on both sides, since each of the two positions has been held by groups from [Ahl] (1) al-Sunnah and the Shia alike. Among the Shia are groups that affirm divine decree and reject the doctrines concerning divine justice and injustice (2). Conversely, among those who acknowledge the caliphates of Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān are groups—such as the Mutazilah and others—that hold the position he mentioned concerning divine justice and injustice (3). It is well known that the Mutazilah originated this position, and that leading Rāfidah scholars—such as al-Mufīd, al-Mūsawī, al-Tūsī, al-Karājikī, and others—merely took it from the Mutazilah. Nothing of this sort is found in the teachings of the early Shia.

If what he mentioned in this regard is unrelated to the doctrine of the imamate—and someone may agree with them in their Imāmī doctrine while disagreeing with them about divine decree (4), whereas other groups may hold the position on divine decree that he mentioned while disagreeing with them about the imamate (5)—then mentioning this in a discussion of the imamate is no different from mentioning any other disputed questions on which they agree with some Muslims. These include the trial of the grave; Munkar (6) and Nakīr; the Pond; the Scale; intercession; the deliverance of those guilty of major sins from the Fire; and similar questions that have no connection to the imamate but are independent issues in their own right. It is likewise no different from mentioning practical questions, such as the disputed matters about which al-Mūsawī and other leading Imāmī scholars composed works. It thus becomes clear that introducing questions of divine decree into the issue (7) of Imāmī doctrine stems either from ignorance or from feigned ignorance.