to the three, and that his partisans who fought alongside him were superior to those who pledged allegiance to the three, let alone Mu'āwiyah’s companions.

It is universally acknowledged that the affairs of government were ordered under the three and Mu'āwiyah as they never were under Ali. How, then, could the perfect imam and the perfect subjects—as they see them—be in greater disorder and less well ordered than a deficient imam and deficient subjects? Indeed, than subjects whom they regard as unbelieving and wicked?

Whatever knowledge, religion, courage, and generosity were found among Ali’s companions fell short of what was found among the subjects of the three. Thus, they were no better, whether in worldly affairs or religion.

Moreover, the Shiites have never had a sovereign imam—allegedly infallible—greater than Ali. If they did not remain upright under him, they were even less likely to remain upright under anyone inferior to him. It is therefore evident that they are worse and more deficient (1) than others.

They say:

“An imam’s infallibility is required only because it affords gracious aid to those subject to religious obligations and serves their welfare.”

But once it is known that, in every age, the welfare enjoyed by non-Shiites is better than that enjoyed by Shiites, and that the gracious aid afforded to them is greater than that afforded to the Shiites, it becomes clear that what they have argued (2) to establish infallibility is false.

It then also becomes evident that the imams need the community, and that al-Siddīq spoke the truth and upheld justice to a greater extent (3) than anyone else.