says that he appointed] (1) Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Husayn; another says that Jafar appointed his son Ismāīl; another says that the appointment passed to [his son] (2) Muhammad ibn Ismāīl; another says that it passed to his son Muhammad; another says that it passed to his son Abd Allah; and another says that it passed to his son Mūsā. Another group traces the explicit designation down to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan; another traces it down to the descendants of [Ubayd Allah ibn] (3) Maymūn al-Qaddāh—al-Hākim and his followers (4); and another traces the explicit designation from the descendants of Hāshim to the descendants of al-Abbās. These contradictory positions cannot possibly have been taken from an infallible Imam. Their claim that their positions are taken from an infallible Imam is therefore invalid.

The third response is to say: Grant, for argument’s sake, that Alī was infallible. Given such profound disagreement and contention among the Shia, how can it be known that some of these views are authentically transmitted from Alī while others are not, when every group claims that it took what it says solely from the infallible Imams? Unlike Ahl al-Sunnah, the Shia possess no connected chains through known transmitters (5) that would allow the chain of transmission (6) and the reliability of its transmitters to be examined. Rather, theirs are merely disconnected reports transmitted by a group known for frequent lying and numerous contradictions in transmission. Would any rational person trust that?