be anything in these expressions implying that this quality exists in only one person. Rather, they merely indicate that this particular person possesses that quality.

Thus, if someone vowed to give one thousand dirhams in charity to a righteous or poor man and then gave the pledged sum to one person, it would not follow that no one else fit that description. Likewise, if they said, “Give this money to a man who has performed Hajj on my behalf,” and they gave it to one man, it would not follow that no one else had performed Hajj on his behalf.

The third answer is that, even if his superiority at that time were assumed to have been established, this would not show that no one else was superior to him thereafter.

The fourth is that, even if we were to assume his superiority (1), this would not establish that he was an infallible imam who had been explicitly designated (2). Indeed, many of the Zaydī Shiʿa, later Muʿtazilites, and others believe in his superiority (3), yet hold that Abu Bakr was the imam; they deem the rule of the less excellent permissible. This is also permitted by many others who refrain from (4) ranking any one of the four above another, or who regard this as a probabilistic rather than definitive question, for which no conclusive proof establishes the superiority of any one particular person. Someone unfamiliar with the authentic Sunnah may indeed have doubts about this.

As for the renowned imams of the Muslims, they unanimously agree that Abu Bakr and ʿUmar were superior to ʿUthmān and ʿAlī. This consensus has been reported by more than one scholar. Thus, al-Bayhaqī narrated in his book The Virtues of al-Shāfiʿī (with his chain from al-Shāfiʿī) (5), who said: “No