begged him to abdicate and thereby
to put an end to the state of anarchy in the city, and also to save the Muslims
from possible bloodshed. He had not concluded his appeal yet when one of
Uthman's pickets killed him with an arrow.
A cry of anguish went up from the
besiegers. They asked Uthman to give up the killer to them but he said:
“How can I give up my own supporters and
protectors to you so you kill them? Never.”
Uthman's answer had the effect of a
spark on dry powder. The crowd surged forward to enter the palace and to
capture the murderer of Ibn Ayyadh. Marwan, Saeed bin Aas, Mughira bin Khins,
and the mercenaries of Uthman tried to defend the palace from within, and to
repel the besiegers. The latter attacked the other gates also but found
defenders at every one of them.
While this struggle was going on at the
gates of the palace of Uthman, an Ansari, a certain Amr bin Hazm, called the
besiegers to his house which was adjacent to the house of Uthman. They entered
his house, went on top, and from there descended into Uthman's house with drawn
swords. There was a skirmish with the mercenaries some of whom were killed but
all members of the Banu Umayya – Marwan, Saeed bin Aas and Mughira bin Khins
among them – succeeded in escaping through a secret door. Marwan is said to
have been wounded but recovered later. In the melee someone killed Uthman. His
wife, Naila, is said to have lifted her hand to defend him from a sword, and
her fingers were sliced off in the attempt.
Uthman was killed in his palace,
abandoned by the Umayyads. Twelve years after his election or selection as
khalifa, his caliphate lay in shambles; its personnel decimated; its promises discredited,
its convictions and capabilities overturned.
Uthman was 84 years old at his death. He
had demolished the house built so laboriously by Abu Bakr, Umar and Abdur
Rahman bin Auf. He had failed to assert convincingly the qualities of
leadership, competence and inspiration essential to a khalifa. He had staggered
down into senility and had lost his way.
Uthman remained a prisoner in his palace
for 49 days. He implored Muawiya to come to Medina and to save his life. But
Muawiya had one “answer” to his appeals – silence! Judging by his studied
silence, it appears that Muawiya could not have cared less for Uthman. It is
astonishing that many supporters of Uthman criticize Ali for not “saving” the
life of Uthman even though he (Ali) did not have any means for doing so; but
they condone Muawiya's indifference to him (Uthman) even though he had all the
means to save him (Uthman). A tiny contingent of his army, if he had sent it to
Medina, could have routed or slaughtered all the rebels but he did not!
Amr bin Aas was one of the companions of
the Prophet. Uthman dismissed him twice as governor of Egypt. He never forgave
Uthman for his dismissal; he was blistering toward him. It is entirely possible
that it was he who engineered Uthman's murder, and he didn't even make a secret
of his intentions. But he was full of guile and cunning, and managed to escape
the indictment of history.
Two other agents – provocateurs in the
murder of Uthman were Talha and Zubayr. They fanned the flames of public wrath
and hatred against Uthman same as Amr bin Aas did. Both of them believed, same
as Amr bin Aas and Muawiya did, that they had nothing to lose in a breakdown of
law and order, and had probably everything to gain. All of them were
accessories to the crimes against Uthman either by direct complicity or by
their acquiescence and indifference.
When Uthman was killed, Medina was full
of women and men of great distinction. Among them were the widows of the
Prophet except Ayesha who was in Makkah; Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abdullah bin Umar
bin al-Khattab; the Muhajireen and the Ansar; the veterans of the battles of
Badr and Uhud; and many of those companions who had taken the pledge of the
Tree at Hudaybiyya. But except Ali, no one among them all, showed the least
anxiety to save the life of the khalifa.
Ali left nothing undone to save Uthman
but neither he nor anyone else could have saved a man who was resolved to ruin
himself. Marwan frustrated all his (Ali's) efforts to reverse the skid of the
caliphate, and foiled all his attempts to reconcile the khalifa and the
Muslims. He (Marwan) stood like an insurmountable barrier between them.
