Thus, the specious grounds for challenging the claim of ‘Alī’s loyalty to the Messenger are stronger than those for claiming Abū Bakr’s hostility to him. Both are false, and their falsity is self-evident. Yet the proofs refuting this allegation against Abū Bakr are stronger than those refuting it against ‘Alī. If the case for ‘Alī’s loyalty is sound and the case for his hostility is false, then the case for Abū Bakr’s loyalty is all the more sound, and the case for his hostility all the more false.
The third point:
His statement, “He took him along for fear that he would disclose his plans,” is the assertion of someone utterly ignorant of what happened. The Prophet’s departure from Mecca—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was publicly known: the people of Mecca learned of it and sent pursuers after him. By the morning following the night of his departure, they knew that he had left. The news spread, and they sent word to people along the routes, offering a bounty equal to the blood money for him. They also offered that amount to anyone who brought in Abū Bakr. What, then, was he afraid of? The fact that the polytheists offered this bounty to anyone who brought in Abū Bakr proves that they knew of his loyalty to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and that he was inwardly their enemy. Had he secretly been on their side, they would not have done so.
The fourth point:
If he left at night, when no one knew of his departure, what purpose would be served by taking Abū Bakr along (1) with him?
If it is said, “Perhaps he alone knew of his departure?” the reply is:
First, he could have left at a time when he would not be noticed, just as—n: “he would not be noticed in his departure, just as,” (2)—he left