This is Marwan!
Come let us go to the Caliph and ask him regarding this lizard, who was
cursed while in the loins of his father and when he was born; and ask him through
what reasoning he regarded it lawful to give him refuge, appoint him as trustee of
taxes, and repose confidence in him for seeking counsel in matters of public
interest?
Why he appointed him as his scribe and made him his confidant, so that he
may dominate him?1
While the fact is that his viewpoint was opposed to the
statement of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.).
It was obligatory on the Caliph to accord preference to the righteous ones of
the believers and for the sake of thanking their deeds, he should accord honor to
them and not that he should gather around himself shameless and wanton folks
like Marwan.
Supposing the Caliph resorted to independent judgment (Ijtihad) and
committed a mistake in that; but what is this cordial behavior with him and
making him proximate? Whereas he was of those, who should be kept away?
And giving refuge to him when he was deserving to be driven away? And what is
regarding him trustworthy, whereas he was deserving of being condemned? And
the best gifts to him from the property of Muslims, whereas he should be denied
them? And imposing him over the livelihood of Muslims, whereas his hands
should be cut off from them?
I don’t know any of the excuses of Caliph in these queries, but Muslims who
at that time were more conversant with this matter and who witnessed the facts
and pondered upon them, they did not accept his excuse, and how they could
have accepted his excuse, whereas before them was the following statement of
Almighty Allah:
وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّهَا غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتُمُى وَالْمَسْكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيْلِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ آمَنْتُمْ بِاللَّهِ
“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah
and for the Apostle and for the near of kin and the orphans and
the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah…”2
Was giving Khums to Marwan not deviation from command of Quran? Was
Uthman not one, who along with Jubair bin Mutim spoke with Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.) so that he may deem a share for his relatives, but His Eminence
did not allow and he clarified that descendants of Abde Shams and Naufal do not
have any share in Khums?
Jubair bin Mutim says: When Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) divided the
share of the near-kindred [Zil Qurba] among Bani Hashim and Bani Abdul
Muttalib,3 I and Uthman went to him and I said: “O Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.), it cannot be denied that these are descendants of Hashim, who have
precedence because Almighty Allah placed you among them; but will you bestow
to the descendants of Muttalib and refuse to us? Whereas we and them are having
the same rank with you?”
He replied: “They did not separate from me – or from us –during the period
of Ignorance and Islam. The descendants of Hashim and descendants of Muttalib
are one and same,” and he showed his two fingers. The Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.) did not give any share to the descendants of Abde Shams and
descendants of Naufal as he did regarding Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib.3
It is hard upon God and His Prophet that the share of relatives of Prophet
should be given to one, who was repulsed and cursed by him, whereas Messenger
of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had forbidden him and his community from Khums?
Then what is the excuse of Caliph in going against Quran and Sunnah and
giving preference to his relatives, sons of the accursed tree as mentioned in
Quran, over relatives of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), whose love Almighty
Allah made obligatory in Holy Quran? I don’t know what it is. And Allah will
take his account after He takes their account.