and happiness—cannot be attained. Moreover, the violation of the Sacred Mosque involved in it was graver than the violation of the sacred month.

This type, however, (1) is one in which each of the two groups has (2) something deserving of censure. In the first type, by contrast, neither group deserves censure. Rather, there are grounds for doubt (3) in both cases and evidence in both cases (4). Yet the evidence for one of the two groups is stronger and clearer, while the grounds for doubt concerning it (5) are weaker and less apparent. It is therefore more deserving of having the truth established in its favor than the group whose evidence is weaker and against which the grounds for doubt are stronger.

This is the situation of the Christians and Jews in relation to the Muslims, and it is likewise the situation of the people of innovation in relation to Ahl al-Sunnah [especially the Rāfida] (6).

The same applies to [Ahl] (7) al-Sunnah and the Rāfida concerning Abu Bakr and Ali. A Rāfidī cannot establish Ali’s faith and uprightness, or that he is among the people of Paradise—let alone his imamate—if (8) he does not establish the same for Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Otherwise, whenever he seeks to establish these things for Ali alone, the evidence will not support him, just as the evidence will not support a Christian who seeks to establish the prophethood of the Messiah but not that of Muhammad. Accordingly, if—