As for his statement:

“If his imamate was legitimate, then seeking to relinquish it was an act of disobedience.”

The response is: If it is established that he said this, then its being legitimate may mean that it was permissible—and what is permissible may be relinquished—or it may mean that it was obligatory upon him so long as they neither appointed someone else nor released him. But if they released him and appointed someone else, it was no longer obligatory upon him.

A person may enter into a sale or lease, with the contract being valid, and then request its rescission. Likewise, because of his humility and the weight of the burden upon him, he may ask to be relieved even when no one else is more entitled to it than he is. A person’s humility does not nullify his right.

Chapter (1)

The Rāfidī says: (2)

“Umar said: ‘Abu Bakr’s pledge of allegiance was a sudden affair, and Allah protected the Muslims (3) from its evil. Whoever does such a thing again, kill him.’ Had his imamate been valid, the one who brought it about would not have deserved to be killed; criticism of Umar therefore necessarily follows. But if it was invalid, then both of them must be censured.” (4)

The response is that the wording of the hadith will be given below. It states:

“Let no one be deceived into saying, ‘Abu Bakr’s pledge of allegiance was merely a sudden affair and was then completed.’ Indeed, it was so, but Allah averted its evil, and there is no one among you to whom people would travel from afar as they did to Abu Bakr.” (5)

Its meaning is that Abu Bakr’s pledge of allegiance was hastened to without pausing or waiting, because he