 |
| The Islamic Kingdom during the era of Saiyidan Uthman bin Affan RA. |
Early Life:
May Allah be the guardian of the couple! After Lot, Usman is the first man who, with his wife, has given up the comfort of his home for the cause of Allah."
However, Usman was an extremely kindhearted man. He looked upon wealth as a means of helping others. If money could remove suffering, Usman was always ready to help.
Acceptance of Islam:
It was Abu Bakr who won Usman for Islam. He and Usman were great friends. The Holy Prophet belonged to Banu Hashim and Usman belonged to Banu Omayya. There was old rivalry between the two tribes. This did not keep back Usman from accepting the truth. As soon as he heard the message of Islam, he accepted it. He was one of the first Muslims. The Holy Prophet gave to him his daughter, Ruaqayya in marriage.
By becoming a Muslim, Usman drew upon himself the anger of his relatives. His uncle, Hakam, tied his hand and foot. He then shut him up in a dark room. Usman gladly underwent all kinds of torture, but refused to give up Islam.
The Quraish who once loved Usman now became his enemies. His own relatives would have nothing to do with him. This made Usman feel miserable. He went to the Holy Prophet and asked permission to go to Abyssinia. The permission was given. Usman was the first Muslim to leave for Abyssinia. He and his wife crossed the Red Sea and sought refuge in Abyssinia. They were the first to give up their home and all they had for the cause of Allah.
When migration from Mecca began, Usman and his wife Ruqayya also went to Medina and settled there.
Usman was among those who were very close to the Holy Prophet. He fought by the side of the Prophet in all battles except Badr. He could not go to Badr because his wife, Ruqayya, was very ill. The Prophet himself told Usman to stay back at Medina and attend to his ailing wife. Ruaqayya died of this illness.
Usman took the death of Ruqayya very much to heart. He was all the more sad because he no longer enjoyed the honor of being the son-in-law of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet saw this. So he married to Usman his second daughter, Umm Kulthum. This was a rare honor. It earned for Usman the title of "Zun-Noorain," or "the possessor of two lights."
In the meantime, a rumor got afoot. It was given out that Usman had been killed by the Quraish. The report shocked the Prophet. He determined to avenge the death of Usman. He stood under a tree and took a pledge from his followers. He struck his hand on each man's hand and the man said, "I will fight unto death for the sake of Usman."
 |
| During the era of Caliph Uthman bin Affan- AlQuran was properly compiled. |
When the Muslim refugees first came to Medina, they had great difficulty in getting drinking water. There was just one well but it was owned by a Jew. The Jew would not allow the refuges to get water from it. So the holy Prophet said, "who is there that will buy this well for the Muslims? Allah will reward him a fountain in Paradise." Usman at once responded. He brought the well for twenty thousand dirhams and gave it away for the free use of Muslims.
When the Muslims grew in numbers, the Prophet's Mosque became too small for them. The holy Prophet said, "Who will spend money for the extension of the mosque?" Usman again came forward. He bought the adjoining piece of land for the extension.
In the ninth year of Hijra, reports reached the Holy Prophet that the Emperor of Byzantium was preparing a march on Medina. These reports disturbed the Muslims. The Holy Prophet began to counter preparations. He appealed to people to give whatever they could. Usman gave one thousand camels, fifty horses and one thousand pieces of gold. The holy Prophet looked at the heap of gold and declared, "Whatever Usman does, from this day on, will do him no harm."
Usman was one of the scribes of the Prophet. He was one of the men who wrote portions of the Qur'an as they were revealed. He was also one of the ten Companions whom the holy Prophet gave the good news of the kingdom of Heaven.
Closeness to the Prophet won Usman a high place among the Companions. He was one of the advisors of Abu Bakr and Omar during their Caliphate.
Usman's Election
Omar had nominated a six-man council to choose a Caliph from among its members. These members were: Ali, Usman, Abdur Rehman bin Auf, Saad bin Abi Waqaas, Zubair bin Awwam and Talha bin Obaidullah. The electors were to meet and finish their task within three days of Omar's death. Such was the will of the late Caliph.
The electors met. Talha had been out of Medina for some days, so he could not attend the meeting.
The council of electors had a long sitting. It could not come to an agreed decision. There was an impasse. So Abdur Rehman bin Auf said, "If any man is willing to withdraw his name, he will have the right to nominate the Caliph. Who will withdraw?" All kept silent. Then Abdur Rehman said, "I withdraw my name."
All except Ali said they were ready to accept Abdur Rehman's decision. Abdur Rehman asked Ali what he had to say. He replied, "Promise to be just. Promise not to be partial on account of kinship. Promise to be led by the welfare of the people alone. If you promise these things, I agree to abide by your decision."
