the Umayyads—who required their rulers to be obeyed with absolute obedience(1) and said that this ensured salvation—would likewise have been obligatory to follow, and they would thereby have been correct and upon the truth(2). They would also have been correct in reviling Ali and others and in fighting whomever they fought among Ali’s supporters. For they believed that obedience to rulers was obligatory in all things, that Allah would not call a ruler to account for any sin, and that(3) they incurred no sin in any matter in which they obeyed the ruler. Indeed, their argument would have been stronger than that of the Shi'a, because they were obedient(4) to leaders whom Allah had established, appointed, supported, and granted dominion. Thus, if the Qadarite doctrine holds that Allah does only what is best for His servants, then appointing those leaders(5) to rule would have served His servants’ welfare.
It is well known that the divine aid and benefit realized through them was greater than the divine aid and benefit realized(6) through a nonexistent or powerless imam. For this reason, the followers of the Umayyad caliphs obtained greater benefit in their religious and worldly affairs than did the followers of the Awaited One. The latter had no imam to enjoin anything good(7), forbid anything evil, or assist them in anything beneficial to their religious or worldly affairs. By contrast, the others derived many benefits from their leaders in their religious and worldly affairs—far more than these people derived from their imams.