Reflections on His Caliphate

Historiographic thought

According to the secular historiographic thought, history is primarily a matter of narration, and the task of a historian is to narrate facts as they are. According to thE Islamic historiographic thought, the task of a historian is no merely to narrate facts, but to reflect as well on what happened in history. The caliphate of Uthman is a crucial period in the history of early Islam, and we have to reflect why in spite of the eminence of Uthman, his caliphate was not as successful as it should have been, and why it culminated in the tragedy of the assassination of the Caliph?

Responsibility of Uthman

In this connection the fIrst point to be considered is, whether Uthman is to be blamed in any way for the sins of omission or commission that led to the tragedy. In the earlier part of this book I have referred to all the allegations that were levelled against Uthman. Uthman in his address delivered on the occasion of the Hajj in 655 C.E. dealt with all such allegations, and refuted them with due argument. The explanation offered by Uthman is most convincing, and must be accepted by every person who studies these events objectively. It may also be recalled that when Uthman made a liberal contribution towards the financing of the expedition to Tabuk, the Holy Prophet said that Uthman was not to be judged for anything thereafter. This does not mean that Uthman had been given the licence to indulge in any sins of omission and commission and was to be immune to judgement. This merely meant that whatever Uthman did later, no blame was to rest on him. In view of this verdict of the Holy Prophet, it does not lie in the mouth of any Muslim writer to pass any judgment on the alleged sins of omission and commission on the part of Uthman, I am aware of the fact that apart from the Shia writers, even the Sunni writers have found fault with Uthman in some way or the other. I am of the confirmed view that in view of what the Holy Prophet said, no Muslim, writer has the authority to impute any blame to Uthman for his alleged sins of omission or commision. As such it must be held that in the crisis that overwhelmed the Muslim community during the caliphate of Uthman, no blame rested on him.

Allegations against Uthman

According to the accounts that have come down to us the main allegations against Uthman were that he had appointed the Umayyads to high offices; that he had allowed liberal grants out of the Baitul Mal to his favorites; and that he had played into the hands of unscrupulous persons. I have discussed all these allegations in the earlier part of this book.

My conclusion is that there is no force in these allegations.

This means that most of the allegations are false, and if any allegation is factually correct, Uthman was justified in doing whatever he did.

Demands of the agitators

If the allegations against Uthman were false or frivolous, then the next question is: what exactly were the demands of the agitators. Surprisingly in all the accounts that have come down to us, there is no mention of such demands in specific terms. The agitators made vague, confusing, and conflicting demands. If the available accounts are analyzed, it appears that the main demand was about the deposition of the Governors. In Egypt the demand was that Abdullah b Sa'ad should be deposed. No specific allegations were made against him. When it was pointed out that under him the revenues of the province had been increased, it was observed that the young ones of the she camel had been starved, which implies that the process of tax collection had been oppressive. It was, however, never brought out where lay the oppression. When the rule of Abdullah b Sa'ad came to an end in Egypt with the capture of power by Muhammad b Abu Hudhaifa, the agitation did not subside; on the other hand it burst into armed revolt.

In Kufa, the people demanded that Saeed b A1 'Aas should be deposed, and Abu Musa Asha'ari be appointed as the Governor. Uthman accepted the demand. l he new Governor secured an undertaking from the people that they would no longer indulge in agitation. In spite of that they continued their agitation. This shows that the real object of the agitators was not to secure the deposition of Governors, their main purpose was to create unrest and confusion.

Disorder in Kufa

When what happened in Kufa is studied analytically we get some idea as to what was at the bottom of the agitation. When Saeed b A1 'Aas was the Governor of Kufa he held a gathering at his house every night which was attended by the principal citizens. At one of the meetings some one expressed the wish that certain lands in Iraq were assigned to Saeed b A1 'Aas so that he could indulge in charity. This was apparently an innocent wish, but it led to violence and exchange of blows. This shows that the people of Kufa were very sensitive in the matter of the ownership of land in conquered territories.

