If the presumption is that an appointment as deputy remains in force, then the tenure of the person whom he appointed (1) during the Farewell Pilgrimage has a stronger claim to continue than the deputation of someone he appointed before that.

In sum, appointments as deputy over Medina were not unique to him, nor do they prove superiority or the imamate. Rather, the Prophet appointed several others besides him. Yet these ignorant people treat general merits shared by Alī and others as exclusive to Alī, even when others possessed those merits more fully than he did. This is how they have dealt with the texts and historical events.

The Christians acted similarly: they took the miraculous signs brought by the Messiah as evidence of something peculiar to him (2)—indwelling and union—even though other prophets likewise brought such signs, and the signs brought by Moses were greater than those brought by the Messiah. Thus, there is no reason why the Messiah, rather than Abraham and Jesus, should be singled out for either indwelling or union (3). Indeed, if all of this is impossible, then it is undoubtedly impossible with respect to all of them. If, however, it is interpreted as something possible—such as attaining knowledge of Allah and faith in Him, the illuminations arising from faith in Him, and the like—then this is something shared and a matter (4) that is possible.

The same is true of the Shia: they treat matters shared between Alī and others, which encompass both him and them, as exclusive to him. They went so far as to derive (5) from this qualities they claim are exclusive to him: infallibility, the imamate, and superiority. Yet none of this holds true.