we said if someone had gone to the extent that reaching the level of ijtihad is not a condition for the imamate then there would have been nothing in his speech except the estrangement from the past scholars. otherwise there is nothing in it that contradicts the requirement of the evidence and the context of the consideration for the conditions that are called for the imamate according to the shariah must have evidence that indicates them and the evidence is either a text from the owner of the shariah or consideration of the interest for which the imamate was sought. the text did not come from the conditions of the imamate in anything except in lineage since he said that the imams are from quraysh. as for what is other than that it was only taken from necessity and urgent need in the purpose of the imamate is for it so this is as we stipulated the mind freedom soundness of the senses guidance rescue and piety for if these matters were absent the matter of the imamate would not be organized under any circumstances and the rank of ijtihad is not something that is necessary in the imamate rather the piety that calls for referring to the people of knowledge in it is sufficient. so if the purpose is to arrange the imamate according to the shariah then what difference is there between knowing the ruling of the shariah by his own opinion or knowing it by following the best people of his time? and if it is permissible for the mujtahid to rely on a single statement and narrate a hadith to him then he rules. whether he is an imam or a judge what prevents him from ruling according to what the scholars agree upon in every incident even if they differ?
قلنا لو ذهب ذاهب إلى أن بلوغ درجة الاجتهاد لا يشترط في الامامة لم يكن في كلامه الا الاعزاب عن العلماء الماضين والا فليس فيه ما يخالف مقتضى الدليل وسياق النظر فان الشروط التي تدعى للامامة شرعا لابد من دليل يدل عليها والدليل اما نص من صاحب الشرع واما النظر في المصلحة التي طلبت الامامة لها ولم يرد النص من شرائط الامامة في شيء الا في النسب اذ قال أن الائمة من قريش فاما ما عداه فانما اخذ من الضرورة والحاجة الماسة في مقصود الامامة اليها فهذا كما شرطنا العقل والحرية وسلامة الحواس والهداية والنجدة والورع فان هذه الامور لو قدر عدمها لم ينتظم امر الامامة بحال من الاحوال وليست رتبة الاجتهاد مما لا بد منه في الامامة ضرورة بل الورع الداعي الى مراجعة اهل العلم فيه كاف فاذا كان المقصود ترتيب الامامة على وفق الشرع فاى فرق بين ان يعرف حكم الشرع بنظره او يعرفه باتباع افضل اهل زمانه واذا جاز للمجتهد ان يعول على قول واحد ويروى له حديثا فيحكم به إماما كان او قاضيا فما المانع من ان يحكم بما يتفق عليه العلماء في كل واقعة وان اختلف