Abdur Rehman promised all these things. The election of the Caliph now rested with Abdur Rehman bin Auf.
Abdur Rehman was fully alive to the heavy responsibility he had placed upon himself. The news of Omar's death had drawn to Medina the leaders of public opinion from all over the empire. Abdur Rehman went to each one of them and held long talks. The Banu Hashim were for Ali. All others favored Usman. Other candidates were out of the picture.
Abdur Rehman now talked to the two likely candidates.
"Who do you think is the fittest person after you?" he asked Ali.
"Usman," was the reply.
He put Usman the same question and he named Ali.
At last the third night came. In the morning Abdur Rehman was to announce his decision. He sat up whole night, holding long talks with the other four members of the council. He made a last effort to get a unanimous decision. But he failed in this effort. The differences between Banu Hashim and Banu Omiyyah could not be patched up. At last the call to the morning prayer brought these talks to an end.
When the prayer was over, people in the mosque were all ears to hear what Abdur Rehman had to say.
Abdur Rehman stood up. For some minutes he prayed to Allah to guide his thoughts. Then he said, "O people," I have given my best thought to the matter. I have talked to different people and got their opinion. I hope you will not differ with my decision."
Then Abdur Rehman called Usman and said, "Promise that you will act according to the commandments of the Qur'an and the example set by the Holy Prophet and his two Caliphs."
"I promise to do that to the best of my knowledge and ability," declared Usman.
Thereupon Abdur Rehman bin Auf pledged loyalty to Usman. His example was followed by all present. Ali also pledged loyalt to the new Caliph. Usman became the third Caliph of Islam.
First Address
When the pledge was over, Usman rose to address the gathering. All were eager to hear what the new Caliph had to say. But the weight of the new responsibility made Usman's body shake. All he could say was, "O people, it is not easy to manage a new horse. There will be several occasions to speak to you. If I live, I will address you some other day. But you know, I am not very good at speech-making."
The First Case
The first case that came up before Usman was the case of Obaidullah the second son of Omar. Obaidullah had slain to Persians, Hurmuzan and Jafina. That was because he believed them to be co-plotters with Abu Lolo. Abu Lolo was the murderer of his father.
The evening before Omar was mortally wounded, Abdur Rehman son of Abu Bakr had seen Abu Lolo standing with Hurmuzan and Jafina. The three were whispering to one another. As Abdur Rehman passed by, the three got startled. A double edge dagger had falled on the ground. After his father's death, Obaidullah examined the dagger of the asassin. It answered exactly to the description given by Abdur Rehman. Obaidullah felt sure that Abu Lolo alone was not responsible for killing his father. He flew into a rage and killed the other two partners in the plot.
The case came up before Usman. He put the matter before the leading Companions. Ali said that the evidence of one man was not enough to prove Huramuzan and Jafina guilty. The other Companions differed with this view. Usman found a way out of the difficulty. He himself laid the blood money for the two Persians. As they had no relatives, the Caliph had the legal right to act in their behalf. The decision of Usman was liked by all.
The first case that came up before Usman was the case of Obaidullah the second son of Omar. Obaidullah had slain to Persians, Hurmuzan and Jafina. That was because he believed them to be co-plotters with Abu Lolo. Abu Lolo was the murderer of his father.
The evening before Omar was mortally wounded, Abdur Rehman son of Abu Bakr had seen Abu Lolo standing with Hurmuzan and Jafina. The three were whispering to one another. As Abdur Rehman passed by, the three got startled. A double edge dagger had falled on the ground. After his father's death, Obaidullah examined the dagger of the asassin. It answered exactly to the description given by Abdur Rehman. Obaidullah felt sure that Abu Lolo alone was not responsible for killing his father. He flew into a rage and killed the other two partners in the plot.
The case came up before Usman. He put the matter before the leading Companions. Ali said that the evidence of one man was not enough to prove Huramuzan and Jafina guilty. The other Companions differed with this view. Usman found a way out of the difficulty. He himself laid the blood money for the two Persians. As they had no relatives, the Caliph had the legal right to act in their behalf. The decision of Usman was liked by all.
Expansion of the Empire:
The First Directive
The new Caliph issued a directive to all civil and military officers. It said that they should be just in their dealings, honest in money matters and tolerant towards non-Muslims. Further, the officers were told to keep their word, even with the enemy. They were reminded that they were no more than the servants and guardians of the people not their masters and rulers.
Saad bin Waqqas was the Governor of Kufa. He took a loan from the public treasury and foiled to return it in time. The Treasury Officer, Abdullah bin Masud, reported the matter to the Caliph. Usman dismissed Saad bin Waqqas. This was in the year 26 A.H.
