Election of Uthman

Template:Short description Template:Infobox historical event Template:Uthman Template:Ali The Election of Uthman refers to the appointment of Uthman ibn Affan as the third caliph by a committee ([[Shura|Template:Transliteration]]), which was assembled by the dying caliph Umar in 23 AH (643-4 CE). The committee likely consisted of six early Muslims from the Quraysh tribe, including the prophet Muhammad's second cousin and son-in-law Uthman and Muhammad's first cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib. The deciding vote was given to Uthman's brother-in-law Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, who appointed the former as the next caliph after the deliberations stalled. The choice of the wealthy Uthman is often explained as intended to guard the interests of the Quraysh and to follow the practices of the first two caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr and Umar. The committee has been criticized for its bias towards Uthman and for its exclusion of the Ansar.

CommitteeEdit

The committee was convened in Medina by the second caliph Umar (Template:Reign) after he was stabbed in 23/644 by Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, a Persian slave.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn On his deathbed, Umar tasked the committee with choosing the next caliph among themselves.Template:Sfn This committee is also often referred to as a Template:Transliteration or electorate body by Sunni theologians.Template:Sfn Early Sunni sources unanimously approve of Umar's committee,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn though they often regard it as the second-best solution because Umar reputedly did not know whom to appoint directly.Template:Sfn For instance, the Sunni al-Tabari (Template:Died in) quotes Umar as saying that he would have designated his advisor Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah or Salim ibn Ma'qil, the mawla of Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba, both of whom predeceased the second caliph.Template:Sfn Elsewhere, Umar would have selected Abu Ubayda, Mu'adh ibn Jabal, or Khalid ibn al-Walld,Template:Sfn as reported in [[Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa|Template:Transliteration]] and also by al-Tabari.Template:Sfn Mahmoud M. Ayoub (Template:Died in) suggests that Umar also did not want to be directly involved with this appointment,Template:Sfn fearing dissension afterward.Template:Sfn This fear is also noted by Husain M. Jafri (Template:Died in).Template:Sfn

MembersEdit

Umar nominated six men to this committee in most sources,Template:Sfn all from the Muhajirun (early Meccan converts).Template:Sfn The committee consisted of Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law Uthman ibn Affan, Uthman's brother-in-law and Umar's key advisor Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Ibn Awf's cousin Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Ali's cousin Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, and Talha ibn Ubaydullah.Template:Sfn

A few sources add to this list Sa'id ibn Zayd, a companion of Muhammad,Template:Sfn while a report by al-Tabari says Ibn Zayd was excluded because of his kinship with Umar, who reputedly did not want hereditary succession.Template:Sfn On the other hand, some sources do not include Sa'd in the committee.Template:Sfn Most sources also say that Talha arrived in Medina after the committee had reached its final decision and was absent from the proceedings.Template:Sfn Sa'd formally acted as his proxy by some accounts.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn The Sunni historian Ibn Sa'd (Template:Died in) and some other Sunni sources also list Umar's son Abd Allah in the capacity of an advisor to the committee.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Alternatively, the Sunni Template:Transliteration reports that Hasan ibn Ali served as a witness in the committee.Template:Sfn

ConfigurationEdit

Jafri believes that Umar did not consult the Muslim community before appointing this committee,Template:Sfn while Patricia Crone (Template:Died in) says that this matter is unclear in most sources except the Sunni al-Jahiz (Template:Died in), according to whom Umar chose the committee members with help from early Muslims.Template:Sfn Early Sunni sources defend the configuration of the committee,Template:Sfn quoting Umar as saying that these were the best or the most entitled to the caliphate or those over whom the community would split.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

UthmanEdit

The aging Uthman was a wealthy merchant from the powerful Banu Umayyad clan of the Quraysh. He nevertheless lacked leadership or military experience,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn unlike the rest of the committee.Template:Sfn Not much is known about him during the reigns of Abu Bakr and Umar, and some have thus found it peculiar that Uthman was nominated.Template:Sfn An early convert and Muhammad's son-in-law, Wilferd Madelung Template:Sfn and Sean AnthonyTemplate:Sfn suggest that Umar nominated Uthman as the only available strong counter-candidate to Ali, the much youngerTemplate:Sfn figurehead of Muhammad's clan, the Banu Hashim. If Uthman had not been nominated, observes Madelung, the Umayyads would have inevitably supported their distant relative Ali in the committee.Template:Sfn While all nominees belonged to the Quraysh, the rest were from obscure clans, unlike Ali and Uthman.Template:Sfn

