وَمِنۡ كَلَامٍ لَهُ عَلَيۡهِ السَّلَامُ
From one of his statements
يَعۡنِي بِهِ الزُّبَيۡرَ فِي حَالٍ اقۡتَضَتۡ ذٰلِكَ
Said about az-Zubayr [1] at a time for which it was appropriate
وَيَدۡعُوهُ لِلۡدُّخُولِ فِي الۡبَيۡعَةِ ثَانِيَةً
يَزۡعُمُ أَنَّهُ قَدۡ بَايَعَ بِيَدِهِ، وَلَمۡ يُبَايِعۡ بِقَلۡبِهِ، فَقَدۡ أَقَرَّ بِالۡبَيۡعَةِ، وَادَّعَى الۡوَلِيجَةَ، فَلۡيَأۡتِ عَلَيۡهَا بِأَمۡرٍ يُعۡرَفُ، وَإِلَّا فَلۡيَدۡخُلۡ فِيمَا خَرَجَ مِنۡهُ.
He asserts that he swore allegiance to me with his hand but did not swear with his heart. So he does admit allegiance. As regards his claiming it otherwise than with his heart he should come forward with a clear argument for it. Otherwise, he should return to wherefrom he has gone out.
Notes:
[1] When, after pledging allegiance on the hand of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, az-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām broke his allegiance, he would sometimes put forth the excuse that he was forced to pledge allegiance, and that forced allegiance is no allegiance. And sometimes he said that allegiance was only for show. His heart did not go in accord with it. As though he himself admitted with his tongue the duplicity of his outer appearance and inner self. But this excuse is like that of the one who reverts to apostasy after adopting Islām and to avoid penalty may say that he had accepted Islām only by the tongue, not in the heart. Obviously, such an excuse cannot be heard, nor can avoid punishment by this argument. If az-Zubayr suspected that ʿUthmān was slain at Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s insistence, this suspicion should have existed when he was taking oath of obedience and stretching his hand in pledge of allegiance, not now that his expectations were getting frustrated and hopes had started dawning from somewhere else.
Amīr al-Muʾminīn has rejected his claim in short form thus: that when he admits that his hands had pledged allegiance, then, unless there is a valid justification for breaking of the allegiance, he should stick to it. But if, according to him, his heart was not in accord with it, he should produce a clear proof for this assertion. Since proof about the state of heart cannot be adduced, how can he bring such proof? And an assertion without proof is unacceptable to his mind.
[1] When, after pledging allegiance on the hand of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, az-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām broke his allegiance, he would sometimes put forth the excuse that he was forced to pledge allegiance, and that forced allegiance is no allegiance. And sometimes he said that allegiance was only for show. His heart did not go in accord with it. As though he himself admitted with his tongue the duplicity of his outer appearance and inner self. But this excuse is like that of the one who reverts to apostasy after adopting Islām and to avoid penalty may say that he had accepted Islām only by the tongue, not in the heart. Obviously, such an excuse cannot be heard, nor can avoid punishment by this argument. If az-Zubayr suspected that ʿUthmān was slain at Amīr al-Muʾminīn’s insistence, this suspicion should have existed when he was taking oath of obedience and stretching his hand in pledge of allegiance, not now that his expectations were getting frustrated and hopes had started dawning from somewhere else.
Amīr al-Muʾminīn has rejected his claim in short form thus: that when he admits that his hands had pledged allegiance, then, unless there is a valid justification for breaking of the allegiance, he should stick to it. But if, according to him, his heart was not in accord with it, he should produce a clear proof for this assertion. Since proof about the state of heart cannot be adduced, how can he bring such proof? And an assertion without proof is unacceptable to his mind.
