A Replay To Belief of Mahdism in Shia Imamate

37. the Absence From the View of Narrators ==========================================

Difference in the date has opened avenues to the writer to tell what is his lust and to say what is his wish and to write what is his pleasure. Yes, there is a difference; so what? Does this difference change anything? Does it bear on any dimension? The beginning of the Imam hood (IMAMAT) of the 12th Imam is in the very year 260.

To penetrate deeper we see that the very pregnancy of his mother remained unnoticed. Miraculously it was a concealed matter. Then, his birth; this too was a secret known only to very few close ones. In other words, this Imam ever since he began life either in the womb of his mother or in the vast of this universe, either as a babe or as an infant, a veil surrounded, concealing him or any sign of his or any symptom that could indicate his whereabouts or his existence. He was destined to remain under the veils of secrets. It was for the absence to steal his presence into disappearance. He is in reservation kept most cautiously by the Divine for the future. Several curtains should hide him under the guard of wonder and the vigilance of surprise.

Several hands of doubt collectively could not lift any of the curtains nor could a deliberation peep through it. The mystery is beyond the ken of human, and the ambit of the calculation of two and two is four, because God’s job can not be circumference by our understanding. He is that treasure which should be kept secret till time is ripe, till sight can tolerate the fire of its diamond. His absence was a calculated affair. The Imamate of the Imams had its cycle and Imam Hasan Askari was still peddling it. So, it is wrong to suppose that the era of the Imamate had ended. When the eleventh Imam was still alive the era was alive too. In the year 260 the martyrdom of Imam Hasan Askari put an end to an era and opened a new one. The twelfth Imam took the office. Then he went into hiding. Then he appeared. Then he went into hiding.

38. The view of Narrators about the issue of the Imam’s disappearance: The writer says that the first time the term GHEEBAT (absence or disappearance) was introduced; it was in the book by the name of KAMALUDDIN. He says that it is likely that Qulaini too might have explained such a thing earlier.

First fact is regularly being ignored time and again, forgotten by the writer that the sense and the meaning of GHEEBAT was already a known fact, as it was in the traditions and the narration that have hailed immediately from the Prophet (SAW) and the Imams. So, the occurrence of such an event GHEEBAT was an event not a surprise. The awareness of the people towards this fact is older than the book KAMALLUDDIN of Sadoq and the book KAH of Qulaini. They did not invent it but mentioned the traditions about it. If anyone were to give an explanation of the OHEEBAT it could have been the same about Sadoq and Kafi have told in their books. Besides, those who have survived both the periods of the GHEEBAT (absence or occultation) have told the same thing and have narrated their experience. What was foretold is narrated; and what was foretold took place.

39. The GHEEBAT of the 12th Imam - Two kinds:

Earlier to Nomani in the books of the Prophet’s sayings and conversations (TRADITIONS) both types of the Imam’s disappearance (GREEB AT) have been mentioned. There are some who have been written before the end of the short GHEEBAT. The writer now tells us in a way to suggest that when the GHEEBAT happened these books too appeared. Since he has no belief in the invisible or unseen (GHAIB) he should say so. He can even suggest that whatever is written is after the happenings although the Prophet might have foretold then.

He wants to accuse the great scholars who were great authorities such as Sadoq, Nomani and others of fraud and fabricating traditions. May God guide him.

The GHEEBAT was split into two periods - one a short duration, the other with an indefinite duration. The lengthy GHEEBAT was anticipated. Ali Bin Mohammed al-Samri and others were having a mental preparedness. Nomani and others consider the GHEEBAT as a sign attesting the Imam hood of Mahdi. The writer says that both kinds have had a root in the recent narration. The narration can not be new or recent. All of them are old because they relate to the time of the Prophet (SAW). If the writer knows let him specify which are the new ones and which are the old narration?

We can make not such that the narration of Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb (AS) are older than those by Imam Hasan (AS) Imam Hussain (AS) or Imam Zainulabedeen (AS). Likewise what Imam Baqer (AS) has told is older than that which Imam Sadqq (AS) told. So this should be his sense, divided among the Imams in accordance to their order and periods. But, actually the fifth Imam, Baqer, is the first Imam who started a school in which he told many things explaining the legislation and other issues. The narration that hailed newly or recently relates to the period after the period of Imam Baqer (AS). This issue is useful in distinguishing the dates or locating the duration of period with regards to narration and other religious jurisprudence. This standard can not be maintained after the period of Imam Askari. Usually the narration can be considered false if they come after the duration of the period of Imam Askari.

