1. Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) of appointing dishonest men and oppressors to govern people.

His governors committed evil deeds, eg. Walid Bin Uqbah consumed liquor and led the Salaat while intoxicated, performing four Rakaats in Fajr instead of two. Furthermore, he handed all four provinces of Shaam (Syria) to Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu).

He also appointed Abdullah Bin Sa`d Bin Abi Sarh the governor of Misr (Egypt). This governor tyrannically oppressed the people of Egypt who were compelled to go to Madinah and rebel.

Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had appointed Marwaan his Minister, deceiving thereby Muhammad Bin Abu Bakr. Instead of writing (Accept him), he ,tricked him and wrote: (Kill him).

Shiahs claim that the people had become frustrated with the rule of Hadhrat Uthmaan’s governors. As a result of his policies, anarchy and strife became prevalent. He was then unable to solve the problems. He was, therefore, unfit to be the Khalifah.

These slanders against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) are part of the Shiah propaganda motivated by hatred for the Sahaabah in general. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) the third Khalifah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ruled the empire of Islam most successfully. It was during his Khilaafat that the Islamic frontiers reached their furthest points. The Islamic empire had reached the frontiers of Andalus (Spain) in the West, and Kabul (in Afghanistan) in the East. His forces fought the Romans on land and the sea, and he was victorious. He purified Arabia and Ajam from anarchy and mischief.

However, there always were and always will be evil elements determined to create mischief. They would spread rumours against Hadhrat Uthmaan’s governors. In view of false-mongering of enemies, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was not hasty in dismissing men whom he had appointed to positions of trust. If a charge was substantiated, he would dismiss the transgressor, e.g. Walid.

Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) had not committed any crime during Hadhrat Uthmaan’s reign to warrant dismissal. He had discharged the duties of his office admirably. Problems involving Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) with Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) developed later in consequence of the murder of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu).

Abdullah Bin Sa`d Bin Abi Sarh had completely withdrawn from the political arena after Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu), and he had divorced himself from all the anarchy and strife. The complaints about him made to Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) were the effects of the evil plots of shaitaan-in-chief, namely Ibn Sabã, the architect and founder of international Shi`ism. In his intrigue and conspiracies, this accursed shaitaan had enlisted many anarchists to spread falsities about the governors of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu).

Whatever he could do to contain and eliminate fitnah, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) did, and whatever had to happen by the Decree of Allah, happened. The anarchy of the Shayaateen (of Shi`ism), which had developed towards the end of his Khilaafat, was beyond his control. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted these evil developments and the assassination of the Khalifah. These events, therefore, were beyond his control and had to materialise.

Shiahs, while quick to accuse Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) for such problems of strife, are silent about the political upheavals of anarchy and strife prevailing in the time of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). They do not accuse Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) of having failed in the preservation of peace, law and order. In fact, Hadhrat Ali’s reign had experienced the period of the greatest political upheavals and religious anarchy and strife.

In spite of Hadhrat Ali’s sagacity, piety, experience, courage and numerous virtues of excellence, he was unable to eliminate or control the forces of anarchy and the consequential developments of strife which led to his ultimate assassination.

Regarding the governors appointed by the last two Khulafa, it should be well understood that the governors of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) were extremely competent, diligent and obedient to the Khalifah. They distributed the spoils of war correctly, dispatching it to the Capital, i.e. Madinah. On the contrary, the governors of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) were disobedient, rebellious and were guilty of maladministration. They suffered defeats in battles on all fronts. They betrayed Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) time and again. Their attitude and treason constrained Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to voice his grief and disappointment.

Nahjul Balaaghah is among the most authentic and reliable books according to the Shiahs. The following narration in this reliable and accepted book of Shi`ism speaks volumes for the evil and treason of a paternal cousin whom Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had appointed:

“ Letter written by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to his paternal cousin:

‘ Verily, I had associated you in my trust. I had made you my garment and my bosom friend. In my family there was no man whom I trusted more than you for sympathizing with me and for fulfilling my trust.

