was a distinction (1) granted to no one else, demonstrating Ali’s superiority over (2) all the Companions (3); therefore, he is the Imam.’

The response may be given from several angles:

First, proof is required that this account is authentic. The mere fact that al-Tha‘labi and others like him reported it—or even narrated it—does not constitute proof, according to the consensus of the various groups of [the adherents of] (4) the Sunnah and the Shia. This is because it is a late, disconnected report (5), and he cited no chain of transmission for it. Among the material of this kind that he transmitted (6), whether from Israelite or Islamic traditions, are reports known to be false, even if he did not deliberately (7) lie.

Second, what he transmitted through this route (8) is false by consensus of the scholars of hadith and the Prophet’s biography (9), and they are the authorities to whom such matters are referred.

Third, when the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and Abu Bakr migrated to Medina, the people had no interest in pursuing Ali. Their targets were only the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and Abu Bakr. They offered the blood money of each as a reward to anyone who brought him in, as is established in the Sahih, whose authenticity scholars do not doubt (10), and the Prophet left Ali (11) in