As for the text explicitly designating ʿAlī, it is not found in any of the authoritative books of hadith scholars, and the hadith scholars unanimously agree that it is false. Indeed, Abū Muhammad ibn Hazm (1) said: “We have never found any report from anyone concerning this alleged explicit designation except a weak report from an unknown narrator to another unknown narrator (2), known as Abū al-Hamrā’, whom we do not know (3) to be anyone identifiable.”

It is therefore untenable to impugn this hadith while accepting as authentic the text explicitly designating ʿAlī.

As for its indication, the proof (4) lies in his words: “the two who come after me.” He stated that they would come after him and commanded that their example be followed. Had they been wrongdoers or disbelievers (5) in succeeding him, he would not have commanded that their example be followed, for he does not command anyone to follow the example of a wrongdoer. A wrongdoer cannot serve as an example to be followed as an imam, as evidenced by Allah’s words:

“My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.” [Surah al-Baqarah: 124]

This indicates that a wrongdoer is not to be followed as an imam. Following someone as an imam means following his example. Thus, his command to follow the example of those who would come after him—following their example being the same as following them as imams—together with his statement that they would come after him, indicates that they are imams [whom people have been commanded to follow] (6) after him. This is precisely what was to be established.

As for his statement, “They disagreed on many rulings,” this is not the case; rather,