As for the remaining allegations against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, by which ‘Ammar ‘Ali has invited destruction and doom upon himself, we disassociate ourselves from it completely. In our view, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are dear and equal to us like our two eyes but ‘Ammar ‘Ali knows far better and he is in a divine position to pass judgement against him.
As for alleging that he introduced innovations, we would have responded to it had we not previously established the lofty status of the three Khalifas especially, and the rest of the Sahabah in general, when deliberating on the following verse and verses subsequent to it:
وَعَدَ اللهُ الَّذِیْنَ اٰمَنُوْا مِنْكُمْ وَ عَمِلُوْا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَیَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِیْ الْاَرْضِ کَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِیْنَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ
Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them.
Therefore, there is no point in responding to these hollow criticisms.
As for attributing the following narration to Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha these are but fabrications of Ibn Qutaybah and A’tham al Kufi al Simsati:
أقتلوا نعثلا ، لعن الله نعثلا ، أقتلوا حراق المصاحف
Kill this long-bearded one! Curse be upon the long-bearded one! Kill the one who has burnt the copies of the Qur’an.
The above individuals were extremist Shia and wretched liars, notorious for their fabrications. Attributing their words to Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha is like the proverb:
You pass wind and then blame someone else.
‘Ammar ‘Ali has no shame, stating that such fabricated reports are quoted from authentic works of the Ahlus Sunnah is another blatant lie.
You are already aware of the true state of affairs regarding the person who claims to have sound knowledge and proficiency over voluminous Arabic resources of the Ahlus Sunnah but if you require additional clarification then consider that the verb Uqtulu is a verb in plural format, but he has translated it as a singular verb. However, we may overlook this as an innocent mistake which could happen to anyone. However, what should we say then about translating the phrase La’an Allah as “curse be upon”. Surely there is a distinction between the past tense and an injunction. One really wonders what standards such translations conform to. If a student who is studying primary texts such as Mizan is given the meaning of the root word, he would accurately translate the verbs Uqtulu and La’an, but ‘Ammar ‘Ali, who has become the supreme leader of the Shia Imamiyyah, on account of this highly academic treatise cannot decipher between the injunction and the past tense, between singular and plural. We would have to accept that ‘Ammar ‘Ali is not even aware of the rudiments of Arabic grammar and that his lengthy garb and burdensome turban is but a deception. Whatever knowledge he claims to have must have been heard and received from others, yet he portrays himself to the innocent masses as a highly proficient scholar. Perhaps he has gained some basic knowledge but on account of the verse of the Qur’an:
وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِيْ الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِيْنَ
And Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.
He was unable to translate it accurately; as he is guilty of harbouring evil opinions about the chosen servants of Allah, the honourable Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
Despite such pathetic academic ability, he is willing to debate the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah, whose path conforms completely with the path of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and he freely quotes references with sophisticated titles which can only be truly appreciated by a qualified scholar. Anyone who considers these flaws would realise that if we ruled out deceit as an objective, we would have to accept that ‘Ammar ‘Ali’s treatise is subject to many defects and misconceptions.
On the other hand, if these reports were to have been authentically reported in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, then we would have been able to respond to it adequately. Yes, these reports are certainly recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah but they are not recorded without their status being clarified as fabrications and baseless reports of the Shia. Whilst this was the actual motive for recording them, ‘Ammar ‘Ali found it convenient to use it for his purposes. If this is how texts are supposed to be distorted, very soon he would probably change the law of discharging alms from the Qur’an by misconstruing the following verse:
وَلَا يَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِيْنَ يَبْخَلُوْنَ بِمَا آتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ هُوَ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ
And let not those who [greedily] withhold what Allah has given them of His bounty ever think that it is better for them.
Because It is better for them appears at the end [so he might construe that failing to discharge the Zakat is the best course of action even though impermissible- translator.
He also might consider Firoun to be the Rabb, Most-High, since the following appears in the Qur’an regarding him:
فَقَالَ اَنَا رَبُّكُمُ الْاَعْلٰی
He (Firoun) said, “I am your Rabb, Most High.”
