by disobedience to Him, and disobeying the ruler is disobedience to Him. Thus, whoever pursues disobedience to the ruler has pursued what angers Allah and has shown aversion to His good pleasure.

This denunciation (1), and similar charges (2), against Alī and Fātima—may Allah be pleased with them both—are better founded than the denunciations levelled by the Rāfida against Abū Bakr and Umar. This is because (3) the many texts related from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—concerning obedience to those in authority, adherence to the Muslim community (4), and patience in doing so are well known.

Indeed, suppose someone were to say:

The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—commanded obedience to those in authority even if they reserved things exclusively for themselves, and commanded patience in the face of their injustice. He said:

“You will encounter selfish appropriation after me, so remain patient until you meet me at the Cistern.” (5)

And he said:

“Render to them what is due to them, and ask Allah for what is due to you.” (6)

There are other statements of this kind. Thus, even if it were assumed that Abū Bakr and Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both—had been unjust and had reserved the wealth for themselves, it would (7) nevertheless have been obligatory to obey them and patiently endure their injustice.

Then, if (8) this person were to begin impugning Alī and Fātima—may Allah be pleased with them both—and others like them on the grounds that they had neither remained patient nor adhered to the Muslim community, but had instead given way to impatience and divided the community—and that this was a grave act of disobedience—such a reproach would have been better founded than the denunciations