The allegations against Al-Waleed ibn Uqbah, Uthman’s half brother whom he had appointed governor of Kufah, included one that accused him of drinking intoxicants. This is a serious offense, for which punishment is necessary. We will discuss this accusation and how it developed, but we need first to remind ourselves of what Justice Ibn Al-Arabi says about it.
As for punishing him for drinking, Umar did the same with Qudamah ibn Mazoun when he was a governor, then sacked him. It is also reported that he later made it up with him. A person who commits a sin, then genuinely repents, does not lose his standing as a person of integrity.
It was said to Uthman: “You have appointed Al-Waleed because he is your half brother, born to your mother Arwa bint Kurayz.” He replied: “No, but because he is the grandson of the Prophet’s aunt, Umm Hakeen Al-Baydaa’, the twin sister of his father.” We wonder why should anyone exclude his brother or relative from appointment to any office?
Let us first deal with the example given by Ibn Al-Arabi about Umar and Qudamah. The latter was one of the early companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who accepted Islam in its early days in Makkah. He was related by marriage to Umar who appointed him governor of what is today Al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia, but was known at the time as Bahrain. During his time there, he was accused of drinking and the matter was put to the Caliph. Umar asked for witnesses, and one of the witnesses against him was Abu Hurayrah. His wife was also called in and she testified to his drinking. Umar postponed his punishment first because he was ill, but then punished him for his offense, which carries a punishment of flogging between 40 and 80 lashes, according to different schools of Fiqh. Qudamah then went on pilgrimage, and on his return he met Umar who prayed for his forgiveness. This is the proper Islamic attitude toward offenders. When an offender is given his punishment, he is treated in the same way as one who has not committed an offense, particularly when we know that he has genuinely repented. This is what Ibn Al-Arabi refers to when saying that committing a sin does not lose a person’s integrity if he genuinely repents.
The accusation against Al-Waleed is different. It is all a question of malice. Muhibb Al-Deen Al-Khateeb explains the background of the whole affair. He first states that Al-Waleed was highly respected and loved by the people of Kufah, where he was governor. However, three persons known as Abu Zaynab, Abu Mawra’ and Jundub were avowedly hostile to him for punishing their sons for killing a man called Ibn Al-Haysaman in his own home.
It happened that Abu Shurayh Al-Khuzaie, a companion of the Prophet, and his son went from Madinah to Kufah with the intention of joining an army Al-Waleed was raising for a campaign in the east. Both saw the crime of forced entry into the house of Ibn Al-Haysaman and his murder. They reported it and identified the killers. Al-Waleed acted on this and executed the three young men. It is well known that when a crime is proven according to the requirements of proof stated by Islam, the ruler or governor must inflict the prescribed punishment. However, the fathers of the three offenders vowed for revenge. They began to spy on him, hoping to have a chance to do him harm.
Al-Waleed was a governor who cared for his people. He kept his door open all the time, so that anyone who wished to speak to him about any matter could have easy access to him. One day he received a guest from northern Syria who belonged to the tribe of Taghlib. The informers acting for the three fathers told them that this poet, who a recent convert from Christianity, could still be in the habit of drinking, and that the governor could serve him some wine. So they came in unannounced.
When he saw them coming in, he hid something under the couch on which he was sitting. As they sat down, one of them deliberately pulled that thing out, only to find it a plate containing a few small bunches of grapes.
The point was that Al-Waleed felt too embarrassed to leave the plate when there was only a small amount and new guests were coming. This is why he pushed it under the couch. When they pulled it out and saw it, they started blaming each other for their rudeness. People blamed them on learning what happened. But this did not stop them. They continued to try to find something to discredit him. When they could not, they stole his ring and went away.
When he missed his ring, he made enquiries and soon established that they were the culprits, but he could not find them anywhere in Kufah. Apparently they started immediately on their way to Madinah, where they accused him of drinking. It seems that they wanted the ring as a token that they were with him. They testified that they entered his home on several occasions, and they saw him the last time drunk, and throwing up. On making sure of their report, Uthman said: “Only a person who drinks wine will throw it up.” He recalled Al-Waleed to Madinah, and when he arrived Uthman told him of the accusation. Al-Waleed swore to Uthman that he never tasted wine. Uthman said to him: “We carry out the prescribed punishment, and the false witnesses will end up in hell.”
Then Uthman called the witnesses and one of them testified that he saw Al-Waleed drinking, and the other that he saw him throwing it up. Uthman requested Ali to see to it that the punishment is carried out, and Ali asked his nephew, Abdullah ibn Jaafar to carry it out. Ali counted the lashes, and when they were 40 he told his nephew to stop.
The last point in this connection is the reason that promoted Uthman to appoint Al-Waleed. Those rebels accused him of nepotism, but he is clear in his mind that the fact that he was his half brother was not a factor in this appointment. We certainly believe Uthman, rather than his enemies. We know his great history, but they were non-entities, and false witnesses. That he was willing to punish his brother, knowing that he was unjustly accused, is sufficient for us to accept his statement. He was keen to implement the law, rather than give special treatment to his brother. His reason for appointing him was that he was first of all competent, as the great majority of his people testified, in addition to his being the grandson of the Prophet’s aunt. These are sufficient reasons, and no blame may be attached to Uthman (may God be pleased with him).
— Arab News Islam 13 October 2003