Uthman paid heed neither to the
entreaties of his own wife, Naila, nor to the warnings of Ali, but persisted in
courting disaster. To him, Marwan's twaddle was nothing less than inspiration
itself, and to him alone, he (Uthman) gave his first loyalty.
Among his supporters, Uthman could count
only two men – Marwan and Saeed bin Aas - both of them the accursed ones of the
Apostle of God. Sunni jurists and theologians attach great importance to the
principle of consensus. Here there was consensus of the Companions of the
Prophet in withholding their support from Uthman, and in opposing him.
They withheld their support from him,
and they opposed him almost en bloc. They abandoned him, to be slaughtered, in
the words of Umar, by “the wolves of the Arabs.” Who was right and who was
wrong? It's a question for the Sunni jurists and theologians to answer.
When Ali ascended the throne of
khilafat, he found the people in Medina divided into two groups. One of these
groups was clamoring for vengeance for Uthman's blood. The other group
maintained that Uthman had only paid the penalty for his impolitic deeds, and
the question of seeking vengeance for his blood, therefore, did not arise. No
matter what Ali did, it was inevitable that one of these two groups would rebel
against his authority.
The new government was extremely shaky
and Ali was struggling to consolidate it when the first of these two groups
began to press him to penalize the murderers of Uthman. He said to them:
“I am not unaware of the need of
penalizing the murderers of Uthman. But do we have the power to do so? At the
moment, it is they who have the power. They can dictate to us; we cannot
dictate to them. If they wish, they can do harm to us, and we cannot do any
harm to them. Can you suggest any way we can overcome them or circumvent them?”
Medina, at this time, was, in fact, in
the grip of the group which was opposed to Uthman – the rebels. It was their
writ which ran in Medina, and no one dared to challenge them. If Ali decided to
impose penalties on them, it was most probable that they would resist him by
force of arms. They were conscious of their own strength, and of the weakness
of the Medina government.
If the first group, i.e., the
vengeance-seekers, had detected any weakness in the rebels, then it would have
challenged them during the siege of Uthman's palace. But it did not. During the
siege, its leaders went underground. But as soon as Ali was elected caliph,
they came out, and began to demand action from him in apprehending the rebels
who had killed Uthman.
The leaders of the first group decided
to challenge Ali. It was the opinion of Ayesha, who was one of them, and who
was already in Makkah, that they should attack Medina because the murderer or
murderers of Uthman were all there. But Talha and Zubayr, the other two
leaders, who had told Ali that they were going to Makkah to perform Umra (the
lesser pilgrimage), disagreed with her, and said:
“O mother of the believers! Forget
Medina. Our army cannot fight against the rebels who are there. We have,
therefore, to go to Basra.” (Tabari, History, Vol. III)
Ayesha, Talha and Zubayr, the leaders of
the first group, had an army; they had the weapons and they had the money, and
yet they shied away from attacking Medina because they lacked the strength to
overcome the rebels. If they could not fight against the rebels even though
they had an army, how could Ali who did not have an army, fight against them?
If Ayesha, Talha and Zubayr sincerely
wanted vengeance, they ought to have attacked Medina instead of going hundreds
of miles across the desert to Basra. But they could see that the rebels were
simply too many to be penalized. The people of Medina, of Egypt, of Kufa and of
Basra, were all embroiled in the murder of Uthman, directly or indirectly.
There were those companions who wrote
letters to the rebel leaders, and invited them to Medina, and there were those
Muhajireen and Ansar who gave their moral support to them (to the rebels).
Without their tacit support, the rebels might never have dared to kill the
incumbent khalifa in his own house.
There were two ways of penalizing the
murderer(s) of Uthman. One was to kill every man who had taken part, directly
or indirectly, in his murder regardless of who he was – a Muhajir, an Ansar, an
Egyptian or an Iraqi. This was clearly impossible. But if it were possible, the
State still could not kill thousands of men in retaliation for the murder of
one man.
The other way was to investigate the
murder, apprehend the real culprit or culprits, bring them to trial, and in the
event of the crime being proved, to execute him or them. Ali was more than
willing to adopt this course but first he had to restore law and order in the
country after the anarchy and chaos that had lasted many months.
