وأما الكلام في الفصل الثاني:فهو مبني على المغالطة ولا نقول:إنه لم يفهم ما أورده، لان الرجل كان فوق ذلك لكن أراد التلبيس والتمويه(في قوله): إن دليل وجوب الرئاسة ينتقض بحال الغيبة، لان كون الناس مع رئيس مهيب متصرف أبعد من القبيح لو اقتضى كونه لطفا واجبا على كل حال وقبح التكليف مع فقده لا نتقض بزمان الغيبة(لانا في زمان الغيبة)فلم يقبح التكليف مع فقده، فقد وجد الدليل ولا مدلول وهذا نقض.
As for the second part of his argument: It is based on his own words. We do not say that he did not understand what he said, for he is better than that; however, he desired to misguide and disguise lunacy in lucidity, by saying, “The argument for necessity of leadership stands violated by occultation, since if the fact that an awe-inspiring Imam, who is in charge of affairs keeps people away from wrong, renders his presence a necessary grace in all ages and religious obligations without him unjust, this would be violated during occultation and conferment of obligation would not be wrong in his absence. Therefore, the argument leads to a conclusion that does not exist. And this is a contradiction.”