Accordingly, his statement:

“By consensus, none of their imams other than Alī was explicitly designated”

is demonstrably false, for there is no consensus denying that anyone other than Alī was explicitly designated. Although this Rāfidī author (1) is among the best of his kind and one of the foremost members of his sect, there can be no doubt that the entire sect consists of ignorant people. Otherwise, how could anyone familiar with the doctrines of the various groups claim that such a consensus exists?

We shall give a third, compound response here (2), as follows: either explicit designation is deemed requisite for the imamate or it is not. If it is deemed requisite, we reject the second premise, since we maintain that Abū Bakr was explicitly designated. If it is not deemed requisite, the first [premise] (3) is invalid.

There is also a fourth response: according to you, consensus is not authoritative proof; rather, authoritative proof lies only in the statement of the infallible one. The matter therefore comes down to establishing the explicit designation through the statement of the very person claimed to be infallible—when neither the designation nor his infallibility has yet been established. Thus, the mere assertion of someone whose claim—“I (4) am the infallible one, and I am explicitly designated as imam”—has not been shown to be true would itself count as proof. This is ignorance of the most egregious kind. This argument is of the same kind as the preceding one.

A fifth response is to ask: What do you mean when you say, “He must be explicitly designated”? (5) For it is necessary that he say, “This is the caliph after me,