followers of al-Shāfiī. These scholars cite the action of Alī [ibn Abī Tālib] (1) as proof, because he was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Likewise, Ahmad ibn Hanbal permitted holding gatherings for remembrance and supplication on the Day of Arafah in the cities, citing as proof that Ibn Abbās had done so in Basra. This occurred during Alī’s caliphate, when Ibn Abbās was his deputy in Basra. Thus, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and many other scholars follow Alī in what he instituted, just as they follow Umar and Uthmān in what they instituted. Other scholars, such as Mālik and others, do not follow Alī in what he instituted, whereas they all agree upon following Umar and Uthmān in what they instituted. If Umar and Uthmān may be criticized for what they instituted, despite the circumstances just described, then there is even greater reason to criticize Alī for what he instituted, given the circumstances just described.

If it is said that what Alī did was permissible and may not be criticized—either because it was based on his independent reasoning or because it constitutes a sunnah in which he is to be followed—then what Umar and Uthmān did has even greater claim to be regarded in the same way.

Also belonging to this category is what is related of Umar’s actions (2), such as his doubling of the alms-tax imposed upon the Christians of Banū Taghlib—which was jizya in substance—and similar measures.

It is astonishing, moreover, that the Rāfidah condemn something Uthmān did in the presence of the Helpers and Emigrants, who did not object to him, and in which all the Muslims followed him (3) regarding the Friday call to prayer, while they themselves have added to the call to prayer a distinctive formula that was unknown during the time of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—[and no one has related (4) that the Prophet—may Allah bless him