and fought the disbelievers, and on whom there was unanimous agreement (1)—the agreement of the believers? Would anyone equate the two except someone utterly deficient in reason and religion?

[Section: The Rāfidī’s second argument—‘Umar’s statement that the pledge of allegiance to Abū Bakr was a sudden affair whose evil Allah protected the Muslims from—and the response to it]

Section

The Rāfidī said (2):

“Second: ‘Umar’s statement: ‘The pledge of allegiance to Abū Bakr was a sudden affair whose evil Allah protected the Muslims from. Whoever repeats anything like it, kill him.’ Its being a sudden affair indicates that it did not proceed from sound judgment. He then asked for protection from its evil, and then ordered the killing of anyone who repeated anything like it. This (3) warranted criticism of him.”

The response is that ‘Umar’s actual wording is what is authentically reported in the two Sahīh collections from Ibn ‘Abbās, in ‘Umar’s sermon, in which he said:

“Furthermore, I have learned that someone among you is saying, ‘By Allah, if ‘Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so.’ Let no one be misled into saying, ‘The pledge of allegiance to Abū Bakr was merely a sudden affair.’ Indeed, it was so, but Allah protected us from its evil. There is no one among you whose excellence is beyond anyone else’s reach as Abū Bakr’s was. Whoever pledges allegiance to a man without consulting the Muslims, neither he nor the man to whom he pledged allegiance should receive a pledge of allegiance, lest both be killed. He was indeed among the best of us when Allah took His Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”

He then related the hadith, which includes al-Siddīq’s statement:

“I am content for you to choose either of these two men, so pledge allegiance to whichever of them