by Abu Dharr (Opinion, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 5, Muharram, 1447)
People in and around the Arabian Peninsula were attracted to Islam primarily because of its emphasis on social justice and socio-moral uniqueness. Hundreds of thousands and then millions of people were inspired by the fairness and equality of the Islamic social order. These appealing features became noticeably compromised during the last years of ‘Uthman’s administration.
As perceived by a growing public opinion, the “rush to riches” by a band of “selfless-to-selfish” prominent figures could not be reconciled with their newly acquired understanding of Islamic social justice. This widely held aversion to a ruling class looking the other way when a wealthy class was, for the most part, ignoring the rights, opinions, or feelings of others.
Sa‘id ibn al-‘As was the governor of al-Kufah in the 33rd year of the Hijrah. In addition to having a regular “townhouse meeting” with the public, the governor would convene an occasional reserved meeting with whom he considered to be the noblemen, the landed gentry, and those known for their opinionated good sense.
On one of those occasions, Sa‘id ibn al-‘As addressed his invitees by saying: انما السواد – سواد الكوفة – بستان لقريش [But of course the fertile topsoil of al-Kufah is [now] an orchard belonging to Quraish.] When word got out and the people of al-Kufah grasped what he meant, they were upset and outraged. Most of these people were originally from southern Arabia. They responded to Sa‘id ibn al-‘As stridently and “unforgivingly”.
They said to him, in effect, that the fertile topsoil you are talking about belongs to us as spoils of war and Quraish’s share of it amounts only to their proportion out of the spoils of war, on an equal footing with the rest of the Muslims. Sa‘id’s chief security commander was incensed that the public would take issue with their governor the way they did. So he rebuked them. They, in turn, went up to him, clobbered him until he fell unconscious. From then on, Sa‘id discontinued his evening “townhouse meetings.”
Still, people would call their own gatherings and assemblies. In these encounters they unleashed their thoughts and voices against Sa‘id and against ‘Uthman and the Quraish generally. These community meetings began to pick up momentum – more people from here and there were attending. This trend caused Sa‘id to write to ‘Uthman to advise him of what is developing in and around al-Kufah.
The fear was that these popular congregations may “get out of hand,” with ominous consequences. ‘Uthman’s response was to have the noblemen and peers transferred to al-Sham [the Levant]. ‘Uthman, or someone in his inner circle, wrote to Mu‘awiyah, the governor of Damascus, telling him to accommodate them and to “reform” them.
Another history version of this development states that Sa‘id called a public meeting to address the people. In attendance were those noblemen and peers of the realm. Speeches were given praising the generosity of Talhah ibn ‘Ubaid-Illah.
Sa‘id said: Anyone who possesses the amount of wealth and land that Talhah possesses has no choice but to be generous and munificent, and if I were as rich as Talhah, I would have you [the people of al-Kufah] living in abundance and affluence. A young man in the crowd hailing from Bani Asad rejoined: O how I desire that the commander [Sa‘id] would be in possession of land adjacent to the Euphrates [so that we can benefit from his generosity!]
The land he was referring to was state property, which means it was war booty to be fairly allocated to the warriors and war veterans. This statement stirred the attendees into action by disclaiming what the young man said and bonding together in unison against “private enterprise” and mal-distribution of resources.
The agitation reached a crescendo that resulted in the crowd hitting the young man and his father until the two lost consciousness. At that point the tribe of these two men (Bani Asad) was infuriated. Sa‘id tried to calm the crowd but without much success. At this point Sa‘id “deported”, on orders from ‘Uthman, the “lords of al-Kufah” to al-Sham.
This was essentially the banishment of noblemen from their home environment. It is not unquestionably clear on what basis does a governor or a khalifah have the right to banish any Muslim from his home-base.
True, a ruler with evidence beyond a shadow of doubt may expel a person from his home-town or homeland if that person is in a state of belligerency or war against Allah (swt) and His Prophet (pbuh) and continues to agitate, disturb and destabilize society. The ruler or judge has the jurisdiction, if that is the case, to either pass the death penalty, and to choose the method of the death penalty, or to exile them from their hometown or homeland.
