do not condone falsehood, even if it serves their purposes. How many(1) hadiths concerning the virtues of the three caliphs and other matters are narrated to them through chains of transmission better than those of the Shī'a—reports transmitted by the likes of Abū Nu'aym, al-Tha'labī, Abū Bakr al-Naqqāsh, al-Ahwāzī, Ibn 'Asākir, and others of their kind—yet hadith scholars accept none of them! Indeed, if a narrator is unknown to them, they suspend judgment regarding his narration. As for you, O Rāfidis, we have seen that you accept everything that accords(2) with your opinions and desires; you reject nothing, whether worthless or sound.”

And it should be said to you: “If, among the authentic hadiths held by the majority and well known to authorities whose truthfulness and learning all Muslims acknowledge—as you yourselves know—there are reports that have been accepted, indeed mass-transmitted reports yielding necessary knowledge that cannot be dislodged from the heart, and these reports contradict the proofs narrated by transmitters who are either unknown or known by both you and the majority to be liars, can people possibly dismiss(3) what they know by necessity and what they know through widespread(4) transmission by trustworthy, reliable transmitters whose truthfulness and precision are recognized? Can this be dismissed on the strength of such unbridled reports, with neither rein nor halter?

“Even if a man were to report that the prayers(5) numbered more than five, that the obligatory fast was two months long, and that Muslims were required to make pilgrimage to another House, would there be any way to disprove this except by the same kind of method used to disprove their assertions?

“In this refutation, we have pointed out various methods by which the falsity of what they rely upon may be known