But such a supposition can not be given to the narration that pertain to the GHEEBAT of the twelfth Imam because they were told in every age right from the Prophet’s (SAW) time down to Imam Askari (AS). There was nothing to be added thereon or to be deducted there from. Whatever the new authors have written they have depended upon the old authors. The interpretations and comments made thereon are all in uniformity because of the pedestal being one. There can be a difference in synonyms, such as short absence, little absence, long absence, lengthy absence, continued absence and so on.

These terms GHEEBAT SUGHRA (short GHEEBAT) and GHEEBAT

KUBRA (long absence) were not invented in the era of Safavi. They have no bearing on the reality. There had been two periods. The narration can not be changed by the marginal diameters or spaces down by suppositions. Furthermore, belief can not be shaken as well. Any other interpretation would only show one’s own mind and the extent of its listing to falsity the fact. To invalidate a narration one should search the ground of that particular narration. If the narrators of that particular narration have any credibility reputation or a reliability that could creep in a catena of continuity up to the authority of Imam Sadiq (AS) reason would not approve its repudiation. What Noubakhti has written of the Shia sects should be something of prediction about the unseen future. To foretell what will happen in the future no one would claim, unless he should have prophecy, which no one has. So, it is quite easy to tell what this imagination might bring to his mind. In such an event he has rejected the established traditions and acknowledged the realities of history.

40. The writer regarding the 2nd Ambassador says that it was a period of chaos and tumult in the history of the Shia. People were left adrift in an ocean of uncertainty knowing not where the stand is for them and to which shore they should land. The writer has magnified the things because he is looking through a microscope of prejudice. Any little thing would appear to him big. The things were not as he is pretending to have been. A little commentary on his statements seems necessary. Chaos and tumult; they are a natural corollary of uncertainty. There were those who were faithful to their belief and ardent in their faith. They knew who their Imam were and who the present one was.

They also had pre-knowledge of the absence of the Imam as they had heard or read the Prophet’s (SAW) sayings. It is a common practice to ask. They should have told as they should have been asked. Had there really been a chaos where was it? In the center town of the Shias in Qum we did not hear nor did we witness such chaos.

What the winter says come out to prove that the Shia belief of twelve Imams hails from a strong origin. The scholars, the thinkers and other personalities of the day were believers in the Imamate of the son of Imam Askari (AS) and in his occultation (GREEBAT). He refers to the ministerial families of BANI Furat and the relations of ABU SUHAIL NOUBAKHTI. This is the strength of a religion. The curiosity of the enemies should have tried to find out the fact. They could not establish otherwise. During the GHEEBAT a link of deputies with the Imam take his orders; it seems practicable as well as reasonable.

All the traditions about the GHEEBAT narrated by Shazan, Nomani, Kamaluddin are attested by sources of authority and based on evidence passed on from the Imams by the Prophet (SAW) himself. All these sayings were predictions, that is, years behind the events and the events far ahead the sayings. The Shias who were in various provinces and parts would not have accepted to revert, refer or consult to the NAWABS (deputies) of the Imam had there not been a cogent conviction for them. There had been links that establish the connection with the Imam. It was a well-organised and systematic network of communication to the Imam and from the Imam. Ali Bin Babway, a man of thought and knowledge, writes a letter to the Imam through the NAWAB (Imam’s deputy) and gets an answer through the same channel. Had there not been a truth in it a man of Ali Bin Babway’s like would not have corresponded with the Imam. This in itself is proof.

The writer says on the authority of Fathia that a group of Shia believed in the Imamate of Jafer and many yielded to his authority. By saying so the writer wants to say what he, of course, does not say but means to say, however does not want to go that far. Well, we say that he means that Mahdi was fake Imam because of Jafer. Why does he not ponder the other way? Why wasn’t Jafer a false Imam? The biography of Jafer was known to one and all. His reputation, his conduct his behavior, his temperament brought him no respect from the people. Therefore, he was immediately ignored although he was supported by the government of the day in order to create a rift and split. Those who gathered around him were the paid agents of the government.

Another mistake. The writer sees the Imam as an infant. But the consensus shows that the Imam had attained his boyhood.

