The author of the book said: Their disagreement must have originated either from themselves, or from those who transmitted religion to them, or from their Imams. If it is from their Imams, then the Imam is supposed to unify the community, not be the cause of division—especially when the followers are his allies, not his enemies, and there is no taqiyya between them and him. So what is the difference between the Imamiyyah and the rest of the ummah, if they differ with their Imams and the proofs of God upon them in much of what they criticize the leaderless ummah for—disagreements in religion and mutual takfīr? And if their disagreement stems from the transmitters of their religion, what guarantees them that these transmitters have not also corrupted what was conveyed regarding Imamate—especially when the one to whom the Imamate is attributed is hidden, unseen, and yet is considered a proof over them in their claim that he possesses knowledge of the unseen? If his chosen intermediaries and translators between him and his followers lie about him, and he has no knowledge of them, then what credibility remains? And if the disagreement of the Imamiyyah in their religion is from themselves and not from their Imams, then what need do they have of Imams if they are independently sufficient, while the Imam is present among them and does not correct them—though he is supposed to be their link to God and His proof over them? This too is clear evidence of his nonexistence and falsifies the claim that he has knowledge of the unseen, for if he were truly present, it would not be permissible for him to neglect clarifying matters to his Shīʿa—just as Allah said: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about.” Just as the Messenger ﷺ clarified to his nation, the Imam is obligated to do the same for his Shīʿa.
I say—by Allah is my trust—that the differences among the Imamiyyah came only through impostors who falsely inserted themselves among them from time to time and age to age until the corruption became severe. Their predecessors were people of piety, diligence, and moral restraint, but they were not analytical or discerning. So whenever they saw a person who appeared upright narrating a report, they assumed the best of him and accepted it. When these forgeries increased, they complained to their Imams, who commanded them to rely only on what was unanimously agreed upon—but they did not comply and continued their old ways. So the betrayal came from them, not from their Imams. And the Imam did not have knowledge of all the distortions that were transmitted, because he does not know the unseen. He is merely a righteous servant who knows the Book and the Sunnah, and he knows from the news of his followers only what reaches him.
As for the claim, “What guarantees them that this did not occur in matters transmitted to them regarding Imamate?” the distinction is that Imamate is transmitted through tawātur (mass transmission), and tawātur cannot be based on falsehood. These controversial reports are merely solitary (khabar wāḥid), and such reports do not produce certainty. A solitary report may be true or false—but this is not the method of tawātur. That is our answer, and anything else presented beyond this is invalid.
Then it should be said to him: Tell us—does the broader Muslim ummah also fall into the same categories of disagreement you mentioned? If he says yes, then it is said: Was the Prophet ﷺ not sent to unify the ummah? He must say yes. Then it is said: Did not Allah say: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about”? He must say yes. Then it is said: Did the Prophet clarify? Again, he must say yes. Then it is said: So the reason for disagreement has been identified—and we are satisfied with a similar explanation in our case.
As for his statement: “What need does the Imamiyyah have for Imams if they are independently sufficient while he is among them and does not restrain them…” and so on—he should be asked: What is more befitting for people of religion than fairness? Which of our statements implied that we claimed to be independently sufficient without Imams? On what grounds does the author rebuke us or construct arguments against us? Whoever does not care what he says in debate ends up with an excess of claims and answers. As for his statement: “This is clear proof of the Imam’s nonexistence, for if he existed, he would not refrain from clarifying to his followers, as Allah said: ‘We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about,’” we ask the author: Do you believe the rightly guided family (ʿitrah) are permitted to withhold the whole truth from the ummah? If he says yes, then he has condemned himself, because the ummah has clearly diverged and engaged in mutual takfīr. If he says no, then this is itself a clear argument against the existence of the ʿitrah and refutes what the Zaydiyyah claim. For if the ʿitrah were as the Zaydiyyah describe, they would have clarified the truth to the ummah, and it would not have been permissible for them to remain silent—just as Allah said: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about.” If he claims that the ʿitrah did clarify the truth, but the ummah rejected it and followed its desires, we respond: This is exactly what the Imamiyyah say about the Imam and his Shīʿa. And we ask Allah for success.
