Documents of the Right Word

ook Nahj-ul-belâgha, which is valued very highly by Shiites,
quotes a letter which hadrat Alî wrote to his paternal first cousin.
In this letter he expresses the trust he put on that munafiq. Then
the book Nahj-ul-belâgha goes on and gives a detailed account of
that man’s acts of treason. Munzir bin Jârut, another governor
appointed by hadrat Alî, turned out to be a traitor. The letter of
threat which the Khalîfa wrote to him exists in most Shiite books.
Hadrat Alî could not be vilified on account of these governors of
his. Even Prophets fell for the soft words of munâfiqs. However,
Wahy would be sent to Prophets and thus the inner malices of
most munâfiqs would be revealed. Shiites maintain that Imâms
have to be aware of the unknown. And they blame hadrat
’Uthmân for failing to do so. With this conviction of theirs, they
denigrate hadrat Alî ‘kerrem-Allâhu wejheh’, too. According to
their fallacy, hadrat Alî appointed traitors to positions over
Muslims although he knew that they would turn into treason. The
infamous villain named Ziyâd bin Ebîh was another governor
appointed by hadrat Alî.
Another event they use as a ground for casting aspersions on
hadrat ’Uthmân is his admitting Merwân’s father Hakem bin Âs
into Medîna. Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ had
deported Hakem from Medîna because he had made friends with
munâfiqs and aroused fitna among Muslims. During the reigns of
the first two Khalîfas disbelievers were purged and there were no
munâfiqs left. Therefore, it was not necessary for Hakem to live in
exile any longer. The former two Khalîfas would not allow him to
return home. For he was likely to resume his former mischievous
acts. Hakem belonged to the Benî Ummayya tribe. And the two
Khalîfas belonged to the Temîm and Adiy tribes. They could
relapse into the tribal hostilities prevalent in the era of nescience
(before Islam). Hadrat ’Uthmân, however, was Hakem’s
brother’s son. There was therefore no longer any reason for such
anxiety. Hadrat ’Uthmân explained this decision as follows: “I
had had Rasûlullah’s permission to bring him back to Medîna.
When I told Khalîfa Abû Bekr, he asked me to prove it by
witnesses. I was silent because I did not have any witnesses.
Hoping that Khalîfa ’Umar would accept my statement, I told
him, too. Yet he, too, asked for witnesses. When I became
Khalîfa, I gave him permission (to return to Medîna) because I
knew.” Rasûlullah ‘sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam’ stated during his
illness, “I wish someone pious came to me and I said something to
him.” When they asked if they should send for Abû Bekr, the
– 232 –