A Woman Warrior:
Azarbaijan and Armenia were conquered during Omar's time. But these provinces were afterwards lost. Both provinces were under the Governor of Kufa. When Saad bin Waqqas was removed from governorship, Azarbaijan rebelled. Usman ordered military action against it and the province was once again under the Muslim flag.
Usman deputed Salmab bin Rabia and Habib bin Muslima to reconqure Armeina. In this campaign Habib's wife also went with him. On day Habib came to know that the commander of the Armenian army was preparing to strike. Habib did not have enough troops, so he decided to carry out a night raid, before the enemy could strike.
Habib's wife saw him put on armour one evening. She asked him what made him buckle on armor at a such late hour. "My goal tonight is the ten of the Armenian commander of the Garden of Paradise," replied the husband. A suddent thought struck the lady. "When should not I share the honor with my husband?" she said to herself. As soon as her husband was gone, she dressed like a soldier and rushed off to the enemy camp.
At the dead of the night Habib carried out his raid. The enemy was taken by complete surprise. Killing the Armenian guard, Habib reached the commander's tent. He was amazed to find his wife already waiting for him at the tent door. She was dressed like a soldier and was fully armed. Together the couple fell on the enemy commander and killed him.
The First Directive
The new Caliph issued a directive to all civil and military officers. It said that they should be just in their dealings, honest in money matters and tolerant towards non-Muslims. Further, the officers were told to keep their word, even with the enemy. They were reminded that they were no more than the servants and guardians of the people not their masters and rulers.
Saad bin Waqqas was the Governor of Kufa. He took a loan from the public treasury and foiled to return it in time. The Treasury Officer, Abdullah bin Masud, reported the matter to the Caliph. Usman dismissed Saad bin Waqqas. This was in the year 26 A.H.
A Woman Warrior:
Azarbaijan and Armenia were conquered during Omar's time. But these provinces were afterwards lost. Both provinces were under the Governor of Kufa. When Saad bin Waqqas was removed from governorship, Azarbaijan rebelled. Usman ordered military action against it and the province was once again under the Muslim flag.
Usman deputed Salmab bin Rabia and Habib bin Muslima to reconqure Armeina. In this campaign Habib's wife also went with him. On day Habib came to know that the commander of the Armenian army was preparing to strike. Habib did not have enough troops, so he decided to carry out a night raid, before the enemy could strike.
Habib's wife saw him put on armour one evening. She asked him what made him buckle on armor at a such late hour. "My goal tonight is the ten of the Armenian commander of the Garden of Paradise," replied the husband. A suddent thought struck the lady. "When should not I share the honor with my husband?" she said to herself. As soon as her husband was gone, she dressed like a soldier and rushed off to the enemy camp.
At the dead of the night Habib carried out his raid. The enemy was taken by complete surprise. Killing the Armenian guard, Habib reached the commander's tent. He was amazed to find his wife already waiting for him at the tent door. She was dressed like a soldier and was fully armed. Together the couple fell on the enemy commander and killed him.
Cypress Occupied:
Muawiah was the Governor of Syria under Usman. Anatolia was still under Byzantium. Skirmishes with the Byzantine troops were common. In the year 26 A.H., Muawiah led an army into Anatolia and took the city of Amuria. He wanted to advance, but troop movement by land seemed difficult. So he had to stop short.
Muawiah now turned his attention to the Mediterranean. He saw the importance of the islands in this sea and made plans to occupy them. Muawiah had a strong liking for the sea. He foresaw the Islam could not be strong without a powerful navy. During Omar's caliphate he put this plan before the Calpih, but Omar was opposed to sea fighting. He did not think it was wise to risk the lives of Muslims in sea-battles. So he did not approve of Muawiah's plan. When Usman became Caliph, Muawiah again took up the question of the navy with the Caliph. Usman agreed to Muawia's plan, on condition that no one was to be forced against his will to take part in the naval campaign.
Muawiah was the Governor of Syria under Usman. Anatolia was still under Byzantium. Skirmishes with the Byzantine troops were common. In the year 26 A.H., Muawiah led an army into Anatolia and took the city of Amuria. He wanted to advance, but troop movement by land seemed difficult. So he had to stop short.
Muawiah now turned his attention to the Mediterranean. He saw the importance of the islands in this sea and made plans to occupy them. Muawiah had a strong liking for the sea. He foresaw the Islam could not be strong without a powerful navy. During Omar's caliphate he put this plan before the Calpih, but Omar was opposed to sea fighting. He did not think it was wise to risk the lives of Muslims in sea-battles. So he did not approve of Muawiah's plan. When Usman became Caliph, Muawiah again took up the question of the navy with the Caliph. Usman agreed to Muawia's plan, on condition that no one was to be forced against his will to take part in the naval campaign.
