But if what is meant is that they were not fit for the imamate, whereas ‘Alī alone was fit for it, or that he was better suited to it than they were, then this is false, and this is precisely the point in dispute.

We shall first give a general, comprehensive response, and then respond in detail.

Our general, comprehensive response is this: We know with absolute certainty that they were imams fit for the imamate. No two Muslims, from any group other than the Rāfidīs, disagree about this. Indeed, the leading scholars of the Muslim community and its majority say: “We know that they had the greatest right to the imamate.” They go further, saying: “We know that they were the best members of the Muslim community.”

What we know with such certainty and firm conviction cannot be contradicted by either conclusive or probabilistic evidence. Conclusive evidence cannot contradict it because the conclusions and implications of conclusive proofs cannot contradict one another. Nor can probabilistic evidence contradict it, because what is probable cannot counter what is certain.

In short, anything a critic puts forward necessarily falls into one of two categories: either it is a report whose authenticity we do not know, or we do not know that it demonstrates the invalidity of their imamate. If either of these two premises is not established, the argument cannot serve to contradict what is known with certainty.

Once conclusive evidence establishes their imamate, we are not obliged to answer the objections (1) asserting superiority, just as we are not obliged to answer sophistical objections raised against what we know with certainty.

Likewise, no one may reject what is known with certainty on the basis of conjecture, whether examining the matter independently or debating it with others. Rather, if he comes to understand why an objection is unsound and explains this to someone else, that would increase his knowledge and understanding