Companion disputed them. Those among the Helpers who did dispute did not dispute (1) that Abū Bakr was the best of the Emigrants; they merely sought to have one of the Helpers appointed alongside one of the Emigrants.

If it is said:

“If they had (2) any personal inclination, the textual proofs would have restrained them from acting upon it,”

it may be answered:

If they were driven by personal inclination, they would disobey those textual proofs and turn away from them, just as you yourselves allege that they did. If their intention was sincerely directed toward the truth, the intended outcome would be achieved by either means; but in the face of obstinacy, neither would be of any avail.

A sixth response is as follows:

Explicit texts concerning rulings are of two kinds: a universal (3), general text that encompasses their individual instances, and a text concerning particular cases.

Thus, when you say:

“There must be an explicit text concerning the imam,”

if you mean an explicit text laying down (4) the general, universal rule—[concerning] (5) the qualifications required of the imam, his duties, and his rights, just as there are explicit texts concerning judges, muftis, witnesses, prayer leaders, muezzins, commanders of jihad, and others entrusted with any of the Muslims’ affairs—then these texts (6) are established and, praise be to Allah, numerous (7), just as they are established for all other rulings.

If, however, you mean that there must be an explicit text designating the particular individuals who are to assume office,”