The reply is:

First, no member of the Imāmiyyah could raise this objection, because, in their view, the more excellent person has the stronger claim to the caliphate. This is also the view of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah.

There are two possible positions here: either the more excellent person has the stronger claim to the caliphate, but appointing someone less excellent is permissible, whether unconditionally or when there is a need; or not everyone who is more excellent in Allah’s sight necessarily has the stronger claim to the caliphate.

Neither applies here. As for the first, there was no need to appoint someone with a lesser claim. They were able to appoint ʿAlī, with no one opposing this at all. They had no need for inducements or intimidation, and ʿUthmān had no power that they needed to fear. Rather, they were equally able to appoint either man. It is therefore impossible to say that appointing the less excellent man was their only option.

Since they were able to do so, and were acting on behalf of the community (1), not for themselves, it was not permissible for them (2) to deprive the community of the benefit of being governed by the more excellent man. An agent or guardian acting on another’s behalf may not depart from what best serves the person who entrusted him when he is able to secure that benefit. How much more so when he is equally able to pursue either course?

As for the second, the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is the best of creation, and whoever resembles him more closely is more excellent than one who does not. The caliphate was a prophetic caliphate, not kingship. Thus, whoever succeeded the Prophet and took his place resembled him more closely, and whoever resembled him more closely was more excellent. Hence, the one who succeeds him resembles him more closely than others; the one who resembles him more closely is more excellent; therefore, the one who succeeds him is more excellent.