Then the author of the book said: “If such-and-such is permissible, then so is such-and-such”—a type of argument we do not accept. We have merely conveyed what was said, so there is no point in lengthening the book with statements that offer neither proof nor benefit. I say—by Allah is my trust—if truth could only be established by universally agreed-upon evidence, then no truth would ever stand, and the first doctrine to collapse would be that of the Zaydiyyah, because its proof is not universally agreed upon. As for what he reported from the Mughīriyya, it is something they borrowed from the Jews, for the Jews always argue based on our agreement with them about the Prophethood of Mūsā , while differing with us regarding the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ. As for his criticism of us for differing sects and that each group transmits what it follows from its Imam—this is borrowed from the Brahmins, who use that exact argument against Islam. Were it not for concern that some foolish people might latch onto what I quote from them, I would say exactly what they say.

Imamate—may Allah grant you success—is, in our view, valid only through explicit designation, visible virtue, and knowledge of religion, along with refraining from analogy and ijtihād in matters of divine law and its derivatives. It is through this standard that we have recognized the Imamate of the Imam, and we will soon present a convincing explanation regarding the differences among the Shīʿa.