who came after him—let alone Alī—and that he surpassed the three in sound judgment, religious devotion, and governance; that(1) his governance of the Muslim community(2) was better than Alī’s; and that the benefit he brought to the Muslims in their religion and worldly affairs was greater than that brought by Alī—may Allah be pleased with them (all)(3).

If we believe that Alī exercised independent judgment, seeking the Countenance of Allah in what he did(4); that any benefit he failed to realize lay beyond his ability; that any harm which occurred was beyond his ability to avert; and that he did not seek exaltation on earth or corruption, then holding this belief about Abū Bakr and Umar is even more appropriate, fitting, and warranted(5).

This, then, is a line of argument that no one can counter except by appealing to what is thought to be a report confined to select transmitters, such as reports concerning Alī’s virtues and matters implying that he had the strongest claim to the imamate, or that his imamate was explicitly designated. Such evidence is then countered by what the select transmitters—who are more truthful and more numerous—have related concerning al-Siddīq’s virtues, which indicate that he had the strongest claim to the imamate, and by their reports that the texts point only to him.

For every argument advanced by a Shiite, the Sunni has a corresponding argument of the same kind that is more compelling. Indeed, the Sunnah within Islam is like Islam among the various religions: for every argument advanced by an adherent of an earlier scripture, the Muslim has, on the same point, an argument that is more worthy of being followed.

Allah Most High says:

“And they do not come to you with an argument except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation.”

(Surah al-Furqān: 33)