that a direct textual designation (1) applied to al-‘Abbas.

Furthermore, those who contend that there was a nass—that is, an explicit textual designation—in favor of ‘Ali differ widely over whether that same nass extends to his descendants. One therefore cannot claim that no one has ever alleged a successive textual designation except what they maintain for the “Awaited One.” On the contrary, their fellow Shi‘ites put forward identical assertions for persons other than the Awaited Imam. Hence the very foundation on which they built the doctrine of an infallible Imam—whose obedience is compulsory for the people of his own era—falls apart.

Even if we were to grant that ‘Ali himself was the Imam, obedience to anyone who has died is not incumbent upon us; the only exception is the Messenger (2). What concerns us, rather, is their claim that we are bound to obey this living, infallible figure. And even if we conceded that no one besides them had ever claimed a textual designation (3), the ruse they employed to affirm a nass for ‘Ali rests on a falsehood they invented and on an analogy of their own contriving (4), devised to give that lie a veneer of plausibility (5). They first fabricated the text, then asserted that the analogy they themselves had innovated and concocted (6), along with the “consensus” they allege, necessitates the acceptance of that fabrication—just as they produced a novel doctrine of their own making about the speech of God, a view unknown before them (7), and then claimed that what they had innovated and fabricated