Uthman in History

Uthman and History

Uthman was the third Caliph of early Islam. Among the rightly guided Caliphs his rule was the longest. Extensive conquests were made during his period. History has, however, not done full justice to him. He has become a controversial figure in history, and different historians have expressed different views about him.

Ameer Ali

In his book History of the Saracens, Ameer Ali assesses Uthman in the following terms:

"The election of Uthman proved in the end to be the ruin of Islam. Uthman though virtuous and honest was very old, feeble in character, and quite unequal to the task of government. He fell under the influence of his family. He was guided entirely by his Secretary Marwan, one of the most unprincipled of the Umayyads. Uthman displaced most of the lieutenants employed by Umar, and appointed in their stead incompetent and worthless members of his own family. The weakness of the Caliph and the wickedness of his favorites created a great ferment among the people. Loud complaints of exaction and operation by his Governors began pouring into the capital. Ali expostulated several times with the Caliph on the manner in which he allowed the government to fall into the hands of his unworthy favorites. But Uthman under the influence of his evil genius Marwan paid no heed to these counsels."

Philip K. Hitti

In his book History of the Arabs, Philip K Hitti observes as follows:

"Uthman who committed the words of Allah to an unalterable form, and whose reign saw the complete conquest of Iran, Azarbaijan and Armenia was a pious and well meaning old man, but too weak to resist the importunities of his greedy kinsfolk. His foster brother Abdullah formerly the Prophet's amanuensis who had tampered with the words of the revelation and who was one of the ten proscribed by Muhammad at the capture of Makkah, he appointed Governor over Egypt. His half brother Walid b Uqbah who had spat in Muhammad's face, and had been condemned by the latter, he made the Governor of Kufa. His cousin Marwan b al Hakam, a future Umayyad Caliph he put in charge of the Diwan.

Many important offices were filled by the Umayyads, the Calph's family Charges of nepotism became wide spread. The feeling of discontentment aroused by his unpopular administration was fanned by the three Quraishite aspirants to the caliphate, Ali, Talha and Zubair."

Prof. K. Ali

In his book A Study of Islamic History, Prof. K. Ali observes: "Uthman was upright, dutiful and generous. In chastity and integrity, Uthman was as firm as a mountain. Modesty was the salient feature of his character. The Prophet himself was so much pleased with him that he gave his two daughters in marriage to him. He was very rich but he contented himself with plain dress. His services in the recension of the Holy Quran were invaluable. He sacrificed his own life rather than wield the sword against the rebels. A man who sacrificed his life for the solidarity of Islam, and the good of his subjects can easily be called a true patriot and a benign ruler".

S. A. Salik

In his book Early Heroes of Islam, S. A. Salik observes as follows:

"Such was the tragic end of one of the most generous, pious, pure and heroic souls of early Islam. In spite of his opulence he led a simple life, but with a magnificent liberality he spent his money in charity. He purchased the well named Rauma, and assigned it for the benefit of the public; subscribed liberally for the force which eventually took part in the battle of Tabuk; distributed to the needy a large quantity of grain in a period of famine at his own expense, acquired lands and extended the apostolic mosques of Madina and Makkah, and performed the duties of the caliphate without any remuneration. To his recension of the Quran we owe the present correct edition of the Book. On account of a verse in the Holy Quran he considered it a sacred duty to help his relatives. He put them in important public offices and gave them large sums of money out of the public treasury. Taking advantage of his kind and mild nature his unworthy relatives, several of whom were Governors of provinces, committed acts of high handedness end injustice which caused discontent. Being faced by strong and even armed opposition he would at times consent to their dismissal, though not convinced of the necessity of the step. As soon as such opposition ceased he would withdraw his consent. He was however willing to punish those responsible for specific complaints though he declined to dismiss them wholesale or to deliver them to blind fury. With equal magnanimity he declined to employ force against the malcontents and cause unnecessary bloodshed among Muslims, but with awful coolness, uncommon courage and exemplary self-sacrifice he laid down his own life to allay the fury of the rebels. But for his mildness which leaned to the virtue's side, he would have been an ideal ruler of men. As a private individual his character was simply adorable."

