this] (1), generation after generation, is stronger than their consensus affirming our Prophet’s intercession for those guilty of major sins and their deliverance from the Fire; affirming the Cistern and the Balance; approving the fighting of the Khawārij and those who withhold zakat; recognizing the validity of leasing real estate; and prohibiting marriage to a woman while also being married to her paternal or maternal aunt.

Indeed, the faith (2) and uprightness of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar are matters (3) acknowledged even by the Khawārij—despite their obstinacy—whereas they dispute the faith of ʿAlī and ʿUthmān. The Khawārij unanimously declare ʿAlī an unbeliever, and their attacks on him are greater (4) than their attacks on ʿUthmān. With the Zaydiyyah, the reverse is true. The early Muʿtazilah inclined towards the Khawārij, while their later adherents inclined towards the Zaydiyyah. Likewise, the early Rāfidah (5) explicitly affirmed corporealism, while their later adherents adopted the position of the Jahmiyyah and the Muʿtazilah.

The earliest Shia had no doubt about the superiority of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. As for ʿUthmān, many people consider ʿAlī superior to him. This was the view of many people of Kufa and elsewhere, and it was al-Thawrī’s initial position, which he later retracted. Another group considers neither of the two superior to the other.

This is what Ibn al-Qāsim (6) related from Mālik concerning the people of Medina whom Mālik had known. However, Mālik said:

“I never encountered anyone regarded as an example to follow who considered either of them superior to the other.”

This could mean that they refrained from discussing the matter, in which case it would not constitute a stated position; this is the more apparent interpretation. It could also mean that they regarded the two as equal. Ibn al-Qāsim (7) also related from him that he had never encountered