Then the author of the book said: The Khaṭābiyya claim Imamate for Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, from his father by inheritance and designation, and they await his return. They oppose everyone who affirms Imamate and claim that you (the Imamiyyah) agree with them about the Imamate of Jaʿfar but disagree regarding everyone after him. I say by Allah is my reliance Imamate is not established by who agrees or disagrees, but by the proofs and evidences of truth. I suspect the author has erred: the Khaṭābiyya are a group of extremists, and there is no relationship between extremism and Imamate. If he says: I meant the group who stopped at him, it is said to him: To that group we say: just as you knew that the Imam after Muḥammad b. ʿAlī was Jaʿfar, we know that the Imam after Jaʿfar was Mūsā. And we know that Jaʿfar died, just as we know his father died. The distinction between us and you is like that between you and the Sabaʾiyyah or those who stopped at ʿAlī . So say what you wish.

It is also said to the author: What is the distinction between you and those who chose Imamate for the sons of ʿAbbās, Jaʿfar, and ʿAqīl—meaning from among the learned and virtuous among them—and who argued based on the Arabic language that they are from the ʿitrah, claiming that the Messenger ﷺ included all of the ʿitrah and only singled out three: ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn ? We have recognized and understood that. Then the author said: The Shimāṭiyyah claim Imamate for ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad from his father by inheritance and designation. The Faṭḥiyyah claim Imamate for Ismāʿīl b. Jaʿfar from his father by inheritance and designation. Although originally, they held the Imamate of ʿAbd Allāh, today they are called Ismāʿīliyyah because there is no surviving faction who still holds the Imamate of ʿAbd Allāh. A group among the Faṭḥiyyah known as the Qarāmiṭah claim Imamate for Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl b. Jaʿfar by inheritance and designation. As for those who stop at Mūsā b. Jaʿfar, they claim he is the Imam and await his return.

I say: The difference between us and these groups is clear and straightforward. As for the Faṭḥiyyah, the proof against them is too obvious to be hidden—Ismāʿīl died before Abū ʿAbd Allāh , and the dead cannot be the successor of the living; rather, the living is the successor of the dead. But these people relied on imitating leaders and turned away from reasoned proof. This matter is evidently corrupt and needs no elaboration. As for the Qarāmiṭah, they have dismantled Islam letter by letter. They abolished the obligations of the Sharīʿah and introduced nothing but absurdities. The Imam is needed to uphold religion and implement divine law, but when someone claims to be the Imam’s appointee while calling for the dismantling of Islam and Sharīʿah, we do not need more than their own claim to prove their falsehood. The distinction between us and the other groups is that we have transmitters of traditions and bearers of reports who have spread across the lands. They narrated from Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad knowledge of what is ḥalāl and ḥarām—so much that by normal experience and custom, it could not have been fabricated. They also reported from their predecessors that Abū ʿAbd Allāh designated Mūsā as Imam. His virtue and knowledge were widely transmitted and well known among those who transmitted reports. As for the others, all we have are unsubstantiated claims. The path of widely transmitted knowledge is not the same as the path of isolated, unverified reports. Examine the true reports and you will know the difference between Mūsā and Muḥammad and ʿAbd Allāh, the sons of Jaʿfar.

Now let us test the matter with five rulings in ḥalāl and ḥarām from those which Mūsā answered. If we find that either of the two (Muḥammad or ʿAbd Allāh) gave a ruling in any of them from someone who affirms their Imamate, then their claim is valid. It has been reported that ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar was asked: “What is the zakāt of 200 dirhams?” He said: “Five dirhams.” He was then asked: “And what about 100 dirhams?” He said: “Two and a half.” If someone were to challenge Islam and claim there exists something that contradicts the Qur'an, and asked us to distinguish between the two, we would say: The Qur'an is clear—show us the contradiction so we may distinguish it. The same applies to these groups: our reports are preserved and known by scholars of the cities among the Imamiyyah. Let them produce the reports they claim, so we can distinguish them from ours. But to claim a report that no one has ever heard of, and then demand we distinguish it from our reports—this is something anyone can falsely claim. If we were to invalidate our reports on this basis, we would also invalidate the reports of the Muslims just as the Brahmins do. The Dualists once claimed that Mani performed miracles and that they had a report proving it. The monotheists said to them: Such a claim is easy to make—show us the report and we will demonstrate that it does not establish any proof. That is essentially our response to the author of the book.