and some Shi'a. Thus, whoever among the adherents (1) of the Sunnah holds this view (2) maintains that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—appointed Abū Bakr as his successor, either by an explicit designation, as some of them hold, or by an implicit designation. Likewise, among the Shi'a who maintain that Ali was designated, some hold that the designation was explicit, as the Imāmiyya do, while others hold that it was implicit, as do the Jarūdiyya among the Zaydiyya (3).

The former group’s claim that Abū Bakr received either an explicit or implicit designation is far stronger and far more evident than the latter group’s claim that Ali was designated. This is because of the many texts indicating [the establishment of] Abū Bakr’s caliphate (4), whereas nothing is cited as indicating Ali’s caliphate except material known either to be false or to provide no indication of it.

On this understanding, the Prophet appointed no one other than Abū Bakr to succeed him after his death; that is why he was the successor. For the successor in the unqualified sense is the one who succeeded him after his death, or whom he appointed to succeed him upon his death. These two descriptions are established only for Abū Bakr; [that is why he was the successor] (5).

As for his appointment of Ali over Medina, that was not a distinction unique to him. Whenever the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—set out on a military expedition, he would appoint one of his Companions to govern Medina in his absence, just as he appointed Ibn Umm Maktūm on one occasion and Uthmān ibn Affān on another.