for, by the consensus of hadith scholars, they are more numerous than the authentic reports concerning ʿAlī’s virtues, sounder, and more explicit in what they establish.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not say, “Virtues were authentically established for ʿAlī that were not authentically established for anyone else.” Ahmad is far too eminent to utter such a lie. Rather, it has been transmitted that he said, “Reports were narrated concerning him unlike any narrated concerning anyone else”—although there is some question regarding the transmission of this statement from Ahmad, which is not the subject at hand.

Third: Eating the bird is no momentous matter that would warrant the person most beloved to Allah among His creation coming to eat from it. Feeding people is prescribed, whether they are righteous or wicked, and eating it affords this person no increase in rank or nearness to Allah, nor does it further any religious or worldly good. What momentous matter is there, then, that would warrant having the person most beloved to Allah among His creation do it?

Fourth: This hadith contradicts the doctrine (1) of the Rāfidis. They maintain that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—knew that ʿAlī was the person most beloved to Allah among His creation and that he had appointed him to succeed him as caliph. Yet this hadith indicates that he did not know who among creation was most beloved to Allah.

Fifth: It may be said that either the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—knew that ʿAlī was the person most beloved to Allah among His creation, or he did not. If he knew this, he could have sent someone to summon him, just as he would summon any one of the Companions, or he could have said, “O Allah, bring me ʿAlī, for he is the person most beloved to You among Your creation.” What need, then, was there for the supplication and the ambiguity? Had he named ʿAlī, Anas would have been spared his vain hope and would not have shut the door in ʿAlī’s face.