قلنا: المنع على ضربين: أحدهما لا ينافي التكليف بأن لا يلجأ إلى ترك القبيح، والآخر يؤدي إلى ذلك.فالأول قد فعله الله تعالى من حيث منع من ظلمه بالنهي عنه والحث على وجوب طاعته والانقياد لأمره ونهيه وأن لا يعصى في شي‏ء من أوامره وأن يساعد على جميع ما يقوي أمـره ويشيد سلطانه فإن جميـع ذلك لا ينافي التكليـف فـإذا عصى من عصى في ذلك ولـم يفعل ما يتم معه الغرض المطلوب يكون قد أتى من قبل نفسه لا من قبل خالقه.والضرب الآخر أن يحول بينهم وبينه بالقهر والعجز عن ظلمه وعصيانه فذلك لا يصح اجتماعه مع التكليف فيجب أن يكون ساقطا.
We would reply: Protection is of two kinds. One is not incompatible with conferment of religious duties as it does not compel the subject to forsake the wrong. The other kind of protection leads to such compulsion. And Allah has provided the first protection, as He has protected the Imam from oppression by forbidding it and by encouraging obedience to him and compliance to his orders and prohibitions and that he may not be disobeyed in any of his orders and that he should be helped in all matters that strengthen his rule and power. All such measures are compatible with conferment of obligations. If someone disobeys with this regard and does not take necessary measures for this objective to materialize, he has done that on his own, and it is not the act of his Creator. The other kind of protection is that He literally protects him from his enemies by force and compulsion and by rendering them incapable of oppressing and disobeying him. Therefore, this is not compatible with religious duties, which require free choice in order to have meaning, and thus, religious obligations must be annulled.