Then the author of the book said: We returned to clarifying the Zaydī proof using the words of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted: "Then We gave the Book as inheritance to those We chose from among Our servants..." It is said to him: We concede to you that this verse refers to the ʿitrah, but what is your proof that those who excelled in good deeds (al-sābiqūn bil-khayrāt) are the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn to the exclusion of the rest of the ʿitrah? You appear only to wish to denounce your opponents while claiming the matter for yourself.

Then he said: Allah Almighty mentioned both the elite and the general masses of the Prophet’s nation: "Hold fast all of you to the rope of Allah…" Then, he claimed, the general address ended, and Allah resumed addressing the elite with: "Let there be among you a nation who call to goodness…" until the verse: "You are the best nation brought forth for mankind…" He said this refers to the descendants of Ibrāhīm to the exclusion of all others, and then to the Muslims among them, not those from his descendants who associated partners with God before accepting Islam. He claimed God made them witnesses over mankind, saying: "O you who believe, bow, prostrate and worship…" until the verse: "That you may be witnesses over mankind…" This, he said, is the path of the elite from among the descendants of Ibrāhīm . Then he relied on other verses similar in tone from the Qur'an.

It is said to him: O you who argue—don’t you know that the Muʿtazilah and the other sects of the ummah contest your interpretation of these verses with the strongest resistance? And yet you offer nothing beyond mere assertion. We grant you what you have claimed, but we ask you for the evidence for your unique claim that those intended are the descendants of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn and no one else. How long will you rely on claims while avoiding proof? How long will you impress us with reciting verses from the Qur'an, thinking that you hold a proof in its recitation that your opponents do not? Allah is our helper.

Then the author said: Not all those from the ʿitrah who call to goodness are the same as those who enjoin good, forbid evil, and strive in Allah’s path with full striving—nor are the rest of the ʿitrah equal to them if they do not call to good and do not strive in Allah’s cause. Just as Allah did not equate those among the People of the Book who followed this path with the rest of them. Even if someone abstaining from such striving is virtuous and devout, devotion is supererogatory while jihad is an obligatory duty like other obligations—its practitioner carries the sword to the sword, choosing fear over comfort. Then he recited Sūrat al-Wāqiʿah and mentioned the verses where Allah commands jihad, accompanying them with claims without providing any evidence. So we ask him for proof of those claims and challenge him with what requires clarification and adjudication.

I say—by Allah’s help I seek refuge—if frequent jihad is the proof of merit, knowledge, and Imamate, then al-Ḥusayn is more entitled to the Imamate than al-Ḥasan , since al-Ḥasan made peace with Muʿāwiyah and al-Ḥusayn fought until he was killed. How will the author answer this? And with what can he refute it? We do not deny the obligation or merit of jihad. But we saw that the Prophet ﷺ did not fight anyone until he had supporters and helpers—then he fought. We saw that the Commander of the Faithful did exactly the same. We saw that al-Ḥasan intended to fight but, when abandoned by his companions, he made peace and remained at home. So we understood that jihad is obligatory when supporters exist. The knowledgeable person—by consensus of reason—is superior to a fighter who is not learned. Not everyone who calls to jihad knows its legal rulings, when to fight, when peace is preferable, how to manage the community’s affairs, and how to handle blood, wealth, and private matters. Ultimately, we are satisfied if our brothers can point us to one man from the ʿitrah who negates anthropomorphism and determinism from God, does not use ijtihād or qiyās in revealed rulings, and is independent and sufficient—then we will join him. For enjoining good and forbidding evil is an obligation based on capacity and possibility, and reason affirms that imposing what is impossible is invalid, and risking life needlessly is reprehensible. Among such recklessness is sending a small inexperienced group, untrained in battle, against seasoned warriors who have conquered lands, slain people, trained in warfare, possess equipment, weapons, horses, and support from the public—who believe their enemies’ blood is lawful to spill. Their army is many times greater. So how can the author expect us to send untrained youths against professional soldiers? What numbers could a mere caller to arms even gather? Far, far from possible—this is a matter that none can change except by the victory of Allah, the Almighty, the All-Wise.