17. There are many traditions in Shi′a books about the guardianship of Imam Ali. Why have others refrained from quoting them?

Answer:

It was the Pharahonic party of the earliest period of the Islamic era, which prevented from recording these traditions.

The reason why those texts were not included is due to the prejudice of those who concealed their grudge, and hid their animosity. The party of Pharaoh during the early epoch of Islam, worshippers of authority and domination spent everything to hide the contributions of Ahl Al-Bayt and put out their light in every land. They forced people to deny their feats and attributes through means and methods of both tempting and terrorizing, through their wealth once, and through their positions and political stature another. They bestowed their favors upon those who denied these merits, dismissing, banishing, or even murdering those who believed in them.

The traditions related to the imamate, and the promises of caliphate, are held with apprehension by those who fear that such texts may jeopardize their thrones or undermine the very foundations of their governments. The safety of these texts against the tampering of such people, of that of their followers and flatterers, and their ability to reach us through many sources and methods, is, indeed, a miracle testifying to their own truth. This is so due to the fact that those who denied the status of Ahl Al-Bayt, usurped the positions rightly and divinely assigned to them, used to incur the worst punishment upon anyone who showed love for Ahl Al-Bayt.

If anyone spoke well of ‘Ali (‘a), he would be disowned, and retribution would fall upon him; therefore, his possessions would be confiscated, and he would be executed. How many tongues praising ‘Ali were cut off?

Among the narrators of hadith and "protectors of the legacy" were people who worshipped those monarchs and tyrants as well as their rulers other than worshipping Allah, the Exalted, and the Sublime. They sought nearness to them with all their resources of scholarship, thus distorting, testifying for the authenticity of this or against the authenticity of that.

They enjoyed with the monarchs and rulers a special lofty status, and their word was heeded; therefore, they commanded authority and prestige, and they were fanatical against the accurate traditions if the latter pointed out to an attribute of ‘Ali (‘a)or of other members of the household of Prophethood. Therefore, they would reject it strongly, dropping it violently, attributing to its narrators Rafidism - and Rafidism is the worst vice according in their judgment. This is their policy towards the traditions lauding ‘Ali, especially if the Shi ‘as holds them in high esteem.

Kings and rulers ordered people to denounce the Commander of the Faithful. They pressured them to do so once by tempting them with money, and once by threatening them with their armies and dreadful promises of retribution. They forced them to belittle him and his lineage, so much, so that they painted a disgusting picture of him in their books and narrated traditions whereby ears feel offended, making the cursing of his name from the pulpits a tradition followed by the Muslims on Fridays.

The Light of Allah cannot be put out, and the contributions of His guardians cannot be hidden; otherwise, those traditions would not have reached us through the sources of both groups, accurately and explicitly implying his caliphate. No texts are more consecutively reported than the texts in the praise of ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib.