In another version:

“A vow returns the son of Adam to what has been decreed * so, because of the vow, he gives what he would not otherwise give” (1).

Given that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—forbade vows and said, “A vow brings no good; it merely returns the son of Adam to what has been decreed *” (2), if Alī, Fātima, and the rest of their household (3) did not know this, whereas the Muslim community at large did, that impugns their knowledge. What, then, becomes of the one who claims that they were infallible?

If they (4) did know this, yet performed an act involving no obedience to Allah and His Messenger and yielding no benefit to either of them—when the two of them had in fact been forbidden to do it, whether as a prohibition entailing unlawfulness or as a tanzīl prohibition—this would impugn either (5) their religion (6) or their reason and knowledge.

Thus, whoever relates such a report as one of their virtues is ignorant: he impugns them while praising them, demeans them while exalting them, and condemns them while commending them.

Hence, one member of the Prophet’s household said to the Rāfidis, in effect: “Your love for us has become a liability to us.” As the well-known proverb (7) says: “A wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend.”