to the appointment of Abū Bakr. Nothing in them indicates the appointment of Alī or al-Abbās; rather, all of them indicate that he appointed neither of the two.

It may therefore be said: If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed anyone, he appointed none but Abū Bakr; and if he appointed no one, then neither one nor the other was appointed.

Thus, on the assumption that it was incumbent upon the Messenger to appoint a successor, he appointed none but Abū Bakr. All scholars of hadith and Prophetic biography agree that the authenticated hadiths do not indicate the appointment of anyone other than Abū Bakr. Rather, those among them that indicate an appointment point only to the appointment of Abū Bakr. This is necessarily evident to anyone familiar with the authenticated hadiths.

Second:

We say: You do not accept analogical reasoning, yet this argument rests on analogy, for you have analogized appointing a successor upon death to appointing a deputy during an absence.

As for us, if we assume one of the two positions, we say: The distinction between the two is what we previously noted concerning Umar’s appointment of a deputy during his lifetime and his hesitation over naming a successor to take office after his death. During his lifetime, the Messenger was a witness over the community (1) and was charged with governing it either personally or through his deputy, whereas after his death he was no longer subject to that obligation.

As Christ said:

“And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them.”

(Sūrat al-Mā’idah: 117)—to the end of the verse.

He did not say, “My successor was the witness over them.” This proves that Christ did not appoint a successor and therefore that prophets are not required to appoint successors for after their deaths.

Likewise, it is authentically reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

“Then I shall say as