It may be answered:

There is a need (1) for infallibility in both cases (2), and his knowledge of the present is greater than his knowledge of the future. How, then, can he be infallible regarding what is yet to come but not infallible in the present?

If it is said:

“Explicit designation is possible; if only the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had explicitly designated a successor.”

It may be answered:

His explicit designation of a successor after him would be no different from his appointment of someone during his lifetime, and we do not stipulate infallibility—neither (3) in this case nor in that one.

A seventh answer is as follows:

You deemed explicit designation obligatory to prevent contention, which leads to the gravest forms of corruption—forms which (4), merely to eliminate lesser instances thereof, you deemed his appointment obligatory.

It may be answered:

The reality is the reverse. Abū Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—assumed office without such corruption, and Umar and Uthmān likewise assumed office without such corruption. (* Indeed, this corruption became grave only under the imam whom you claim had been explicitly designated rather than anyone else. During his tenure, forms of contention and corruption arose *) (5) [which], in order (6) to eliminate even lesser instances thereof, you deemed his appointment obligatory. Thus, what you made a means to the intended objective brought about only its opposite, whereas [the intended objective was attained] (7) without your proposed means. This invalidates your claim that what you mentioned is a means to that objective.