that their caliphate would last for a specified period, thereby indicating that those who held authority during that period were the rightly guided caliphs.

The seventh is for him to single out a particular person for something indicating that, in his judgment, this person should take precedence in the succession. This occurred concerning Abū Bakr.

A ninth answer (1) is as follows: It may be said that it was more appropriate for the Messenger not to designate a particular individual explicitly. For if (2) such designation were intended to make that person infallible, there is no infallible person (3) after the Messenger. If, however, he were designated without being infallible, (4) the designation might be cited as proof that he must be followed in everything he says. After the Messenger’s death, no one (5) could appeal to the Messenger concerning him so that the Messenger might overrule or dismiss him. (6) It was therefore more appropriate not to designate (7) a particular individual explicitly than to do so.

This differs from someone whom the Messenger appointed during his lifetime: if (8) that person erred or sinned, the Messenger could make his error clear and condemn his sin. After the Messenger’s death, however, he could no longer do so, nor could the Ummah dismiss that person, because the Messenger had appointed (9) him. Thus, (10) given the Muslims’ knowledge of their religion, the absence of an explicit designation of any particular individual was more beneficial for the Ummah—and that is precisely what occurred.

Furthermore, had he explicitly designated a particular individual so that the religion would be taken from him, (11) as the Rāfidah falsely allege,