The unity among Shias is of course due to a belief common among them. In a stock all are shareholders; and all are united too. The belief in the Imamate of the twelfth Imam has brought all Shias together. But the writer says that the Imam’s deputies (NAWABS) had brought all together. Of course they were men of reliance and respect in all the Shia places. For example, Abulafer Omravi was very much respected. They were symbols of unity and honor of the Shia but not the reason for it. The Nawabs were only agents of the Imam. The cardinal and supreme factor was the very Imamate of Mahdi, which held the mosaic together. Today too this belief in Imamate holds the jurisprudents in awe and reverence and the deputies of the Imam.

41. The Way the 3rd Ambassador selected:

It might be felt that the appointment of one ambassador depends upon the recommendation of his predecessor to the Imam or with a consensus of the Shia scholars or clergy. As the previous one appoints the new one. Such an air of conception hangs around the third ambassador Hussain Bin Rooh. But, the reality is something else. It is the direct choice of the Imam himself; an immediate selection by himself alone. It was not a contract or agreement between the persons or parties. Since the man was appointed by the person of Imam Mahdi himself, the appointed one was highly respected and revered among the people - commons and dignitaries. It was a commonly known fact that the ambassador was the Imam’s choice and in contact with him. Had it been otherwise, such men of repute such as Abu Suhail Noubakhti, Ibn Mateel, Hasan Bin Jana Nasibi would have disputed and never obeyed the ambassador.

42. THE FOURTH AMBASSADOR AND THE END OF THE PERIOD OF HIS EMBASSY

The long absence (GHEEBAT KUBRA) was an anticipated one during the short one (GHEEBAT SUGHRA). In that period books too were written about this subject. No ambassador was appointed after Ali Bin Mohammed Saruri. The reason is not known. It could be that the Imam did not find a trustworthy one. It could be this that the Nawabs of the period of short GHEEBAT were to acquaint the people with the coming GHEEBAT that was going to be indefinitely long.

43. THE TOTAL GHEEBAT (OCCULTATION)

The confirmation of Mahdism of the twelfth Imam starts from this period as the last leader of the Moslems. Ever since the Shias came to know that the Imam’s appearance was not definite in the near future they took him to be their Mahdi.

We should correct him. He was the twelfth Imam known to all and acknowledged by all. It was not a condition that he should go into hiding in order to become Imam. For an Imam, disappearance or hiding is not a necessary condition. But that he was the Mahdi promised by the Prophet (SAW) was a thing not certain. Of course, it is a common thing to have an existence of doubt in the minds. Every issue in accordance with its magnitude is shaded by doubt or there are some whose business is to create doubts. Therefore, this should not be denied that the short period of the Imam’s absence and the beginning of the long period have been covered by doubts. The scholars should pay heed in this respect to furnish the facts so as to obviate he doubts and present the subject in the minds in a clear picture.

44. Rise of a Question:

The writer raises a question as to when and how the representation of the Imam (Mahdi) is vested to the jurisprudents indirectly and with full distinctions. How has he comes to such an interpretation?

A simple thing becomes complicated because of the reasoning the writer has resorted to. The link of the defeat of the Ullama (clergy) against the governments of AAL BABWAY, SAFAVI, and KACHAR is connected here. The issue of the jurisprudents being the oracles for the people in the times of GHEEBAT, short or long comes into the light from two dimensions. The vital importance goes to the establishment of a link with the Imam by any means if not direct.

One: God’s commands are to be understood so as to be acted upon. If in the time of the Prophet (SAW) or any of the Imams a man could not reach any of them he would then go to a clergy so as to ask his questions and learn what he has sought out to learn. This is a reasonable solution. Therefore it is only reasonable that during Imam Mahdi’s occultation the same would happen. The question that has been brought up as to what period the jurisprudents actually became oracles for the people are not a sensible one. In the days of the Prophet (SAW) or the Imams or in the days of GHEEBAT any one who had a high knowledge on religious issues stood as an authority to be referred to. It was not limited to a certain time or place Knowledge can not be limited to a time or space. One who has a through knowledge of a subject stands as a guide whenever referred to and by whosoever.

Two; An oracle is an administrator of a society or a leader of a society, because he meddles in disputes, solves their problems, gives opinion in their differences and judges their quarrels and attends their various difficulties. In such a dimension, the jurisprudents before the time of Imam Hasan Askari (AS) had an active part. It was obligatory for the people to contact them. For a jurisprudent the government of the Imam is valid. A jurisprudent is in his place a representative of the Imam. This is an issue purely of jurisprudence. The guardianship of a jurisprudent is a second grade authority which descends from the absolute authority of the Imam. In this regard there is no general agreement among the scholars. Some consider the guardianship of the Ullama (clergy) not fixed because they do not think that there is enough proof. Is’haq Bin Yakob says that the uncertainty could run into events, as well as certain things which could not be determined. The deputies of the Imam had a general responsibility. They had no intention to collect money. The writer is accusing a group of good people without feeling the least moral responsibility.