The post era of Caliph Usman Bin Affan
Khalifa Uthman bin Affan - Uthman in History
Assessment
Unfortunately, history has not done proper justice to Uthman. Extensive conquests were made during the caliphate of Uthman. While sufficient details are available about the conquests made during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and Umar, no details are available about the conquests made during the caliphate of Uthman. A greater part of Spain was conquered during the time of Uthman but surprisingly no details are available in this behalf, and even the names of the territories occupied by the Muslims are not known. It appears that most of the history books were written during the Abbasid period, and the tendency with the pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the Umayyads, and the history of the period of Uthman was mutilated because Uthman was an Umayyad.
Shia writers have been very loud in their criticism of Uthman. Even a writer like Ameer Ali has condemned Uthman as an old man, feeble in character, and quite unequal to the task of Government. The view is obviously biased and therefore unfair.
The Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
 |
| The Grave of Saiyidina Uthman bn Affan RA at Janatul Baqi' |
- See more at: http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUT/60/11#sthash.hmakYt9U.dpuf
Khalifa Uthman bin Affan - Uthman in History
Assessment
Unfortunately, history has not done proper justice to Uthman.
Extensive conquests were made during the caliphate of Uthman. While
sufficient details are available about the conquests made during the
caliphate of Abu Bakr, and Umar, no details are available about the
conquests made during the caliphate of Uthman. A greater part of Spain
was conquered during the time of Uthman but surprisingly no details are
available in this behalf, and even the names of the territories occupied
by the Muslims are not known. It appears that most of the history books
were written during the Abbasid period, and the tendency with the
pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the Umayyads,
and the history of the period of Uthman was mutilated because Uthman was
an Umayyad.
Shia writers have been very loud in their criticism of Uthman. Even a writer like Ameer Ali has condemned Uthman as an old man, feeble in character, and quite unequal to the task of Government. The view is obviously biased and therefore unfair.
The Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindness.
Shia writers have been very loud in their criticism of Uthman. Even a writer like Ameer Ali has condemned Uthman as an old man, feeble in character, and quite unequal to the task of Government. The view is obviously biased and therefore unfair.
The Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindness.
The
Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate
of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid
period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with
pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate
of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindnes
- See more at: http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUT/60/11#sthash.hmakYt9U.dpuf
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindnes
- See more at: http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUT/60/11#sthash.hmakYt9U.dpuf
The
Sunni writers were supposed to take a favorable view of the caliphate
of Uthman, but as history books were mostly written during the Abbasid
period, and the Abbasids were opposed to the Umayyads, the tendency with
pro-Abbasid writers was to suppress the achievements of the caliphate
of Uthman simply because he was an Umayyad.
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindnes
- See more at: http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUT/60/11#sthash.hmakYt9U.dpuf
The source books that have come down to us are loaded with so much material unfavorable to Uthman, that some of the Sunni writers when writing about Uthman took the apologetic way of approach, and shifted the blame to Marwan and other Umayyads around Uthman. These writers have purposely or otherwise projected the view that Uthman was himself virtuous and honest and the Umayyads who were close to Uthman were his evil genius, Sir William Muir's view is that such allegations are frivolous, and are merely due to party calumny.
We do not have many books about the biography of Uthman. In Pakistan only two books in Urdu are available on the subject. One is a book by Raza Misri and the other is a book by Taha Hussain. Taha Hussain has not furnished much of biographical details about Uthman. A greater part of the book is devoted to the justification of the agitation against Uthman. Raza Misri has given some biographical details, but his impressions about the activities of Uthman are on the whole unfavorable.
Unfortunately I have not come across any publication containing an objective assessment of Uthman or his caliphate. As I have studied the history of the period, and studied the facts as an impartial historian my impression is that much of the criticism that was levelled against Uthman was misplaced, and the agitation against him was the result of a conspiracy sponsored by foreign powers with a view to subverting Islam from within.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. As the caliphate of Uthman came to an end in chaos and confusion culminating in his assassination, we cannot regard his rule as a Caliph to be a success. As a man Uthman was not liable to any reproach; he was an embodiment of all the good qualities that a good Muslim should have. He was, however, not successful as a ruler. That was not so because of any lapse or weakness on his part; that was so because he was ahead of the times. Umar, his predecessor, ruled with a strong hand, and in this way, he kept the democratic tendencies of the Arabs under control. Uthman tried to rule as a democrat, and in the absence of any safeguards to restrain the people from indulging in false propaganda, the liberties of the people degenerated into licence, and brought the Muslim polity to grief. Uthman did not succeed as the Caliph not because he was weak or he favored his relatives, but because he was kind to the people, and the people took undue advantage of his kindnes
- See more at: http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUT/60/11#sthash.hmakYt9U.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment