the second category is that of those who are disturbed by their imitation either by thinking or by others doubting him or by contemplating that error is permissible in their opinions. this is not saved except by conclusive proof indicating the existence of the creator which is looking into the creation and the truthfulness of the messenger which is looking into the miracle. i wonder what their infallible imam will do for them. does he say to him believe that the world has a creator and that muhammad may god bless him and grant him peace is truthful by imitating me without proof for i am the infallible imam? or does he mention to him the proof and alert him in a way that if his proof is imitation then from what aspect can he believe him? rather from where can he know his infallibility while he does not know the infallibility of his companion whom he claims to be his successor after great degrees? and if the proof is mentioned the seeker of guidance is in need of looking into the proof and contemplating its arrangement and the aspect of its proof or not. and if he does not contemplate then how can he comprehend without looking and contemplating? and these sciences are not necessary. and if he contemplates and comprehends the result of the necessary productive required premises through his contemplation and goes beyond the limit of imitation? so what is the difference between the one who alerts him to it on the aspect of proof and the organization of the premises?
القسم الثاني من اضطرب عليه تقليده إما بتفكر وإما بتشكيك غيره إياه أو بتأمله بأن الخطأ جائز على آرائه فهذا لا ينجيه الا البرهان القاطع الدال على وجود الصانع وهو النظر في الصنع وعلى صدق الرسول وهو النظر في المعجزة وليت شعري ماذا يغني عنهم إمامهم المعصوم أيقول له اعتقد ان للعالم صانعا وان محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم صادق تقليدا لي من غير دليل فاني الامام المعصوم او يذكر له الدليل فينبهه على وجه دلالته فان كان سومه التقليد فمن أي وجه يصدقه بل من اين يعرف عصمته وهو ليس يعرف عصمة صاحبه الذي يزعم انه خليفته بعد درجات كبيرة وان ذكر الدليل افتقر المسترشد الى ان ينظر في الدليل ويتأمل في ترتيبه ووجه دلالته ام لا فان لم يتأمل فكيف يدرك دون النظر والتأمل وهذه العلوم ليست ضرورية وان تأمل وادرك نتاج المقدمات الضرورية المنتجة المطلوبة بتأمله وخرج به عن حد التقليد ه فما الفرق بين ان يكون المنبه له على وجه الدلالة ونظم المقدمات