When you observed the change of times on your cousin (i.e. Hadhrat Ali), the enemies had stood up in war, the destruction of the trusts of the people and the spread of bloodshed in this Ummah, then you turned your back on your cousin and you deserted him along with the deserters. You abandoned him along with the abandoners. You betrayed him along with the traitors. Thus, you disgraced the son of your paternal Uncle (i.e. Hadhrat Ali) . You did not discharge trust. It appears that in your jihaad you had no intention of Allah (i.e. your jihaad was not for Allah’s sake); as if you were not on a path of guidance of your Rabb. It appears as if you are deceiving this Ummah from their world and you are scheming to capture their wealth as a result of their negligence.

Thus, when evil expedients made it possible for you to perpetrate khiyaanat (abuse of trust) and betray this Ummat, you hastened and jumped to commit (these foul deeds). You snatched from them whatever you could of their wealth which they had saved for their widows and orphans. You snatched their wealth like a wolf snatches a bloodied broken bone. You then carried this (ill-gotten wealth) to Hijaaz open-heartedly (i.e. brazenly and happily) and not thinking of its sin for which (you will be) apprehended. May your father perish! You appropriated this wealth as if it was inheritance from your father and mother.

Subhaanallah! Do you not believe in the hereafter? Do you not fear the writers of Hisaab (the recording Angels)? O you who was regarded amongst our intelligent ones! How do you swallow food and drink while you are aware that you are consuming Haraam? How are you able to purchase slave-girls and marry women with the wealth of orphans, Masaakeen and the Mujaahideen to whom Allah has bestowed this wealth and these lands.

Fear Allah! Return to these people their wealth. If you do not, and Allah gives me power over you, then most assuredly I shall discharge my duty to Allah regarding you. I shall most certainly fix on you the seal of my sword. Whomever I struck with it, entered the fire.”

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) wrote the following letter to his rebellious and tyrannical Governor, Munthir Bin Jaarood Abdi:

“The competence of your father had deceived me regarding you. I had assumed that you would follow his path(of rectitude). Alas! It has been brought to my notice that you are among those who abandon obedience for the sake of lowly desires. You have no care for your Aakhirah. Do you cultivate your worldly life at the expense of the ruin of yourAakhirah?...........”

These letters of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) are recorded in the authoritative books of the Shiahs, among which is Nahjul Balaaghah. It is clear from these discourses of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) that some of his governors were real scoundrels bent on robbery, tyranny, anarchy and mischief. They have no parallel with the competent men appointed by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). In spite of the extreme corruption and betrayal of Hadhrat Ali’s appointed governors, Shiahs have no criticism. But they irrationally single out the governors of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) in their endeavours to vilify and disgrace him.

In contrast, the Ahlus Sunnah does not criticise Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for his appointments. The Ahlus Sunnah maintains the same attitude of respect, honour, reverence and love for both Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhuma). They had no knowledge of the unseen and of the future. They cannot be held liable for the commissions of their governors. The Khulafa were men of the highest degree of Taqwaa. They appointed only those on whom they had confidence and trust. They had no control on future developments. Undoubtedly, they had discharged their trust and their responsibilities. Even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sometimes erred in his appointment of men into positions of trust.

While according to the Ahlus Sunnah it is not necessary for the Khalifah to have ilmul ghaib (knowledge of the unseen), this is essential for Imaamat in terms of Shi`ism. Shiahs believe that it is essential for an Imaam to have the knowledge of (Of what has happened and what will happen). Shi`i authorities such as Muhammad Bin Ya`qub Kulaini and other scholars have tried their best with a variety of narrations to prove ilmul ghaib for Imaamat.

However, in spite of Shiahs believing that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had ilmul ghaib, their own highly-placed books of religion confirm that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had appointed such men who had turned out to be traitors, usurpers and tyrants who fled with public wealth. Furthermore, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), besides writing letters of admonition, was unable to apprehend them.

By way of concluding this chapter, it is appropriate to mention Ziyaad who was of illegitimate lineage. According to Shi`ism an illegitimate child is najisul ain (i.e. every atom in him is impure like a pig). It follows that such a being cannot be appointed to a position of trust and leadership according to Shi`i theology and logic. Salaat behind a najisul ain being is not valid. In spite of this belief of Shi`ism, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had appointed Ziyaad to be the ruler of Persia. He was also appointed commander of the army. In fact his son, Ubaidullah finally killed Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu). Ziyaad governed the people and led them in Salaat. But, Shiahs while condoning his appointment are vociferous, destructive and malicious in their criticism of Hadhrat Uthmaan’s governors who have no resemblance with the evil, tyranny and brutality with which Ziyaad governed.

