by his faith (1). How, then, can one who believed after disbelief be compared to one who disbelieved after having faith?!(2)

It may also be said:

Sixth: Muʿāwiyah’s Islam has been firmly established—may Allah be pleased with him—and Islam wipes away what preceded it. Thus, anyone who claims that he apostatized thereafter would be making an unsupported claim even if its falsehood were not known. How much more so when its falsehood is known, and when it is known that he remained a Muslim until his death, just as it is known that others remained Muslims? The same means by which [the continued adherence to Islam] (3) of most people—whether Companions or others—is known also establish that Muʿāwiyah remained a Muslim—may Allah be pleased with him.

Anyone who alleges that Muʿāwiyah, ʿUthmān, Abū Bakr, and ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with them—apostatized has no stronger case than someone who alleges that ʿAlī apostatized. If the person alleging ʿAlī’s apostasy is lying, then the one alleging the apostasy of these men is even more manifestly lying, for the evidence that they remained believers is clearer, and the Kharijites’ specious argument (4) is more plausible than that of the Rāfidites.

It may also be said:

Seventh: If this claim were true, it would entail an unmistakable disparagement and denigration of ʿAlī, al-Hasan, and others. For ʿAlī would have been defeated in his struggle against the apostates (5), while al-Hasan would have surrendered the Muslims’ affairs to apostates. Khālid ibn al-Walīd, however, subdued the apostates. Allah’s granting Khālid victory over the disbelievers (6) would therefore have been