In this particular case there was no “proof beyond a shadow of doubt” that these Quranically versed, respectable and veteran noblemen of al-Kufah were at war with Allah (swt), the Prophet (pbuh), or were setting off mass social upheaval.
As far as we can read and research, these deportees never withdrew their pledge of allegiance to the Islamic leadership and they never said that ‘Uthman as Khalifah or Sa‘id as governor were illegitimate. To the contrary, they attended the congregational salat and paid their dues.
All that they did was to criticize the behavior of the governor and some of his announcements. Sure, they went overboard by physically assaulting the chief of security and the young man in the crowd. But when it comes to criticizing the governor, they had every right to criticize and find faults—if there were any—with his decisions.
Both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar used to encourage the public to set them straight if they made a mistake or to correct them if they went off course. Thus, the nobility of al-Kufah should never have been punished for speaking out. As for their beating up the security chief and the young man in the crowd, well, then they should have been penalized and disciplined as per an Islamic magistrate of the law would deem appropriate, which probably would mean the guilty party would have to be publically chastised, locally confined, or made to pay a certain amount of money. But to subjectively expel them from their place of residence to a faraway land is beyond any scope of Islamic justice.
I thought I would plug out, in a paragraph, a historical narrative that I think was contrived by the Umayyads later on to try to justify the expulsion and banishment orders dispensed by Sa‘id, the governor of al-Kufah. Reading through the following [Umayyad] vindication attempt, you may agree how “silly” state propaganda sometimes is.
Here, the apologists for Sa‘id and ‘Uthman would reply saying: but ‘Umar, the second khalifah, banished Nasr ibn Hajjaj from al-Madinah because ‘Umar feared that Ibn Hajjaj’s attractiveness would seduce the women of al-Madinah! So, if it was legal for ‘Umar to do to avoid a sex fitnah in al-Madinah, it should be legal for Sa‘id and ‘Uthman to do the same thing: avoid a socio-political fitnah in al-Kufah.
This confusion should be cleared up. First, the exclusion of Nasr ibn Hajjaj from al-Madinah cannot be considered banishment. ‘Umar did not punish Nasr ibn Hajjaj as he did not commit any crime. It was not Nasr ibn Hajjaj’s fault that he was good-looking and eye-catching as these are qualities given to him by Allah (swt). He did not induce women into sex or sin. All that ‘Umar did [if the Umayyad story is reliable] was to convince him to leave al-Madinah by supporting and sponsoring his relocation.
‘Umar may have spoken to him in his demanding and dominating way. That, however, is the way ‘Umar spoke to virtually everyone. That should not be interpreted as ‘Umar ordering and expelling him out of al-Madinah. Besides, not everyone was pleased with ‘Umar’s handling of this matter. The bottom line is: ‘Umar did not expel this person and did not punish him; all he did was to encourage and help him relocate.
How senseless and ridiculous it is to tell us that ‘Umar expelled a charming and handsome man because ‘Umar feared that women will “fall in love with him” and a fitnah will follow!
But when it comes to Sa‘id, the governor of al-Kufah, he did not encourage or help al-Kufah’s nobility to relocate. He expelled them by force. He sent them to an unfamiliar land, to a remote urban location where they had no family or kinfolk.
However way one looks at it, Sa‘id or ‘Uthman, or ‘Uthman’s inner circle turned them over to Mu‘awiyah who would curtail their freedom and/or “win them over.” True, al-Kufah and Damascus were both Islamic lands but exile doesn’t have to be to a non-Islamic country; there is such a thing as “internal relocation.”
This whole episode was disliked and disapproved by the majority of companions who considered this policy of forced exile as a misdemeanor and unlawful. True, an Imam has the God-given right to penalize but the penalty cannot be extreme, disproportionate or unwarranted.
We will see how ‘Uthman’s governors went beyond the principled standards of Islam and misused the laws of Islam when it came to their own selves, or to their Imam/Khalifah, or to the general Muslim public in carrying out orders of exile, banishment, exclusion, and expulsion.
لا طاعةَ لِمخلُوقٍ في معصيةِ الخالِق
No created being is due any obedience if that [obedience] involves the disobedience of the Creator.]—Hadith Sharif.