Commentary #15
قال صاحب الكتاب: ثم لم يخل اختلافهم من أن يكون مولدًا من أنفسهم أو من عند الناقلين إليهم أو من عند أئمتهم، فإن كان اختلافهم من قبل أئمتهم، فالإمام من يجمع الكلمة، لا من يكون سببًا للاختلاف بين الأمة، لا سيما وهم أولياؤه دون أعدائه، ومن لا تقية بينهم وبينه. وما الفرق بين المؤتمة والأمة، إذ كانوا مع أئمتهم وحجج الله عليهم في أكثر ما عابوا على الأمة التي لا إمام لها من المخالفة في الدين وتكفير بعضهم بعضًا؟ وإن يكن اختلافهم من قبل الناقلين إليهم دينهم، فما يؤمنهم من أن يكون هذا سبيلهم معهم فيما ألقوا إليهم من الإمامة، لا سيما إذا كان المدعى له الإمامة معدوم العين، غير مرئي الشخص، وهو حجة عليهم فيما يدّعون لإمامهم من علم الغيب إذا كان خِيَرَته والتراجمة بينه وبين شيعته هكذا، فيكذبون عليه، ولا علم له بهم. وإن يكن اختلاف المؤتمة في دينها من قبل أنفسها دون أئمتها، فما حاجة المؤتمة إلى الأئمة إذ كانوا بأنفسهم مستغنين، وهو بين أظهرهم ولا ينهاهم، وهو الترجمان لهم من الله والحجة عليهم؟ فهذا أيضًا من أدل الدليل على عدمه وما يُدعى من علم الغيب له، لأنه لو كان موجودًا لم يسعه ترك البيان لشيعته، كما قال الله عز وجل: "وما أنزلنا عليك الكتاب إلا لتبين لهم الذي اختلفوا فيه". فكما بيّن الرسول صلى الله عليه وآله لأمته، وجب على الإمام مثله لشيعته.
فأقول - وبالله الثقة -: إن اختلاف الإمامية إنما هو من قبل كذابين دلّسوا أنفسهم فيهم من وقت لوقت، ومن زمن لزمن، حتى عظم البلاء. وكان أسلافهم قومًا يرجعون إلى ورع واجتهاد وسلامة ناحية، ولم يكونوا أصحاب نظر وتمييز، فكانوا إذا رأوا رجلًا مستورًا يروي خبرًا أحسنوا به الظن وقبلوه. فلما كثر هذا وظهر، شكوا إلى أئمتهم، فأمرهم الأئمة عليهم السلام بأن يأخذوا بما يُجمع عليه، فلم يفعلوا، واستمروا على عادتهم. فكانت الخيانة من قبلهم، لا من قبل أئمتهم. والإمام أيضًا لم يقف على كل هذه التخاليط التي رُويت، لأنه لا يعلم الغيب، وإنما هو عبد صالح يعلم الكتاب والسنة، ويعلم من أخبار شيعته ما يُنهى إليه.
وأما قوله: "فما يؤمنهم أن يكون هذا سبيلهم فيما ألقوا إليهم من أمر الإمامة"، فإن الفصل بين ذلك أن الإمامة تُنقل إليهم بالتواتر، والتواتر لا يُنكشف عن كذب. وهذه الأخبار، فكل واحد منها خبر واحد، لا يوجب خبره العلم، وخبر الواحد قد يصدق وقد يكذب، وليس هذا سبيل التواتر. هذا جوابنا، وكل ما أتى به سوى هذا، فهو ساقط.
ثم يُقال له: أخبرنا عن اختلاف الأمة، هل تخلوا من الأقسام التي قسمتها؟ فإذا قال: لا، قيل له: أليس الرسول إنما بُعث لجمع الكلمة؟ فلا بد من نعم. فيُقال له: أوليس قد قال الله عز وجل: "وما أنزلنا عليك الكتاب إلا لتبين لهم الذي اختلفوا فيه"؟ فلا بد من نعم. فيُقال له: فهل بيّن؟ فلا بد من نعم. فيُقال له: فما سبب الاختلاف؟ عرفناه، وأقنع منا بمثله.
وأما قوله: "فما حاجة المؤتمة إلى الأئمة إذ كانوا بأنفسهم مستغنين، وهو بين أظهرهم لا ينهاهم - إلى آخر الفصل"، فيُقال له: أولى الأشياء بأهل الدين الإنصاف، فأي قول قلناه؟ وأي إشارة أومأنا بها تدل على أننا مستغنون عن الأئمة، حتى يقرعنا بها صاحب الكتاب ويحتج علينا؟ وأي حجة وُجهت إلينا توجب ما أوجبه؟ ومن لا يُبالي بما يُقابل خصومه كثرت مسائله وجواباته. وأما قوله: "وهذا من أدل دليل على عدمه، لأنه لو كان موجودًا لم يسعه ترك البيان لشيعته، كما قال الله عز وجل: وما أنزلنا عليك الكتاب إلا لتبين لهم الذي اختلفوا فيه"، فيُقال له: أخبرنا عن العترة الهادية، هل يسعهم أن لا يُبينوا للأمة الحق كله؟ فإن قال: نعم، حجّ نفسه، وعاد كلامه وبالًا عليه، لأن الأمة قد اختلفت وتباينت، وكفر بعضها بعضًا. وإن قال: لا، قيل: هذا من أدل الدليل على عدم العترة، وفساد ما تدّعيه الزيدية، لأن العترة لو كانوا كما تصف الزيدية، لبيّنوا للأمة، ولم يسعهم السكوت والإمساك، كما قال الله عز وجل: "وما أنزلنا عليك الكتاب إلا لتبين لهم الذي اختلفوا فيه". فإن ادعى أن العترة قد بيّنوا الحق للأمة، غير أن الأمة لم تقبل ومالت إلى الهوى، قيل له: هذا بعينه قول الإمامية في الإمام وشيعته. ونسأل الله التوفيق.
