so listen to him and obey him.” Would he then (1) become caliph solely by virtue of this explicit designation? Or does this man (2) not become imam until the imamate is also conferred (3) upon him?

If you adopt the first alternative, the response is: We do not concede that explicit designation is required in this sense. The Zaydīs, together with the main body of Muslims, deny such a designation, although they are Shia who cannot be accused of hostility toward Alī (4).

As for his statement:

“If he were not designated in this manner, it would lead (5) to dispute and conflict,”

it may be answered: Textual proofs indicating his entitlement to the imamate, whose import is known through reasoned examination and inference, accomplish the intended purpose with respect to rulings. Not every ruling is established by a clear, explicit text that ordinary people and specialists understand equally (6). If this sort of textual indication suffices for universal matters whose knowledge is required in every age, then it is all the more fitting and appropriate that it suffice for an individual case—namely, the appointment of a particular imam. We have explained that prophets can explicitly stipulate universal matters, unlike particular cases.

Moreover, in this matter, when the evidence clearly shows that one member of the community has a greater claim to the imamate than another, that eliminates the need for (7) appointing him as successor.

The proofs establishing that Abū Bakr had the greatest claim among them to the imamate were plain and clear, and no