The New Nation - Internet Edition

The rebellion against Uthman

Adil Salahi

We have seen how the case presented by the rebels against

Uthman, the third rightly guided caliph, falls apart when closely examined, despite the long list of indictment his enemies had coined up. But those rebels were determined to achieve their purpose. So it is important to know who led the rebellion against such a great servant of Islam as Uthman, whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) highly valued and praised in clear terms. In his very concise style, Justice Ibn Al-Arabi has the following to say about them:

"The best that has been reported in this case is that his judgment led some people to turn against him because of some grudges they harbored. They either were denied something they sought, or coveted some gains to which they had no claim, or were hardly religious people - looking for worldly gains rather than what they might have in the hereafter. When you look at them, their reputation will tell you that they were mean and had no case whatsoever. Their leader was Al-Ghafiqi, an Egyptian, and their main figures included Kinanh ibn Bishr Al-Tujaybi, Sudan ibn Hamran, Abdullah ibn Budayl ibn Warqaa Al-Khuaz'ie, Hukaym ibn Jablah of Basrah and Malik ibn Al-Harith who was known as Al-Ashtar. These were the leaders of the rebels, so what can be said about the rest?"

The last sentence we quoted gives a clear impression of what Justice Ibn Al-Arabi thought of these people. But we need to have some more details about them. For this we turn to Al-Khateeb who writes in his annotation of Ibn Al-Arabi's book that their leader was Al-Ghafiqi ibn Harb Al-Akki, a descendent of some prominent Yemeni families that settled in Egypt after it was taken over by the Muslims. Then Abdullah ibn Saba', the true instigator of the whole rebellion, professed to be loyal to Ali, but he found no fertile soil for his intrigue in either the Hijaz or Syria. He managed, however, to win some following in Kufah and Basrah in Iraq before moving to Al-Fustat, the then capital of Egypt. There he was able to win some recruits, including Al-Ghafiqi ibn Harb. It was not difficult to win him over because of his leadership ambitions. The main culprits in preparing for the rebellion in Egypt were Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfah, Uthman's undutiful stepson, who kept a low profile but was a main plotter, while Al-Ghafiqi was the main public face.

In Shawwal of year 35 H, they prepared to move from Egypt with four battalions made up of around 600 fighters. Each battalion had its commander but Al-Ghafiqi was the overall commander. They pretended that they were traveling to perform the pilgrimage, but when they arrived in Madinah, they began to carry out their conspiracy. Tension was high and the rebels were able to prevent the caliph from leading the congregational prayer in the Prophet's Mosque in Madinah. It was Al-Ghafiqi who led the prayer instead. When Satan was able to persuade them to commit their most serious of crimes and murder the caliph, Al-Ghafiqi was one of the culprits, hitting Uthman with an iron bar he was carrying, and kicking his copy of the Qur'an. After Uthman's assassination, Al-Ghafiqi wielded power in Madinah for five days.

Kinanah ibn Bishr, the second man mentioned by Ibn Al-Arabi belonged to the Tujayb tribe. He was another of those recruited by Abdullah ibn Saba' who was of Jewish origins. The rebels traveled in their four battalions, Kinanah commanding one of them. He was one of the first people to storm Uthman's house, getting in through the adjacent house belonging to Amr ibn Hazm. When he saw Uthman, he stabbed him with a long and narrow blade. As Uthman was reading the Qur'an, some of his blood spilled over the Qur'an. Kinanah was killed three years later in a battle that took place in Egypt between Ali's followers and the army commanded by Amr ibn Al-Aas who supported Mu'awiyah.

Sudan ibn Hamran of Al-Sakoon, a Yemeni tribe some of whose people settled in Egypt, was another commander of the four battalions. When they arrived in Madinah, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, a companion of the Prophet, spoke to them emphasizing the importance of loyalty to Uthman and reminding them that they were accountable before God for the pledge of loyalty to him. Yet Sudan was one of those who stormed the caliph's house and participated in the heinous crime of killing him. Afterward, he came out of the house boasting: "We have killed Uthman ibn Affan."

Abdullah ibn Budayl ibn Warqaa Al-Khuaz'ie was another recruit who fought with his brother Abd Al-Rahman alongside Ali in the Battle of Siffeen, and were killed. His father was an old man when he embraced Islam after the peaceful conquest of Makkah by the Prophet.