The guardianship of the jurisprudents is absolutely necessary. Whether some believe it or not, their being representatives of the Imam they all agree that on some matters no one other than a jurisprudent can have guardianship. To command the people towards virtue, to restrict the people from evil is the responsibility of a jurisprudent. But the actions of a jurisprudent are regarded as final and to be honored. The governments and their power or authority over the people is a thing religiously illegal. Therefore, the governments are regarded as tyrants. In this description all governments are alike whether BABWAYS, SAFAVIS, KACHARS.

The writer thinks that the text of the tradition as told by Is’haq Bin Yakob was deviated in later days. We tell him he is wrong.

The versions might differ in words but the text remains the same. One thing which waives off the writer’s wrong conception is; in the text, there is a word in Arabic, “ALAIKUM” or “Upon them” which makes no sense in the age of total occultation (GHEEBAT) of the Imam, because there is no link, no NAWAB, nor deputy, and therefore no link with the Imam. This pronoun ‘ALAIKUM’ better suits the days of short GHEEBAT. We suggest that it should be translated as ‘UPON YOU’. The writer has not attended these little things because of his over happiness in having gained something more important. Such examples abound. The translation of BIHAR has rendered the word ‘ROWAAT’ into jurisprudents, while such does not exist in the writings of Majusi. This is in the days of Kachar. The word “ROWAAT” is not in the Arabic text of BIHAR because it was not necessary. The writer now takes this and uses it as a weapon in which to accuse the Shia writes in interpreting the traditions as time fits. Our readers can judge for themselves whether to come to such a conclusion is just or unjust.

45. In spite of the congruity conditions

What is the philosophy in Imam Mahdi still remaining absent? In view of the writer, conditions were favorable for the appearance of the Imam in the days of the AALBOWAY government and there existed also militarily possibilities. But on what ground was the Imam to make his appearance?

The answer to such a question lies in what Sadogh has said, and that is the conditions were not secure enough as to ensure his appearance. There was no assurance as to how many people and whom he could actually trust. Was there any security in finding 313 people as associates or companions. I have said before that a number of 313 men absolutely perfect in belief, completely humble to the orders, totally resigned to the will of God, and whole heartedly ready for any sacrifice or ordeal can not be expected among us. In words all stand but in practice who stands? To give a test all will fail. Who knows how many agents there were in their guise. So on what tested ground is it said that conditions were favorable? It is only a pretext. It is a pretension. The time is only known to God alone. He knows and He decides the hour, because He is aware of even what is concealed hearts. We have nothing but to resign to Him who is the Master mind of religion.

HESITATION AMONG THE FOLLOWERS OF THE SCHOOL:

The matters written or told by IBN BABWAY shows the scale of hesitation and the extent of surmise and the amount of doubt among the followers of the Shia school. This statement of the writer is not true. Why? He says or imagines that a majority of Shia was dubious not quite certain, that is, certitude missed them and doubt gained them. Where there is a question, there is an answer. This does not mean that the question is the consequence of doubt. If a thing is answered by way of explanation, it is not that the society is drowned in doubts or it is overpowered by uncertainty, there is question and a question is espoused with reply. What IBN BABWAY points out is a thing plain and common. He says that the enemies, opponents and adversaries were creating doubts and pushing them by way of propaganda. They aimed at misguiding people who were poorly educated or had little knowledge and less information.

It was such doubts that were used to be answered. In every society, in every religion it is a common thing. Anyone either a Shia or a Sunni can ask as to why the Imam is absent or as to when he will appear. This is a good symptom in a society. It indicates a mental awareness or a religious awakening or an upraising of spirit. He wants to base his belief on the foundation of knowledge and the pedestal of cogency rather than on a track, which was paced by his forefathers. He asks, interrogates, inquires, and investigates but still does not change his course. This shows his staunch belief in the correctness of his path, which ascertains him of the destination he is heading to. To most questions the answer of the Prophet (SAW) applies: “This is God’s command and a secret among the Divine secrets”

46. IMMUNITY FROM SIN IS IT A NEW THING?

The writer says this is a thing newly thought upon and newly introduced. If he means that this issue is being newly argued; it is something else. In every environment a different tone is spoken. In every time a different vogue rules the taste. Therefore, we should speak what suits the language of the writer and at the same time avoid misleading our readers.

