ABSTRACT
In dealing with the events of the first and second fitnas, some historians emphasize the role played by social and economic factors in setting in motion and sustaining movements against the rule of the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh. They argue, for instance, that opposition to ‘Uthman’s policies and methods of rule was motivated primarily by either perceived or real economic inequities that had developed in the early Muslim state at the time of the conquests. If we accept this point of view, then we should admit that the opponents of ‘Uthman were motivated by resentment toward his policy of distributing the best agricultural lands among his relatives or cronies, while prohibiting the rest of the Muslims from purchasing any land at all. This opposition can be described as economic in nature. However, it was couched in a religious idiom, as ‘Uthman’s critics presented his behavior as a deliberate departure from the precedents established by the Prophet and the first and second caliphs. Seen from this vantage point, ‘Uthman’s actions could well be perceived as a crime against the Islamic religion, which effectively deprived him of the right to lead the Muslim community to salvation. In a similar way, ‘Uthman’s tendency to give the most important and lucrative posts (governorships) to the men of his own clan was seen by his critics as a transgression against the Qur’anic injunction that the most worthy members of the community were its most pious.1 These and other grievances couched in religious rhetoric were frequently invoked by later Muslim historians to explain the third caliph’s tragic end.2
