he is the one referred to the infallible or a preacher or another scholar from the scholars of the time for each one does not call him to imitate him but rather leads him to the requirement of the evidence and the requirement of the evidence is not comprehended except by contemplation. so if he contemplates and comprehends he is not imitating his teacher but rather he is like a student of mathematical evidence and there is no difference in that between the most wicked of creation and the most pious of them like a teacher of arithmetic so he does not need piety in him let alone infallibility because he is not imitated but rather the evidence is what is followed. so if creation does not go beyond these two categories then the first is independent of the infallible and the second the infallible does not benefit him at all so two premises have been invalidated one of them is that every truth must be known and the other is that the truth is not known except from the infallible
هو هذا المشار اليه المعصوم او داعية او عالم آخر من علماء الزمان فان كل واحد ليس يدعوه الى تقليده وانما يقوده الى مقتضى الدليل ولا يدرك مقتضى الدليل الا بالتأمل فاذا تأمل وادرك لم يكن مقلدا لمعلمه بل كان كمتعلم للأدلة الحسابية ولا فرق في ذلك بين أفسق الخلق وبين اورعهم كمعلم الحساب فلا يحتاج فيه الى الورع فضلا عن العصمة لانه ليس مقلدا وانما الدليل هو المتبع فإذا لا يعدو الخلق هذين القسمين فالاول مستغن عن المعصوم والثاني لا يغني عنه المعصوم شيئا فقد بطلت مقدمتان إحداهما أن كل حق فلا بد من معرفته والاخرى انه لا يعرف الحق الا من معصوم