at any one time throughout the whole world two imams—whether they are in harmony or at odds, whether they reside in two different regions or in the same place. (1)

I say: Disagreement on this point is well known among those who discuss it, such as the speculative theologians. The Karrāmiyya and others allow it, maintaining that ʿAlī was an imam and that Muʿāwiya was an imam as well.

As for the leading jurists, their view is that each of the two may enforce his rulings over the people of his jurisdiction, just as a single imam’s rulings are enforced.

As for the permissibility of pledging allegiance (bayʿa) to both of them from the outset, this is not done when the umma is united. When it is divided, neither faction actually pledged allegiance to two imams; rather, each side either made peace with the other or fought it. Peace is better than fighting, whose harm surpasses that of peaceful coexistence—and on this matter opinions and inclinations differ.

He said: They unanimously agreed that if the imam is from the descendants of ʿAlī, is just, and no pledge had previously been given to any other living person, and someone inferior to him rises against him, then fighting the latter is obligatory. (2)

I say: None of the authoritative imams have a specific statement transmitted on this very issue, nor has anything like it ever occurred in Islam, except—if one insists—in the episode of ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya. It is well known that most of the scholars among the Companions did not consider it correct to fight on either side. This is the position of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah and the hadith scholars, the majority of the people of Medina and Basra, and many of the inhabitants of Syria, Egypt, Kūfa, and others, both early and later.

He said: We introduced this consensus only because the Zaydiyya dispute whether the imamate is permissible for someone who is not an ʿAlawī. Although we judge them to be mistaken in that and are certain of the invalidity of their view—holding that the imamate does not go beyond Fihr ibn Mālik and is permissible in all of his clans—still, when describing the consensus accepted by everyone, we had no choice but to mention what we have stated. (3)

I say: He has declared that he cites only the disagreements of the jurists and hadith scholars, not those of the Muʿtazila, Khārijites, Rāfiḍa, and the like. There is therefore no point in bringing the Zaydiyya into the discussion and opening that door, for he has already said in his book al-Milal wa-l-Niḥal