Similarly, his assertion that Al Isti’ab contains the report that the Sahabah ultimately killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu as they could no longer tolerate the manner in which he had disfigured the din, is slander and distortion of the facts. Everyone is aware that the Ahlus Sunnah have no objections against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and they acknowledge his lofty position whole-heartedly. Similarly, the Ahlus Sunnah consider those associated with bid’ah to be deviated and they oppose them uncompromisingly. Why should they not oppose those engaged in bid’ah when bid’ah by its very nature calls for the destruction of the Sunnah? Therefore, if there were any authentic texts ascribing bid’ah to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the Ahlus Sunnah, by virtue of what this title implies, would have been first to disassociate themselves from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Allah forbid!
The allegation of bid’ah against ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu has been masterminded by ‘Ammar ‘Ali and his peers, and they have trespassed all limits in their allegations against him.
If any sensible person were to analyse these allegations they would conclude that ‘Ammar ‘Ali is certainly an agent of Dajjal, if not a Dajjal himself. We have never seen such deceivers nor heard of them before. If he were to have only concealed the narrations contained in Shia references, which prove that Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha and her sisters radiya Llahu ‘anha were indeed the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then he could have gotten away with it. Since the possibility of a Sunni being acquainted with the contents of Shia sources is slim but what can be said about his utter shamelessness; he forges narrations and ascribes them to authentic Sunni texts (and then expects that the Ahlus Sunnah would not be aware of these lies).
It would be foolish to expect decency from those who have no vestige of haya (modesty). It is therefore necessary to establish from authentic sources of the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia the support given to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu by the Ahlul Bayt and the Sahabah in general, and their willingness to defend him at all costs, so that simple-minded Muslims may not be swayed by the deception of ‘Ammar ‘Ali. These facts may possibly serve as an eye-opener for ‘Ammar ‘Ali as well.
The claims he has made are so absurd and biased that the learned and the illiterate alike can see its falsity. In essence, the confrontation that occurred between Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was only on account of seeking retribution for the assassination of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Since the killers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu were hiding in the camp of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It was difficult for him to deal with them immediately on account of their large numbers and their rebellious nature. These people felt that if they had successfully brought about the end of the reign of one khalifah, what could stop them from doing it again. As for Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they felt that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not dealing swiftly with the matter. As for Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his forces, they thought that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was murdered by the incitation of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu (due to the propaganda of the rebels).
Nevertheless, the historical records of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia are available for recourse. The Sahabah made every effort to subdue the rebels but what was divinely ordained had to occur. The Sahabah initially resorted to dialogue with the rebels but when their attempts were met with failure, they sought permission to wage war against them from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Uthman was not prepared to entertain this idea and the Sahabah were left with no option but to allow matters to take its course. Despite this, they made attempts to the very end to deliver water to him and to drive the rebels away. Zaid bin Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu along with a group of Ansar offered to fulfil their role as the helpers of the din of Allah once again.
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu came to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and told him that these rebels were the very same people who came into Islam after being defeated by the Sahabah and the era of their defeat was still fresh in their minds. However, they have used their declaration of faith as a shield knowing that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would honour such a declaration and be restricted by it. Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu said that if ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu permitted, the Sahabah would once again deal with them and remind them of the manner in which they had suffered defeat and humiliation not too long ago. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu disapproved of this and did not want the blood of the Muslims to be spilled in defence of his life.
Similarly, Hassan and Hussain, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair, Abu Hurairah, ‘Amir ibn Rabi’ and many other Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum remained with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his home and whenever the rebels attempted to enter his home, they repelled them with sticks and stones and secured the entrance once again.
As for the slaves of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they were a force on their own. They gathered their arms and begged ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu to allow them to deal with these rebels. They told him that since they had played glorious roles in the conquests of the Muslims from Khurasan to Africa, they would settle the matter decisively and teach the rebels a lesson. The rebels were using the declaration of faith as a shield and they were immune to the words of the senior Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
However, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu only responded by saying that if they wished to please him, they should disarm and remain confined to their homes. He also offered freedom to those among them who disarmed. He said that he would prefer to die before any blood was spilt as opposed to dying after blood was spilt. Since he was promised martyrdom, he would meet his coveted end any way. What was the benefit in spilling the blood of others too, when he was to be martyred all the same?