Furthermore, Hadhrat Uthmaan’s honour and trustworthiness are borne out by the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had appointed him to positions of trust. He was also Rasulullah’s confidante during his (Nabi - sallallahu alayhi wasallam) last illness.

2. HADHRAT UTHMAAN HAD RECALLED HAKAM BIN ABI AA`S TOMADINAH

The Shiah charge is that Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had recalled to Madinah Hakam Bin Abi Aa`s who was expelled by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

RESPONSE

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had expelled Hakam because he associated with the munaafiqoon (hypocrites) and aided the kuffaar. After the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the fitnah of the kuffaar and munaafiqoon was completely eradicated during the Khilaafat of the first two Khulafa. Thus during the time of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) there was no longer the need to keep in force the expulsion order against Hakam.

When some people asked Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) for the reason for allowing Hakam back into Madinah, he responded: “During Rasulullah’s last illness, I obtained Rasulullah’s permission to allow Hakam back.”

When Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had mentioned this to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat, he asked for a witness. Since Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had no witness, he (Uthmaan) remained silent. The same transpired during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). However, when Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) assumed the Khilaafat he acted according to what he knew was true.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had also reposed great trust on Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). Secrets of which others were not informed were entrusted to him during Rasulullah’s last illness. Who can honestly deny the truth which Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) stated regarding Hakam’s return?

The demand for a witness by Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) was the result of the great care these Khulafa exercised in the matter of accepting Ahaadith narrated by anyone. It does not follow that these two Khulafa did not believe Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). If Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had entertained the slightest doubt regarding the integrity of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) , he would not have appointed him to the Khilaafat Committee which decided, according to Hadhrat Umar’s directive, to appoint the next Khalifah. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was thus appointed the Khalifah.

Hakam had also repented. After his repentance he did not again indulge in any act of fitnah. Furthermore, he had become extremely old and decrepit. There was no longer fear of him dabbling in mischief.

The argument of the Shiahs is thus spurious.

3. HADHRAT UTHMAAN FAVOURED HIS KINSMEN AND ABUSED THE FUNDS OF THE BAITUL MAAL

Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Uthmaan ( radhiallahu or anhu) of nepotism - that he was extravagant in awarding wealth from the Baitul Maal to his relatives. He gave Hakam Bin Aa`s a 100 000 dirhams. Similarly, he favoured Haarith Bin Hakam with funds from the Baitul Maal. The Khums (one fifth) acquired from the spoils of war of Africa was awarded to Marwaan. He awarded 300,000 dirhams to Abdullah Bin Khaleed Bin Aseed Bin Abi Ees Bin Umayyah. He presented to his daughter two such valuable pearls which the jewellers could not afford. He gave another daughter of his an extremely expensive gold ring studded with precious stones. In general he utilised the funds of the Baitul Maal to develop his personal properties and orchards.

The two custodians of the Baitul Maal appointed by Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) resigned in disgust on account of the alleged abuse of funds by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) according to Shiah accusations. This service was then entrusted to Zaid Bin Thaabit (radhiallahu anhu). One day, after distribution of the funds of the Baitul Maal, there remained 100,000 dirhams which Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) gave to Zaid Bin Thaabit (radhiallahu anhu).

RESPONSE

All these accusations are false and pure slander. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was well-known for his wealth and affluence long before the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). Towards the end of the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) tremendous amounts of wealth in the form of spoils of war poured into Madinah. Wealth of the Persian empire was even piled in the yard of Musjidun Nabawi. All this wealth was distributed to the Sahaabah who had all become very wealthy.

Properties and orchards were now owned by almost all, including Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) who had all along been an extremely wealthy man, became even wealthier now. It is unjust, envious and spitefully false to accuse his lavish presentations to have been misappropriated from the Baitul Maal.

Furthermore, he did not restrict his gifts to his kinsmen. He lavishly spent in the path Allah. Historical records testify to the magnanimity of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu)when spending in the path of Allah. He was proverbial for his generosity even before he became the Khalifah.

