It may further be said:

The fact that a man is among the people of Paradise does not require that his testimony be accepted, since he may err in giving it. Thus, if Khadīja, Fātima, Āisha, or other women known to be among the people of Paradise were to testify, the testimony of any one of them would amount to half the testimony of a man, as the Quran has ordained. Likewise, the inheritance of any one of them is half that of a man, and her blood money is half that of a man (1). All of this is agreed upon by the Muslims. Therefore, a woman’s being among the people of Paradise does not require that her testimony be accepted, since she may err. How much more so when a person may lie, repent of lying, and then enter Paradise?

The Fifth Argument:

His statement, “Alī testified on her behalf, but his testimony was rejected because he was her husband,” is a lie (2). Yet even if it were true, it would provide no grounds for criticism (3), since the testimony of a husband is rejected by most scholars (4). Those who accept it do so only when the prescribed number of witnesses is completed, either by another man or by two women (5). As for issuing judgment on the testimony of one man and one woman when the claimant has not taken an oath, this is impermissible.

The Sixth Argument:

Their assertion that they all narrated that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“Alī is with the truth, and the truth is with him. It turns (6) wherever he turns, and the two will never part until they come to me at the Pool,”

is one of the most egregiously false and ignorant statements. No one has narrated this hadith from the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—neither through a sound chain of transmission nor