Jalauddin Suynti

In his book History of the Caliphs, Jalaluddin Suyuti observes:

"Uthman ruled the Caliphate twelve years. For six years. he governed the people without the people having anything to reproach against him, and he was more beloved by the Quraish than Umar, for Umar was stern with them, and when Uthman ruled them, he treated them with leniency and was attached to them. But afterwards he became heedless of their affairs, and appointed his kinsmen to high offices during the last six years, and bestowed upon Marwan a fifth of the revenues of Africa, and lavished on his kindred and family the property of the State, and explained it as the assistance to kindred which the Lord had enjoined, and said, "Verily Abu Bakr and Umar have neglected in that matter, and I have taken it, and divided it among my kindred but the people disapproved of it."

Mazhamddin Siddiqi

In his book Development of Islamic State and Society, Mazharuddin Siddiqi observes:

"There were too many interests to be reconciled, the Ansar against the Muhajreen; the Hashimite against the Umayyads; the bedouin tribes against the aristocracy of Madina. In a democratic set up which did not provide for a regular constitutional machinery with well defined rights and duties, everything depended on the personal quality of the ruler. Uthman would have succeeded if he had been a dictator either temperamentally or constitutionally, or if there had been an adequate constitutional machinery behind the social democracy of Islam. But it was clearly a dangerous solution to have democratic liberties such as the Arabs had without a strong hand like Umar, or without a full fledged democratic constitution which was inconceivable in an age like that or in a country like Arabia."

Professor Muhammad Khizri Bekl

In his book History of the Caliphs, Professor Muhammad Khizri Bek has expressed the view that all the allegations that were levied against Uthman were frivolous, and were with regard to matters which vested in the authority of Uthman, and with regard to which he was competent to act in his discretion. The main charge against him was about the behalf. Islam authorized and those Holy Prophet made no restrictions in that behalf. Islam enjoined equality, and Uthman was free to choose any one from among his relatives for any appointment if he considered him fit for such appointment. Professor Khizri has expressed the view that in Shariah the demand for the deposition of the Caliph was not authorized and those who raised the demand betrayed Islam.

Raza Misri

In his book Uthman b Affan, Raza Misri observes that in the caliphate of Uthman there was great discontentment against Uthman on account of the appointment of his relatives. In the course of time the discontent multiplied. If Uthman had wished he could have made amends What happened was that he would repent and would promise the deposition of his relatives, but would do nothing to implement or fulfil his promise. If he wanted to favor his relatives there could have been other ways of doing so. They could have been appointed to less important posts for they were not at all capable of being appointed to higher posts. The times needed the appointment of men of caliber and good record to high office. Many companions of stainless character were available, and if Uthman had availed of their services history would have taken a different course.

Sir William Muir

In his book The Caliphate, Sir William Muir has observed that the history of the period has been colored by the jealousy and animosity between the Umayyads and the Abbasids. When the Abbasids came to power they tried to tarnish the history of the Umayyads. Sir William Muir observes that in these accounts, Marwan the unpopular cousin of Uthman has received constant abuse as the author of Uthman's troubles. Marwan is painted as the evil genius, but all this is tinged by the Abbasid and anti-Umayyad prejudices. Sir William Muir holds that the story of large free gifts to Marwan which formed one of the grounds of impeachment against Uthman reads like a party calumny.

Assessment

Unfortunately, history has not done proper justice to Uthman. Extensive conquests were made during the caliphate of Uthman. While sufficient details are available about the conquests made during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and Umar, no details are available about the conquests made during the caliphate of Uthman. A greater part of Spain was conquered during the time of Uthman but surprisingly no details are available in this behalf, and even the names of the territories occupied by the Muslims are not known. It appears that most of the history books were written during the Abbasid period, and the tendency with the pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the Umayyads, and the history of the period of Uthman was mutilated because Uthman was an Umayyad.

Shia writers have been very loud in their criticism of Uthman. Even a writer like Ameer Ali has condemned Uthman as an old man, feeble in character, and quite unequal to the task of Government. The view is obviously biased and therefore unfair.

The Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.

The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.

We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.

Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.

Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindness.