the caliphs(1), despite the people’s dispute over the caliphate and their consultations(2) concerning it on the Day of the Saqīfah, at the time of Umar’s death, when the matter was entrusted to consultation among six men, and later, when Uthmān was killed and the people became divided over Alī. It is known * that if such an explicit designation had existed as the Rāfidah claim—namely, that he had expressly designated Alī through a clear, conclusive designation that left no room for excuse and was known to the Muslims—then it would be known *(3) as a matter of necessity that people would inevitably have transmitted it in a manner befitting such a report, and that it would inevitably have been mentioned to many(4) people—indeed, most of them—on occasions such as these, when the impetus to mention it would have been at its strongest. The absence of what is known to be a necessary consequence entails the absence of that which is known to necessitate it. There are many analogous cases.

In sum, falsehood is contrary to truth. The absence of either of two contradictories may be known at times through the establishment of its contradictory, and at other times through evidence specifically establishing its absence.

Most of the argument with the Shia rests upon transmitted reports. Whoever is thoroughly acquainted with what occurred and with the true reports that yield certain knowledge knows with certainty(5) that whatever contradicts this is false. For this reason, among the scholars of the Prophetic hadiths there are none (except)(6) those whose knowledge necessarily establishes the merit(7) of the two Shaykhs, the validity of their imamate, and the falsity of the Rāfidah’s claims.