so if they were upright, accept all their reports; but if they were sinners, then: ‘If an evildoer brings you news, verify it.’ No one may say of witnesses: ‘If they testify in my favor, they are upright; but if they testify against me, they are sinners,’ or: ‘If they testify in praise of someone I love, they are upright; but if they testify in praise of someone I hate—S: “whom I hate”—they are sinners.’
As for Alī’s imamate, these people, as well as others, dispute it with you. If you appeal against them to the textual designation you claim, the texts they claim support Abū Bakr—or even al-Abbās (1)—would constitute a counterargument to it. No one acquainted with hadith can doubt that those texts are worthier of acceptance and credence. Their truth is likewise demonstrated by many lines of evidence known even to those who are not hadith scholars.
If you appeal to the people’s pledge of allegiance to him, they will say:
“It is well known that the people were far more united in pledging allegiance (2) to Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān than they were in pledging allegiance (3) to Alī. Yet you have impugned that pledge, so it is easier to impugn this one. You cannot invoke either a textual designation or consensus to establish Alī’s imamate (4) without those men possessing textual and consensus evidence stronger than your proof. Establishing the caliphate of those whose caliphate you have impugned therefore has a stronger claim than establishing the caliphate of the one whose caliphate you affirmed (5).”
This objection does not apply to Ahl al-Sunnah, for they affirm the caliphate of all the caliphs,