The charge of nepotism is stupid and baseless. Firstly, he was entitled to spend his wealth lawfully on his kinsmen. Secondly, there is a double reward for spending on relatives. Thirdly, he spent from his own wealth, not from the Baitul Maal as the Shiahs falsely accuse.

Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had his own daughter married to Marwaan Bin Hakam and his son to the daughter of the Haarith Bin Hakam. On these occasions he presented each one 100,000 dirhams from his own wealth. It is not narrated in any authentic narration that the money was appropriated from the Baitul Maal. In making these gifts he was not guilty of any crime.

The charge of awarding the Khums of Africa to Marwaan is also a false accusation. Historical records testify that in lieu of certain services by Marwaan pertaining to the jihaad in Africa, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had made a presentation from the Baitul Maal to Marwaan in the presence of the Sahaabah. It was an extremely joyous occasion for the people of Madinah, and the cause of their joy was the sudden appearance of Marwaan with the Khums of Africa and the wonderful news of the victories of the Muslim army of 100,000 sent by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). To claim that the gift was the whole Khums of Africa is a blatant falsehood. The entire Madinah on this occasion was discussing and praising the exploits of Marwaan.

The charge of having made a gift of 300,000 dirhams to Abdullah Aseed is also false. This was a falsehood spread by the Egyptian rebels who had murdered Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). The money was a loan which Abdullah had repaid.

The charge against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) regarding Haarith Bin Hakam is too blatant in its falsity. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had appointed Haarith the inspector of the market-place to ensure that all trade is conducted honestly in accordance with Shariah. However, only two days after his appointment, the people, complained that he had purchased all the date-stones for his camels, leaving nothing for others. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) severely reprimanded and dismissed him forthwith. He thus acted justly and in the interests of the public. How unjust is the criticism and the false accusation of the Shiahs in this regard?

Shiahs have also introduced distortion and falsehood regarding the two custodians of the Baitul Maal. Both had resigned due to old age. They were unable to discharge their duties. On the occasion of Ibn Arqam’s resignation, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) addressing the people, said:

“O People! Abdullah Bin Arqam has been(custodian) over your wealth from the time of Abu Bakr and Umar until today. He has now reached old-age and is weak. We have therefore entrusted his duty to Zaid Bin Thaabit.”

The accusation of spending from the Baitul Maal for his private properties and orchards is likewise false and trivial. There is no need to dilate on this conspicuous falsehood.

Regarding the charge of having given 100,000 dirhams to Zaid Bin Thaabit (radhiallahu anhu), it is an exaggerated falsehood and distortion of facts. One day Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) ordered the distribution of the funds in the Baitul Maal. After effecting the distribution, there remained ONE thousand dirhams (not 100,000) which Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) gave to Zaid Bin Thaabit (radhiallahu anhu) to distribute according to his discretion. Hadhrat Zaid spent the thousand dirhams in the repair of Musjidun Nabawi. This is recorded in all the historical records of the Ahlus Sunnah.

In view of their excessive of hatred for Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu), Shiahs attribute every lavish expenditure of this noble Khalifah to misappropriation of the funds of the Baitul Maal. Malice and falsehood are mother and daughter. There is no remedy for these Shiahs slanders other than the fire of Jahannum.

4. HADHRAT UTHMAAN HAD DISMISSED A GROUP OFSAHAABAH

Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had dismissed Hadhrat Abu Musaa Ash`ari (radhiallahu anhu) from the governorship of Basrah and appointed in his place Abdullah Bin Aamir Bin Kuraiz; Amr Bin Aa`s (radhiallahu anhu) was replaced by Abdullah Bin Sa`ad Bin Abi Sarh. This person was a Murtad during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ammaar Bin Yaasir (radhiallahu anhu) the Governor of Kufaa was replaced with Mughirah Bin Shu`bah (radhiallahu anhu). Abdullah Bin Mas`ud (radhiallahu anhu), the Qaadhi of Kufaa was removed. The custodian of Kufaa`s Baitul Maal was also dismissed.

RESPONSE

Appointment and dismissal of officials and governors are among the functions of the Khalifah. It is his right and prerogative to execute his functions to the best of his ability according to his discretion. He is not under Shar`i obligation to retain the services of officials appointed by the previous Khulafa. History describes fully the reasons for the changes effected by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu).

