For this reason, their leaders were philosophers at heart, such as this al-Nasīr al-Tūsī and Sinān al-Basrī, who was based in their fortresses in Syria. He used to say:
“I have relieved them of fasting, prayer, Hajj, and zakat.”(1)
Thus, if the Ismailis(2) merely outwardly profess Shiism within Islam—having gained entry through it and come to prominence by it(3)—and its adherents are those who migrate to them, not to Allah and His Messenger, and are their supporters, not the supporters of Allah and His Messenger(4), then it is evident that the Ismailis’ testimony in favor of the Shia—that they are upon the truth—is rejected by the consensus of all rational people.
For if this witness knows that what he follows is inwardly contrary to the religion of Islam, and that he has merely professed Shiism to gain acceptance through it among the Muslims(5), then he needs to exalt Shiism. His testimony in its favor is therefore testimony on his own behalf; it is like a human being’s testimony on his own behalf(6). Yet(7), in giving this testimony, he knows that he is lying. He has lied in it(8) just as