The background of the matter is that the soldiers demanded that like other booty, lands should also be distributed among the soldiers of the conquering army. Umar did not accept the proposal. He laid down that the land left by the non-Muslims should become State property. Uthman followed the policy laid down by Umar. Umar had laid down restrictions on the purchase of such property. Uthman relaxed those restriction, and any one could purchase such land. Most of the land in Iraq had been purchased by the Quraish and that led Saeed b Al 'Aas to observe that Sawad was the garden of the Quraish. That was resented by the people of Kufa and they resorted to agitation. When the matter was reported to Uthman he directed that the ring leaders be sent to Syria. In his book Uthman, Taha Hussain has found fault with this order of Uthman. He has held that the punishment of exile was severer than imprisonment and the cutting of hands and feet. I fail to understand the logic in the argument of Taha Hussain. It is not understood how the sending of certain agitators from one part of the country to another as a corrective measure could be severer than imprisonment and even the cutting of hands and feet. In Syria Amir Muawiyah tried to make these people see the light of reason but he failed. Then they were sent to "Jazira". Abdur Rahman the ruler of Jazira dealt with these people harshly, and they repented. Ashtar, their leader, next went to Madina where he repented before Uthman. Uthman allowed him to return to Kufa. What these people really wanted was that lands in conquered territories should be distributed among the soldiers of the conquering army. When they repented, this implied that they had withdrawn their demand. Thus when in 656 C.E., the people from Kufa marched to Madina to put pressure on Uthman, they had no demand to present; they were merely agitating for the sake of agitation.

Contempt of authority

In his book on Uthman, Taha Hussain has quoted a letter addressed by Ashtar, the rebel of Kufa, to Uthman. On the strength of this letter, Taha Hussain argues that the rebels did not deny the authority of Uthman; they merely wanted the government to be just and fair.

This letter is quoted hereunder: "From Malik b Harith (Ashtar) to the Caliph who is guilty and blameworthy; who has strayed from the path of the Holy Prophet, and who has neglected the Holy Quran.

We have read your letter. Your rulers should refrain from being tyrannical. They should not exile the citizens. We agree to be loyal to you. You are under the impression that we have acted unjustly. This is your misconception that has hurled you in the precipice, whereby tyranny appears as justice to you, and falsehood looks as the truth to you. Refrain from being unjust to our people; do not exile them from their cities, and do not appoint your favorites as our Governors. Repent before God and appoint Abdullah b Qais, or Abu Musa Asha'ari, or Hudhaifa as our Governor. We are happy with these persons. Save us from your Walid, your Saeed, and other men of your family."

It is very strange that on the basis of this letter. Taha Hussain supports the stand of the rebels, and finds fault with Uthman. This is most unfair and uncharitable. A mere glance at the letter will show that it is coached in most disrespectful language. At the outset, Ashtar has expressed in very strong terms his want of confidence in Uthman by referring to him as guilty, blameworthy, one who has strayed from the right path, and one who has neglected the Quran. Nothing could be more disrespectful to the authority of the Caliph, and after expressing such no-confidence it was preposterous to hold that they were loyal to him. The trend of the letter clearly betrays that the rebels were bent on mischief, and they wanted to create disorder on one pretext or the other.

After reading the above letter I have arrived at the conclusion that the rebels had no real grievance against the Government; they were merely spearheading a subversive movement, at the instance of powers hostile to Islam. Those who raised the bogey of tyranny and injustice on the part of Uthman or his Government were merely playing in the hands of the enemies of Islam.

