by Abu Dharr (Opinion, Crescent International Vol. 55, No. 6, Safar, 1447)
One piece of information is due before we proceed. The cities of al-Kufah and al-Basrah were both established during the leadership of the second legitimate ruler of the Muslims after the Prophet (ﷺ), ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. During his tenure, ‘Umar had appointed Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari as the governor of al-Basrah. ‘Uthman retained him in this position for a few years. Some historians say it was three years, others say it was six.
Most of the population of al-Basrah hailed from the tribe of Mudar [مضر.] It was one of the largest and earliest Arabian tribes. Quraish notably was a lineage within Mudar. Alongside them, other smaller tribal communities also settled in al-Basrah including groups who traced their ancestry to Yemen.
For reasons perhaps best known to him, ‘Umar had a preference for appointing individuals of Yemeni origin to govern al-Basrah despite its oerwhelmingly Mudari population. In al-Kufah, he appointed al-Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah, a member of the Thaqafi tribe, predominant in al-Ta’if, and a pre-Islamic rival of Makkah’s Quraish. In contrast, governors appointed to Syria and Egypt—regions heavily populated by southern Arabians—were from the Mudari-Quraishi lineage.
The best explanation for this strategic pattern of appointments lies in ‘Umar’s possible intent to undermine the lingering parochial arrogance and tribal pride of the pre-Islamic era. By installing governors who were not from the same tribal roots as the governed, he sought to curb the deeply ingrained tribal self-importance and reorient society toward the Qur’anic principles of unity and justice.
Al-Basrah remained peaceful under Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari as governor. Initially, there was no tension between the rulers and the ruled. Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari was widely regarded as a close companion of the Prophet (ﷺ). His record of struggle and devotion placed him in a favorable light with respect to the messenger of Allah (ﷺ).
During ‘Uthman’ administration, however, the specter of pre-Islamic ‘asabiyah—communal and tribal fanaticism—started to reemerge. Individuals gradually began identifying themselves more with their tribe than with the egalitarian Islamic brotherhood that had defined the Prophet’s generation.
This creeping tribalism and a subliminal sense of ‘asabiyah began to overshadow Islamic solidarity and Qur’anic unity. Three major regions within the Islamic realm were now governed by Quraishis: al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah followed by Sa‘id ibn al-‘As in al-Kufah, Mu‘awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan in Syria, and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As in Egypt, succeeded by ‘Abdullah ibn Abi al-Sarh. Only one, al-Basrah, was governed by a non-Quraishi, Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari. He thus stood out as the “odd man out” in a slowly forming subtle era of “official ‘asabiyah” that began to displace the populist ethos of Islam.
This emerging “power configuration” did not go unnoticed by Quraish, by ‘Uthman’s kin, or by the Mudaris in al-Basrah. A particularly revealing incident involved a Mudari named غيلان بن خرشة الضبي [Ghaylan ibn Kharshah al-Dabbi] who went to ‘Uthman with a pointed question: is there no one younger and more energetic to govern al-Basrah? Why should an old man like Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari, who has remained in office for six years after ‘Umar’s death, still hold the reins of power?
This prompted ‘Uthman to dismiss Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari. Other accounts mention complaints from some Basran residents, who criticized Abu Musa’s increasing rigidity, abrasiveness, and alleged inflexibility. A delegation even traveled to ‘Uthman’s court to petition for his dismissal, accusing Abu Musa of bias and favoritism toward his own kind—meaning the Yemenis.
In response, ‘Uthman relieved Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari as governor and appointed his own maternal cousin عبد الله ابن عامربن كريز [‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amer ibn Kurayz] who was merely 25 years old at the time.
Despite some criticism over this act of partiality, ‘Uthman defended the appointment, claiming that ‘Abdullah was highly capable. This proved to be more than rhetoric. ‘Abdullah demonstrated resolve, competence, and a clear sense of priority, especially concerning military matters. His relationship with the general populace was thoughtful and largely well-received. This stood in contrast to the strained dynamics seen in al-Kufah and Egypt governed by al-Walid and Sa‘id, and ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh respectively.
A key factor in this improved rapport may have been that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amer, like the majority of al-Basrah’s residents, was a Mudari. This is not to suggest that all was harmonious. A faction within al-Basrah eventually joined the broader revolt against ‘Uthman, suggesting that not all Basrans were content with the Khalifah or his appointees.
Both al-Basrah and al-Kufah shared a common trait: emerging opposition to ‘Uthman. In al-Kufah, this opposition represented a majority; in al-Basrah, a minority. In both cases, certain opposition figures were forcibly relocated to Syria.
This forced displacement of dissenters from al-Basrah was a clear injustice. Some were exiled merely on suspicion, without solid evidence of disloyalty. One illustrative example is the case of عامربن عبد القيس [‘Amer ibn ‘Abd al-Qays]. He was accused of violating Islam because he refused to eat meat, declined to marry, and allegedly neglected Jumu‘ah salat.
The case reached ‘Uthman, who summoned ‘Amer to al-Madinah. Upon investigation, it became evident that the accusations were unfounded. ‘Uthman permitted ‘Amer to return to al-Basrah with honor.
An alternate version of this episode recounts that ‘Amer was sent to Mu‘awiyah in Syria, who received him hospitably and offered him a table spread with meat. Upon seeing him eat, Mu‘awiyah realized the earlier claims were baseless.
Mu‘awiyah probed him further. ‘Amer explained that he once refrained from eating meat after witnessing a butcher’s brutal treatment of a sheep. He prayed Jumu‘ah at the rear of the mosque and was the first to leave. As for marriage, he simply did not want to be coerced into it.
Mu‘awiyah intended to send him back to al-Basrah but ‘Amer refused due to the betrayal and informant culture he had experienced. He chose to remain in Syria, adopting a life of asceticism and discipline, maintaining a close relationship with Mu‘awiyah.
The main criticism of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amer among the public stemmed from his familial link to ‘Uthman and his youthful age. The governance model was clearly shifting from Prophetic meritocracy to tribal loyalty and dynastic networking.
One particularly telling episode involved ‘Abdullah initiating his ‘umrah ihram from the Persian frontier, a gesture designed to evoke public admiration and piety. When tribal and political partisanship (‘asabiyah) begins to dominate, a spectacle of religiosity is often used to mask underlying political motives. This may have been one of the earliest examples of such performative religiosity—an Islamic façade atop non-Islamic political behavior.
‘Uthman made his disapproval of this act known. Yet, this incident illustrates the extent to which governors would go to secure public approval.
The Prophet (ﷺ) had this to say about clannish self-centeredness:
دعوها فإنها منتنة [Ditch it (‘asabiyah) because it emits a stench].