Umar's viewsEdit

Umar is shown in early Sunni sources as concerned that the disagreements in the committee would split the community,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and he reportedly warned Ali, Uthman,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and possibly also Ibn Awf about favoring their kin if they are elected. On this basis, Madelung suggests that Umar considered these three as the serious contenders for the caliphate in the committee.Template:Sfn Among these three, Madelung suggests that Ibn Awf and Ali were Umar's most and least preferred candidates, respectively.Template:Sfn Alternatively, Jafri and Ayoub consider it likely that Umar saw Ali and Uthman as the strongest candidates.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Umar also remarked elsewhere about the "foolishness" (Template:Transliteration) of Ali,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn but nevertheless considered him worthy of the caliphate and predicted the nepotism of Uthman. Madelung is confident that this Sunni account is fabricated,Template:Sfn which is also what Ayoub suggests.Template:Sfn

Some early reports indicate that Umar vocally opposed the combination of the prophethood and the caliphate in the Banu Hashim,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and he thus prevented Muhammad from dictating his will on his deathbed,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn possibly fearing that he might expressly designate Ali as his successor.Template:Sfn In this vein, Farhad Daftary believes that Ali was deliberately excluded from any position of importance during the caliphates of Umar and his predecessor,Template:Sfn while Anthony regards Ali's disenfranchisement as self-imposed and a sign of his disapproval of the first two caliphs,Template:Sfn even though he offered his (at times critical) advice to the caliphs.Template:Sfn Considering all this, Jafri suggests that Umar nevertheless included Ali in the committee because of his high political standing, which made it impossible for Umar to exclude Ali.Template:Sfn Ayoub extends this attitude of Umar to other government posts,Template:Sfn basing his conclusion on a report by al-Mas'udi (Template:Died in) in which the caliph hesitated to install the Hashemite Ibn Abbas (Template:Died in) as the governor of Homs, saying that Muhammad had not given the Banu Hashim any share in the power.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

RulesEdit

The committee was reportedly threatened with death to reach an agreement in three days,Template:Sfn possibly reflecting an anxiety to avoid civil unrest and discord,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn something that later became the anathema to Sunni Islam.Template:Sfn Umar also stipulated some rules for the committee,Template:Sfn who were to meet in closed caucus to prevent outside influence, according to some reports by al-Tabari.Template:Sfn Other reports, including one by al-Tabari,Template:Sfn indicate that the Meccan and Medinan leaders and the garrison commanders lobbied Ibn Awf.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Another report by the Mu'tazilite Ibn Abi'l-Hadid (Template:Died in) describes how Ibn Awf solicited advice from the public during the deliberations.Template:Sfn The Ansari Abu Talha and his men were reportedly ordered by Umar to stand guard and enforce these rules:Template:Sfn

The new caliph must belong to the committee, elected by a majority of its members.Template:Sfn
In case of a tie, Ibn Awf would elect the next caliph.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This might be plausible because Ibn Awf was Umar's closest advisor after the death of Abu Ubayda in 639,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and belonged to a small clan of the Quraysh.Template:Sfn Jafri,Template:Sfn Momen,Template:Sfn Ayoub,Template:Sfn and Abbas Template:Sfn favor this account. In other reports, Ibn Awf took himself out of the competition in return for being recognized as the arbitrator.Template:Sfn Madelung,Template:Sfn Crone,Template:Sfn and KeshkTemplate:Sfn prefer this account, while Keaney is undecided,Template:Sfn commenting that Umar probably avoided stacking the committee so obviously against Ali.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Jafri disagrees, citing Ali's own account of the proceedings in the Shia Nahj al-balagha, and adding that Umar meant to block Ali but could have not simply excluded him from the proceedings.Template:Sfn A report by al-Tabari reads that Ali objected to Ibn Awf's deciding vote to no avail.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Alternatively, some sources give the arbitration role to Umar's son, Abd Allah.Template:Sfn
Those members who would not endorse the final decision (or those who would oppose Ibn Awf's pick in case of a tie) were to be slain.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

