In his early years as Khalifah, Uthman followed the policies of his predecessors. This is apparent from the letters he sent to governors and miltary commanders. Diversion from these lofty principles came later.
Muslims faced two serious internal challenges in early Islamic history: one from the group called the munafiqeen and the other from the tulaqa (amnestied prisoners). They both caused immense damage to the body-politic of Islam. Muslims must understand this history properly.
The third Khalifah ‘Usman’s temperate nature was exploited by some unscrupulous individuals and groups to undermine the Islamic polity that ultimately resulted in serious damage to the political system of Islam.
How ‘Uthman became the third Khalifah and details about Ubaid Ullah ibn Umar’s killing of the three persons who had assassinated his father, Khalifah Umar ibn al-Khattab.
Some Muslims, perhaps many, are too wedded to information passed on to them in their books about early Islamic history based on a particular sectarian slant. It is important to revisit this information as Abu Dharr shows in this ongoing series of articles.
In his regular column, Abu Dharr continues to clear the web of confusion surrounding early Islamic history that has engulfed Muslim minds for centuries.
After the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, those that took over leadership position of the Muslims did not impose themselves. Solidarity between the Muhajireen and Ansar was strong that enabled the Muslims to confront the challenge in the war of Riddah.
Uthman ibn Affan was the son-in-law of the Prophet (pbuh) and a generous companion. He provided immense financial support in various battles and provided equipment and other war material. Abu Dharr continues to shed light on the early history of Islam.
In his ongoing series about the early history of Islam after the Prophet (pbuh) passed away, Abu Dharr looks into the life of Uthman, the third Khalifah. He urges readers to rise above our pre-conceived notions when examining the lives of early personalities in Islam.
If Muslims study the early period of Islamic history after the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode carefully, they will discover that there was no polarization between Umar ibn al-Khattab and Imam Ali. True, they had their independent opinions on issues but there was no ill-will whatsoever.
If the early Muslims had an opportunity to put in place a proper institutional framework, the tragedy that erupted during Uthman’s khilafah may have been avoided.
The third Khalifah, Uthman’s deviation from the policy established by the Prophet and his two successors (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) by apportioning a share of the Islamic state treasury to his relatives caused deep unease among most Muslims, leading to deep fissures in society.
When the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, the vast majority of Muslims were newcomers to Islam, hence not fully immersed in the values of Islam. Even the Prophet’s committed followers (the Muhajiroon and Ansar), at time made decisions concerning issues of justice and equality that may have fallen short of the Qur’anic and Prophetic standard. We should not, however, impute ulterior motives to them.
The persons around the Prophet (pbuh) were the founding fathers of Islamic self-determination. While not all of the same ranking, they were the first among the first (al-Sabiqeen). This was the generation of the Muhajiroon and the Ansar. They suffered persecution and torture but remained steadfast in their loyalty to the Prophet (pbuh).
The Islamic system of governance as exemplified by the Prophet (pbuh) and his two successors should not be confused with the western concept of “democracy”. Islam’s system was and is unique. It needs to be understood well to avoid the pitfalls that emerge from faulting thinking
The battle of Badr was an extremely important event in early Islamic history. It was a battle for the very survival of the nascent Muslim community. Because of their strong commitment, the Muslims were able to defeat an enemy force three times larger.
Let it be known that the Khilafah ruling method is based upon the concept of bay‘at. This means that the citizenry in an Islamic socio-governmental order is involved in deciding who their “chief executive” shall be. One way of understanding the Khilafah is to say that it was a “social contract” between the executive decision maker(s) and the resident citizens on the basis of Shura.
Allah (swt) told His beloved Prophet (pbuh) to make decisions through mutual consultation with his followers. Despite being guided from on high, there were occasions when the Prophet (pbuh) sought the opinion of his companions and accepted it even when it was contrary to the opinion he held. This has important implications for Muslim life.
In his continuing series reflecting on the divergence of opinion in early Islamic history, Abu Dharr takes up the issue of the Shi‘i and Sunni understanding of the word ‘ismat (from which the word ma‘sum) is derived.
Comparing the policies of Umar and Uthman shows how the problems arose in early Islamic history and the deleterious consequences that followed