The numerous victories and expansion of the Islamic empire warranted changes in the administration which had become extremely intricate and complex. Political expediency constrained the changes and replacements. The action instituted by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was, in his opinion, necessary for maintaining law and order.

Furthermore, the charges against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) regarding the replacement of Abu Musaa Ash`ari and Amr Bin Aa`s (radhiallahu anhuma) are irrational and ridiculous because Shiahs believe that it was compulsory to execute these two Sahaabah. According to Shiahs, these two Sahaabah did not have the potential of even accepting Islam. By what sense of logic do they criticise Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) for having removed such men whom they brand as Murtad ? (N.B. These two noble Sahaabah are honoured by the Ahlus Sunnah).

Regarding Abdullah Bin Sa`ad Bin Abi Sarh, he was appointed long after his repentance. He was a person of considerable abilities and statesmanship. He had conquered the entire Maghrib (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.) for Islam. Tremendous amounts of war booty was sent by him to Madinah. He had transformed the lands of kufr into Daarul Islam. There were numerous Sahaabah and their offspring in his armies. All of them were happy with his conduct. None of them had objected to his way of administration. Among them were Uqbah Bin Aamir Jahni, Abdur Rahmaan Bin Amr Bin Abi Bakr and Abdur Rahmaan Bin Amr Bin Aa`s, all of whom had disassociated from the anarchy which led to the murder of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). They had made a pledge to Allah Ta`ala that they will never fight with Muslims after having waged jihaad against the Kuffaar. They, therefore, went into solitude towards the latter part of their life.

Ammaar Bin Yaasir (radhiallahu anhu) was dismissed by Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu 0anhu), not by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) as the Shiahs allege. The replacement of Abdullah Ibn Mas`ood (radhiallahu anhu) will be discussed later.

The criticism that Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) replaced Sahaabah with non-Sahaabah has no validity. Firstly, Shiahs have branded almost all the Sahaabah Murtad. Of what concern is it to them that such Sahaabah were dismissed?

Secondly, they do not criticise Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for the same act for which they vehemently vilify Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) too had replaced Sahaabah with non-Sahaabah. Amr Bin Abi Salmah (radhiallahu anhu), the son of Hadhrat Umme Salmah (radhiallahu anha), one of Rasulullah’s wives, who was the Governor of Bahrain was dismissed without reason by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). This has already been explained in the section dealing with the criticism of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) - See page 48.

Nu`maan Bin Ajlaan who was not a Sahaabi was appointed in his (Amr’s) place. In knowledge, piety and expertise, Nu`maan did not possess 1% of the attributes of Amr Bin Abi Salmah (radhiallahu anhu).

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) dismissed from the governorship of Egypt the Sahaabi, Ees Bin Sa`ad Bin Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) who was a standard- bearer of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Maalik Ushtar who was neither a Sahaabi nor the son of a Sahaabi, was appointed then as Egypt’s Governor. In consequence of this appointment such anarchy and mischief spread which finally led to the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

The administration of even a small country, leave alone a vast empire, does not remain static. From time to time political developments make changes necessary. Changing, replacing and dismissal of officials, commanders and staff become expedient and imperative. Competent officials are replaced by those who may have greater competence. One official may have greater experience in a specific field than his predecessor. An official may develop weakness due to age or illness, hence changing him becomes necessary in spite of the sterling services he had rendered in the past. A newcomer may display naturally greater sagacity, adroitness and wisdom than the existing official. In short, there is a wide variety of reasons and considerations which can influence the Khalifah to make changes in either his own appointment of officials or in the appointment of earlier administrators.

In making such appointments, seniority is not a requisite. Seniors may be replaced with juniors and vice versa. Even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted this policy. The commander of the army was not always the same person. Governors were appointed and replaced. Tax-collectors were appointed and changed. Seniors were even replaced with juniors. Zaid Bin Thaabit (radhiallahu anhu), a junior, was placed in charge of very senior Sahaabah of far greater experience and excellence.

In effecting such changes, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) did not commit any Shar`i violation. In fact, he had a valid basis in the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for his system of changing officials. In fact, his changes prevented the fossilization of the administration.

