by Abu Dharr (Opinion, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 1, Ramadan, 1446)
In the previous article we pointed out a very serious but not evil error when we said that ‘Uthman was not fittingly justified when he replaced Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas with al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it. We will also encounter other oversights and indiscretions by ‘Uthman but we have to understand that such incautions or tactlessness by ‘Uthman were not malicious or clannish.
Despite the actuality that ‘Uthman did in fact miscalculate and/or underestimate the consequences of his decisions to “bring into” Islamic governance-responsibilities Makkan/Quraishi individuals who spent the better part of their lives as unquestionable enemies of the Prophet (pbuh) but who consequentially “jumped on the winning Islamic bandwagon”, ‘Uthman did what he did within the broader consensual policy of the Muhajireen and Ansar to fully and finally integrate Makkah into the Islamic federation whereby it can conclusively become what it was meant to be: the seat of power; instead of or alongside al-Madinah— a task that still awaits completion.
The above clarification of ‘Uthman’s benign but rather defective decisions that resulted in menacing and vindictive domino effects have to be impressed into our sectarian-free minds every time we visit those trying times so that we don’t end up “extremists” or “fanatics” or even “enemies” who have today become the “Umawiy” Sunnis or the Safawi Shi‘is.
This writer hopes that everyone following these articles will keep the above clarification in mind so that we don’t get caught up in a sectarian vicious circle repeating the baseless claims and unsubstantiated complaints that can be directly traced to the cognitive absence of the imperative clarification above.
With this in mind, we will continue to try to objectively give an account of ‘Uthman’s administrative and governmental decisions. In the previous article the historical record was mentioned that tells us that ‘Uthman replaced Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas with al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah because of Sa‘d’s fiduciary failure involving trust between him as beneficiary and the Islamic Treasury fund manager ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud.
It also appears from the historical record that ‘Uthman himself was culpable of Treasury indiscretion as ‘Uthman gave one of his relatives a substantial amount of money from the State Treasury. The treasury minister took issue with ‘Uthman’s decision and refused to relinquish the money to that person.
‘Uthman tried to convince the Treasurer but to no avail. He then chided the treasurer and expressed himself, as we shall see later on, saying: ما أنت انما أنت خازن لنا [Who do you think you are! You are [merely] a bookkeeper of ours]. The treasurer [financial officer] replied:
ما كنت أرى أني خازن لك وانما خازنك أحد مواليك لقد كنت أراني خازنا للمسلمين
[I did not (ever) consider myself to be your accountant; your accountant [if you ever had one] is someone who is your dependent (I am not). I consider myself to be the treasurer of the Muslims.] Then he took the keys of the treasure chest and hung them on the Prophet’s minbar [pulpit]. After doing that he stood his ground at home.
If this is what ‘Uthman did with the treasurer to shield one of his relatives, it would be challenging to believe that ‘Uthman would be upset with Sa‘d if it turns out that he in fact was unable to pay back his debt to the Treasury on time. This was despite the fact that Sa‘d asked for more time to repay his debt.
It is probably safe to posit that ‘Uthman did not dismiss Sa‘d from his governmental position because he was dodgy or untrustworthy. Rather, ‘Uthman kept Sa‘d in his governmental position in honor of ‘Umar’s advice/preference and then terminated him to appoint someone from his own Makkan-Quraishi relatives.
Al-Walid performed more or less in a worthy manner as governor of al-Kufah. He did his due diligence as far as defense and military issues are concerned. He gained something of a decent reputation as a general.
His plans and policies towards the inhabitants of al-Kufah were rigorous, authoritarian, and decisive. Public safety was ensured and crimes and civic misconduct were not tolerated. Even though his administration of the general public may have been to a certain degree commendable, al-Walid’s personal life was not. His opponents exposed him for his substance abuse – overindulgence in or dependence on liquor/intoxicants along with his friend and poet Abu Zubaid, a Christian, who was a valued friend of al-Walid’s.
When al-Walid became the ruler of al-Kufah, Abu Zubaid was a regular in his inner circle. Their relationship became so profound that eventually Abu Zubaid became a Muslim. And it turns out that proof of al-Walid’s moral failure – his consumption of alcohol – was established in a court of law.
So ‘Uthman applied the Hadd [the Islamic legal punishment] on al-Walid. If there was any doubt about al-Walid’s misconduct, the Hadd would not have been implemented. The person who applied the Islamic legal punishment [flogging in public] was Sa‘id ibn al-‘As who himself was from the Umawiy clan. The resentment of the families of these two men, even though they belonged to the same extended family, was to endure for a long time.
There are some other reports that tell us that al-Walid prayed al-Fajr three or four rak‘at while he was intoxicated… and yet another report tells us that al-Walid presented a magician to the public and then fanatics from the public killed the magician… and if someone was to dig deep into the historical documents he might find more contentions about al-Walid…
This writer ventures to say that al-Walid was a [clannish] Quraishi who verbalized the Islamic article of faith but retained his jahili preferences and opinions. He was not the first to be found guilty of consuming alcohol during those first decades of Islamic self-determination.
There were others who professed Islam but suppressed in themselves a psychology of counter-Islam. There were those who vacillated between confirming Allah (swt) in their daily salat and denying Him in their daily lives. Much of our Islamic history has been tainted by the royal and imperial Umawiys. A major reason for sacking al-Walid from the governance of al-Kufah may have been his mistreatment or exploitation of the citizens within his jurisdiction.
Most of the population of al-Kufah was originally from southern Arabia while al-Walid was a non-southerner, a proud Quraishi gentleman who was swollen with Quraishi pride, who also boasted about his kinship with ‘Uthman. Remember, al-Walid was ‘Uthman’s brother by breast-feeding. اخوه بالرضاعة
Thus the element of social discrimination or even “ethnic” prejudice may have been a factor between al-Walid the ruler and the Kufans the ruled. Bit by bit, this inequity took its toll.
Like most rulers, al-Walid needed widespread acceptance, approval and even admiration. Sensing that public opinion was not in his favor, he enacted policies to win it over. He allocated three dirhams for those in need to be dispersed to them once a month. A good number of people needed financial assistance, so al-Walid used the provincial treasury to win over the “lower classes”.
We must bear in mind that the population there did not comprise true and tried committed Muslims. Some had just become Muslim although a minority was truly Muslim. It appears that when al-Walid was sacked, much of the “lower class” was disappointed or felt sorry that their patron who had allocated some monthly payments for them was no longer their governor.
Some chronicles put it this way: al-Walid was accepted by the working-class not because of any outstanding characteristics, rather because of his “social program” or entitlements. However al-Walid was out of favor with the upper class of al-Kufah because there was nothing about him that impressed them.
At the end, al-Walid was sacked after the majority of people detested him. The well-to-do disapproved of him because they were no longer able to exploit the waged-people and eventually the latter found him objectionable because of his decadence, depravity, and his policy of “buying them off”.
And, without a doubt, Allah will certainly know [and verify] those committed [to Him], and will certainly know [and verify] the faith-manipulators -- Surah 29, ayat 11.
