to which they had no right, despite what was known of the conduct of both men(1)—then it would be evident that, if this supposition were true, it would apply with greater force to the one who fought for that authority(2) until he was defeated. Blood was shed because of the conflict between him and his opponent, yet the fighting secured neither a religious nor a worldly benefit. During his caliphate, no fighting was waged against disbelievers, nor did any Muslim rejoice. Alī took no joy in civil strife among Muslims; his supporters did not rejoice in it because they failed to prevail; and those who fought him likewise remained in distress and hardship.

If we rebut the Kharijites who disparage Alī, despite the apparent basis for this suspicion, then we have even greater reason to rebut those who disparage Abū Bakr and Umar.

If it is permissible to suppose that Abū Bakr sought leadership(3) wrongfully, even though nothing was known of him but the opposite, then that supposition applies still more fittingly and forcefully to one who fought for authority—yet failed to attain his objective.

If the cases of these two men were illustrated by the example of two prayer leaders at a mosque, two elders of a locality(4), or two teachers at a school, every rational mind would say: “This one is further removed from seeking leadership and more likely to have religion and the good as his aim.”

So if we believe that Alī sought truth and religion, desiring neither exaltation on earth nor corruption, then we have even greater reason to believe the same of Abū Bakr and Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both.