as for the fourth premise which is their saying that if his knowledge of himself is invalidated by way of contemplation then it is established that it is obligatory to learn from someone else then this is true on the assumption that contemplation is invalidated and that knowledge of the truth is accepted. however we do not accept the invalidity of contemplation as was previously mentioned and as we will mention in the refutation of their embellished doubts about invalidating contemplation. we do not accept the obligation to know the truth because among its parts is what we have no alternative to and what is needed is knowledge of the creator and the truthfulness of the messenger and people have believed it by hearing and imitating their fathers and in that is what suffices them so they have no need for resuming learning from an infallible teacher. if they are satisfied with education from their parents then we acknowledge the need of children at the beginning of their development for that and we do not deny it nor do they find comfort in this acknowledgment. from this introduction is their saying if the need for a teacher is proven then let the teacher be infallible. this is…
وأما المقدمة الرابعة وهي قولهم إذا بطلت معرفته من نفسه بطريق النظر ثبت وجوب التعلم من غيره فهذه صادقة على تقدير بطلان النظر وتسليم معرفة الحق ولكنا لا نسلم بطلان النظر كما سبق وكما سنذكر في إفساد شبههم المزخرفة لإبطال النظر ولا نسلم وجوب معرفة الحق لأن من جملته ما بنا مندوحة عنه والمحتاج اليه معرفة الصانع وصدق الرسول والناس قد اعتقدوها سماعا وتقليدا لابويهم وفي ذلك ما يغنيهم فلا حاجة بهم إلى استئناف تعلم من معلم معصوم فإن قنعوا بالتعليم من الأبوين فنحن نسلم حاجة الصبيان في مبدأ النشوء الى ذلك ولا ننكره ولا مستروح لهم في هذا التسليم ومن هذه المقدمة قولهم اذا ثبتت الحاجة الى المعلم فليكن المعلم معصوما وهذا