Then the author of the book said: If Imamate were permissible for all of Banū Hāshim alongside al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn , then it would also be permissible for Banū ʿAbd Manāf alongside Banū Hāshim. And if it were permissible for Banū ʿAbd Manāf alongside Banū Hāshim, it would then be permissible for all the descendants of Quṣayy. He continued in this line of argument. It is said to him: O you who argue on behalf of the Zaydīs, this is something that is not deserved merely by kinship—it is deserved through merit and knowledge, and established by designation and textual proof. If Imamate were due to mere closeness in lineage among the ʿitrah, then it would also be valid for those further in lineage. So now distinguish yourself from those who make such claims and produce your proof. Distinguish also between yourself and those who say: if it was permissible for the descendants of al-Ḥasan, then it is also permissible for the descendants of Jaʿfar, and if for them, then for the descendants of al-ʿAbbās. This is a line of reasoning the Zaydīs will never resolve—unless they resort to our reasoning and our proof, which is: explicit designation (naṣṣ) from one Imam to the next and the manifest appearance of knowledge in ḥalāl and ḥarām.

Then the author said: And if they rely on ʿAlī and say, “What do you say about him—was he from the ʿitrah or not?” it is said to them: He was not from the ʿitrah, but he became distinct from the ʿitrah and all other relatives through the clear designations made about him on the Day of Ghadīr, by consensus.

I say—by Allah’s help I seek refuge—it is said to the author: As for the designations on the Day of Ghadīr, they are sound. But your denial that the Commander of the Faithful was from the ʿitrah is serious. So tell us: on what are you relying in this claim? The scholars of language testify that the paternal uncle and cousin are part of one’s ʿitrah. Moreover, I say: the author of the book has undermined his own position with this statement. He believes that the Commander of the Faithful was among those whom the Prophet ﷺ left behind for the ummah, and says that the Prophet ﷺ left behind the Book and his ʿitrah. Yet he claims that the Commander of the Faithful is not from the ʿitrah. If he is not from the ʿitrah, then he was not among those whom the Prophet ﷺ left behind—and this is a contradiction, as you can see. Unless he means that the Prophet ﷺ left the ʿitrah among us only after the Commander of the Faithful was killed—then let him clarify how that can be, for the Book and the ʿitrah were both left together, as clearly stated in the report. And to Allah belongs all praise.

Then the author brought up an argument that is against himself. He said: Let us ask the one who claims Imamate for some but not for others to provide proof. Yet he forgot himself and his own exclusivity in claiming it only for the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn , to the exclusion of others. Then he said: If they defer to falsehoods such as claims to knowledge of the unseen or similar superstitions with no proof to support them, then they should be answered with similar claims from others—since if mere claims are sufficient proof, then any group from the ʿitrah, even those unjust to themselves, could claim it. It is said to the author: You have exaggerated in bringing up knowledge of the unseen. The unseen is known only to Allah, and anyone who claims it for a human being is a polytheist and a disbeliever. We have already said to you and your companions: our proof for what we claim is understanding and knowledge. If you have something similar, then present it. But if all you have is vilification, fabrication, and blaming the whole group for what extremists have said, then the matter is easy—and Allah is sufficient for us and the best disposer of affairs.