Hukaym ibn Jablah of Basrah, whose ancestors belonged to Oman, was apparently a man of courage who sought adventure. Uthman's army attacking India in some daring reconnaissance missions previously used him. Moreover, he used to attack non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim state and cause damage in their farms.

They complained to the caliph about him, and the caliph wrote to his governor in Basrah to restrict his movement inside Basrah, until he showed a responsible attitude. When Abdullah ibn Saba' arrived in Basrah, he was his host. A group of people attended him and he was able to win them over.

But then the governor expelled Abdullah ibn Saba'. Therefore, Hukaym continued to recruit people for the rebellion. When the time to march to Madinah arrived a similar number to those marching from Egypt moved out of Basrah, also in four battalions, one of which was under Hukaym's command. He was also one of those who hit Uthman with stones as he addressed them, putting his case. Most of the rebels then left, but Hukaym stayed behind with Al-Ashtar, and they appear to be the ones that forged the letter addressed to the governor of Egypt. Al-Khateeb also mentions that he was the one to start the fighting in the Battle of the Camel, between Ali and his opponents led by Aishah, Talahah and Al-Zubayr. All of them had agreed to meet and negotiate a settlement, but people who were keen that the Muslims should not have a chance to settle their differences started fighting before the meeting could take place, apparently. It is reported that a woman from his own tribe heard him abusing Aishah, the Prophet's wife, and she was angry. She said to him: "You, son of a bad woman, are more deserving of such abuse." He immediately stabbed and killed her. He was executed later in Basrah.

Malik ibn Al-Harith who was known as Al-Ashtar, belonged to the Yemeni tribe of Nakha'. He was a very courageous fighter, and had religious zeal and aspiration for leadership. He played a very active role in the rebellion against Uthman, and was one of its leaders.

He then joined Ali and was appointed governor of Egypt, but he died on his way to take up his position. It appears that Ali realized that he could stir trouble easily, and he wanted to foil any attempt at creating trouble within the Muslim state. Hence, his appointment of Al-Ashtar as governor. These were then the leaders of the rebellion against Uthman. We can imagine what sort of following such people would command.

(Source: History Islam. Arab News)

Observations prejuidced

The rebellion against Uthman was based on Uthman's own 13 year long corrupt rule in which he had used the Islamic state treasury to help his own clan Banu Umayya.

He had appointed governors of his own choice removing those who had been appointed by Hazrat AbuBakr and then by Hazrat Umar in clear violation of the Islamic spirit.

He had conspired to have Muhammad bin Abi Bakr killed.

Ummul-Momineen Ayesha was among Uthman's greatest critics.

This book has been written with great prejuidce and apparently the author has disregarded the history documented in the sources by such illustriosu authors as Tabari, Abul Fida and Bladhuri.

In modern times the Egyptian scholar Taha Husain has chronicled the details in his celebrated book AL-FITNATUL- KUBRA, which has since been translated from Arabic into other languages.

Another interesting book is by teh Oxford scholar named Wlfred MAdelung. The name of his book is SUCCESSION TO MUHAMMAD, CAmbridge University Press, 1997.

It is true that the Prophet of Islam (pbh) had liked Uthman very much and he had made efforts to educate him. But in later life Uthman showed that the Prophet's teachings had not influenced him after all. He had aqppointed ABdullah ibn ABi Sarah as a governor who had been sentenced to death by the Prophet at one time. He had allowed both Marwan and his father Hakam back into the city of MAdinah. Hakam was banished from MAdinah by the Prophet. Uthman had married his daughter to MArwan and had appointed him his secretary. Marwan held the Khaleefa's seal and used to send Caliphal orders on his own personal whims.

Uthman had two senior companions of the Prophet, namely Abdullah bin MAsood and Ammar YAsir beaten up by his goons. Abdullah ibn MAsood later died of taht beating.

Uthman was responsible for sending Abu Zar Ghifari away into exile where he died a hungry thirsty and destitute man.

We cannot judge peopel by tehir names and tribal affiliations. We have to judge eople by tehir deeds. There is plenty of blameworthy stuff in Uthman's deeds. No one can hide it.

Being married to Prophet's daughter is no glory on its own. According to Qur'an the real glory of a Muslim is his/her TAQWA.

Syed-Mohsin Naquvi

Islam doesn't separate world from faith António Marujo and Faranaz Keshavjee

Courteous, ever smiling, those who are close to him say he is demanding. That is what happens in the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), a group of agencies working in fields such as micro-finance, rural development or even in lucrative sectors such as tourism, aviation, banking or industry. Shah Karim Al-Husseini. Aga Khan IV, as he designated by the Ismailis, took on the role of 49th hereditary Imam of the Time (since Prophet Muhammad), on July 11th 1957.

