Ever since the unjustified rebellion against Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph, people speak about the excuses used by the rebels to justify their action. In fact nothing can justify what they did, when they killed Uthman who was very close to the Prophet, particularly since the Prophet gave him two of his four daughters in marriage, one after the other. Moreover, the Prophet clearly mentioned that he would be a martyr. Whoever kills a martyr is in the wrong. We have already shown how hollow and flimsy much of their excuses are. However, the excuse or the allegation which sticks in people’s minds most is the one that speaks of Uthman appointing his relatives as governors of different provinces in the Muslim state.
In today’s world most people reject the very idea of a ruler or government official appointing a relative in any post under his jurisdiction. In some international organizations, close relatives of staff members are excluded from any post in the same organization, even a very temporary one. This is due to several reasons, most important among which is the fact that such appointments are normally done on the basis of allegiance, rather than competence. Thus the ruler appoints his relatives because he trusts that they would not oppose him. When an official appoints his relatives or henchmen, he actually seeks to consolidate his own position.
There is no doubt that Islam forbids the exploitation of one’s position in order to appoint or promote one’s relatives or henchmen when they are not qualified to do the jobs to which they are appointed or promoted. Such nepotism is clearly forbidden in Islam. However, Islam also forbids depriving others of their right to equal opportunity only because they are relatives or supporters of the man in power or who is in a position of responsibility. The guiding principle in such matters is competence. If a person is qualified for a position and has a proven track record, then he should not be discriminated against because of his relation to the person in power. There may be only a fine line of difference here, but then in Islam we are all accountable to God Almighty, and He will reward us for our deeds on the basis of what He knows of our motives and intentions.
We have no doubt that Uthman had only the best of intentions, and only sought what he believed to be in the best interests of the Muslim community. He never sought the position of Caliph, but the position sought him, with the full agreement of the Muslim community. Nor did he ever seek to use his position for any personal or tribal gain. He was one of the richest people in Arabia when he became Caliph.
His wealth was mainly in camels, cattle and sheep. Yet, shortly before he died he had spent all his wealth, leaving himself only two camels which he intended to use for pilgrimage. He was one of the most generous people in our history.
We have explained over the last couple of weeks that the relatives he had appointed were most competent for their jobs. That they belonged to his tribe or clan does not make them any less competent. We have seen that all of them were used in positions of authority by his predecessors.
Imam Ibn Taymiyah says that no clan of the Quraysh provided as many officials and governors appointed by the Prophet as the Abd Shams, which is the branch that includes the Umayyads. This is due to the fact that it was a very large branch, and many of them were of the caliber needed for government. Among these were Attab ibn Usayd, whom the Prophet appointed as governor of Makkah, and Abu Sufyan whom he appointed governor of Najran. Others were the two brothers Uthman ibn Saeed and Aban ibn Saeed; the first was governor of Taymaa’ and Khaybar, while the second was governor of Al-Hasa, which used to be called Bahrain at the time. Hence, Uthman says in his own defense: “I have only appointed people whom the Prophet used and others from their own clan and tribe; and so did Abu Bakr and Umar.”
It is clear, then, that there is nothing wrong in appointing one’s relatives and tribesmen if they are qualified and competent. When we look at the people appointed by Uthman and study their track records we find that they were of the highest caliber. He never appointed anyone who was not fully qualified for his post at the time. It does not mean that these people were without mistakes. No one is, except the Prophet who was infallible only in matters related to the faith.
Moreover, if we look at the matter from a historical perspective, we conclude that in a state stretching far and wide like the Muslim state at the time, and with the slow means of travel available, it was necessary for a Caliph to choose his governors from among the people he trusts. He should not look at personal loyalty to him, but rather at their dedication to the cause of Islam. However, personal loyalty is nevertheless an important factor, because any provincial governor could easily move to a position of autonomy, unless he is dedicated to the cause of Islam.
Was Uthman unique in this? Certainly not. If we look at the people appointed governors by Ali, the fourth Caliph, we find many of them related to him. His governors included Ubaydillah ibn Abbas in Yemen, Qutham ibn Abbas in Makkah and Taif, Abdullah ibn Abbas in Basrah, Sahl ibn Haneef in Madinah. All of these were his cousins. He also appointed his stepson, Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, as governor of Egypt. No one criticizes Ali for appointing these, because they were all good and competent people. Why should Uthman be ciritcized? The fact is that the rebellion against Uthman was staged for ulterior motives. For certain, the interests of Islam and the Muslim community were not among the motives of the rebels against Uthman.
— Arab News Islam 29 September 2003
