The Outset of Dissension in Islam — Page 43
43 devise a scheme and actively began to sit in his gatherings. One day they found an opportunity when no one else was around and Wal i d had gone to sleep in the men’s section, which was partitioned from the ladies section only by a sheet. The both of them slowly removed his ring and ran towards Madinah claiming to have seen Wal i d drunk. They asserted that the ring was proof of this and they had removed it, without him noticing, when he was in a state of intoxication. Hadrat ‘Uthm a n ra inquired, “Did he drink alcohol in front of you?” They did not dare respond in the affirmative, because if such had been the case, this would implicate that they too were involved with Wal i d. Instead, they responded, “We saw him vomit alcohol. ” The ring was at hand as evidence and two witnesses were present. In addition, a few other mischievous people accompanied them as well in order to further strengthen their testimony and continued to furnish circumstantial testimony of the incident. Counsel was sought from the companions and it was decided that Wal i d would be punished for the consumption of alcohol. He was summoned from Kufah to Madinah and lashed as a penalty for drinking. Although Wal i d defended himself and informed Hadrat ‘Uthm a n ra of their mischief, but Hadrat ‘Uthm a n ra responded: “According to the law of the shariah you must receive a punishment as per the testimony of these witnesses. Of course, a person who gives false testimony shall be punished by Allah the Exalted. ” 39 Walid was deposed on a false account, but according to the 39. T a r i khu t-T abar i , vol. 5, pp. 105-108, Dhikrus-Sababi F ī ‘ Azli. . . . . , Published by D a rul-Fikr, Beirut, 2002 edition