If the Imam can do that, then the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—can do so all the more; there would then be no need for the Imam’s transmission.

If it is said:

He cannot do that.

It would follow that the religion of Islam could be transmitted only by one individual after another, and that its transmitters could only be relatives of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—of whom anyone impugning his prophethood could say that they [attribute] to him whatever they wish (1). The religion of the Muslims would thereby become (2) worse than the religion of the Christians and the Jews, who claim that their religious leaders alone possess knowledge of it and transmit it.

The sixth answer (3):

What they have stated detracts from the standing of prophethood. For if the person claimed to be infallible and safeguarded is one of his agnatic relatives (4), that would constitute one of the gravest grounds for impugning his prophethood.

It would be said:

If he sought kingship, established it for his relatives (5), entrusted them with what would enable them to preserve that kingdom, and stipulated that no one else should know it, this would resemble kingship more than the mission of the prophets.

The seventh answer:

It may be said: There is indeed a need for someone infallible to preserve and transmit the Revealed Law. [In that case] (6), why could the Companions who preserved and conveyed the Quran and hadith not be the infallible ones (7) through whom the purpose of preserving