belief in them necessarily entails belief in Muhammad.” The same applies to denying infallibility and to affirming faith, piety, and friendship with Allah. Ahl al-Sunnah never affirm Alī’s faith, piety, and status as a friend of Allah without also affirming the faith and piety of the three and their status as friends of Allah. Nor do they deny them infallibility without also denying it to Alī. This means that, in their view, making a distinction between them is invalid.
If the Rāfidī says to them:
“Alī’s faith is established by consensus, while infallibility (1) is denied to the three by consensus,”
this would be like a Jew saying:
“Moses’ prophethood is established by consensus,”
or a Christian saying:
“Muhammad’s divinity is denied by consensus.”
The Muslim says:
“My denial of divinity to Muhammad and Moses is the same as my denial of it (2) to Christ. I cannot deny it to Moses and Muhammad while conceding it to Christ.”
If the Christian says:
“We agree that these are not gods, but we differ as to the Christian: Allah must appear to him in human form, and [this] (3) has been claimed only in connection with Christ,”
this is like the Rāfidī’s argument that there must be an infallible imam and that this has been claimed only for Alī.
We know as a matter of necessity (* that Jesus (4) possesses no distinction by virtue of which he deserves to be a god to the exclusion of Moses and Muhammad, just as it is known as a matter of necessity *) (5) that Alī did not [possess] any distinction (6) by virtue of which he deserved to be infallible to the exclusion of Abū Bakr and Umar. If anyone seeks to distinguish between them, we would deny him (7) that, and we would say: We concede only equal treatment, whether in affirmation or denial.