Conspiracy against Islam

We have next to ask the question: if the agitation against Uthman was a conspiracy against Islam why did Uthman not take steps to crush it with force? No hard and fast answer can be given to this question but some probabilities can be attempted. At that stage of the history of Islam, the State was organized to deal with the enemy from without; it lacked the organization to deal with the enemy from within. Within the country the State rested on the moral authority of Islam and even no Police had been organized. The State had armed forces, but the task of the army was to fight the non-Muslims, across the border. Uthman was averse to use the army for the purposes of civil war amongst the Muslims. Uthman did all he could to use the moral force at his disposal. He explained his position at great length. He categorically refuted all the allegations levelled against him. When in spite of that the agitation persisted, Uthman willingly offered his own life rather than summon any force to his aid and thereby involve the people in bloodshed and civil war. This is a unique case in history. No other ruler in history ever refused to use force for self-defense. In refusing the use of force for self-defense, Uthman set up admirable example of self-sacrifice. This trait of the character of Uthman has not been fully brought out in the accounts that have come down to us. It is necessary that this aspect of the character of Uthman should be understood in proper perspective, and Uthman should be honored as one of the greatest heroes of Islam. He sacrificed his life for he did not like to shed the blood of other Muslims merely to protect him. This assures for Uthman a high ranking place among the great Muslims.

Why failure?

If it is held that no blame rested on Uthman, and his place is among the great men of history, the question that puzzles us is: why in spite of his greatness, the Caliphate of Uthman ended in disaster? The Arabs were individualists and highly democratic. Democracy unless effectively controlled is apt to degenerate into licence. That was exactly the position in the pre-Islamic era of ignorance. The Holy Prophet introduced a new order, "hereunder the democratic urges of the people were effectively controlled by the moral injunctions of Islam, and the exemplary character of the Holy Prophet. After the death of the Holy Prophet, the moral influence of the Holy Prophet was no longer available. The Holy Prophet was succeeded by Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was known as a kind hearted man' but as Caliph he followed a stern line of action. Even when men like Umar advised that the offer of the tribes not to pay Zakat be accepted, Abu Bakr took the stand that if Zakat was withheld, he would fight. That saved the situation. The apostasy campaigns were over within a year, and the whole of Arabia was won back for Islam. Umar who followed Abu Bakr was already known for his hot temper. He kept the people under strict control, and as such during his caliphate the democratic urges of the people could not degenerate into a licence. Uthman was liberal, soft spoken and kind hearted. Under Uthman there was a relaxation of control, and because of such relaxation, the democratic urges of the people degenerated into licence, and there was a recrudescence of the values of the days of ignorance which Islam had taken pains to suppress.

Dilemma of democracy

We have next to ask ourselves the question whether Uthman is to be blamed in any way for this relaxation of control, and the degeneration of the democratic urges of the people into licence? We cannot impute any blame to Uthman in this behalf for the simple reason that this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved during the last fourteen hundred years, and the dilemma of democracy continues to be as serious and grave today as it was in the time of Uthman.

The dilemma of democracy is that while at individual level the Muslims are the most democratic people in the world, at the collective level democracy has practically failed in almost all the Muslim countries in the world. In the course of Islamic history when there was a strong ruler he maintained law and order and kept the democratic urges of the people under control. This evoked reaction and the people led the struggle for the restoration of liberties. - With the restoration of liberties, democratic urges of the people once again degenerated into licence. Things have thus moved in a vicious circle, and history has witnessed a succession of dictatorships, and loose democratic rule creating problems of law and order.

It is unfortunate that we have so far not evolved a political system "hereunder a proper balance could be maintained between the democratic urges of the people, and the requirements of law and order. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is not peculiar to Islam; it applies to secular orders as well. As a matter of fact the so called democracy of the western pattern is a spent force. The need of the day is to evolve a new political system based on the principles of Islam. In the Holy Quran, Allah has referred to the Muslim community as the best community among mankind. The lesson that is brought out by the life story of Uthman is that we should create a new political order "hereunder proper balance is maintained between liberty and authority according to the principles of Islam. I visualize that the day is not far when the Muslims would once again assume the leadership of the world, and sponsor a political system which is a happy synthesis of liberty and authority. May God help us in our mission!