Last week we mentioned that Caliph Uthman did not resort to any measures against his accusers, although he was fully aware that they had nothing to support their claims. When they made their claim concerning a letter, he was absolutely certain that all this was false, because he did not write it. But he did not imprison them or drive them out of the city. He simply asked them to produce their evidence, or accept his oath. There could be no fairer offer. But the rebels had a different objective.
When the rebels who gathered in Madinah for the second time questioned Uthman about the letter claimed to be addressed to his governor in Egypt, requiring him to kill the rebel leaders, he denied all knowledge of it. He asked them to produce two Muslim witnesses or accept his oath that he did not write it. This is the proper law process in such matters under Islamic law. The fact that Uthman was prepared to let the process of law take its course against himself, knowing fully well that his accusers were lying, speaks volumes for his integrity. But Uthman was always a man devoted to the cause of Islam, believed in divine justice and was ready to do everything to spare bloodshed and maintain justice.
Justice Ibn Al-Arabi mentions a report which says that Al-Ashtar, one of the leaders of the rebellion was brought to Uthman. Al-Ashtar said to him: “These people want you either to resign, or to allow yourself to be punished, or they will kill you.” Uthman replied: “As for resigning, I will not leave the Muslim community in a state of chaos. As for retaliation against myself, my two predecessors (meaning Abu Bakr and Umar) did not allow retaliation against themselves. Besides, I am too weak physically.” This report, related by Al-Tabari and Ibn Katheer in their history books, shows Uthman’s keen sense of responsibility. He was facing a rebellion that aimed to kill him, and he could easily have given up, but he chose to stay in office so that the state of chaos could be avoided.
Al-Ashtar speaks of physical punishment. One wonders how dare these people contemplate such a procedure. Who would punish the caliph? And for what? They describe it as retaliation, but they do not specify for what. Uthman only punished those who were proven guilty of committing certain crimes and offenses. He was simply implementing Islamic law. Retaliation in this case is itself a crime. But he was willing to point out that he was physically weak. It was only to be expected since he was around 80. Yet his answer suggests that he could even accept this had it been possible in order to end the troubled situation.
This is certainly true as appears from several other reports. Justice Ibn Al-Arabi quotes a report related in Al-Tamheed by Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani, a leading Shafie scholar, which mentions that “a man said to Uthman that he pledged to God to shed his blood. Uthman offered the man to take his top robe. The man took out his sword and cut the robe in such a way that he made a slight cut in Uthman’s side letting some blood out. He then rode his camel and went away.”
We see Uthman here allowing the man to injure him in order to honor his pledge. Needless to say, he did not have to do that. The man did not have to honor his pledge because what he pledged, which is to kill or cause physical harm to a Muslim, is forbidden in Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, makes it clear that a pledge given to God must be honored only if it involves an act of worship, or at least something permissible. If it involves something forbidden, as in this case, then it must not be done. The person making such a pledge should atone for not fulfilling an oath. The atonement is to feed or give some clothes to ten poor persons. If one cannot afford this, then the atonement is to fast three days. So the man making the pledge in this case should have not attempted to act on it. Nevertheless, Uthman helped the man, allowing him to cause him an injury in order to let him go satisfied. Such an action is not normally done by an ordinary person, let alone a caliph who was a very close companion of the Prophet.
Al-Khateeb adds another report which gives a more profound insight into Uthman’s character. “Umayr ibn Dabi’ and Kameel ibn Ziyad Al-Nakha’ie traveled from Kufah to Madinah, aiming to assassinate Uthman, carrying out a collective decision by their group of conspirators. When they were in Madinah, Umayr decided not to go ahead with the plan, leaving Kameel to carry it out on his own. Kameel was watching Uthman’s movements. One day, the two met and Uthman felt that Kameel was up to no good. He pushed him in his face and Kameel fell to the ground. Addressing Uthman by his official title, he said: “You have hurt me.” Uthman said: “Were you not planning to attack me?” He said: “No, by God who is the only deity of the universe.” Some people gathered around them and suggested that they should search Kameel to find out whether he had any weapon. However, Uthman told them not to do so, pointing out that God has spared him any danger, and I do not wish to find out anything other than what he said. I would rather that his statement is true.”
Uthman then sat on the ground and said to Kameel: “If the matter is as you have said, then do to me as I did to you, because I would not have harmed you except for the fact that I thought you wanted to assault me. But if you are saying the truth, may God give you ample reward, and if you are a liar, then may God humiliate you. Now take your revenge.” Kameel said that he did not wish to do so.
Here we see Uthman’s noble character. He did not wish to do any injustice to anyone. When he thought the man was about to attack him, he pushed him aside. When the man swore by God that he had no such intention, the caliph sat down and invited him to retaliate for the push that caused him to fall. There can be no more generous or virtuous character than Uthman’s, the third caliph about whom the Prophet said: “Uthman puts the angels to shame.” What he meant was that Uthman was so devoted, unassuming and humble that the angels feel too shy in his presence.
This was Uthman’s attitude toward those rebels who were keen to kill him. The question that may be asked here is whether it would have been wiser for Uthman to resign or retire, as that could have spared the Muslim community much trouble. We will try to answer this question next week, God willing.
