this would be invalid and would constitute an impossible circular argument. For one cannot know that opposing him impairs affection for him until one knows that obeying him is obligatory; one cannot know that obeying him is obligatory unless one knows that he is an imam; and one cannot know that he is an imam until one knows that opposing him impairs affection for him (1).
Fifth: It may be asked: Does opposing him impair affection for him only if one has been commanded to obey him, or even if no such command has been given (2)? The latter is necessarily false. As for the former, we know that Ali did not command people to obey him during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.
Sixth: Precisely the same may be said: “Regarding Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, affection for them, love for them, and loyalty to them are obligatory, as previously established, and opposing them impairs all of this.”
Seventh: This hadith in fact favors them, for those men called upon the people to recognize their authority and obey them, claimed the imamate, and Allah made obedience to them obligatory. Opposing them (3) (4) therefore impairs affection for them; indeed, it impairs one’s love for Allah and His Messenger. There is no doubt that the one who introduced Rāfidism did not love Allah and His Messenger, but was (5) an enemy (6) of Allah. These people stand in relation to Ahl al-Sunnah as Christians do to Muslims: Christians make Christ a god and rank Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad below the disciples who accompanied Jesus. These people, likewise, make Ali the infallible imam, or hold that he is (7) the Prophet or a god (8), while they rank the four caliphs (9)