Other causes of disaffection.
Meanwhile other causes were at work throughout the empire calculated to increase the disaffection; or which, if unimportant in themselves, were adroitly seized by the Caliph’s enemies and turned to that purpose.
Othmân’s recension of the Corân. A.H. XXX. A.D. 651.
First may be mentioned the recension of the Corân. The Moslem warriors had spread themselves over such vast areas, and the various columns, as well as converted peoples, were so widely separated one from the other, that differences arose in the recitation of the sacred text, as it had been settled in the previous reign. Bussorah followed the reading of Abu Mûsa; Kûfa was guided by the authority of Ibn Masûd, their chancellor; and the text of Hims differed from that in use even at Damascus. Hodzeifa, during his campaign in Persia, having witnessed the variations in the different provinces, returned to Kûfa strongly impressed with the gravity of the evil and the need of a revision. Ibn Masûd was highly incensed with the slight thus put upon the authority of his text. But Hodzeifa persisted in his views, and, supported by Saîd, the governor, urged Othmân to restore the unity of the divine word, ‘before that believers began to differ in their scripture, even as do the Jews and Christians.’ The Caliph took the advice of the leading Companions at Medîna, and, in accordance therewith, called for samples of the manuscripts in use throughout the empire. He then appointed a syndicate, from amongst the Coreish, of men whose authority could be relied upon, to collate these copies with the sacred originals still in the keeping of Haphsa, the widow of Mahomet. Under their supervision the variations were reconciled, and an authoritative exemplar written out, of which duplicates were deposited at Mecca and Medîna, Kûfa and Damascus. From these exemplars, copies were multiplied over the empire; all former manuscripts were called in and committed to the flames; and the standard text was brought into exclusive use. The uniformity thus secured by the secular arm, and maintained by the same in every land and every age, is taken by the simple believer as a proof of divine custodianship. The action of Othmân was received at the moment, as it deserved, with a very general consent, excepting at Kûfa. There Ibn Masûd, who prided himself on his faultless recitation of the oracle, pure as it fell from the Prophet’s lips, was much displeased; and the charge of sacrilege in having burned the former copies of the sacred text, was readily circulated amongst the factious citizens. By and by the charge was spread abroad, and was taken up with avidity by the enemies of Othmân; and, ages afterwards, we find it still eagerly urged by the partisans of the Abbasside dynasty as an unpardonable offence on the part of the ungodly Caliph. The accusation, thus trumped up for party purposes, was really without foundation. Indeed, it was scouted by Aly himself. When, several years after, he proceeded as Caliph to Kûfa, he found the citizens still blaming his ill-starred predecessor for the act. ‘Silence!’ he said; ‘Othmân acted as he did with the advice of the leading men amongst us; and if I had been ruler at the time, instead of him, I should myself have exactly done the same.’[454]
Many of the Coreish migrate to Irâc.
A great body of the nobility from Mecca and Medîna about this time transferred their residence to Irâc. These had no right to share in the endowments of that province, the special privileges of which, in virtue of their conquest, were reserved for the present citizens of Kûfa and Bussorah. They were allowed, however, to do so on selling to Othmân, on behalf of the State, the properties which they owned in the Hejâz; and the concession appears to have added a fresh grievance to foment the rising discontent at the extravagant pretensions of the Coreish.[455]
Story of Abu Dzarr Ghifâry,
The story of Abu Dzarr Ghifâry is singularly illustrative of the times, and his harsh treatment is ordinarily mentioned as a serious ground of complaint against the Caliph. He was one of the earliest converts to the faith; and tradition asserts that he even anticipated Mahomet himself in some of the observances of Islam. An ascetic in his habits, he inveighed against the riches and extravagance of the day—evils which were altogether alien from the simplicity of Mahomet, and which, rushing in like a flood, were now demoralising the people. Gorgeous palaces, crowds of slaves, multitudes of horses, camels, flocks and herds, profusion of costly garments, sumptuous fare, and splendid equipage, were the fashion, not only in Syria and Irâc, but had begun to find their way even into the Hejâz.[456] The protest of Abu Dzarr points to the recoil of the stricter class of believers against all this luxury and indulgence; and the manner in which the discontented classes, and the advocates of communism, were beginning to turn that recoil to their own account, and to the discredit of the government. Visiting Syria, the spirit of the ascetic was stirred at the pomps and vanities so rife around him, and he preached repentance to the inhabitants of Damascus. ‘This gold and silver of yours,’ he cried, ‘shall one day be heated red-hot in the fire of hell; and therewith shall ye be seared in your foreheads, sides, and backs, ye ungodly spendthrifts![457] Wherefore, spend now the same in alms, leaving yourselves enough but for your daily bread; or else woe be to you in that day!’ Crowds flocked to hear him, some trembling under the rebuke; the envious rejoicing at the contempt poured on the rich and noble; and the people dazzled by the vision of themselves sharing in the treasures thus denounced. Uneasy at the disturbance caused by these diatribes in the public mind, Muâvia resolved to test the spirit of the preacher. He sent him a purse of a thousand pieces; in the morning, affecting to have made a mistake, he demanded the return of the gift; but during the night Abu Dzarr had distributed the whole in charity. Upon this, Muâvia, apprehensive of the spread of communistic doctrines, despatched the preacher to Medîna, telling Othmân that he was a sincere but misguided enthusiast. Before the Caliph, Abu Dzarr persisted in fearlessly denouncing the great and wealthy, and urged that they should be forced to disgorge their riches. Othmân condescended to reason with him. ‘After men have completely fulfilled their legal obligations,’ he asked, ‘what power remaineth with me to compel them to any further sacrifice?’ and he turned to Káb, the learned Jewish convert, in corroboration of what he had said. banished by Othman to Rabadza. A.H. XXX. A.D. 651.‘Out upon thee, thou son of a Jew! What have I to do with thee?’ cried Abu Dzarr, and with these words smote Káb violently upon the stomach. Argument being thus of no further use, Othmân banished the preacher to Rabadza in the desert of Nejd, where two years after he died in penury. As he felt his end approach, the hermit desired his daughter to slay a kid, and have it ready for a party of travellers who, he said, would shortly pass that way to Mecca, and bury him; then, making her turn his face toward the Kâaba, he quietly breathed his last. Soon after, the expected party came up, and amongst them Ibn Masûd from Kûfa, who, weeping over him, bewailed his fate, and buried him on the spot on which he died. The death of Ibn Masûd himself, a few days after, added to the pathos of the incident. The plaintive tale was soon in everyone’s mouth; and the banishment of the pious ascetic and preacher of righteousness was made much of by the enemies of the Caliph. The necessity was forgotten; the obloquy remained.[458]
Othmân incurs odium by putting down unlawful amusements, and by extending the square of the Kâaba. A.H. XXVI. A.D. 647.
When he was himself minded to assume the office of censor and rebuke the ungodliness of the day, the unfortunate Caliph fared no better. The laxity of Syria had reached even to the sacred precincts of the Hejâz; and Othmân, on attempting to check the games and other practices held to be inconsistent with the profession of Islam, incurred resentment, especially from the gay youth whose amusements he had thwarted. Gambling and wagering, indeed, were put down with the approval of all the stricter classes of society; but there were not wanting many who, displeased with the Caliph’s interference, joined in the cry of his detractors.[459]