CriticismEdit

AnsarEdit

The Ansar (early Medinan converts) were absent from this committee, either because of their pro-Ali sympathies at the Saqifa after Muhammad's death in 632, as suggested by Jafri and Abbas,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn or to keep the caliphate within the Quraysh, as implied by others.Template:Sfn Whatever the reason, the absence of the Ansar is believed to have helped Uthman defeat Ali.Template:Sfn Some contemporary authors have criticized Umar's exclusion of the Ansar and others from decision making.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

Voting blocEdit

Sa'd was inclined to support his cousin Ibn Awf, who was in turn likely to align himself with his brother-in-law, Uthman.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This voting bloc of three would have formed the majority within the committee if Talha was absent and Sa'd thus cast two votes. Ibn Awf was given the tie-breaker and this voting bloc would have therefore dictated the outcome even if Talha was present during the deliberations.Template:Sfn That the arrangement of the committee blocked the chances of Ali is also the view of Ayoub, who adds that Umar might have done so unknowingly.Template:Sfn Jafri disagrees, saying that Umar meant to block Ali but could have not simply excluded him from the proceedings.Template:Sfn

Ali's grievancesEdit

Possibly with the same calculations, Ali is shown as reluctant in the version of the events in which Ibn Awf proposed to cast the deciding vote in return for giving up his claims to the caliphate.Template:Sfn Ali later referred to this voting bloc, complaining that the committee was stacked against him,Template:Sfn as reported by the Sunni al-Baladhuri (Template:Died in) and al-Tabari, among others,Template:Sfn and also in the Shia Nahj al-balagha.Template:Sfn Jafri suggests that Umar deliberately blocked the chances of Ali by granting the chairmanship of the committee to Ibn Awf, possibly fearing discord and civil unrest.Template:Sfn In Jafri's view, the inclusion of Ali in the committee simultaneously recognized his claims,Template:Sfn blocked his chances,Template:Sfn and removed his freedom to independently seek the caliphate.Template:Sfn The last item is a reference to an exchange to this effect between Ali and Muhammad's uncle Abbas,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn reported by al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari.Template:Sfn

CoercionEdit

Perhaps aware of his minority position within the committee,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn a reluctant Ali was compelled to participate in the committee, threatened by fear of arms, according to some reports by al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari.Template:Sfn Alternatively, Ayoub surmises that Ali participated in the committee to save the community from dissension, even though he was aware that the committee was biased towards Uthman.Template:Sfn When asked why he accepted the offer by al-Ma'mun (Template:Reign) to be his heir apparent, the Shia Imam Ali al-Rida (Template:Died in) is reported to have responded, "The same thing which forced my grandfather the Commander of the Faithful [Ali] to join the arbitration council [assembled by Umar]." This "same thing" might have been coercion based on another statement by al-Rida, "I was also forced to accept (the succession to the throne) even though I did not like to. I unwillingly accepted it when I was about to be killed," as reported in the Shia source Uyun akhbar al-Rida.Template:Sfn

DeliberationsEdit

The candidates could not reach an agreement and the decision was soon in the hands of Ibn Awf, who had the deciding vote,Template:Sfn and ultimately played a key role in the accession of his brother-in-law, Uthman.Template:Sfn A report by al-Tabari reads that Ali initially objected to this arrangement but relented when Ibn Awf swore to be impartial.Template:Sfn Ibn Awf then reportedly asked each candidate privately whom they would vote for if they were out of the race.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn In that case, Uthman said he would support Ali, while Ali, Sa'd, and Zubayr supported Uthman.Template:Sfn Keaney finds it odd that Ali supported Uthman in this report, noting that the former thought the committee was stacked against him.Template:Sfn Some reports by al-Tabari suggest that Sa'd and Zubayr did not press their own or Talha's claims and thus the choice soon narrowed down to Uthman and Ali.Template:Sfn Alternatively, Ibn Ishaq (Template:Died in) and al-Tabari include reports in which Talha was present and withdrew in favor of Uthman, Zubayr for Ali, and Sa'd for Ibn Awf.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This account evidently contradicts the version in which Ibn Awf has the deciding vote.Template:Sfn

