How, then, could it have been lawful for al-Hasan(1) to hand the affairs of the Muslims over to someone who, in his view, was an apostate worse than the Jews and Christians, as they allege concerning Muāwiya? Would anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day do such a thing? Al-Hasan could have remained in Kufa. Muāwiya had not initiated hostilities against him, and what was wanted of him had only been requested. Had he continued in his father’s stead, Muāwiya would not have fought him.

Where, then, does this leave the statement authentically established from the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—concerning al-Hasan’s virtue:

“Indeed, this son of mine is a leader, and through him Allah will reconcile two great groups of Muslims.”(2)

If Alī and his household—including al-Hasan—were to say, “Through him, Allah reconciled only the believers and the apostates,” this would be a slur upon al-Hasan and upon his grandfather, who praised al-Hasan,(3) if matters were as the Rāfidah claim.

It is therefore clear that the Rāfidah are among the worst offenders in disparaging and maligning the Prophet’s household; that they themselves are, in reality, the ones who have shown enmity toward the household; and that they have attributed to them the gravest abominations—acts whose perpetrators would be disbelievers. Nor is this surprising, given the Rāfidah’s ignorance and follies.

The Rāfidah further claim that the infallible imam is a gracious aid from Allah to His servants, making them more likely to obey him and thereby receive mercy. Yet by their own reasoning, there would have been no greater scourge upon the people of the earth than Alī: those who opposed him became apostates and disbelievers, while those who sided with him were abased and subjugated under affliction, unable either to act or to speak; and they, despite