he fought—distress of a kind never displayed by Abū Bakr, ‘Umar or ‘Uthmān, even though their opponents were disbelievers, and the ratio of their own troops to their enemies was lower than that of ‘Alī’s troops to his opponents. The disbelievers whom Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān fought outnumbered the Muslims many times over, whereas Mu‘āwiya’s army was no larger than ‘Alī’s; indeed, it was smaller.

It is well known that a ruler’s fear of disbelievers overpowering the Muslims is greater than his fear of some Muslims overpowering others. Thus, what the three rulers feared was greater than what ‘Alī feared, and the grounds for fearing their enemies were greater. Nevertheless, they showed greater certainty and patience in facing their enemies and those who fought them than ‘Alī showed in facing his enemies and those who fought him (1). How, then, can it be said that ‘Alī’s certainty and patience (2) were greater than Abū Bakr’s certainty and patience? Is this anything but sophistry and obstinate denial of what is known through mass transmission to be otherwise?!

[Section: The Rāfidī’s statement that the verse indicates his weakness… and the response to him]

Section

The Rāfidī’s statement:

“The verse indicates his weakness, his lack of patience, his lack of certainty in Allah, and his lack of contentment with being on an equal footing with the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and with Allah’s decree and predestination.”