would not call them to account for their sins—as is related of some supporters of the Umayyads, who used to say, “Allah accepts the caliph’s good deeds and overlooks his bad deeds.” Despite their misguidance, such people are less misguided than those who affirm the imamate of the Awaited One, the two al-Askari imams, and others like them.
They also say, “They are infallible.” Yet these people affirmed(1) infallibility and imamate for someone who does not exist, or for someone who [does not](2) wield any authority from which they might benefit and possesses no more knowledge or religious devotion than many ordinary Muslims. Those others, by contrast, believed that the caliph had numerous good deeds(3) that outweighed his bad deeds. This is possible in principle, for a Muslim may have good deeds that outweigh his bad deeds, although this may not be affirmed of any specific individual without evidence that applies specifically to him.
As for deeming someone infallible when there are Muslims more knowledgeable and devout than he is, that is categorically false. Indeed, claiming infallibility for anyone other than the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is categorically false. It is thus clear that, despite their ignorance(4), those people are closer to the truth and less ignorant than these Rafidah(5). Whoever believed that Yazid was one of the Companions or one of the prophets would not be more ignorant and misguided than someone who ascribes divinity and prophethood to the religious leaders of the Shia—especially the Ismaili and Nusayri shaykhs, who are even more unbelieving than the Jews and Christians, and whose followers believe them to be divine.