Opinion

The Unnoticeable Beginning Of The Transition From Legitimate Khilafah To Legitimate Imamat

Abu Dharr

Shawwal 13, 14472026-04-01

---

One glaring fact of our early Khilafah/Imamat historical symbiosis that looks us in the eye is the fact that a peculiar opposition existed during the time of ‘Uthman in office that did not exist during the Khilafah of ‘Umar . This opposition gained traction first at the faraway peripheries of the Islamic body politic. We mentioned earlier the murmur and then higher pitch of Islamic defiance in places like al-Basrah, al-Kufah, and Egypt; then the wave of opposition to ‘Uthman finally found a sizable foothold in al-Madinah itself where ‘Uthman resides.

Now that we are somewhat familiar with the distant pockets of noncooperation or at least serious-minded criticism of ‘Uthman’s policies we should tackle the question: where exactly did the earnest and dangerous opposition to ‘Uthman originate. Did it originate in al-Madinah, the seat of Islamic power? Or did it originate in lands and regions at a distance from al-Madinah?

Another way of putting it: did the opposition begin among the Prophet’s true and tried companions the Muhajirin and Ansar and then from there it trekked all the way to the military frontlines of the Islamic commonwealth; or did this opposition to ‘Uthman begin in the ranks of the military who were stationed far afield from al-Madinah and then eventually made its way to al-Madinah—home of the Muhajirin and Ansar?

The answer to this question is somewhat hard to pin down. If the disapproval of ‘Uthman initially began in al-Madinah that would mean that the Muhajirin and Ansar were the forerunners who took issue with ‘Uthman—some more involved in the opposition than others. But, then, if the opposition started within the ranks of the military stationed at the frontiers, that would mean that it was the military that influenced the core Muhajirin and Ansar in al-Madinah—some of them reluctantly and others willingly.

There need not be a contradiction between a simultaneous development and progression of opposition both in al-Madinah and at the warfront regions. And if that is the case it appears that the boldness and then rebelliousness against ‘Uthman were to be expected due to the tribal disparities and social imbalances that began to displace the brotherhood, companionship and equality of the hitherto practical Prophetic and constitutional Qur’anic social order. Perceived discriminating gaps began to set into the governmental administration and there was a popular viewpoint that Islam in theory is no longer Islam in practice.

Complicating these civic mixed feelings was the fact that what was left of the Prophetic generation had to come to terms with and adjust to the ingressing effects and sways of Byzantine and Persian modernities. It was not within ‘Uthman’s ability or anyone else’s ability to turn this tide or to overpower these types of developments quickly.

Another way of looking at this is that when a limited power expands and becomes a limitless power, it is bound to encounter some type of opposition and that opposition, if not dealt with wisely, can turn (and will turn) violent. Muslim rulers and Muslim peoples are in the final analysis members of the human race and vulnerable to the ups and downs of human nature once the governmental disciplinary standards of Islam slip away and the administrative educative criteria of the Qur’an begin to fade.

It has been over 1400 years since that time period we are speaking about here and look around and discover, for yourself, how defying and demanding it is to correct the conduct of those in power and also to adjust the actions and activities of those who are in the opposition!

Now let us visit al-Madinah specifically and learn what the relationship between ‘Uthman, a Muhajir, and the rest of the Muhajirin and Ansar and see what was their attitude towards ‘Uthman.

First let us examine the relationship between ‘Uthman and the five others who were the first to endorse ‘Uthman as khalifah. These were the ones who constituted the nominating consultative council when ‘Umar was still alive. All of them were Islamic pioneers in their own right and all of them had a clean record of supporting the Prophet (ﷺ) and sacrificing for the cause of Allah (SWT).

All of them were well-liked and well-regarded by the Prophet (ﷺ) during his cherished life and he passed away appreciating their selfless contributions for the sake of Allah (SWT) and the Prophet (ﷺ) and all of them earned the Prophet’s good will and good wishes.

But then they did not all hail from the exact same pre-Islamic tribal status nor were they all equivalent blood relatives of the Prophet (ﷺ). Each one of them had his own fluctuating relationship with other members of society as well as his measure of prosperity and amount of possessions and wealth.

In no particular order let us begin with ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf who was related to the Prophet (ﷺ) through his mother Aminah bint Wahb. ‘Abd al-Rahman was a very rich merchant. He was a merchant before becoming a Muslim and a merchant after becoming a Muslim. He was known to be a bright “business man.” He knew how to make money and how to invest money successfully. He is known to have said: I see myself, every time I turn a stone I feel like I will find gold or silver beneath it. It is also reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him:

يا عبد الرحمن إنك من الأغنياء، ولن تدخل الجنة إلا زحفاً، فأقرض الله يطلق لك قدميك

O ‘Abd al-Rahman! You are certainly one of those who are wealthy but you will only enter paradise crawling; thus, give somebody an advance (early payment) for the sake of Allah so that He will untie your feet.

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf was not known to be austere or ascetic; after all he was a Quraishi and carried himself as a Quraishi as a “member of the aristocrat” though polished by his Islamic properness and politeness.

He was known to have multiple wives from different tribes which would have put him in a favorable position had he chosen to be the leader of the Muslims as Arabia in general still had deep tribal significances and sensitivities.

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf had the unambiguous distinction of bringing Quraish and the Ansar together because he was married into those two exclusive blocs. Still, he debarred himself from “running for the office” of Khalifah even when there were others in that council of six who favored him among them ‘Uthman himself. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf purposely sought a neutral position that would help him reconcile the internal good-hearted competition within the council.

Imam ‘Ali as well as the other members consented to ‘Abd al-Rahman becoming the go-between and intermediary among the members of the council after ‘Abd al-Rahman affirmed to Imam ‘Ali that he would bind himself to al-haqq [the truth and the facts] without favoritism springing from blood relationships or clannish preferences.

What would summarize ‘Abd al-Rahman’s position concerning statesmanship is his declaration:

والله لأن تُؤخذ مدية (سكين) فتوضع في حلقي ثم يُنفذ بها، أحب إلي من أن أتولى هذا الأمر

“By Allah! It would be preferable for me to suffer from an arrow piercing my mouth and exiting through the other side (of my head) than to assume this responsibility [of being the leader of the Muslims].” The bona fides of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf were recognized by all the members of that council.

Later, when ‘Uthman was assigned the Khilafah position because of ‘Abd al-Rahman’s due diligence, it was he who felt that he would have to “keep a close eye” on ‘Uthman.

During the first years of ‘Uthman’s rule, ‘Abd al-Rahman was not in opposition to him. On the contrary, he tried to help ‘Uthman and facilitate what had to be facilitated; but then when the Muslim general public began to raise their voice against ‘Uthman, ‘Abd al-Rahman began to take their anxieties and affairs into somber consideration. This eventually resulted in ‘Abd al-Rahman defying ‘Uthman in political and “religious” matters which finally caused him to stay away from ‘Uthman. He stopped visiting him and did not talk to him.

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf took issue with ‘Uthman when the latter prayed four raka‘at knowing that the Prophet (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar would pray two raka‘at when traveling. ‘Abd al-Rahman also was against ‘Uthman’s “liberal” allocation of money to his relatives.

And whatever issue you may disagree on among yourselves, [know that] its adjudication is to be conceded to Allah… [al-Shura, 10].

---