he would disagree with them, only for it later to become clear to him that they had been right. Thus, al-Hasan advised him on several matters: not to leave Medina without first receiving the pledge of allegiance, not to go to Kufa, not to fight at Siffin, and not to dismiss Mu'āwiyah, among other things.

In short, no reasonable person can doubt that the affairs of government were ordered under Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān as they never were under Ali—may Allah be pleased with them. If this was due to the excellence of both the ruler and the subjects, then they and their subjects were superior. If it was due solely to the excellence of the ruler, that is even stronger evidence of their superiority. If, however, it was due to the extreme deficiencies of Ali’s subjects, then Ali’s subjects were more deficient than those of Abū Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—and of Umar and Uthmān.

Ali’s subjects were those who fought alongside him and acknowledged his imamate, while the subjects of the three acknowledged their respective imamates. If those who acknowledged the imamate of the three were superior to those who acknowledged Ali’s imamate, it necessarily follows that each of the three was superior to him.

Moreover, the affairs of government were ordered under Mu'āwiyah (1) as they never were under Ali. It therefore follows that Mu'āwiyah’s subjects were better than Ali’s subjects. Mu'āwiyah’s subjects were the partisans of Uthmān, among whom were those hostile to Ali and who hated him. The partisans of Uthmān and those hostile to Ali would therefore be superior to Ali’s partisans.

Thus, on every reckoning, it necessarily follows that either the three were superior to Ali, or the partisans of Uthmān and those hostile to Ali were superior to Ali’s partisans and the Rāfidah.

Whichever of the two is the case, it necessarily follows that the doctrine of the Rāfidah is false, for they claim that Ali was superior