—many of them involving wrongdoing and corruption—of which the infallible person is unaware and which, even if he knows of them, he is unable to eliminate. If this is not obligatory (1), how can that be obligatory (2)?

The Tenth Argument (3): It may be asked:

“Is what is required of rulers that the good achieved through them outweigh corruption, and that with them a person be closer to benefit and farther from harm than if they were absent and no one were installed in their place? Or is their purpose to establish good entirely unaccompanied by corruption? Or is it to establish some specified degree of good?”

If the first is intended, this objective is achieved under most rulers. Indeed, it was achieved during the reigns of Abū Bakr, Umar, and Uthmān to a greater extent than during the reign of Alī. It was achieved through the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs to a greater extent than through the Twelve. It is likewise achieved through Turkish and Indian kings to a greater extent than through the Awaited One, who is given the title “Master of the Age.” For there is no ruler who assumes power whose absence—if imagined without anyone comparable replacing him—would not result in greater corruption than that arising from his presence. Nevertheless, another ruler may bring about more good than he does. It has therefore been said:

“Sixty years under (4) an unjust ruler are better than a single night without a ruler.”

If it is said:

“Rather, what is required is the existence of good unaccompanied by any corruption,”

the reply is:

“This has never occurred. Allah has neither created such a state nor created causes that would necessarily bring it about. Whoever declares this and its necessary concomitants obligatory upon Allah is either willfully defying his own reason or finding fault with his Lord. Creating something that makes such a state possible does not bring that state about unless He creates that by which it actually comes about.”