the same as the answer concerning the mass transmission of the explicit designation of his imamate. They would then have no other basis to rely upon.

The fourth response (1) is to say: Consensus is not authoritative proof for them unless it includes the statement of the infallible person. If they cannot establish the infallible person except through consensus, this necessarily entails circular reasoning: he cannot be known to be infallible except through his own statement, while his statement cannot be known to be authoritative proof unless he is first known to be infallible. Thus neither can be established.

The invalidity of their argument for establishing an infallible person is therefore clear.

[This demonstrates that these people have no sound basis whatsoever for what they say. Consensus is not authoritative proof for them; indeed, they do not regard it as possible for the community to reach consensus unless the infallible person is among them, since the statement of the infallible person] (2) alone constitutes authoritative proof. They would therefore need independent knowledge of the identity of that particular individual (3), so that it could be known that his statement is authoritative proof. Hence, when they appeal to consensus, the only authoritative element it contains, according to them, is the statement of the infallible person. This amounts to begging the question.

What their position really amounts to is:

“So-and-so is infallible because he said, ‘I am infallible.’”

If they are asked:

“How did you know that he is infallible and that everyone else is not?”

they reply:

“Because he said, ‘I (4) am infallible, and everyone other than me (5) is not infallible.’”

Yet anyone could say this, so it does not constitute proof.

This is like someone saying:

“I am truthful in everything I say.”

If his truthfulness cannot be known through anything other than his own statement, then his truthfulness in what he says cannot be known.