The same applies to human acts. Yet the case of the infallible person is even more problematic, because the good he is meant to secure depends on causes beyond his power—indeed, according to these Mu‘tazilite Rāfidīs, beyond Allah’s power. Thus, maintaining that Allah is obligated to bring this about is even more untenable than maintaining that He is obligated to create for every servant that which serves his welfare.

The Eleventh Argument (1): It may be said that his claim is:

“If the imām were not infallible, he would need another imām, because the reason an imām is needed is that the community may err. Thus, if the imām could err, he would need another imām.”

The reply is:

Why could it not be that whenever the imām errs, someone within the community alerts him to his error, so that the entire body never agrees upon an error? If some members of the community err, the imām, his deputy, or someone else alerts them; and if the imām or his deputy errs, another person likewise alerts him. Infallibility would then belong to the community as a whole, not to every individual member, as the People of the Community maintain.

This is analogous to the fact that any individual among those transmitting a mass-transmitted report may err and may perhaps even deliberately lie (2), whereas it is not ordinarily possible for them collectively to do so. (* Likewise, among those watching for the crescent moon, or observing other objects difficult to discern, an individual may err, whereas a large number of them cannot collectively do so. *) (3). The same applies to those engaged in arithmetic and geometry: any individual among them may err in one or two problems, but once those possessing expertise in these fields become numerous, it is ordinarily impossible for them all to be mistaken.