The response has several aspects:

First: The invalidity of every argument purporting to establish that he was the imam before the three has already been explained.

Second: The texts establish only that the three held the caliphate before him.

Third: An established consensus constitutes conclusive proof, not proof based on transmitted revelation, especially when supported by numerous texts agreeing with it. Thus, if a report contrary to consensus were hypothetically transmitted, it would be invalid: either the Messenger did not say it, or it does not support the claim in question.

Fourth: An established text and an established consensus (1) cannot contradict one another, for both constitute conclusive proof. Conclusive proofs cannot conflict, because the propositions they establish must be true; a conflict between them would therefore entail affirming two mutually contradictory propositions. Whenever someone claims a consensus contrary to a text, one of two things necessarily follows: either the claimed consensus is invalid, or the text is invalid. For every text against which the Muslim community has agreed (2), the text abrogating it is known.

As for an established text remaining (3) within the Muslim community while consensus contradicts it, this does not occur. Established consensus and established textual evidence demonstrate the caliphate of al-Siddīq—may Allah be pleased with him—and the invalidity of any alternative to it. The text claimed by the Rāfidah is something we know with unavoidable certainty to be false, and there is abundant evidence of its falsehood.