He was in Portugal , some days ago, to mark the conclusion of his Golden Jubilee.

PÚBLICO - In 1976, you mentioned that Prophet Muhammad understood the importance of new solutions for the daily lives that would not affect the principles of Islam. Does this motivate the undertakings of the AKDN?

Definitely. Firstly, the notion of dealing with poverty. Islam has a group of very strong orientations on how to help people, which is different (no more or less better) from the Christian world. For example, in Islam, we do not use the terms philanthropy or charity [as in Christianity] .

Islam says that the best form of charity, to use the term, is by helping people to become self-sufficient. It is to give in such a way that the person becomes master of one's own destiny. This is a very clear affirmation to all Muslims, and it underlies our health programmes, educationt it is helping people to help themselves. The same is applicable to micro-finance. Whatever the need of the poor, one should help to resolve it. One does not specify material poverty, disease, or divisions within the family.

Does daily life carry the same importance as eternal life?

In Islam, they are the same thing. One cannot separate faith from the world. This is one of the greatest difficulties that the non-Muslim world has, because the judaic-christian societies developed with that notion of separation. For the Muslims, that separation is not possible. We are expected to live our faith every day, in every hour.

One of the difficulties that we are facing in the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, is the articulation of the difference in values in a comprehensive form. However, this does not mean that we are in conflict. They are just different values.

One of the differences is laicality, debated in countries such as as Portugal , Turkey , France . For many, faith should remain confined to a private space. You mentioned that Islam doesn't separate faith from the world. How do you perceive this notion?

I would like the non-Muslim societies to accept the values of Islam. If Islam says that we do not separate the world from faith, the Western world should accept that. I would go further and say: it is a wonderful way to live! It is an extraordinary blessing to be able to live our faith everyday! Making ethic the way in which you live your daily life, and not only in occasions such as death, a marriage or a birth.

I am not criticising anyone. I am saying that secular society, by the nature of secularity and the demands of time, provokes in people the need to first place the world and faith after. This is not a part of Islam.

Upon receiving the Award for Tolerance from the Tutzing Evangelic Academy , in Germany , you stated: "Instead of shouting at one another, we should listen to each other and learn from each other".

You said that "fear is the source of intolerance". In spite of your words and those of several religious leaders, many believers do not listen to this message. What is yet to be done?

There will always be limits in inter-religious dialogue, when religions, in their essence, cannot attain a consensus above a common platform, when proselytism is, therefore, worth more.

There are several forms of proselytism and, in several religions, proselytism is demanded. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the principle of a cosmopolitan ethic, which is not an ethic oriented by faith, or for a society. I speak of an ethic under which all people can live within a same society, and not of a society that reflects the ethic of solely one faith. I would call that ethic, quality of life.

I have serious doubts about the ecumenical discourse, and about what it can reach, but I do not have any doubts about cosmopolitan ethics. I believe that people share the same basic worries, joys, sadness. If we can reach a consensus in terms of cosmopolitan ethics, we will have attained something which is very important.

The Qu'ran has a very important ayat [verse], in which God says: "I have created you" - "you" means mankind - "male and female, from one sole, only one soul". This is the most extraordinary expression on the unity of the human race. It is within this context that we must work.

Pakistan and India: Future designs

Tanvir Ahmad Khan

Place: Royal Society of Arts, London; Time: two sun-blanched days in the last week of June; Occasion: a gathering of political, corporate, cultural and opinion leaders from India and Pakistan convened by India's famous media group, Tehelka; Purpose: designing a new future for the two countries.

This largely attended "summit", as it was dubbed by the organisers, was a notable departure from the usual forums in which the past, present and future inter-state relations in the sub-continent are discussed and may well pioneer similar exchanges on its own soil in the days to come. It was not a conference where academic papers are presented; nor was it remotely similar to the endless track-two meetings in which former generals and diplomats of India and Pakistan explore for ever possible openings in the hard declaratory positions of two traditional national security states.

The ambiance in London reflected the success of an experiment in which novelists such as Pakistan's Kamila Shamsie and Mohammad Hanif, and visual artists and media celebrities carried at least as much weight as politicians such as Jaswant Singh, Sachin Pilot and Imran Khan. Challenged to initiate their conversation with fellow panellists and an interactive and informed audience in seven minutes apiece, the speakers had to come up with a short sharp account of their understanding of the road blocks to a new future for South Asia, and outline strategies which could lead to their removal.

