and they did not part company until they had reached agreement. Such a thing is not considered a dispute. Even if it were assumed that the dispute over it arose immediately after the Prophet’s death—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—not everything (1) disputed immediately after his death [—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—] (2) is nobler than matters disputed long after his death.

Given this, it is well known that questions of (3 divine decree, affirming divine justice, imputing injustice to God, and determining good and evil 3) (3), divine oneness, the attributes, affirmation, and transcendence are more important and nobler than questions of the Imamate. Questions concerning religious designations and rulings, the divine promise and threat, pardon, intercession, and eternal punishment are likewise more important than questions of the Imamate.

For this reason, everyone who writes on the fundamentals of religion places questions of the Imamate at the end. Even the Imāmiyyah discuss divine oneness, justice, and prophethood before questions of the Imamate. The Mu'tazilah likewise enumerate (4) their five principles: divine oneness, justice, the intermediate position between the two positions, and the enforcement of the threat; the fifth is enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, under which questions of the Imamate fall.

For this reason, the great majority of the Ummah attained good without the objective of the Imamate posited by the Rāfidah. They acknowledge that the Imam who is the Master of the Age is missing and that no one derives any benefit from him; that he entered the cellar in 260 AH, or around that time; and that he has now been absent for more than 450 years. Thus, throughout this period, they have derived no benefit