Uthman Ibn Affan - Anti-Uthman Sentiment

Anti-Uthman Sentiment

According to Muslim sources, unlike his predecessor, Umar, who maintained discipline with a stern hand, Uthman was less rigorous upon his people; he focused more on economic prosperity. Under Uthman, the people became economically more prosperous and on the political plane they came to enjoy a larger degree of freedom. No institutions were devised to channel political activity, and, in the absence of such institutions, the pre-Islamic tribal jealousies and rivalries, which had been suppressed under earlier caliphs, erupted once again. In view of the lenient policies adopted by Uthman, the people took advantage of such liberties, which became a headache for the state, and it culminated in the assassination of Uthman.

According to some contemporary salafi scholars, the foreign powers became nervous at the success of the Muslims under the leadership of Uthman, and now their only hope lay in aiding and abetting subversive movements within the territories of Uthman's caliphate. According to some viewpoints, under such circumstances, leaders like Abdullah Ibn Saba, felt that it was a good opportunity to accomplish their aims of rebellion by starting arguments over religion. However, the figure Abdullah Ibn Saba is believed by many Shia or Sunni Scholars to be an imaginary one created by certain Salafi historians to stir up anti-Shia sentiment.

However, Wilferd Madelung discredits the alleged role of Abdullah ibn Saba in the rebellion against Uthman, Madelung observes that ‘’few if any modern historians would accept Sayf's legend of Ibn Saba’’

It is believed that the movement had its links with conquered territories out of Arabian Peninsula. Due to the lack of any particular political department to deal with the growing political agitation in the Islamic state, the political leaders in various towns campaigned against Uthman. Initially, they started with arguments over Uthman's kinsmen, who were governors of Egypt, Bosra and Kufa and they were joined by the companions who supported Ali. The most prominent of these were Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who despite being an Umayyad like Uthman, was raised in Ali's house, and Ammar ibn Yasir, who supported the right of Ali to become caliph because of his close relationship with Muhammad. The campaign was also supported by some companions who had a personal grievance with Uthman, like ‘Amr ibn al-’As, also an Ummayad, who was stripped of the governorship of Egypt by Uthman, and Uthman's adopted son, Muhammad bin Abi Hudhaifa, who Uthman had refused to appoint as a governor of any province.

The actual reason for the anti-Uthman movement is disputed among the Shia and Sunni Muslims. Many anonymous letters were written to the leading companions of Muhammad, complaining about the alleged tyranny of Uthman's appointed governors. Moreover, letters were sent to the leaders of public opinion in different provinces concerning the reported mishandling of power by Uthman's family. This contributed to unrest in the empire and finally Uthman had to investigate the matter in an attempt to ascertain the authenticity of the rumours. The movement however exploited differences between the Hashemite (Ali's clan) and Umayyad (Uthman's clan) clans of Quraysh.

Sunni Muslims consider these claims about the governors of Uthman, who achieved much success during their reign, to be untrue, while Sunni Muslims believe this to be a tactic used by seditionists to overthrow the realm of Uthman, by making him lose control over the main provinces of Egypt, Syria, Kufa and Bosra, where Uthman had appointed his own kinsmen for loyalty's sake. On the other hand Shia Muslims suggest that these claims were correct, and Uthman's kinsmen, although they achieved success as governors, failed to lead the people according to the principles of Islam, giving references to various early narrations present in primary sources of Islamic history. Sunni Muslims reject these narrations, on the basis that their authenticity is disputed.