Political statements - the keynote opening address by India's former Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs, Jaswant Singh, Asif Zardari's speech read out in absentia and Nawaz Sharif's unedited video address - agreed that entering at such a new era was not only possible but had become a policy imperative. Zardari went further than any other interlocutor at the "summit" to indicate accommodation on Kashmir by talking of its future autonomous status without too many qualifying clauses.

The Indian side of Kashmir was represented by Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti. The Pakistani participants could not but note that their thoughts were not trained solely on Pakistani obstructionism but were more pointedly focused on the difficulties the Indian decision-makers continue to face in defining autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir.

What set the discussions apart were the "events" christened as inherited poisons, creating and eroding stereotypes in art and cinema and the role of religion. Sub-continental misperceptions and misrepresentations of the "other" have run a complex course and do not lend themselves to glib formulations. There have been long periods of amity in the past though we are, at present, witnessing the culminating phase in several decades of divergence and alienation.

The Indian independence movement became polarised in its association with strong Islamic and Hindu religious revivalist movements that seeped into political thought. The result was different trajectories, one of which led to the creation of the separate state of Pakistan. An ethnic and linguistic variant of the same separatism ensures the proud statehood of Bangladesh. In the post-colonial era, failure to solve disputes left behind by a hasty partition led to a deliberate accentuation of negative images for purposes of hostile mobilisation of peoples.

This is exactly what most participants in the London moot were trying to reverse. Designing a better future clearly means a chart that would enable the three sovereign sub-continental states to carve out a much larger space to work together to resolve issues that impinge upon the lives of more than a billion people.

The divisive role of religion has often been exaggerated especially in much of the biased historiography in the post-1947 India and Pakistan. In reality, most of the Muslim rulers of India had no proselytizing zeal and their frequent military campaigns were not driven by religious passions. More often the barrier was incomprehension between followers of a Semitic monotheistic religion with a well defined core of doctrines and those of an inclusive flexible system of beliefs and practices that allowed them to be good Hindus in a hundred different ways. This incomprehension was effectively reduced by syncretism attempted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike in India by tapping into the deeper spiritual meaning of symbols and rituals that looked strange at first glance.

The founder of the Mughal dynasty, Babur, came to India at the end of long years of military peregrinations in which he won and lost territories in Central Asia and Afghanistan. As his autobiographical journal Babur Nama testifies, he had an enormous appetite for information about the culture of other people and the flora and fauna of other lands. And yet incomprehension marked his instant response to the temples of Gwalior.

It was not the simple reaction of a Muslim to the worship of idols; he was irked that the temple architecture and the manifestations of the divine in stone and clay did not conform to his idea of symmetry and design. Within a short span of time his grandson, Akbar the Great, had overcome this civilisation-driven incomprehension to such an extent that he virtually tried to synthesise a new religion from elements of Islam and Hinduism. Religion does not become divisive without the will to peg it to actively crafted political projects.

As a participant, I felt that the only negative notes in this extraordinary conference were struck by speakers deeply embedded in the national strategic enclaves. They were seen to be still preoccupied with antiquated concepts of regional hegemony: one group seeking to impose it and the other looking for countervailing strategies to avert it. India and Pakistan will not find it difficult to work closely in the larger interest of their peoples once the influence of these groups on decision-making is reduced.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former Ambassador and Foreign Secretary of Pakistan. He is currently the head of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad.

(Source: Muslim News, UK)

The objective of the Islamic economic order

Tamizul Haque

Barrister-at-Law

(From previous issue)

Ayat 29 of Sura 4 (Nisa) of Holy Quran is the authority for the proposition where believers of the faith have been warned not to eat-up the property of anyone wrongfully, as all of our property must be held in trust whether it is in our own name or belongs to the community, or to the people on whom we have control. Freedom of enterprise, in contrast with socialism, offers such as possibility and it had been recognized by Islam along with its constituent elements the institution of private property. The market mechanism may also be considered to be an integral part of the Islamic economic system, because on the one hand the institution of private property is not workable without it; and, on the other, it offers the consumers a chance to express their desires for the production of goods of their choice and by their willingness to pay the price, and also gives resource-owners an opportunity to sell their resources according to their free will.

Profit motive which is essential for the successful operation of any system incorporating freedom of enterprise, has also been recognized by Islam. This is because profit provides the necessary incentive for efficiency in the use of resources, which Allah Subhanahu Tahla has given to mankind. However Islam places certain moral restraints on this motive so that it fosters individual self-interest within a social context, which does not violate the Islamic goals of social economic justice and equitable distribution of income and wealth.

In the Islamic system, even though property is allowed to be privately owned it is to be considered as a trust from Allah Subhanahu Tahla, because everything in the heavens and earth really belongs to Allah and, man being the Vicegerent of Allah, enjoys the right of ownership only as a trustee (Sura Bakra-II 284).

Firstly, in Islam, the allocation of resources is optimum if it is in conformity with the norms of Islam and then in accordance with consumers' preferences. In a truly Islamic society there is no likelihood of any divergence between the two. But, if there is any divergence, then the state cannot be a passive observer. It must educate public opinion in accordance with the teachings of Islam and guide and regulate the machinery of production and distribution so as to bring about an allocation of resources which is

Secondly, the market system assumes that the wants of different individuals can be compared with respect to their urgency by the use of prices because each unit of currency represents a ballot. Therefore, an equitable distribution of income, which is one of the goals of the Islamic system is a prerequisite to the attainment of a desirable allocation of resources through the functioning of the price system.

Thirdly, there may be imperfections in the efficient operation of the market forces introduced by monopolies or monopsonies, or conditions in which prices may not reflect real costs or benefits.

Fourthly, in the capitalist market system, since the individual is the primary owner of his own goods, he may do what he pleases with them. Hence there is no moral sanction against destruction of output by, say burning or dumping into the ocean, in order to raise prices or to maintain them at a higher level. But in the Islamic system, since all wealth is a trust from Allah, it would be a grave moral crime to do so.

Fifthly, by itself the market system, even under conditions of healthy competition which is a prerequisite for its efficient operation, has manifested no inherent tendency to solve the economic problems of unemployment, economic fluctuations and stagnation, or to bring about an equitable distribution of the social product. There has, therefore, to be some direction and regulation by a goal-oriented government.

Sixthly, therefore, unless there are moral checks on individuals accompanied by effective regulations by a morally oriented government, competition may not necessarily eliminate the inefficient, reward socially useful behaviour, enforce social and economic justice and foster an equitable distribution of income.

Hence the sharp distinction between Islam and capitalism which, in spite of its present recognition of the role of the government in the economy, is nevertheless essentially secular and lacks a morally based philosophy for social and economic justice and public welfare.

Conclusion: It has been declared by Allah Subhanahu Tahla in the Holy Quran perfecting our religion for all the believers of the faith. In part of Ayat 4 of Sura 5 (Al-Maida) Allah has clearly declared thus :-

This day have those who

Reject Faith given up

All hope of your religion:

Yet fear them not

But fear Me,

This day have I

Perfected your religion

For you, completed

My favour upon you,

And have chosen for you

Islam as your religion.

Notes : So long as Islam was not organized, with its own community and its own

laws, the Unbelievers had hoped to wean the Believers from the new Teaching.

Now that hope was gone, with the complete organization of Islam.

The last verse revealed chronologically; making the approaching end of Mustafa's ministry in his earthly life.

This verse clearly speaks of the fact that the favours of Allah Subhanahu Tahla in the form of Din (code of life) have been perfected in Al-Islam. To a non-Muslim who is natured on a traditional concept of religion, it is only a private relationship between man and his Creator. But for a Muslim religion comprehends the whole of his life - it patterns of thought and behaviour. Therefore in Islam one cannot find a no-man's land to which religion does not lay a claim That is the reason why Allah Subhandhu Tahla exhorts people to accept Islam in its entirety.

Ayat 208 of Sura Baqara-II gives clear direction to the believers of the faith to enter into Islam "Whole heartedly" and follow not the foot-steps of the Saitan for he is to you and avowed enemy.

Islam is the only religion of the world which knows no distinction between the religious and secular, but views in one sweep the entire life of man.

Ayat 162 of Sura VI - A-an'am is the authority for the proposition that a Muslim life and death are all for Allah. The said Ayat runs thus :-

Say: "Truly, my prayer

And my service of sacrifice,

My life and my death,

Are (all) for Allah,

The Cherisher of the Worlds:

No partner hath He:

This am I commanded,

And I am the first

Of those who bow

To His Will

It means that the whole life of a Muslim in all its spheres should be an expression of complete submission to Allah Subhanahu Tahla, the Creator of this Universe and the Rightful Master.