of ‘Antarah’s courage, Hātim’s generosity, ‘Alī’s loyalty and love for him, and similar instances of mass transmission in meaning, in which numerous reports converge on a single point.

Doubting Abū Bakr’s love is like doubting these other matters, and more serious still. Some Rāfidīs deny that Abū Bakr and ‘Umar are buried in the Prophet’s chamber, while some of their extremists deny that Abū Bakr was his companion who was with him in the cave. Such claims are hardly beyond their capacity for falsehood: these people are habitual liars who deny what is necessarily known to be established (1) and claim the existence of what is necessarily known not to exist, in matters established by reason and by transmitted evidence alike.

For this reason, it has been said: “If one were asked, ‘Who are the most ignorant people?’ the answer would be, ‘The Rāfidīs.’” Some jurists even formulated this as \ a legal question concerning someone who makes a bequest (2) to the most ignorant people. The jurist’s answer was: “They are the Rāfidīs.” Yet this bequest is invalid; indeed, the bequest is invalid, for neither a bequest nor an endowment may constitute (3) an act of disobedience. Rather, it must serve a purpose that is not blameworthy under Islamic law. An endowment or bequest to the most ignorant people entails making (4) extreme ignorance and adherence to religious innovation grounds for entitlement. It is therefore like making a bequest to the most unbelieving people, or to unbelievers rather than Muslims, in such a way that unbelief becomes a condition of entitlement. This is not valid.

That Abū Bakr was more loyal to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, than anyone else is something known to Muslims and unbelievers, the righteous and the wicked alike. Indeed, I know a group of heretics who used to say: “The religion of Islam was secretly agreed upon by the Prophet—may blessings