Over the last few weeks we answered 14 of the 15 charges the rebels against the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, used to justify their rebellion and subsequent assassination of this rightly-guided caliph. We will now tackle the last of their accusations before we speak about the leaders of the rebels and how things developed in Madinah leading to Uthman’s horrendous assassination and his noble attitude throughout.
The last of their accusations claims that “he sent a letter to Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh with a servant of his, riding his own camel, asking him to kill all those mentioned in the letter.” This is yet another false claim with an infinite degree of absurdity. Let us first of all consider what Justice Ibn Al-Arabi says about it in his very concise style:
“As for their assertion that the letter was found with a rider or a servant — who incidentally no one claimed to be a slave belonging to Uthman — addressed to Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Al-Sarh commanding him to kill its bearers, Uthman said to them when they made these charges: ‘You either bring two witnesses to testify that what you claim is true, or I state under oath that I had never written such a letter or given such an order. It is not difficult to write something and falsely attribute it to a certain person, or to imitate his handwriting, or to forge his seal.’ They demanded that he should hand Marwan ibn Al-Hakam over to them but he refused. Had he handed him over to them, he would have been guilty of injustice. What they could have done was to put their case against Marwan or anyone else to Uthman. Any case they could prove against Marwan would be judged by Uthman, the caliph, who would then be the one responsible for enforcing judgment. Indeed Uthman was one of the early Muslims who occupied a senior position among the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and always maintained an exemplary conduct. Nothing was proved against him that could justify removing him from power, let alone killing him.”
What Ibn Al-Arabi is stating here is the right procedure of enforcing Islamic law against anyone. As the head of state, the caliph is the highest law administrator in the Muslim state. Hence, a complaint against any person, including the caliph himself, should be put to the caliph, or to any competent judge he appoints. Such a complaint would then be considered and the caliph or the appropriate law officers would then be able to enforce the judgment. This would have been a simple procedure that ensured an appropriate consideration of the charges and arrived at a proper judgment. Uthman was keen that the rule of law should be maintained. At the time, a large number of the Prophet’s companions were still living in Madinah, and everyone of them could demand an appropriate legal procedure to consider the claims against the caliph or anyone else. We have seen how Uthman enforced judgment against his own half brother when his accusers produced two witnesses, which was the legal proof required. He enforced judgment despite the fact that he was convinced of his brother’s innocence. He said to his brother: “We will enforce judgment and let the perjurer suffer the punishment of hell.”
With such a keen desire to enforce the law that Uthman believed to be God’s law and recognized his own responsibility of administering it, Uthman was prepared to listen to the charges against him and put them through the legal process. Hence, he required his accusers to produce two witnesses to support their claims or he would deny the claims under oath. This is the requirement of Islamic law in any accusation made against any person. The burden of proof is borne by the accuser. Failing such a proof, the accused is required to deny the accusation under oath. Uthman also pointed out to them the possibility that the letter they had in their hand was forged. His statement is very clear: “You either bring two witnesses to testify that what you claim is true, or I state under oath that I had never written such a letter or given such an order. It is not difficult to write something and falsely attribute it to a certain person, or to imitate his handwriting, or to forge his seal.”
Al-Khateeb points out two issues that make this accusation totally absurd. The first is the claim that the rebels found this letter with a servant of Uthman, but the man they named was merely a shepherd who attended charity camels. These camels were given either as part of people’s zakah, or donated to the state as charity so that they would be used by the Muslim armies to carry soldiers to the battlefront. There were thousands of such camels in Madinah, and scores, if not hundreds, of people were employed to tend them. The turnover among them was very high. This means that many of them were not known in person to any of the high officials in government, let alone to the caliph personally. However, if it were true that the letter was carried by one of these shepherds, it was perfectly easy that the rebels might have hired him to do so, in order to give credence to their accusation.
The point being made by Al-Khateeb here is that the rebel leaders did not only forge the letter, but also hired a shepherd tending the charity camels to carry it. He explains that the bulk of the rebels departed from Madinah after Uthman stated his arguments, which they found very convincing. But two of the rebel leaders stayed behind. These were Al-Ashtar and Hukaym ibn Jablah. He points an accusing finger against these two in forging the letter and hiring the shepherd. They then managed to get the shepherd stopped by the departing rebel army. On “discovering” the forged letter, the rebels returned to Madinah more determined to put an end to Uthman’s rule.
Al-Khateeb also mentions that Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfah, Uthman’s undutiful stepson, was at the same time in Egypt trying to raise support for the rebellion and forging letters which he claimed to have been written by the wives of the Prophet. He did much more in deceiving people. He would hire some men and put some of them on top of a house, exposed to the sun for many hours and would at the same time detain camels without feeding them for a few days so as to look thin. He would then give a man with a sunburnt face a forged letter and send him with a couple of others similarly sunburnt, giving them such camels to ride, so that they would appear to have been traveling for a long time. These people would then go out of Egypt to the road used by travelers from Madinah. When they have traveled a distance, they sent back one of them to tell people in Egypt to expect them. They then gave them the letters, which were read in the main mosque as though they were sent by the Prophet’s wives, complaining against Uthman’s rule and encouraging rebellion. It was with such tactics that the rebellion was resumed after Uthman had shown the rebels that they had no case against him, and they were convinced with his argument.
Al-Khateeb also points out that Uthman could have never written such a letter to Abdullah, his governor in Egypt, because he had already permitted him to come to Madinah and then learned that Abdullah was already on his way to Madinah. However, we will have more to say about this letter later.
Imam Ibn Taymiyah also denies any possibility that Uthman could have written such a letter. He says: “Anyone who knows Uthman’s character would know that he could have never ordered the killing of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr or anyone else. He was never known to kill anyone for merely objecting to his rule. Indeed the rebels sought to kill Uthman, and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was one of those who forced their way into Uthman’s house. He never ordered anyone to fight them back to protect himself. How could he have plotted their killing when they had not yet committed any offense to justify that.
