The Caliph gifted three hundred thousand dirhams to Harith bin Hakam bin
Abil Aas, brother of Marwan, son-in-law of the Caliph, husband of his daughter,
Ayesha, as is mentioned in Ansab of Balazari.1
He has stated that:2 Camels of Zakat came to Uthman and he gave to Harith
bin Hakam.
Ibne Qutaibah has written in Al-Marif,3 Ibne Abde Rabb has said in Iqdul
Farid; 4 Ibne Abil Hadid in his Sharh5 and Raghib in Al-Mahazirat6 that: The
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) endowed for Muslims, a place in the market of
Medina, named as Mahzun.7 Uthman gave it over to Harith bin Hakam.
Halabi has written in his Seerah that:8 “Harith was given one-tenth of what
was sold in Medina.”
I don’t know how this man became eligible for these bestowals? And how
something, which Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had endowed for all Muslim,
became restricted to him and others were deprived from it?
And if the Caliph gave so much wealth of his father, it would have definitely
been extremism as Muslims, warriors and defenders of Islamic boundaries were
needful of that. Whereas he bestowed him through funds of Muslims,
endowments and taxes, which did not belong to him?
And that man [Harith], was not famous for good deeds and praised acts in
the mission of Islam and service to religious society that it should be thought that
he deserved these exceeding bestowals.
And no justification remains for these acts, rather atrocities, except that he
was the son-in-law of the caliph and his cousin; and you look at the acts of each
of these two caliphs:
1. You know what Uthman committed here and in other instances.
2. On the day Aqil came to Maula Ali (a.s.) asking for more than one Saa (3
kgs.) of wheat which was fixed for him, and His Eminence fulfilled the right of
brotherhood and training, and especially regarding a personality like Aqil, who
was among the nobles such that they should be more disciplined than others, so
he brought a heated piece of iron and when he screamed, His Eminence said: You
scream from this and make me eligible for Hellfire?
فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَى
“So judge between men with justice and do not follow desire…”9
17. Saeed’s share from bestowals of Caliph
The Caliph gave a hundred thousand dirhams to Saeed bin Aas bin Saeed
bin Aas bin Umayyah.
Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi have written that people condemned Uthman for
having given a hundred thousand dirhams to Saeed bin Aas. Ali, Zubair, Talha,
Saad and Abdur Rahman bin Auf spoke to Uthman about this. He said: “He is our
relative.”
They said: “Did Abu Bakr and Umar not have relatives?”
He replied: “Indeed, Abu Bakr and Umar saw it right to deny their relatives,
and I think that it is correct to make bestowals to them.”
They said: “By God, we like their conduct more than your conduct.”
He said: “There is no power and strength, except by Allah.”10
Allamah Amini says: Aas, father of Saeed was a neighbor of the Messenger
of Allah (s.a.w.a.), who used to harass him and Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)
slain him on the day of Battle of Badr, when he was a polytheist.11
As for his son, Saeed, as is mentioned in the report of Ibne Saad,12 he was a
pleasure-loving youth. Without having any precedence, he was appointed as
governor of Kufa by Uthman after he deposed Walid and he did not have any
experience.
From the first day he issued such statements that hurt feelings and worried
people, and it instigated them for enmity and opposition; and he said: These
provinces: Kufa and its surroundings or the whole of Iraq is the garden for youths
of Quraish.13
The Caliph wanted to maintain ties of relationship by giving so much to this
sinful young man, which exceeded what he had given from Public Treasury to his
relatives; although if this youth had a share in Public Treasury and if this
bestowal was right, the senior companions and most of all Ameerul Momineen
(a.s.) would not have condemned him.
As for the pretext of gaining pleasure of Almighty Allah through doing a
good turn to relatives, which the two previous Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar
denied to their relatives, it is a weak argument, because doing a good turn to
relatives is from ones personal wealth and not from the common property of
Muslims.