the Kharijites who declare Ali an unbeliever, or the Nasibis who deem him a sinner, were to say(1) to him: “He was an oppressor seeking worldly gain. He sought the caliphate for himself, fought for it with the sword, and killed thousands of Muslims for that cause, until he proved unable to retain sole control of power. His own followers then turned against him, gained the upper hand over him, and fought him.” If this(2) argument is unsound, then the Rāfidī’s argument concerning Abū Bakr and Umar is far more unsound(3). But if what he says concerning Abū Bakr and Umar is tenable and acceptable, then this argument has an even stronger claim to be regarded as tenable and acceptable.

For it is known to the elite and common people alike that a man whom the people invested with authority by their own choice and consent—without his striking a single person with either sword or staff, or giving any money(4) to any of those who appointed him—and behind whom they united; who then appointed none of his relatives or members of his household to office; who left his heirs none of the Muslims’ wealth; who had possessed wealth of his own, which he had [already] spent(5) in the cause of Allah without taking any compensation for it; and who instructed that whatever property of theirs remained in his possession be returned to their public treasury—namely, a threadbare plush blanket, a young camel, a black bondwoman(6), and the like—to the point that Abd al-Rahmān ibn Awf said to Umar:

“Would you take this away from Abū Bakr’s family?”

He replied:

“No, by Allah! Abū Bakr shall not absolve himself of liability in this matter(7) while I bear it myself.”

He also said:

“May Allah have mercy upon you, Abū Bakr! You have indeed made matters difficult for the rulers who come after you.”(8)—