And if it is said, “The majority of the community did not fight him,” or, “Those possessing power and the majority pledged allegiance to him,” or something similar, this applies with still greater force to Abū Bakr.

If the Rāfidah say, “An imamate established by an explicit text requires neither consensus nor a pledge of allegiance,” the reply is:

The texts indicate the caliphate of Abū Bakr, not that of Alī, as already noted and as we shall discuss, Allah Most High willing. We shall demonstrate that the texts indicate the caliphate of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq and that Alī was not the caliph during the time of the three caliphs. Thus, Abū Bakr’s caliphate does not require consensus; rather, the texts establish its validity and rule out anything incompatible with it.

Fourth: It may be said that the discussion of al-Siddīq’s imamate concerns either the fact that he held it or his entitlement to it. As for the former, it is known through mass-transmitted reports and universal agreement that he assumed authority, took the place of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and succeeded him in leading his community. He enforced the prescribed legal punishments, ensured that rights were fulfilled, fought the unbelievers and apostates, appointed officials, distributed funds, and did everything an imam does (1). Indeed, he was the first (2) to exercise the imamate in the community.

If, however, his imamate means his entitlement to that office, there is abundant evidence for this besides consensus. There is no means of establishing Alī’s entitlement to the imamate that does not also establish Abū Bakr’s entitlement to it, and that he had a greater right to the imamate (3) than Alī