the second objection is that it is said to them you denied from your opponents the belief of reason in his view and you chose to disbelieve him. how do you know the truth and distinguish between it and falsehood? by the necessity of reason and there is no way to claim it or by his view so you are forced to return to reason. you have believed him then after disbelieving him so your words contradict each other. if you say we take it from the infallible imam we say how do you know his truthfulness? if you say because he is infallible we say how do you know his infallibility? if you say by the necessity of reason your shame will not be hidden from you and you will know in yourselves the opposite of what is inwardly. you have shown that the infallibility of the messenger of god may god bless him and grant him peace along with his miracle was not necessarily known by reason so that groups denied his message. rather all the brahmins denied the mission of the messengers and the majority of muslims denied the infallibility of the prophets and they cited as evidence the most highs saying {and adam disobeyed his lord and went astray} and other things that the quran included in its narration of the conditions of the prophets. so if the infallibility of the one who had the miracle was not necessarily known then how can the infallibility of your companion be necessarily known? if it is said we know him by contemplation but contemplation is learned from him and contemplation is divided into correct and corrupt and distinguishing the correct from the corrupt. it is forbidden for all creation except for the true imam. this is the standard that clarifies the difference between doubt and proof. we have known the correctness of the view from which we have benefited so our souls have been reassured by it through its purification and teaching. we said and the view which he taught you did you need contemplation in understanding it or is it perceived intuitively? if you claim intuitiveness then how great is your ignorance since its result is that knowledge of his infallibility is known intuitively which is a clear lie. and if you need contemplation then that contemplation is known by reason or not. and it must be said that it is by reason so we say and reason if it decides with contemplating the issue of whether he is truthful or not. if they say no then why did they believe him? if they say yes he is truthful then they have invalidated the foundation of their doctrine which is their saying that the minds have no way to believe it. if it is said
الاعتراض الثاني ان يقال لهم انكرتم من خصومكم تصديق العقل في نظره واخترتم تكذيبه فبماذا تعرفون الحق وتميزون بينه وبين الباطل أبضرورة العقل ولا سبيل الى دعواها او بنظره فتضطرون الى الرجوع الى النظر فقد صدقتموه إذا بعد تكذيبه فتناقض كلامكم فان قلتم نحن نأخذه من الامام المعصوم قلنا وبم تعرفون صدقه فان قلتم لانه معصوم قلنا وبم تعرفون عصمته فان قلتم بضرورة العقل لم يخف عليكم خزيكم وعرفتم في الباطن من انفسكم خلاف ما أظهرتم فان عصمة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مع معجزته لم تعرف بضرورة العقل حتى انكر رسالته طوائف بل انكر بعثة الرسل جميع البراهمة وانكر الاكثرون من المسلمين عصمة الانبياء واستدلوا بقوله تعالى {وعصى آدم ربه فغوى} إلى غير ذلك مما اشتمل القرآن على حكايته من أحوال الانبياء فاذا لم تعرف عصمة صاحب المعجزة ضرورة فكيف تعرف عصمة صاحبكم ضرورة فان قيل نحن نعرفه بالنظر ولكن النظر تعلم منه والنظر ينقسم الى صحيح وفاسد وتمييز صحيحه على فاسده ممتنع عن كافة الخلق الا على الامام الحق فهذا الميزان الموضح للفرقان بين الشبهه والبرهان فقد عرفنا صحة النظر الذي استفدنا منه فاطمأنت نفوسنا اليه بتزكيته وتعليمه قلنا والنظر الذي علمكموه هل افتقرتم في فهمه ألى تأمل ام هو مدرك على البديهة فان ادعيتم البديهة فما أشد جهلكم إذ يرجع حاصله الى أن معرفة عصمته عرفت بالبديهة وهو كذب صريح وان افتقرتم الى التأمل فذلك التأمل يعرف بالعقل ام لا ولا بد أن يقال إنه بالعقل فنقول والعقل إذا قضى عند التأمل بقضية فهو صادق ام لا فان قالوا لا فلم صدقوه وان قالوا نعم هو صادق فقد ابطلوا اصل مذهبهم وهو قولهم ان العقول لا سبيل الى تصديقها فان قيل