Moreover, many of them cling to stories transmitted about that shaykh, though many of these are lies told about him and some relate errors that he himself made. Thus, they turn away from truthful reports from the infallible speaker in favor of unverified reports from a fallible speaker. If these people are mistaken in this(1), the Shia are guilty of an even graver error, for the falsehood in what they transmit(2) from the imams is far greater, as is their excessiveness in claiming that the imams are infallible.

If an individual from among these followers(3) of living shaykhs who misguide others and go to excess concerning a shaykh who has died is mistaken in categorically asserting their salvation, then the Shia’s error in categorically asserting their own salvation is far greater still. If it were assumed that the way of the Shia is correct because it entails a categorical and certain assertion of salvation, then the way of the shaykh-followers(4) would also be correct because it entails a categorical assertion of salvation(5). It would then follow(6) that the way of one who believes that Yazīd ibn Muawiyah(7) was one of the prophets who drink wine, and that wine was lawful for him because(8) the prophets drank it and Yazīd was one of them, is a correct way. If Yazīd were a prophet, anyone who rose up against a prophet would be an unbeliever; it would therefore follow that al-Husayn and others were unbelievers. It would likewise follow that the way of one who says, “I want no provision that the shaykh does not provide me,” would be a path