We talked about some of Uthman’s relatives whom the rebels cited as unworthy of their posts or the favors they received. These were Al-Waleed ibn Uqbah and Marwan ibn Al-Hakam, who was later to become Caliph, as did his son and five of his grandsons, one of whom was Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz. In his refutation of the allegations leveled at Uthman, Justice Abu Bakr ibn Al-Arabi says the following:
Choosing governors and officials is a matter of discretion. Umar appointed Saad ibn Abi Waqqas then replaced him with someone who was of a lesser degree. What those people say about Marwan and Al-Waleed is an enormity. To label them as transgressors is indeed an act of transgression on their part. Marwan was considered by the Prophet’s companions, their successors the tabieen, and major scholars as a man of integrity. Among the Prophet’s companions, Sahl ibn Saad transmitted some Hadiths from him, and the tabieen were of his own age, although some reports suggest that he could be considered a companion of the Prophet. All major scholars in all areas respected him highly, acknowledged him as a legitimate Caliph, and considered his rulings as valid. Others who are less worthy of note, such as historians and literary figures, may say what suits their station.
As for Al-Waleed, some commentators claim that he was described as “evildoer” in the Qur’anic verse that says: “Believers! If any evildoer comes to you with a piece of news, make sure of it first, lest you should wrong others unwittingly and then regret your action.” (49: 6) They allege that the Prophet sent him to the Al-Mustalaq tribe and when he came back he reported that they had reverted to disbelief. The Prophet then sent Khalid ibn Al-Waleed to confirm the report, and Khalid reported back that this was not true. Moreover, there are conflicting reports about this, with a second report suggesting that the above verse was revealed in connection with another event in which both Al-Waleed ibn Uqbah and Ali were involved. It is also suggested that Al-Waleed was one of the children who rushed to meet the Prophet when he entered Makkah to liberate it. The Prophet rubbed their heads except for Al-Waleed. He then explained that he had applied some perfume and the Prophet did not wish to touch it, as he was in consecration. If he was a child then, could he have been sent to verify a report? When similarly conflicting reports are made in connection with a valid Hadith, scholars discard it. How could such reports label anyone as evildoer? And how if he were a companion of the Prophet?
As for punishing him for drinking, Umar did the same with Qudamah ibn Mazoun when he was a governor, then sacked him. It is also reported that he later made it up with him. A person who commits a sin, then genuinely repents, does not lose his standing as a person of integrity.
It was said to Uthman: “You have appointed Al-Waleed because he is your half brother, born to your mother Arwa bint Kurayz.” He replied: “No, but because he is the grandson of the Prophet’s aunt, Umm Hakeen Al-Baydaa’, the twin sister of his father.” We wonder why should anyone exclude his brother or relative from appointment to any office?
The first part of this quotation from Ibn Al-Arabi establishes the position of Marwan ibn Al-Hakam, who was highly respected by scholars before he became Caliph in year 65. His reign lasted less than a year, but he had established his standing well before that, and he was considered as reliable by scholars of Hadith. This in itself is a high testimony for him. Indeed, scholars of Hadith like Al-Bukhari and Imam Ahmad include Hadiths which are transmitted by different tabieen through him. Trying to discredit him is a futile exercise that could be made only by people who do not have the interests of Islam and the Muslim community at heart.
Al-Waleed ibn Uqbah comes for much criticism by the rebels and those who take their cue from them. The first point mentioned by Ibn Al-Arabi is the claim that he was the “evildoer” to which the above-quoted Qur’anic verse refers. This is highly unlikely, considering his age. The report stated by Ibn Al-Arabi shows him to be rushing with other children to meet the Prophet in year 8, when he arrived in Makkah. Most probably he was between 12 and 15 at the time, which means that by the time the Prophet died he was less than 18. The Prophet could not have sent someone of that age as an emissary to a tribe. Those who try to discredit Al-Waleed also mention that the Prophet did not rub his head as he did with the other children who came to meet him. They consider this as indicative that the Prophet had been told by God not to rub his head for his future misconduct. This cannot be proven in anyway. Besides, Al-Waleed mentions the reason as his having put some perfume, and the Prophet did not wish to touch it because he was in the state of consecration, or ihraam, when we are not permitted to touch perfume.
The two reports are clearly in conflict and cannot be reconciled. If Al-Waleed was a child two years before the Prophet’s death, the Prophet could have never sent him as an emissary. By contrast, if he actually sent him, he must have been older than what they suggest, and in this case, he would not have been with the children who met the Prophet.
Al-Khateeb mentions that he researched all the reports that mention Al-Waleed as the referent of the Qur’anic verse. He says that his reason for undertaking this research was not any assumption that Al-Waleed could not do a grave sin to deserve such a description. He simply felt that since both Abu Bakr and Umar trusted him and assigned some sensitive missions to him, the description could not apply to him. To start with, they would have known to whom the verse referred, since they were witnesses of all events taking place at the time. If it was him and God described him as evildoer, neither of them would have placed him in a position of trust.
Al-Khateeb says that his research shows that all reports claiming that Al-Waleed was the man involved are traceable to scholars of the second century, none of whom mentions any chain of transmission going back to Al-Waleed’s time. This leaves a gap of over a century, with no reliable reporter mentioned. Such a report then falls according to the criteria established by scholars of Hadith.
— Arab News Islam 6 October 2003
