neither he nor anyone else did so—and matters remained that way until allegiance was pledged to him after Uthmān was killed, whereupon he and his supporters rose, pressed their claim, fought, and did not remain silent until they nearly prevailed (1)—it is necessarily known that their initial silence was due to the absence of any reason to act, not to the presence of any obstacle; that the people had no knowledge that Alī himself (2) had the greater right, much less that there was any explicit designation; and that (3), when his entitlement became evident to them, they rose to support him despite the existing obstacle.

Had Alī possessed such a right, Abū Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—would have been far, far less inclined than Muāwiya to resist him. Abū Bakr did not call people to his own cause, nor did he entice or intimidate anyone, nor (4) was he seeking leadership in any way whatsoever. At the outset, moreover, it was not possible for anyone to impugn Alī, as became possible after Uthmān was killed. At that point, many of Uthmān’s supporters accused Alī of having assisted in his murder, while some of them said, “He abandoned him.” Uthmān’s killers were also in Alī’s army, and this was one of the factors that kept many from pledging allegiance to him.

Those deterrents were absent at the outset. His forces would therefore have been greater, his right at that time—had he been entitled to it—more evident, and those contesting his claim weaker in both motive and strength. There was no powerful motive for preventing him (5), as there was after Uthmān was killed, nor any army (6) resolved to fight him (7), as there was after Uthmān was killed.