it is disputed for if the teacher knows and mentions with him the rational proof and points out the way of proof so that the student may contemplate it with the extent of his mind and it is permissible for him to trust in the requirements of his mind after the teacher points it out then let the teacher be even if he is the most immoral of creation then he does not need his infallibility and the student does not receive from him imitation of what he receives rather it is like arithmetic it is necessary to know the truth in it for the interests of transactions and the person does not know it from himself and is in need of a teacher and does not need his infallibility because it is not knowledge by imitation rather it is demonstrative even if you claim that the student does not learn by proof and evidence. because he perceives that through his intellect and there is no trust in his intellect with the weakness of the minds of creation and their differences therefore he needs an infallible person so this is now foolishness because he either knows his infallibility by necessity or by imitation and there is no way to claim anything from him so he must know him by sight since there is no person in the world who knows his infallibility by necessity or trusts his words no matter what he says i am infallible. and if he does not know his infallibility how can he imitate him? and if he does not trust his sight how can he know his infallibility? if the matter is as you mentioned then people have fallen away from learning the truth and that has become impossible. so if… they said it is necessary to learn the truth not by way of contemplation. it is like someone who says it is necessary to combine the white and the black. because if he learns from someone else by contemplating the evidence of the issue that he is learning he is contemplating and risking error. and if he imitates him because he is infallible he is aware of his infallibility by contemplating the evidence of infallibility. and if he does not believe in infallibility and learns from whomever he is then the matter in the hereafter returns to what they have ruled out which is learning from someone whose infallibility is not known and among them are many and their statements are contradictory as they mentioned. and there is no escape from this. forever
متنازع فيه فإن المعلم ان كان يعلم ويذكر معه الدليل العقلي وينبه على وجه الدلالة ليتأمل المتعلم فيه بمبلغ عقله ويجوز له الثقة بمقتضى عقله بعد تنبيه المعلم فليكن المعلم لو أفسق الخليقة فلم يحتاج الى عصمته وليس يتلقف المتعلم منه تقليد ما يتلقفه بل هو كالحساب لا بد من معرفة الحق فيه لمصالح المعاملات ولا يعرفه الانسان من نفسه ويفتقر الى معلم ولا يحتاج الى عصمته لانه ليس علما تقليدا بل هو برهاني وان زعمتم أن المتعلم ليس يتعلم بالبرهان والدليل لأن ذلك يدركه بنظر عقله ولا ثقة بعقله مع ضعف عقول الخلق وتفاوتها فلذلك يحتاج الى معصوم فهذا الآن حماقة لانه إما ان يعرف عصمته ضرورة او تقليدا ولا سبيل الى دعوى شئ منه فلا بد ان يعرفه نظرا إذ لا شخص في العالم يعرف عصمته ضرورة او يوثق بقوله مهما قال أنا معصوم وإذا لم يعرف عصمته كيف يقلده وإذا لم يثق بنظره كيف يعرف عصمته فان كان الامر كما ذكرتموه فقد وقع الناس عن تعلم الحق وصار ذلك من المستحيلات فإذا قالوا لا بد من تعلم الحق لا بطريق النظر كان كمن يقول لا بد من الجمع بين البياض والسواد لانه ان تعلم من غيره بتأمل دليل المسألة التي يتعلمها كان ناظرا مقتحما خطر الخطأ وإن قلده لكونه معصوما كان مدركا عصمته بالنظر في دليل العصمة وان لم يعتقد العصمة ويعلم ممن كان فقد رجع الامر بالآخرة الى ما استبعدوه وهو التعلم ممن لم تعرف عصمته وفيهم كثرة واقوالهم متعارضة كما ذكروه وهذا لا مخلص عنه أبد الدهر