Uthman's murder was not the result of
any sudden provocation that he gave. Long and protracted negotiations had
preceded the crime itself. He was murdered after the failure of all those
negotiations. Delegations came to see him from distant cities, and told him
about the excesses of his governors. He promised to remedy the situation but he
failed to keep his promise.
When a delegation reminded him of his
own pledge to dismiss one of his governors, he said:
“You are suggesting that I should dismiss
those of my governors whom you do not happen to like, and that I should appoint
men of your choice to run the government. If I were to act upon your wishes, I
would become a nonentity, and you would be exercising all governmental
authority and not I.” (Tarikh Kamil - Ibn Atheer, Vol. III, p. 86)
The delegates were incensed by Uthman's
answer, and they said:
“You lack the ability to set right the
wrongs of your government. You must, therefore, abdicate from khilafat. If you
do not, we shall be compelled to take some drastic step.”
Uthman said:
“Are you threatening to kill me? If so,
then what is the crime for the commission of which you would kill me? In Islam,
execution is the penalty for:
(a) murder
of some innocent person;
(b) apostasy;
(c) rape of
a chaste woman.
I have not committed any of these
crimes. On what other ground you want to kill me?”
The delegates' reply was as follows:
“For those men who spread mischief on
earth, or usurp the rights of others, the penalty prescribed in the Book of God
is execution. You have wantonly abused the powers of government. You banished
from Medina a most honorable companion of the Apostle of God, and your lackeys
have beaten up other friends of his. You have foisted drunkards and apostates
upon the umma as its rulers. You and your governors have terrorized and
tyrannized the Muslims, and have usurped their rights. You have done all this
and more. Even so, if you abdicate voluntarily, we shall not meddle with you,
and will leave you in peace.”
But Uthman did not want to abdicate
because, he said, that the khilafat was a “robe” which God had given him, and
he could not take it off.
God can, of course, give the robe of
khilafat to any one He wishes. But the robe of khilafat which Uthman was
wearing, was given to him, not by God, but by Abdur Rahman bin Auf!
This dialogue makes it plain that the
people took the last, desperate step only when everything else failed. They
were convinced that Uthman's execution was right. Their conviction was further
strengthened by the words and the deeds of such dignitaries as Ayesha, Talha,
Zubayr and Amr bin Aas each of whom had prescribed death for him, directly or
indirectly.
The khilafat of Uthman had saddled the
Muslims with a crippled government, and the host of economic, political and
social dislocations that sprang from it, were met by an uncertain and often
contradictory response. The dislocations eventually caused the death of the
khalifa himself.
Many Sunni historians find it very
difficult to admit that Uthman brought destruction upon himself. They are
desperately anxious to “explain” or to rationalize why things went awry in his
khilafat. But how? Their anxiety led them to create a mysterious and a sinister
character whom they called “Abdullah bin Saba.”
The creation of Abdullah bin Saba
“solved” many of the problems of the Sunni historians. He made transference of
guilt possible for them. According to his creators, he was a Jew from Yemen who
had accepted Islam, migrated to Medina, and then went around preaching false
and heretical doctrines, and spreading disaffection and hatred against Uthman.
He was, they claim, responsible for all the sorrows and misfortunes, and eventually,
for the death itself, of Uthman!
Abdullah bin Saba, it appears, suddenly
became the most powerful figure in the entire Dar-ul-Islam. After all, it was
he who toppled a khalifa from his throne, and threw the whole government of the
Muslims into disarray.
What Abdullah bin Saba was doing, was
high treason. Was anything easier for Marwan to do than to capture him and kill
him for his treason, if he was in Medina? Or, was anything easier for a
provincial governor or even for a petty official than to seize him, and to
snuff out his life, if he was in one of the provinces? No. But for some
mysterious reason, he swaggered from town to town and from province to
province, flaying the khalifa, and no one ever touched him. He apparently lived
a charmed existence!
