authoritative on account of ‘Alī. It follows that consensus must be authoritative, (1) otherwise the position of both Sunnis and Shī‘a would necessarily be invalid.

[Section: The Rāfidī’s statement, “Consensus must either take account of the judgment of the entire community, and it is known that this did not occur,” and the response to it]

Section

The Rāfidī said (2):

“Furthermore, consensus must either take account of the judgment of the entire community—and it is known that this did not occur. Indeed, there was not even consensus among the people of Medina, or some of them. Moreover, most people agreed upon killing ‘Uthmān.”

The response is as follows:

As for consensus concerning the imamate, if what is meant is the consensus by which the imamate is established, then this requires the agreement of those who wield power, such that their support enables the ruler to fulfil the purposes of the imamate. Thus, even if the leaders who wield power are few in number, provided that the others agree with them, the imamate is established through their pledge of allegiance to him. This is the correct position held by Ahl al-Sunnah, and it is the view of the imams, such as Ahmad and others.

As for the speculative theologians, each has stipulated a particular number for establishing the imamate, but these stipulations are invalid.

If, however, what is meant is consensus that someone deserves the office and has the strongest claim to it, then this requires the agreement of either everyone or the majority. All three were present in the caliphate of Abū Bakr.

As for ‘Uthmān, only a small group agreed upon killing him: they did not amount to even one two-thousandth of the community. How could it be otherwise, when most of ‘Alī’s army, those who fought against him, and those who refrained from fighting were not among ‘Uthmān’s killers? ‘Uthmān’s killers were merely a small faction within ‘Alī’s army.