Anyone who contemplates these and similar matters will see that Alī had no entitlement at that time, with a clarity he cannot deny even to himself. Had it become clear that the right belonged to Alī, and had Alī claimed it (1), Abū Bakr would either have yielded it to him, sought an accommodation with him, or offered him an excuse. Had Abū Bakr risen (2), while in the wrong, to oppose Alī, who was in the right, sacred law, custom, and reason would have required the people to side with Alī—the one who was right and infallible—against Abū Bakr, the aggressor and gross wrongdoer, if that were indeed the case. This is especially so because people naturally recoil more from pledging allegiance to someone outside the ruling house than from pledging it to the household of the leader they obey (3). Thus, had Alī possessed the better claim, the motives favoring him would have been stronger and more numerous in every respect; while, had Abū Bakr been unjust, there would have been far less motive to support him from every standpoint.

Yet because the compelling consideration favoring Abū Bakr—namely, Allah’s religion—was strong, and Islam was still new (4), fresh (5), and ascendant, the more God-fearing course was for them not (6) to divert the right from the one they knew was most entitled to it and give it to another, even if (there was) (7) among some of them a personal preference for someone else.

As for Abū Bakr, the only preference anyone had for him was a preference for the religion that Allah loves and approves.

Anyone who reflects on these and similar matters will know as a matter of necessity that the people knew Abū Bakr to be the one most entitled to succeed the Prophet as caliph, and knew that his leadership was more pleasing to Allah (8) and His Messenger, so they pledged allegiance to him,