AliEdit

By some accounts, Ali successfully appealed to Zubayr and Sa'd, and the two reportedly changed sides to Ali,Template:Sfn but this would have given Ali the majority if Talha was still away and Sa'd thus had two votes.Template:Sfn Madelung mentions this account about Sa'd but calls it "soft support at best," suggesting that "Ali had virtually no support" in the committee.Template:Sfn Madelung and Jafri also believe that Zubayr supported Uthman, even though the former had earlier advocated for Ali against Abu Bakr after Muhammad's death.Template:Sfn Despite his family ties with Ali, Jafri suggests, Zubayr this time withheld his support from the pious Ali with an eye on the financial opportunities that had opened up after the conquests of the Byzantine and Persian empires. He observes that Zubayr, Talha, Sa'd, and Ibn Awf all accumulated tremendous wealth under Uthman.Template:Sfn

External influenceEdit

Ibn Awf also consulted the notable figures from Mecca, Medina, and the garrison towns, who were present in Medina.Template:Sfn In particular, the Quraysh elite strongly supported Uthman, writes Madelung.Template:Sfn The Makhzumite leader Abd Allah ibn Abi Rabi'a of the Quraysh reportedly warned Ibn Awf, "If you pledge allegiance to Ali, we shall hear and disobey, but if you pledge allegiance to Uthman, we shall hear and obey. So fear God, Ibn Awf."Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Ali was vocal about the divine and exclusive right of Muhammad's descendants to leadership,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn which would have jeopardized the future ambitions of other Qurayshites for leadership.Template:Sfn

DecisionEdit

The most common tradition here is that Ibn Awf publicly offered the caliphate to Ali on two conditions: First, he should follow the Quran and the Sunna (Muhammad's precedent), and second, he should follow the example of the first two caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali accepted the first condition but declined the second one, adding that he would rely only on his judgment in the absence of any precedent from the Quran and the Sunna. Ibn Awf then presented the same conditions to Uthman who readily accepted them.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This is also the version preferred by Mavani,Template:Sfn Kennedy,Template:Sfn Afsaruddin,Template:Sfn Shaban,Template:Sfn Shah-Kazemi,Template:Sfn and Aslan.Template:Sfn Alternatively, Crone and Keaney present another (Sunni) version in which Ali replies that he would follow Abu Bakr and Umar to the best of his ability, whereas Uthman simply answered affirmatively and received the mandate from Ibn Awf.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This second account suggests a clear preference for Uthman by Ibn Awf.Template:Sfn

At any rate, Ibn Awf then pledged his allegiance to Uthman as the next caliph and everyone else reportedly followed suit.Template:Sfn Even though Ali did not seriously challenged it,Template:Sfn the appointment of Uthman was not received well by some quarters of the Muslim community and likely contributed toward the first civil war (Template:Transliteration).Template:Sfn Uthman's reign as the third caliph was marked with nepotismTemplate:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and departure from Islamic piety.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn He was assassinated by discontented rebels in his residence in 656.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn

Reaction of AliEdit

Ali opposed the decision of the committee,Template:Sfn and objected to what he viewed as Ibn Awf's partiality,Template:Sfn but reportedly did not challenge the outcome.Template:Sfn There are contradictory Sunni accounts about the reaction of Ali to the appointment of Uthman though they all end with his pledge to the new caliph. The ninth-century sources of Keaney are thus willing to include the disagreements between the companions but present them and the community united behind the new caliph in the end.Template:Sfn As the reverence for companions gradually became a Sunni dogma,Template:Sfn such reports were later dismissed as pro-Alid and largely censored by Sunni authors,Template:Sfn even though the authors of these accounts reject the Shia claims and support their Abbasid caliphs.Template:Sfn

