Even if the calamity resulted from the deed of one’s father or grandfather, Adam had repented of eating from the tree, so no blame remained upon him after his repentance. The calamity had also been decreed, so there was no point in blaming Adam for it. A person therefore has no right to harm a believer merely because something that constitutes a calamity for him occurred at that believer’s hands (1).

A believer is either excused or forgiven. There is no doubt that many who suffer a calamity (2), or fail to attain some objective because of one of their predecessors, hasten to condemn him. Thus, some of the Rāfidis believe (3) that Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with them—were responsible for unjustly denying them their right. This is a lie against them.

Or they say, “Because of them, we wronged others.” This is an offense against them, for those men were just and followed the command of Allah and His Messenger.

Whoever suffers a calamity because of what the Messenger brought has been afflicted on account of his own sins. No one therefore has the right to disparage the Messenger or what he brought because it includes (4) enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and striving against the hypocrites; nor because, as a result of his giving precedence to Abū Bakr and Umar, the Muslims gave them precedence after him. It is related that one of the Rāfidis offended Allah and His Messenger (5) because Allah and His Messenger gave precedence to Abū Bakr (* and Umar.

It is also related of one of them that some people “were reading hadith in the Mosque of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and came to the merits of Abū Bakr. When he heard them, he said