قلنا: أما من قال: نصب الإمام لمصالح دنياوية قوله يفسد:لأنه لو كان كذلك لما وجب إمامته، ولا خلاف بينهم في أنه يجب إقامة الإمام مع الاختيار. على أن ما يقوم به الإمام من الجهاد وتولية الأمراء والقضاة وقسمة الفئ واستيفاء الحدود والقصاصات أمور دينية لا يجوز تركها، ولو كان لمصلحة دنياوية لما وجب ذلك، فقوله ساقط بذلك.
We would reply: The idea that the appointment of the Imam is for worldly expediencies is false, for if it were as such, his appointment would not have been obligatory, whereas they have no disagreement that establishing Imamate is obligatory when possible. Additionally, the many affairs, which the Imam leads – such as Jihad, overseeing the governors and judges, distributing spoils, executing penalties and punishments – they are religious matters that cannot be abandoned. If they were for worldly expediencies, they would not be obligatory. Therefore, his argument is not binding.
