the leading authorities of the Imamiyyah before (1) al-Mufīd, al-Tūsī (2), al-Mūsawī, and al-Karājikī (3).

It has already been explained that this was the position of the early Imamiyyah, for (4) the doctrine of the Mu‘tazilah arose among them only later. Consequently, not all the Imamiyyah hold the position you have mentioned. Moreover, if what you have stated is correct, then the early authorities of the Imamiyyah were mistaken; and if it is erroneous, then their later authorities adopted this error. It necessarily follows, therefore, that the authorities of the Imamiyyah went astray concerning tawhīd (Allah’s oneness)—either their early authorities or their later ones.

[The Seventh Argument: A Survey of the Doctrines of the Rāfidah]

The seventh argument (5) is to say: You have stated a doctrine without presenting any evidence for it (6), whether scriptural or rational. There is no doubt that the Rāfidah are too ignorant, too misguided, [and too insignificant] (7) to debate the scholars of the Sunnah. Instead, they debate one another, as they constantly do concerning that which does not exist: Is it a thing or is it not a thing?

It is therefore said to this Imamī denier: You have presented no proof against your [Imamī] (8) authorities who held that Allah is in one place rather than another, that He moves, and that temporal events subsist in Him.

Al-Ash‘arī (9) said: “The Rāfidah (10) differed concerning the bearers of the Throne: [Do they bear