favoritism and dissimulation. Unless a witness knows what he is testifying to and is above suspicion, his testimony will not be accepted, nor will it constitute proof against the party against whom he testifies. How much less so, then, when his only knowledge of the matter comes from the person in whose favor he is testifying?

It is well known that, had Abū Bakr, Umar, and others testified in his favor by affirming him (1) in what he had said, this would have benefited him more, because they were less open to suspicion. Moreover, it could be said that they were grown men who had heard from the People of the Book and from soothsayers matters they knew independently of Muhammad. Ali, by contrast, was still young. His opponents would therefore say, “He knows what he testified to only from the one in whose favor he testified.”

As for the People of the Book, if they testified to what had come down to them from the prophets through mass transmission and to what was known to be true (2), then that (3) would constitute useful testimony—just as if the prophets themselves were present and testified in his favor. Whatever was established as having been transmitted from them, whether by mass transmission or otherwise, was tantamount to their own testimony.

For this reason, we testify against the nations on the basis of what we have learned from our Prophet, as Allah Most High said:

“And thus We have made you a justly balanced community so that you may be witnesses over humanity and the Messenger may be a witness over you.”

[Surah al-Baqarah: 143]

Thus, this ignorant man who deemed this a virtue of Ali has thereby disparaged Ali himself, the Prophet (4) through whom Ali came to be among the believers, and the proofs (5) demonstrating the truth of Islam. This could be said only by a heretic or someone mired in extreme ignorance.