The so-called “nepotism” of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was fully justified by the political situation of the time. With the demise of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu), the door of anarchy and strife had opened up. There was a need for Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) to appoint men of his clan to prevent infiltration by anarchists whose father-in-chief was the Jewish conspirator, Ibn Sabã Yemeni. Allegiance and cohesion are greater in clan members. History testifies to the successful control over the Islamic empire exercised by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) and his Governor, Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhuma). They always nipped anarchy in its bud.

In contrast, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was not politically so successful. His administration was plagued by treason. His governors sowed the seeds of anarchy and plundered the Baitul Maal. Time and again they betrayed the Khalifah.

In these ridiculous criticisms and vilifications of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu), the Shiahs find themselves trapped in a quagmire of self-contradiction and irrationality.

5. HADHRAT UTHMAAN ABUSED THE SAHAABAH

The Shiahs argue that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had fixed annual stipends for Abdullah Ibn Mas`ood and Ubay Bin Ka`ab (radhiallahu anhuma). Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) discontinued this.

He expelled Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) from Madinah Munawwarah, banishing him to the town, Rabzah. He became angry with Ubaadah Bin Saamit (radhiallahu anhu) for having admonished Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu). He described Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (radhiallahu anhu) as a Munafiq. He brutally assaulted Ammaar Bin Yaasir (radhiallahu anhu). He disgraced and belittled Ka`ab Bin Murrah Bahzi (radhiallahu anhu) for having stated the truth.

RESPONSE

As usual, Shiahs have resorted to their policy of fabrication and distortion. Their hatred for Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) has induced them to demonize by way of distortion every act of the Khalifah and to defend every person who had the slightest dispute with him (Hadhrat Uthmaan -radhiallahu anhu) even if that person happens to be a “Murtad” and “Kaafir” in terms of Shi`ism.

Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) was a person of very harsh temperament. He was extremely austere and blunt in his talk. In view of this natural disposition, he had an aversion for wealth and for all wealthy people. In fact, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) once severely rebuked and reprimanded him for his sharp criticism of Hadhrat Bilaal (radhiallahu anhu).

During the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu), considerable wealth from the conquered countries was acquired by the Sahaabah. As a result there was much affluence all around. Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) criticised the wealthy, especially Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu). His aversion for wealth, his austere lifestyle and his natural disposition constrained him to propagate that it was Fardh to spend all one’s wealth in the path of Allah. Although the other Sahaabah endeavoured to explain to him the error of his understanding on this issue, he adamantly clung to this view.

Wherever he went, he gathered groups around him and propagated very harshly that it was compulsory to spend all wealth. He would proclaim his message at the top of his voice. His mannerism led people to regard him is a joker. It was unbecoming of his rank to make himself an object of mockery.

Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) sent a report of this attitude of Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) to the Khalifah. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) instructed that Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) be sent to Madinah. Contrary to Shiah accusations, Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) with honour and respect.

On arrival in Madinah, the young folk who had already heard of his vociferous tirades, made of him a laughing stock. At this juncture it will be appropriate to mention Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (radhiallahu anhu), a senior Sahaabi who is one of the Asharah Mubash-sharah (i.e. the ten Sahaabah who were given the glad tidings of being Jannati). He had died and left behind tremendous wealth. People bent on mischief asked his opinion regarding Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (radhiallahu anhu). In view of his attitude towards wealth, and forgetting the status of Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (radhiallahu anhu), he issued a fatwa of him being an inmate of the fire.

Ka`ab Bin Ahbaar, who had embraced Islam during the time of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) and who was among the Ulama of the Ahl-e-Kitaab, said:

“O Abu Zarr! Decidedly, the Millat of Islam is the simplest. The narrowest and most difficult millat is the millat of the Yahood. When it is compulsory to spend all wealth in the Deen of the Yahood, how can it be compulsory in Islam?”

Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) in anger erupted:

“O Jew! What do you know of these laws?”

He raised his staff to strike, but Ka`ab Bin Ahbaar (rahmatullahi alaih) fled. Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) chased him until they both reached the place where Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) happened to be. Hadhrat Ka`ab sought protection behind Hadhrat Uthmaan, but the enraged Hadhrat Abu Zarr swung his stick and struck at Hadhrat Ka`ab (rahmatullahi alaih). The blow landed at the legs of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). Seeing that he was beyond himself with rage, the Khalifah ordered that he be apprehended. He was arrested and taken to his own home.

