Political Administration

Pattern of political administration

Uthman maintained the pattern of political administration as it stood under Umar. The country was divided into twelve provinces. These were Madina, Makkah, Yemen, Kufa, Basra, Jazira, Fars, Azarbauan, Khurasan, Syria, Egypt and North Africa. Under Umar Egypt was divided into two provinces, Upper and Lower Egypt. Uthman made Egypt one province. Uthman created a new province for North Africa. Under Umar Syria was divided into two provinces. Uthman made Syria one province.

Administrative organization

Each province was under the charge of a Governor or Wali. The Governor was in charge of civil as well as military administration. He was assisted by Katib, the Chief Secretary; Katib -i- Diwan-Secretary Defense; Sahib-i-Kharaj - Revenue Collector; Sahib-ul-Ahdath-Inspector General of Police; Sahib- i- Bait-ul- Mal-Treasury Officer; and Qadi-Chief Judge.

Every province was divided into districts. There were about 100 districts in the country. Each district was under the charge of an Aamil. The Qadi was responsible for judicial administration.

Governors of Uthman

The Governors were appointed by the Caliph. Every appointment was made in writing. At the time of appointment an instrument of instructions was issued with a view to regulating the conduct of Governors. On assuming office, the Governor was required to assemble the people in the main mosque, and read the instrument of instructions before them.

One of the main allegations against Uthman was that he had appointed his relatives as Governors. Another allegation was that he exercised little check over the Governors.

As the Caliph, Uthman had the absolute right to appoint the Governors of provinces at his discretion. In theory this discretion could not be questioned. There was no legal bar to the appointment of relatives as Governors. Abdullah b Sa'ad a foster brother of Uthman had been appointed as the Governor of Egypt by Umar. Uthman merely continued him in office. Uthman consolidated Egypt in one province and placed the enlarged province under the charge of Abdullah b Sa'ad. This was an administrative reform in the right direction, and any criticism against the measure was misplaced.

In Syria, Muawiyah was the Governor under Umar. Uthman allowed him to continue in office. Uthman consolidated Syria into one province. In view of the threat from the Byzantines this reform was necessary and very much in public interest.

In Kufa, Uthman appointed Saad b Abi Waqas as the Governor in the first instance. Saad was not related to Uthman and he made the appointment in deference to the will of Umar. Later Saad was deposed and Uthman appointed his step brother Walid b Uqba as the Governor. Sa'ad was not deposed because Uthman wanted to make room for his step brother. Saad was deposed because of his failure to control the situation, and Walid was appointed because Uthman considered that a young man who enjoyed his confidence could alone deliver the goods in Kufa. Walid justified this selection, and during the first five years of his rule he was most popular with the people of Kufa. Later there was agitation in Kufa, and Uthman deposed him in public interest. As a matter of fact the agitation against Walid was not due to the fact that anything had gone wrong with Walid; the reality was that the people of Kufa being fickle by nature were won over by the conspirators, and wanted a change. Uthman accepted their demand even though he was convinced that Walid was not to be blamed in any way and that during the tenure of his office he had served the people of Kufa to the best of his ability.

In Basra, Abu Musa Asha'ari was deposed at the demand of the people of Basra. Uthman asked the representatives of the people of Basra to suggest a person who could be appointed as their Governor. They said that some young person who enjoyed the confidence of the Caliph should be appointed as the Governor. It was in deference to the wish of the people of Basra that Abdullah b Aamar was appointed as the Governor of Basra. He was a cousin of Uthman and he justified his selection in every way.

Allegation of nepotism how far justified?

The Shia writers because of partisan considerations condemn the administration of Uthman in strong terms, and hold him guilty of nepotism. Most of the Sunni writers in order to give an impression of their objectivity and fairness impliedly concede that the charge of nepotism was justified against him. If we examine the issue objectively the allegation stands rebutted. There were twelve provinces in the country, but Uthman as Caliph appointed his relatives in four provinces only, namely Egypt, Syria, Kufa and Basra. In the remaining eight provinces persons other than his relatives were appointed. If Uthman was out to give high offices to his relatives, he could have appointed his family members to high offices in the other provinces as well. As he did not do so, the point that is forced to notice is that he appointed his relatives to four provinces not because he wanted to bestow high offices on his family members, but because the strategic importance of these four provinces demanded that in these provinces there should be Governors who were loyal to him and enjoyed his confidence. In the age in which Uthman lived, blood relationship could be the only guarantee for loyalty. It may be appreciated that even in the modern times when the political systems are highly developed, high- offices are bestowed on the members of the parties on the maxim that spoils belong to the victors. In the age of Uthman when the party system was not developed, only blood relations could serve as the party. As such if Uthman appointed some of his relatives as Governors no blame rests on him. He acted in public interest. It may be recalled that when Ali became the Caliph he also appointed his relatives as Governors. No blame rests on Ali for such appointments because what he did was in the best interests of the State. As such we can emphatically state that when Uthman appointed some of his relatives as Governors there was nothing wrong in that.

Some of the writers find fault with Uthman that he appointed incapable persons as Governors. This view is incorrect and uncharitable. All the persons appointed by Uthman were capable persons of great caliber. Muawiyah was a ruler of outstanding capacity, and as a ruler and administrator he was second to none. Abdullah b Sa'ad was successful as Governor. Under his rule the revenues increased manifold. He conquered the whole of North Africa, and that was a great achievement. In Kufa, Walid enjoyed great popularity for the first five years. He conducted successful campaigns in Azarbaijan and Armenia. In Basra Abdullah bin Aamar proved to be most successful. He reconquerd the whole of Fars, Seestan, and Khurasan and even penetrated into Transoxiana. None of the Governors appointed by Uthman proved to be a failure, and it is unjust to condemn Uthman for appointing Governors who made great conquests. Uthman did not make such appointments arbitrarily. He made the appointments after assessing the merits of the persons concerned. It may be recalled that Uthman had brought up Muhammad b Huzaifa as his son. When Muhammad b Huzaifa wanted to be appointed as a Governor, Uthman did not oblige him because he did not consider him fit enough for such office. If nepotism was the sole consideration with Uthman as alleged by his critics he could have appointed Muhammad b Huzaifa to some high office. Muhammad b Huzaifa later led the agitation against Uthman. That clearly establishes that there is no substance in the allegation of nepotism against Uthman.

Autonomy for the Governors

It was also alleged that Uthman was weak and he did not exercise check on his Governors. In the accounts that have come down to us, only vague allegations have been made, and no hard and fast facts have been cited to establish what lapses did the Governors of Uthman make anti how Uthman failed to check them. It is made out that these Governors acted according to their own caprices, and did not carry out the orders of Uthman. If the orders of Uthman were not obeyed, Uthman should have been the first person to complain against his Governors. We do not come across in history a single complaint in this connection and it is difficult to subscribe to the view that in the time of Uthman, the administration had become so lax that the Governors did not care for the orders of the Caliph. That appears to be sheer propaganda motivated by partisan considerations. As a matter of fact Uthman was as vigilant as a Caliph could be, and he issued policy guidelines to his Governors from time to time. The true position is that as these Governors enjoyed the confidence of Uthman, he allowed them a good deal of autonomy, and did not interfere in the day to day administration. Umar had imposed some restrictions on his Governors. The Governors had been enjoined not to ride a Turkish horse; not to wear fine clothes; not to eat sifted flour; and not to keep a porter at their door. Uthman did not consider such restrictions necessary and he allowed his Governors greater liberty. This was a step in the right direction and it is unfair to criticize Uthman on this account.