( 453 )
who are below them. But their criticism of the Imam was
nothing but propaganda aimed at arousing the preferred
class from among the companions against the Imam. They
criticized his distribution of the funds equally while they
knew that he did that because he wanted to follow the
method of the Prophet. They accused him of the blood of
Othman while they knew his innocence and that they were
the ones who were responsible for Othman's blood. The
motive for their criticism was the same as their accusation.
They were hopeful to reach the caliphate. Their ambition was inflamed when Omar made them members of the
Electoral Convention. Because of this
they instigated people against Othman and sought his assassination
and for
the same reason they criticized the Imam and accused him
of the murder of Othman. And for the same motive
they
breached their covenant by which they pledged their loyalty to him.
With Chiefs of the Tribes
It is said that the Imam could have secured
the loyalty
of the chiefs of the Muslim tribes by showering them with
gifts and preferring them in distribution. I do not believe
that the Imam was religiously able to treat those chiefs as
the Prophet treated similar chiefs when trying to attract
them to Islam by financial preference.
The chiefs whom the Imam had to deal with had
adopted Islam a long time before he came to power. They
lived under the Islamic law for twenty-five years after the
death of the Holy Prophet. Omar discontinued paying the
appeased men their share from the Zakat less than ten
years after the death of the Holy Prophet.
It should be mentioned
though it does not have much
bearing on the subject of discussion
that it is doubted that
the Messenger gave Abu Sufyan
Aqra-a Ibn Habis
and
Oyaihah Ibn Hissn Al-Fuzari three hundred camels from
the Zakat at the Battle of Hunain as the critics mentioned.
The share of the appeased men is to come from the Zakat.
But the Messenger gave the three chiefs from the spoils of
|