After his anger had subsided he came to Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu)and explained that his belief was that a person should spend all his wealth. He said that first the people of Shaam pestered him on this issue, making a mockery of him and now the people of Madinah were doing the same. He asked the Khalifah to advise him as to what he should do. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) responded:

“Undoubtedly, people are making a mockery of you. If you wish, refrain from associating with people and take up residence in the outskirts of Madinah.”

Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) then decided to go to Rabzah, where he lived. Occasionally, he would come to Musjidun Nabawi and visit Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). Thereafter, there were no further complaints. He passed his days in obedience.

The governor of the town, Rabzah was a slave appointed by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). He was also the Imaam of the Jaami Musjid where he led the Salaat daily five times. He requested Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) to lead the Salaat saying:

“You are superior to me.” Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) responded:

“You are Uthmaan’s representative and Uthmaan is better than myself. You are in his stead. It is therefore incumbent that you lead the Salaat.”

Thus, Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) performed Salaat behind a slave. This is the story of the events surrounding Hadhrat Abu Zarr and Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhuma). This is the story of these two noble Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) - the story which has been completely distorted and painted with lies by the Shi`i enemies of the Sahaabah.

The Sahaabah were human. They were not Ma`soom (infallible and sinless) as the Shiahs believe their Imaams were. They too at times were victims of human emotions. But, after all said and done, they always surfaced as the devotees of Allah Ta`ala. They are the men whom the Ahlus Sunnah honour, revere and love - every one of them. Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhuma) are our masters. We are their slaves. May Allah T`ala forgive us by virtue of their auspiciousness - Aameen - and again - Aameen.

And, may Allah Ta`ala forgive us for having embarked on this discussion of the errors of the Sahaabah - our Spiritual Fathers and our Masters. Circumstances constrained this discussion. The endevour to defend the honour and uprighteousness of Rasulullah’s Devotees compelled us to present this distasteful dissertion. May Allah Ta`ala destroy the vilifiers and the enemies of the Sahaabah (Ridwaanullah alaihim ajmaeen).

Indeed, these Shiah fabricators and enemies of Islam come within the scope of the Qur`aanic Aayat:

“What! Do you worship what you have fabricated?”

Indeed, they worship the idols of their lies which they have fabricated!

Likewise, the story of Hadhrat Ubaadah Bin Saamit (radhiallahu anhu) is also a Shi`i fabrication. Neither did Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) complain about him nor did Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) summon him to Madinah. Now listen to the story of Ubaadah Bin Saamit (radhiallahu anhu).

Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) had attacked and conquered the island of Qirbis. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted and praised much this jihaad campaign. Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) sent the Khums (1/5th share) to Madinah and engaged himself in the distribution of the remainder. A group of the Sahaabah among whom was Ubaadah Bin Saamit (radhiallahu anhu) sat one side to see if the distribution was done according to the Shariah.

Meanwhile, they observed two men leading away two healthy donkeys. When Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) questioned them, they said that the donkeys were presented to them by Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) to allow them to proceed for Hajj. When Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) told them that the donkeys were not lawful for them, they returned the animals to Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) and explained what had transpired. Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) sent for Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) and asked for an explanation. Hadhrat Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) said: “On the occasion of the battle of Hunain when people were disputing about the spoils of war, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) took a strand from a camel’s hair, and I heard him say: ‘ From the spoils of war which Allah has awarded you, even this strand is not lawful for me except the Khums. And, even the Khums is spent on you.”

Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) added:

“O Muawiyyah! Fear Allah; Distribute the booty correctly and do not give more than his right.”

Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) said:

“Distribute these spoils of war as you deem fit and set me free of its obligation. I shall be grateful to you.”

Thus Ubaadah (radhiallahu anhu) was placed in charge of distributing the spoils of war. On this occasion Hadhrat Abu Umaamah and Hadhrat Abu Darda (radhiallahu anhuma) assisted in the distribution. This position remained until the end of Hadhrat Uthmaan’s Khilaafat. Hadhrat Ubaadah Bin Saamit (radhiallahu anhu) finally died in Shaam. Until the end he remained with Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu).

