the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—such as Abū Jahl, Uqba ibn Abī Muayt, al-Nadr ibn al-Hārith, and others, as well as with accounts of the leaders of the disbelievers, such as al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīra and others. Yet no one has mentioned Amr ibn Abd Wudd as belonging to either group, nor was he among the foremost combatants. How, then, could killing such a man be superior to all the worship rendered by jinn and humankind? It is established through mass transmission that the forces did not retreat when he was killed; rather, they continued afterward to press the siege in earnest (1), just as they had before he was killed.

[Section: The Rāfidī’s Statement, “During the Campaign against Banū al-Nadīr, Alī Killed the Man Whose Shot Struck the Prophet’s Incisor,” and the Response to It]

(A Section)

(2)

The Rāfidī (3) said:

“During the campaign against Banū al-Nadīr, Alī killed the man whose shot struck the Prophet’s incisor (4)—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—(5), then killed ten others, whereupon the rest fled.”

The response is as follows: The reports you cite concerning this campaign and other campaigns must first be accompanied by their chains of transmission. Otherwise, if someone sought to cite a report whose chain was unknown as evidence concerning even a bunch of greens, it would not be accepted from him (6). How, then, can such a report be cited as evidence in matters of fundamental doctrine?!