As for his forefathers, they possessed neither the power nor the authority (1) of the imamate. Rather, the learned and religious men among them exercised leadership among their peers in matters such as hadith, issuing legal opinions, and the like. They possessed no coercive political power and were therefore incapable of exercising the imamate, whether they were more entitled to the imamate (2) or not.

In any event, they were neither empowered nor appointed, nor was what is sought through governance realized for them (3), because they lacked power and authority. Even if a believer obeyed them, his obedience would not have secured the benefits obtained by obeying rulers, such as waging jihad against enemies, delivering rights to those entitled to them—or to some of them—and enforcing the prescribed penalties.

If someone were to say, “One of these men—or anyone else—is an imam,” meaning that he possesses the authority and power by which the aims of the imamate (4) are achieved, this would be a brazen denial of observable reality. If [that] (5) were so, there would be no incumbent ruler to vie with them or monopolize rule to their exclusion; and no one makes such a claim.

If, however, he says, “They are imams in the sense that they were (6) the ones who ought to have been appointed and that the people sinned by failing to appoint them,” this is like saying: “So-and-so deserved to be appointed (7 to lead the prayer and to be appointed 7) (7) to judicial office, but was not appointed, as an act of injustice and aggression.”