and other matters; or that he (1) meant appointing a successor by a written covenant. We acknowledge that Abū Bakr’s appointment as successor (2) was not made through a written covenant (3).

As for the report from Aisha (4) concerning this matter, it may likewise be understood in the same way (5). Both reports (6) may have been given in response to a questioner. The authoritative proof lies in what the two of them narrated, not in their own views (7).”

I say:

The discussion establishing the caliphate of Abū Bakr and others is set out at length elsewhere. The purpose here is merely to explain the positions people have taken regarding his caliphate: Was there an explicit or implicit designation for it? (8) And was it established by such a designation, or through selection by those vested with authority to appoint the caliph?

It has thus become clear that many among the early and later generations held that his caliphate rested upon an explicit or implicit designation. The Rāfidi’s attack upon Ahl al-Sunnah on the basis of his claim has therefore been shown to be invalid. His claim is that they maintain that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—did not designate anyone for the imamate and that he died without leaving any testamentary instruction. That is (9) because not all of them held this position. If it is