It may be asked:

“Does he preserve it for himself or for the believers? If for himself, the people have no need of him. If for the people, then by what means does what he preserves reach them: by mass transmission (1) or by a solitary report? Whatever route conveys it from him to people who are absent also conveys it to them from the Messenger—and with fewer intermediaries.”

In sum, every benefit that could be served by the existence of an infallible person after the Messenger is attainable without him, whereas the harm he entails can be removed only through his nonexistence. Their assertion, “There is a need for him,” is therefore rejected. Their assertion, “His existence entails no harm,” is likewise rejected.

Rather, the reverse is true: harm [accompanies him] (2), while no benefit is obtained through him. If merely believing in his existence has caused all the harm that it has, what then should be thought of his actual existence?

[The Rāfidī’s Discussion of the Fifth Argument for Ali’s Imamate—That the Imam Must Be Superior to His Subjects]

Chapter

The Rāfidī said (3):

“The fifth (4) argument is that the imam must be superior to his subjects. Ali is the best among the people (5) of his time, as will be shown. He must therefore be the imam, since it is reprehensible to give precedence (6) to an inferior person over one who is superior, both rationally and according to revelation.

“Allah Most High says:

‘Is one who guides to the truth more worthy of being followed, or one who cannot find the way unless he is guided? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?’

[Surah Jonah: 35].”