It is amazing that Uthman could banish
such a high-ranking companion of Muhammad Mustafa as Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari to
Rabza (Abu Dharr died in Rabza); he could beat up Ammar ibn Yasir into
unconsciousness, and he could break the ribs of Abdullah ibn Masood, both most
distinguished companions of Muhammad; yet he could give free rein to Amr bin
Aas and “Abdullah bin Saba” to rouse the Muslims against himself with their
stinging diatribes.
When Uthman was killed, “Abdullah bin
Saba” probably figured that he had accomplished his mission, and he went
“underground.” But only a few months later, he “resurfaced” on the eve of the
battle of Basra (the battle of the Camel). It was, his creators claim, he who
was responsible for that deplorable battle.
However, during or immediately after the
battle, he disappeared again, and this time he disappeared forever. It is truly
remarkable that he could vanish without leaving a trail or a trace behind him.
His act of vanishing was so perfect as if he had never “existed.”
Actually, the “necessity” which had led
to the invention of Abdullah bin Saba, had ceased to exist. His creators,
therefore, junked him. But even today, he is exhumed from time to time when
Sunni historians want to “explain” the unpalatable facts of that epoch.
Dr. Taha Husain, the modern Egyptian
historian, has exploded the Abdullah bin Saba myth in his book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra. He
has pointed out that Tabari is the first historian who wrote about Abdullah bin
Saba. He heard about him from one Umar bin Saif. Abdullah bin Saba was born in
the head of Umar bin Saif.
But in the sources before Tabari,
Abdullah bin Saba has not been mentioned anywhere. This is strange because such
an important “personage” as Abdullah bin Saba who disrupted the Muslim society
in the times of Uthman, should have received no notice from pre-Tabari
historians.
Dr. Taha Husain further raises the
question that even if it is assumed that Abdullah bin Saba was preaching false
and heretical doctrines, was it he who “tempted” Uthman to appoint a character
like Marwan as his prime minister?
The Muhajireen and the Ansar resented
Marwan's elevation since in their sight he was little more than a leper. And
was Uthman acting upon the advice and guidance of Abdullah bin Saba when he
dismissed the governors of the provinces who had been appointed by Umar bin
al-Khattab, and appointed his own relatives in their stead? This was one of the
major causes of disaffection in the provinces.
The story of Abdullah bin Saba is a
typical attempt at an in-house whitewash. But the whitewash has not been white
enough!
If on the one hand, the apologists of
Uthman have created such a mythical character as Abdullah bin Saba to mask his
(Uthman's) misjudgment and misgovernment, on the other they have chosen to deny
the truth of the facts of history.
In many of the writings on early Islamic
history, appearing in recent years, Uthman's apologists have gone to the extent
of denying that he dismissed any of the governors appointed by Abu Bakr or
Umar, or, that there was anything reprehensible in it if he did so, or, that he
committed any other error.
It is entirely the business and the
prerogative of the protagonists of Uthman if they wish to live with falsehood
and deception or rather with self-deception. But bitter and unpleasant truths
will not just vanish merely because someone does not like them. This is what
the modern Egyptian historian, Dr. Taha Husain, writes on this subject in his
book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra (The Great Upheaval):
“We should not follow those people who deny
the veracity of the reports which have come down to us about the disputes and
the disagreements of the companions of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, and the
disturbances which took place at the same time. If we do that, we shall, in
effect, be denying the entire basis of the history of Islam, from the time the
Prophet proclaimed his mission.
Those men who reported the disagreements
of the companions, and who reported the political upheavals of their time, are
the same who reported the early struggles, the campaigns, the conquests, and
the life (Sira) of the Prophet and the khulafa (Abu Bakr and Umar). In this
matter, we are not free to pick and choose. We cannot take only what we like
and reject what we dislike. We cannot call some reports true and others false.
“One thing about which there can be no
doubt is that Muslims were divided in the matter of Uthman, and their divisions
ended in his death, and they have never been reunited since.
“But those divisions and disagreements
had their causes. It is true that Muslims killed Uthman but they did not do so
without any causes or reasons.” (al- Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great
Upheaval}, published in Cairo in 1959)
Comments
Post a Comment