The Shia Nahj al-balagha reports that Ali agreed to go along with the committee's decision "so long as the affairs of [the] Muslims remain intact and there is no oppression in it save on myself."Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Reza Shah-Kazemi interprets this statement as Ali's tacit approval of the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar, adding that he nevertheless viewed himself as the rightful successor to Muhammad,Template:Sfn and gave up his claims to the caliphate for the unity of Islam.Template:Sfn In contrast, Hamid Mavani and Maria M. Dakake suggest that Ali viewed the succession of Abu Bakr as a digression which turned into a full-blown deviation with the rebellion of Mu'awiya during his own caliphate.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn This is also the Shia view, as represented by the Shia jurist Ruhollah Khomeini (Template:Died in).Template:Sfn Ali's refusal to follow the precedent of the first two caliphs also became the hallmark of Shia jurisprudence and led to the later development of their independent schools of law.Template:Sfn

Status quoEdit

Laura Veccia Vaglieri (Template:Died in) suggests that the caliphate of Ali would have endangered certain well-established interests because he did not view Abu Bakr and Umar as entirely aligned with the Quran and the Sunna.Template:Sfn Aslan has a similar opinion,Template:Sfn while McHugo adds that Ali would have opened the leadership to the Ansar and others, thus ending the privileged status of the Quraysh.Template:Sfn Along these lines, Anthony views Ali's refusal to follow the first two caliphs as evidence of his censure of their rule.Template:Sfn Shaban notes that Ali's refusal made him a rallying point for the opposition movement, adding that the wealthy Uthman was possibly selected to guard the Meccan interests.Template:Sfn Likewise, Kennedy suggests that Ali refused to follow the precedent of Abu Bakr and Umar because he might have realized that the Quraysh's domination was dividing the community and wished to open the leadership for other groups, especially the Ansar, with whom he had links. Uthman, in contrast, was a wealthy Meccan merchant with good ties with the Quraysh elite.Template:Sfn Some contemporary authors go further, suggesting that Ibn Awf's question was designed to weed out Ali, as he was well aware of Ali's disagreements with the past two caliphs and that he would have inevitably rejected the second condition.Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn Template:Sfn For Afsaruddin, however, the (Sunni) accounts of Uthman's appointment convey that the third caliph was expected at the time to follow Abu Bakr and Umar.Template:Sfn

Motivations of Ibn AwfEdit

According to Jafri, Uthman is often portrayed as a weak-minded man,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn and he suggests that Ibn Awf and the committee (except Ali) hoped that he would serve their interests, as representatives of the Quraysh aristocracy.Template:Sfn Keaney and Ayoub include a report by al-Tabari that quotes Ali as saying, "You [Ibn Awf] have appointed Uthman so that the rule will come back to you."Template:Sfn Template:Sfn The view of Wellhausen is similar. Still, Madelung disagrees with it, saying that Uthman was actually put forward because he was the only available strong counter-candidate to Ali.Template:Sfn His view is echoed by McHugo.Template:Sfn

HistoricityEdit

The earliest sources are Template:Transliteration accounts written more than a century after Uthman, all of which are polemical,Template:Sfn Template:Sfn written also with the benefit of hindsight. That is, the authors knew about Uthman's nepotism, Ali's caliphate, the civil war, and the Umayyad and the Abbasid dynasties.Template:Sfn Cateani (Template:Died in) thus rejects Umar's committee altogether as a later fabrication to justify the prevailing practice of the Abbasids,Template:Sfn whereas Jafri,Template:Sfn Madelung,Template:Sfn and KeaneyTemplate:Sfn defend the credibility of the accounts in this regard.

Jafri further argues that the accounts of Umar's committee are essentially authentic, adding that the accounts of the early historians al-Baladhuri, al-Ya'qubi (Template:Died in), al-Tabari, and al-Mas'udi are similar to each other and to that of the much earlier Ibn Ishaq (Template:Died in).Template:Sfn Nevertheless, he admits that it is difficult to ascertain the committee's deliberations.Template:Sfn Alternatively, Madelung believes that the related historical accounts are partly contradictory and fictional, though he contends that some conclusions can be made from them with reasonable certainty.Template:Sfn

ReferencesEdit

CitationsEdit

Template:Reflist

SourcesEdit

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend