that whoever must be loved is therefore an imam at that time. This is demonstrated by the fact that love for Hasan and Husayn was obligatory before they became imams, and love for Ali was obligatory (1) during the lifetime of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—although he was not an imam. Indeed, it remained obligatory even though his imamate did not begin until Uthman was killed.

Third: If the obligation of affection is an antecedent that necessarily entails the imamate, [and the absence of the antecedent] (2) entails the absence of its necessary consequence, affection would be obligatory only toward an infallible imam. It would then follow that one could feel affection for none (3) of the believers or love them. Thus, there would be no obligation to feel affection or love for any believers unless they were imams—neither the Shi'a of Ali nor anyone else. This is contrary to consensus and to what is necessarily known to be part of Islam.

Fourth: Regarding his statement, “Opposing him is incompatible with affection for him,” it may be asked: Under what circumstances? Is this so when the person in question must be obeyed, or is it so unconditionally? The second alternative is inadmissible. Otherwise, it would follow (4) that if someone imposed upon another something Allah had not required of him, the latter, by opposing him, would not love him. No believer (5), therefore, could love another believer unless he believed that obeying him was obligatory. The falsity of this is evident.

As for the first alternative, it may be said (6): If opposing him impairs affection for him only when he must be obeyed, then it must first be known that obeying him is obligatory before opposing him can be deemed to impair affection for him. If it is then established (7) that obedience is obligatory merely because affection is obligatory