the minister.” He said (1): “This indicates that he did not consider himself fit for the imamate” (2).

The response is that, if he indeed said this (3), it is the clearest possible proof (4) that Ali was not the Imam. This is because anyone who says such a thing does so only out of fear of Allah, lest he fail to discharge the duties of governance, and because appointing someone else while serving as his minister would leave him freer of responsibility. Had Ali been the Imam, however, appointing either of those two men would likewise have meant neglecting the imamate. He would then have served as minister to another man who was acting unjustly and would have sold his Hereafter for another man’s worldly gain. No one who fears Allah and seeks to discharge his responsibility would do that.

This is like the case of a deceased man who left instructions concerning certain debts. His heir believed that a particular person was entitled to them, so he sent them to that person through his messenger. He then said, “If only (5) I had sent them with someone more conscientious, for fear that the first messenger might fail to deliver them, whether through negligence or betrayal.” Meanwhile, someone present claims that he, rather than the absent man, is entitled to the debt. Had the heir known that the present man was entitled to it, he would have given it to him and would not have needed to send it to the absent man.

[The Rāfidī’s remarks concerning Abū Bakr and Umar not joining Usāma’s army, and the response to them]

Chapter (6)

The Rāfidī (7) said: “The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said during