and who, despite all this, did not kill a Muslim for the sake of his rule, nor pit one Muslim against another in battle. Rather, he led them against the apostates [from their religion] (1) and the unbelievers, until he embarked with them upon the conquest of the provinces. He then appointed as his successor that strong, trustworthy, exceptional man, who conquered the provinces, instituted the register, and made them flourish(2) through justice and beneficence.

If the Rāfidī may say, “This man was seeking(3) wealth(4) and leadership,” then the Nāsibī may say, “Ali was an oppressor seeking wealth and leadership. He fought for rulership until Muslims killed one another, yet he fought no unbeliever; and throughout his rule, the Muslims gained nothing but evil and tribulation in their religion and worldly affairs.”

If it may be said, “Ali sought Allah’s pleasure, while the failing lay with other Companions,” or, “He exercised independent legal reasoning and was correct, while the others erred, despite these(5) circumstances,” then to say(6), “Abū Bakr and Umar sought Allah’s pleasure and were correct, while the Rāfidīs fail to recognize their due and err in condemning them,” is all the more fitting [and still more warranted](7). For Abū Bakr and Umar were much further removed from any suspicion of seeking leadership and wealth than Ali was, and the argument of the Kharijites who reviled Ali and Uthman and declared them unbelievers is more plausible than the argument of the Rāfidīs who reviled Abū Bakr and Umar—