[Chapter: The Rāfidī’s fifth section, claiming that those who preceded ‘Alī were not imams, and the response to it]

Chapter

The Rāfidī said (1):
“Fifth section: That (2) those who preceded him were not imams. Several arguments demonstrate this (3).”

I say:
The response is this: If what is meant is that they did not rule over the Muslims, that the Muslims did not pledge allegiance to them, and that they had no authority by which to enforce the prescribed punishments (4), uphold rights, fight the enemy, lead the Muslims in Friday and Eid prayers, and perform the other duties encompassed by the imamate, then this is a blatant falsehood and a wilful denial of the facts. These matters are known through mass transmission, and the Rāfidīs and others know them. Had these men not assumed the imamate, the Rāfidīs would not have attacked them.

But they affirm or deny the imamate without qualification, and do not distinguish (5): Do they mean actually holding and exercising the imamate, or being entitled to assume it?

They apply the word “imam” to the latter, while giving the impression that it encompasses both senses.