It is well known that affirming infallibility for a group united in judgment is more consistent with reason and reality than affirming it for a single person. If infallibility is impossible for a large number of people when they agree upon a particular matter, then it is all the more likely to be impossible for one person. Conversely, if it is possible for one person individually, then it is even more likely and more fittingly possible for him and others like him when gathered together.

It is thus clear that affirming infallibility for the collective is more appropriate than affirming it for one person. Through this infallibility (1), the purpose sought from the imām’s infallibility is achieved (2); the imām’s personal infallibility is therefore not necessary.

One manifestation of the Rāfidīs’ ignorance is that they deem it necessary for one Muslim to be infallible, yet consider it possible for the entire body of Muslims to err when no infallible individual is among them. Sound reason attests that when numerous scholars, despite their differing independent judgments, agree upon a position, they are more likely to be correct than a single individual. Likewise, if knowledge can be attained through a solitary report, it is even more likely to be attained through mass-transmitted reports.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that the imām shares with the people responsibility for the common good, since (3) he cannot accomplish it alone; rather, he and they must participate in it together. He cannot enforce the prescribed penalties, secure people’s rights, or render those rights to them in full (4), nor can he fight an enemy unless they assist him. Indeed, he cannot lead them in the Friday or congregational prayer unless they pray with him, and they cannot carry out what he commands them to do except through their own powers and wills. Thus, since they share