Sunni and Shia reports state that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu assigned his sons, the children of Jafar and his slave Qambar to the door of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu also assigned their sons to the same post, so that they could repel the rebels. Thus, whenever the rebels advanced they would be repulsed with sticks and staffs. This confrontation led to Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu sustaining many wounds. Muhammad ibn Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Qambar sustained head injuries. When the rebels realised that they could not advance from the main entrance they proceeded from the rear and entered the home of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu after forcing entry through the rear wall of his neighbours from the Ansar. They then succeeded in assassinating ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
A report from Nahj al Balaghah, the most authentic Shia reference, contains the following words of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
والله لقد دفعت عنه
By the oath of Allah; I repelled the rebels from ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
The Shia scholars comment on this by saying that when the rebels laid siege to the home of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu visited him on many occasions and he would repel and curse the rebels every time he came and went.
Ibn A’tham al Kufi, the notorious Shia historian and one who bears intense hatred for ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and other Sahabah, records in al Futuh that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, to inform him that he had his complete support and that he was aware of the false allegations of the rebels and their resolve to assassinate him. He also said that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu feared that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu could be harmed and he was ready to stand by his side and defend him against the rebels and ward them off by all means possible if ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu permitted this.
Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu relayed this message but ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said that he did not want ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to undertake any hardship or confront the rebels. He told Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he had seen the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his dream telling him that if he fought against the rebels, he would be victorious, but if he did not fight them then he would terminate his fast with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He then expressed his desire to be reunited with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and to terminate his fast in his blessed company. Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was left with no choice.
No sincere Muslim will ever suggest that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was hypocritical in his actions and dealings. If the Shia maintain that this was hypocritical behaviour on the basis of
المرؤ يقيس على نفسه
A man judges others by his own standards.
then who has endorsed the iman of the Shia? Allah forbid that any allegations of hypocrisy be made against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
If by an impossible assumption, it is agreed that he certainly was hypocritical at this juncture then what pressure was he possibly bowing to when he delivered the sermon in Kufah wherein he stated under oath that he had repelled the murderers of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu several times. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was history by that time and complete authority rested with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Even a coward does not fear a deceased enemy, and he would not care less about being unarmed before the corpse of his enemy. Why is it that despite his valour and bravery, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was still terrified of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu? If the Shia claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had double standards, then why would he make such clear declarations even when ‘Uthman salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was no longer a threat?
On the other hand, ‘Abdullah ibn Salam radiya Llahu ‘anhu repeatedly asked the rebels to refrain from assassinating ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as his demise would open the flood-gates of mischief and strife. As for Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who possessed knowledge of the names of the hypocrites, which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu affirmed and testified to, Shia references state that he exhorted the rebels to desist from executing their plot. He cautioned them that the martyrdom of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu would result in many trials and tribulations.
Now if anyone were to ask ‘Ammar ‘Ali about the above mentioned people; were they not the Sahabah? As for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he alone is equivalent to thousands of Sahabah, especially according to the Shia. So if the Sahabah were the ones who killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu then ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who is a great Sahabi, was opposed to this. Strangely though, ‘Ammar ‘Ali alleges that it is the Sahabah who ultimately killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then it struck me suddenly that ‘Ammar ‘Ali and the rest of the Shia leadership do not consider the above-mentioned people (including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) to be Sahabah. Instead, the Sahabah according to them were the villains and rebels of Kufah and Egypt, the actual people who gathered and marched to assassinate ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Therefore, his claim that the Sahabah murdered ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu is correct by his own definition of Sahabah.
Nevertheless, the reality is that his allegation against the Sahabah is vicious slander and misrepresentation of the facts. One who has no fear of Allah and no shame for people is capable of almost anything. We are still baffled by his audacity, that he states he is willing to forward the chain of transmission for these fabricated reports and allegations for anyone who may require it.
 Surah al Baqarah: 258.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 180.
 Surah al Nazi’at: 24.Back to top