Moreover, the imams and shaykhs of these people are better than a nonexistent figure (1) from whom no benefit whatsoever can be derived. Thus, in any event, they are better than the Rāfidah.

Moreover, (2) the Rāfidah’s argument based on their assertion that infallibility was claimed only for Alī and his household is thereby invalidated.

If it is objected:

There was no one among the Companions who claimed infallibility (* for Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān.

The reply is:

If there was no one among them who claimed that Alī was infallible, your position is invalid. But if there was someone among them who claimed infallibility *) (3) for Alī, it is entirely possible that there was also someone among them who claimed infallibility for the three. Indeed, claiming infallibility for these three would have been more warranted, for we know with certainty that the majority of the Companions regarded Abū Bakr and Umar as superior. Indeed, Alī himself preferred them to himself, as has been reported from him by mass transmission. Accordingly, a claim on their part that those two were infallible would have been more warranted than a claim that Alī was infallible.

If it is objected:

“But this was not reported from them.”

The reply is:

Nor was a statement affirming Alī’s infallibility reported from a single one of them. We ourselves affirm [infallibility] (4) for neither one nor the other. Rather, we say: no one can rule out the possibility that a report from one of them affirmed the infallibility of one of the three while claiming that they used to affirm Alī’s infallibility. No one can claim such a distinction or report it from any one of them. Consequently, no period is known in which infallibility was claimed for Alī or for any (5) of the Twelve,