The author of the book said: Their disagreement must have originated either from themselves, or from those who transmitted religion to them, or from their Imams. If it is from their Imams, then the Imam is supposed to unify the community, not be the cause of division—especially when the followers are his allies, not his enemies, and there is no taqiyya between them and him. So what is the difference between the Imamiyyah and the rest of the ummah, if they differ with their Imams and the proofs of God upon them in much of what they criticize the leaderless ummah for—disagreements in religion and mutual takfīr? And if their disagreement stems from the transmitters of their religion, what guarantees them that these transmitters have not also corrupted what was conveyed regarding Imamate—especially when the one to whom the Imamate is attributed is hidden, unseen, and yet is considered a proof over them in their claim that he possesses knowledge of the unseen? If his chosen intermediaries and translators between him and his followers lie about him, and he has no knowledge of them, then what credibility remains? And if the disagreement of the Imamiyyah in their religion is from themselves and not from their Imams, then what need do they have of Imams if they are independently sufficient, while the Imam is present among them and does not correct them—though he is supposed to be their link to God and His proof over them? This too is clear evidence of his nonexistence and falsifies the claim that he has knowledge of the unseen, for if he were truly present, it would not be permissible for him to neglect clarifying matters to his Shīʿa—just as Allah said: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about.” Just as the Messenger ﷺ clarified to his nation, the Imam is obligated to do the same for his Shīʿa.
I say—by Allah is my trust—that the differences among the Imamiyyah came only through impostors who falsely inserted themselves among them from time to time and age to age until the corruption became severe. Their predecessors were people of piety, diligence, and moral restraint, but they were not analytical or discerning. So whenever they saw a person who appeared upright narrating a report, they assumed the best of him and accepted it. When these forgeries increased, they complained to their Imams, who commanded them to rely only on what was unanimously agreed upon—but they did not comply and continued their old ways. So the betrayal came from them, not from their Imams. And the Imam did not have knowledge of all the distortions that were transmitted, because he does not know the unseen. He is merely a righteous servant who knows the Book and the Sunnah, and he knows from the news of his followers only what reaches him.
As for the claim, “What guarantees them that this did not occur in matters transmitted to them regarding Imamate?” the distinction is that Imamate is transmitted through tawātur (mass transmission), and tawātur cannot be based on falsehood. These controversial reports are merely solitary (khabar wāḥid), and such reports do not produce certainty. A solitary report may be true or false—but this is not the method of tawātur. That is our answer, and anything else presented beyond this is invalid.
Then it should be said to him: Tell us—does the broader Muslim ummah also fall into the same categories of disagreement you mentioned? If he says yes, then it is said: Was the Prophet ﷺ not sent to unify the ummah? He must say yes. Then it is said: Did not Allah say: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about”? He must say yes. Then it is said: Did the Prophet clarify? Again, he must say yes. Then it is said: So the reason for disagreement has been identified—and we are satisfied with a similar explanation in our case.
As for his statement: “What need does the Imamiyyah have for Imams if they are independently sufficient while he is among them and does not restrain them…” and so on—he should be asked: What is more befitting for people of religion than fairness? Which of our statements implied that we claimed to be independently sufficient without Imams? On what grounds does the author rebuke us or construct arguments against us? Whoever does not care what he says in debate ends up with an excess of claims and answers. As for his statement: “This is clear proof of the Imam’s nonexistence, for if he existed, he would not refrain from clarifying to his followers, as Allah said: ‘We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about,’” we ask the author: Do you believe the rightly guided family (ʿitrah) are permitted to withhold the whole truth from the ummah? If he says yes, then he has condemned himself, because the ummah has clearly diverged and engaged in mutual takfīr. If he says no, then this is itself a clear argument against the existence of the ʿitrah and refutes what the Zaydiyyah claim. For if the ʿitrah were as the Zaydiyyah describe, they would have clarified the truth to the ummah, and it would not have been permissible for them to remain silent—just as Allah said: “We revealed the Book to you only so that you may clarify to them what they differed about.” If he claims that the ʿitrah did clarify the truth, but the ummah rejected it and followed its desires, we respond: This is exactly what the Imamiyyah say about the Imam and his Shīʿa. And we ask Allah for success.