It thus becomes clear that if(1) the argument of those who claim affiliation(2) with the partisans of Ali—may Allah be pleased with him—is valid, then the argument of those who claim affiliation with the partisans of Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him—has an even greater claim to validity. If that argument is false, however, then this one(3) is even more false.
Thus, if(4) these Shi'a agree with all of Ahl al-Sunnah that those people’s certainty of salvation—provided they obeyed those(5) imams absolutely—was an error and misguidance, then the error and misguidance of these people in being certain of salvation because they obey(6) someone who claims to be the deputy of the infallible imam—when that infallible imam is nowhere to be seen and has left no trace—is greater and greater still. The Shi'a have no imams who address them directly other than their own shaykhs, who consume their wealth unjustly, bar them(7) from the path of Allah, and bar them(8) from the path of Allah.
The second response(9): This analogy would only have been(10) applicable if two premises were established:
The first: that we have an infallible imam.
The second: that he commanded such and such.(11)
Neither premise is established; rather, both are false. Set aside the first premise and consider the second instead: the imams(12) who are claimed to be infallible died years ago