Similar accusations against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) in relation to other Sahaabah whom he allegedly maltreated and disgraced are structured on the basis of distortion and fabrications. All such accusations of Shiahs should be summarily discounted and dismissed as slanders motivated by hatred.

It should be borne in mind that mutual disagreement and disputes of the Sahaabah do not negate their lofty rank. Such disputes, especially political differences, are natural to human beings. The Sahaabah too were ordinary mortals who had to contend with their nafsaani emotions. They too erred and sinned. The Ahlus Sunnah does not claim that the Sahaabah were Ma`soom (infallible and sinless) as the Shiahs propagate for their Imaams. Hence, no one should be surprised when hearing of the mutual quarrels of the Sahaabah.

As Muslims, we are required to respect, honour, revere and love all the Companions of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). We have absolutely no right of sitting in judgement over Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) or any other Sahaabah with whom he had any dispute. Allah will judge and decide such issues which are entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the Ummah. Suffice here to say that the claims of the Shiahs are the products of their evil hatred for the Sahaabah, and are invariably pure fabrication of half-truths and distortion of the true incidents and occurrences.

6. HADHRAT UTHMAAN WAIVED QISAAS

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) refused to execute Ubaidullah Bin Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) who had killed Hurmuzaan, who was accused of having plotted Hadhrat Umar’s murder.

RESPONSE

The Persian, Lu`lu, had carried out the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). According to the Sahaabah, the plot was masterminded by Hurmuzaan, who had embraced Islam during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). The Christian, Jafeenah was also involved in this vile plot. Thus, all three deserved to be killed. Executing Ubaidullah, the son of Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) who had avenged the death of his father was unthinkable and not permissible.

There is no substance in this Shi`i claim.

7. HADHRAT UTHMAAN DID NOT PUNISH HIS GOVERNOR

Uqbah Bin Walid, the governor of Kufaa appointed by Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) who had consumed liquor was not punished.

RESPONSE

This charge is false. Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had in fact instructed Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to inflict the Hadd (flogging) on Uqbah. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) instructed his cousin, Abdullah Bin Ja`far to strike the lashes. This he had done in the presence of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu).

8. HADHRAT UTHMAAN FLED FROM THE BATTLEFIELD

Shiahs revile Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) for having fled from the battlefield during the battle of Uhud.

RESPONSE

Besides a handful, all the Sahaabah were constrained to initially flee from the battle on the day of Uhud. This charge should be referred to all, not only to Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu).

The fleeing of the Sahaabah on this occasion was, in fact, compelled by Allah Ta`ala as a lesson for them for having violated Rasulullah’s order to remain guarding the vulnerable pass. In regard to this episode, the Qur`aan Majeed says:

“Verily, shaitaan caused those who turned their backs away from you the day when the two armies met, to slip because of (the misfortunes) of what they had committed. And, verily, Allah has forgiven them. Most certainly Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

The following facts are significant:

(a) The loss of morale resulting in the rout was the product of the negligence of the Sahaabah.

(b) Allah Ta`ala designed this to happen, so that the Sahaabah derive a lesson therefrom.

(c) The ‘fled’ was temporary. They did not entirely abandon the battlefield.

(d) Almost immediately after the confusion, they rallied, attacked and decisively defeated the enemy.

(e) The Qur`aan categorically states that Allah Ta`ala has forgiven them.

No one has the right to criticize any person who has been forgiven. The error has been obliterated. It cannot and may not be cast into the face of the Sahaabah.

Furthermore, of what benefit is it to the Shiahs if Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) had fled? Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhuma) had remained steadfast. They were not amongst those who had fled. But, their firmness does not acquire for them any Shi`i accolades. The Shiah charge against Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) is therefore, stupid and childish designed to confuse and mislead people of childish minds.

DISTORTION AND FABRICATION

Besides their accusations and slander levelled against the first three Khulafa of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Shiahs have neither spared the noble wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor his other Sahaabah.

Our responses to the charges against the Khulafa will illustrate the falsehood Shias knit into the fabric of their slander. They employ the same evil and satanic gimmicks in their charges against all the other Sahaabah. Further dilation on their false accusations is really superfluous. Their charges of falsehood are monotonous and ridiculous. We shall, therefore, pass by their falsities levelled against the other Sahaabah. The stock response to all Shi`i charges and false accusations is distortion, fabrication and lies.