Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Uthman’s Ruling on a Conspirator’s Case
Adil Salahi
Arab News
11/3/03
So far, we have seen how all the accusations leveled at Uthman, the third caliph, easily fall apart on scrutiny. The fact that the list of indictment brought against him by the rebels was so long and relied on extremely flimsy evidence shows those rebels for what they were: masses led by a group of evil conspirators who were intent on killing the caliph, a man of great integrity, piety and compassion. By killing him they hoped to level a devastating blow at the very foundation of the Muslim state and, consequently, at Islam itself. They were prepared to pose as defenders of Islam and Islamic law when all they wanted was to undermine Islam and see its foundations crumble.
One of the charges they brought against the caliph was that he did not operate Islamic law in a case of unlawful killing when the killer was well known. The victim was a Persian called Al-Hurmuzan, killed by Ubaydellah ibn Umar after his father was killed by another Persian known as Abu Lu’luah. The rebels accused Uthman of “refusing to put Ubaydellah ibn Umar to death for killing Al-Hurmuzan.” They maintained that by so doing Uthman thwarted Islamic law when he had no right to do so.
There is no doubt that no ruler may pardon a killer unless the relatives of the victim forgo their right for equal punishment (i.e. a death sentence against the offender) and accept blood money in compensation for their loss. However, this case was exceptional in more ways than one. Let us first of all look at what Justice Abu Bakr ibn Al-Arabi has to say on this case.
“As for his refusal to kill Ubaydellah ibn Umar ibn Al-Khattab in punishment for his killing of Al-Hurmuzan, the whole accusation is baseless. He could not have done so when the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were present in large numbers and the case was so fresh. It has been said that Al-Hurmuzan was active in the plot to kill Umar and that he carried the knife used for the killing and it was seen under his clothes. Besides, he was killed before Uthman was elected caliph. It might have been the case that Uthman considered that Ubaydellah had no case to answer after having ascertained the case against Al-Hurmuzan. Moreover, no one sought punishment for Al-Hurmuzan’s killing. Bearing all this in mind, how could Uthman look into a case that was not made in the first place?”
The first point Ibn Al-Arabi makes in defense of Uthman relates to the presence of the Prophet’s companions in large numbers in Madinah. In fact most of them were still there, because Umar had asked him to stay in Madinah during his reign. All the Prophet’s companions were keen to see Islam implemented fully, because they were the ones who experienced life before Islam and knew the high level to which Islam had raised them. They were not prepared to compromise any Islamic principle or ruling. To them, this was a matter of faith for which they were answerable to God. Thus, if they felt that the caliph was lax in implementing the law, they would have been outspoken against him. In this case, none of them spoke. It is inconceivable that all of them would be complacent in a case of this magnitude.
In his annotation of Ibn Al-Arabi’s book, Al-Khateeb mentions a report attributed to Al-Qumabadhan ibn Al-Hurmuzan, who was at the center of this affair. He is quoted as saying: “When Uthman took office, he called me in and gave me full authority over Ubaydellah ibn Umar, saying: ‘Son, this is the man who killed your father. You have more authority over him. Take him and kill him if you wish.’ As I took him away, every one in the city came out with me, appealing to me to let him go. I asked them: ‘Am I free to kill him?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘Can you stop me if I want to kill him?’ They answered: ‘No.’ And they hurled verbal abuse at him. Therefore, I let him go for God’s sake and for their sake. They were so pleased that they carried me over their shoulders until I reached home.”
Another report mentioned by Al-Tabari in his voluminous history shows Uthman making his decision after consultations with the Prophet’s companions. The report states that Uthman invited their views and Ali suggested that Ubaydellah should be put to death for killing someone who had no proven case against him. Several others from among the Muhajireen and the Ansar said: “Umar was killed a few days ago. Is his son to be killed today? How could this be?” Amr ibn Al-Aas said to Uthman: “God has been kind to you as this event took place when you had no authority over the Muslim community. Indeed you were not in power when it happened.” At the end of the consultation, Uthman said: “I am their guardian and I rule for the payment of blood money, and I will undertake payment from my own purse.” Together these two reports give us the full story. It might have been that Uthman spoke to Al-Hurmuzan’s son first and let him have the power to exact revenge killing, but the people in Madinah tried to persuade him to let Ubaydellah go, which he did when he saw practically all the people in Madinah begging him to do so. Uthman might have then felt that the man was unduly pressurized to forgo his right. As a caliph, he felt that he needed to consult the Prophet’s companions. This accounts for the view expressed by several companions of the Prophet about Umar’s son being killed a few days after his father’s assassination. But this could not have been a consideration unless the circumstances made the punishment of Ubaydellah ibn Umar exceedingly terrible. Besides, Amr ibn Al-Aas’ view that Uthman did not need to take action in this question since it took place prior to his taking office does not carry much weight. If a crime is committed in the short period between the death of one caliph and the election of another, the offender must be punished by the new caliph. He cannot allow God’s law to be sidelined, under the pretext that the crime occurred when he had no authority. Certainly his new authority requires him to take action to ensure that the criminal is punished.
These reports show that there was much confusion in Madinah after the assassination of Umar, with people trying to find grounds to reduce tension and tragedy. It may have been that some, if not many, of the Prophet’s companions had their suspicions concerning the role of the murdered man, Al-Hurmuzan, in Umar’s assassination but did not have hard evidence to confirm them. Al-Tabari mentions a third report quoting Abd Al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr who said on the day of Umar’s assassination: “I passed by Abu Lu’luah last night and found him deep in consultation with Jufaynah (a Christian from Al-Heerah in the Persian Empire) and Al-Hurmuzan. When I approached them, they were startled and rose. They dropped a dagger with two blades, and a handle in the middle. I suppose we should determine the type of weapon used in the murder.” Al-Tabari adds that a man from the Tameem tribe went after him and then came back. He had chased Abu Lu’luah after he had stabbed Umar until he was able to take him. Now he brought the dagger Abd Al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr had described. When Ubaydellah ibn Umar heard of this, he held back until his father, Umar, died. He then went out and killed Al-Hurmuzan.
This means that suspicion that Al-Hurmuzan was heavily involved in the plot to assassinate Umar was very strong and held by a number of the Prophet’s companions. Hence, they felt that Ubaydellah ibn Umar was fully justified in killing him. To allow him to be executed as a result would have been an act of injustice. Since they lacked the firm evidence to confirm their suspicions, they could only appeal to Al-Hurmuzan’s son. When the man responded to their pleas, Uthman generously satisfied Al-Hurmuzan’s family by paying them blood money. He was most caring, compassionate and generous.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |