So Uthman had that person lashed and people asked: “You cancelled the
punishment and lashed the witness?”
In Sahih Bukhari,1 it is mentioned in the excellence of Uthman that: People
condemned him regarding his conduct towards Walid. In Fathul Bari,2 Ibne Hajar
has written in the explanation of this statement that:
It is mentioned in the report of Muammar that: People condemned him
regarding his conduct with Walid; that why he did not have Walid lashed for
drinking liquor and they regarded his dismissal of Saad bin Abi Waqqas as
wrong.
Allamah Amini says: Walid is one, whose report you heard and we shall
inform you about his reality in such a way that you would see from close
quarters. You will see that he drank wine and he vomits in the prayer niche and
due to intoxication, he added to the units of prayer; his ring was taken off and he
did not understand. And Almighty Allah has introduced him before this through following two verses:
افَمَنْ ن كَانَ مُؤْمِنًا كَمَنْ كَانَ فَاسِقًا لَا يَسْتَوْنَ
“Is he then who is a believer like him who is a transgressor? They are not equal.”3
إِنْ جَاءَ كُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا
“If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it.”4
Ibne Abde Barr has written in Al-Istiab that:5
As far as I know, among those, who are knowledgeable about interpretation of Quran, there is no dispute that the verse:
إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا
“If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it.”6
…is revealed regarding Walid.
Now, is it possible that such a one should hold the position of authority
among Muslims? And that he should have discretion over lives and properties
and control over the honor of Muslims, and that Islamic laws should be inquired
from him and that he should exercise widespread control on Islamic society and
be their Friday and congregational prayer leader? Is such a thing present in
Shariah?
Go away from me! And ask the Caliph, who appointed him as governor and
refuted, drove away and beat up one, who testified against him!
Supposing governorship was given to Walid before these transgressions and
crimes [and at the time of his appointment he was not involved in those acts] and
only later did he fall into those sins, but the penalty, which was proved against
him and for canceling which he was condemned; what reasoning he had to delay
entry of Walid, to enable him to put on Jew robes in order to protect himself from
the pain of lash?
Is the penalty cancelled after the crime is proved? So that disputes may take
place and discussion should take place and there should be armed confrontations?
And sandals and slipper should be hurled and the first battle should take place
among Muslims after passing away of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and voice of
the mother of believers should rise up: “Uthman has made the Islamic law
ineffective.”
Witnesses criticized him and Imam Ali (a.s.) condemned him for this act and
said: “You cancelled the Islamic penalty and you lashed those, who testified
against your brother.”
After all this is such a transgressor, who is exposed in words of Holy Quran,
has eligibility to be appointed as collector taxes as Uthman did and after
delivering penalty on him, sent him to collect taxed from Kalab and Balqin
tribes.7 Does brotherly affection make all this lawful?
The reply to this question is not my responsibility, and I only have the duty
to report the story along with explanation of causes and analysis.