His claim that “ESMAT” (immunity from any wrongdoing or infallibility) is a newly made up thing, is completely out of tine. By so saying he has gone a great deal in repudiating or rejecting the prophet hood of the apostles and the Imamate of the Imams. The ‘ESMAT’, the infallibility of them is supported by REASON and attested by the Book of God - The Holy QURAN. The ALLAMA Hilli, has spoken of one thousand proofs. Nomani has narrated the tributes, which were narrated earlier to him by the eleventh Imam Hasan Askari (AS). It is well understood and well acknowledged. But what to do with ignorance? It is man’s arrogance to reject; his reason is his taste.

47. PROOFS OF TOTAL ABSENCE:

Under this subject he too has gone astray. By ‘ROWAAT’ (narrators) he means jurisprudents. The motive to him appears being the difference between the jurisprudents and the kings or rulers. His evidence is the saying of SAHEB JAWAHAR about the difference of opinion in the Friday prayers. What he says or what he has gathered by way of information is exaggeration. The writer is aiming at, a new forty volume jurisprudence series of books. It is not so easy to reject others opinion.

‘Rowaat’ applies to those who know the science of HADITH (tradition) - they should be experts in them to understand or make out sense. This has no relation to recent times. He can not link this word NARRATORS or ‘ROWAAT’ to jurisprudents. Those who are the scholars in this science of tradition are called ‘ROWAAT’ (NARRATORS).

Of course, the issue of the ‘jurisprudents’ guardianship during the absence of the Imam is mostly in dispute, or discussion, because it is a matter of public concern. Since it is a question of jurisprudence and a subordinary one, difference of opinion is common. In every certitude the dispute runs in the essentiality of there being a ruler, and a sanction from a jurisprudent. His proceeds, exercise of power and obligation of obedience to him or the government should be authorized by a jurisprudent. These are the issues totally of a different rank and category mentioned in jurisprudence.

48. PRIMARY SOURCES AND THE EXTENT OF THE GHEEBAT (ABSENCE)

The writer is again wrong in assuming that the twelfth Imam, according to the primitive and primary sources, was supposed to appear in the near future. The sources, which he is titling as primary or primitive have already said that the period of the absence (GHEEBAT) would be long and indefinite and that it would be gestant with ordeals. Jaber Ansari narrates the Prophet’s (SAW) words: “He is that who remains hidden from Shias and his friends. His ‘Imamate’ (Imam hood) would be difficult for words to confirm unless God tests the hearts against the belief.” Jaber says that the Prophet (SAW) spoke this when he first introduced the name and the pedigree of Imam Mahdi. Ali Bin Abi Taleb in NAHJUL BALAGHA says: “There is no ordeal longer than this and so hope remoter than this.” There are several narration in this regard. But none is there to indicate a hope of his appearance in the near future. There are a few sayings which do not have a ground and which are before the Imam hood of the eight Imam, Imam Reza (AS), that the appearance of the Imam was procrastinated due to the deeds of the Shia. The reason for the delay is a deed. This is groundless.

49. EVIDENCE OF REASON:

The writer says that the resort to reason is due to the lack of tradition or a fraud in tradition. Well, then what is the way to reach the truth if reason is rejected? What is heard might be wrong; what is said might be commentitious; what is told could be deceptive; well, then to what alternative should one resort to as a dernier one? In every dispute, reason has often stood powerful and strong. But on what reason the writer is not willing to entertain a reason is astonishing enough.

In any case, supposing there is any deviation in a tradition this would not amount to say that every tradition is invalid. What is false would not be so impetus as to nullify the fact. If in a bundle one thing happens to be short, it would not mean that the whole bundle is missing. Likewise, if an argument lames it can not be said that reason can not pace. In a human life hearing or oral evidences have a great influence? It is from this hearing that one garners knowledge, collects acquaintance with sciences, treasures information and holds it as a rod for aid. It is an irrefragable fact that in every age the market of false and fraud has had been flourishing, very much profitable, very much prolific. Still no one has denied the value of oral communications. A general consensus has approved oral evidences and oral proofs. This too can not be denied that every thing does not undergo the load of reason as; it is only accustomed to the yoke of proof that should be audible.

Besides, things pertaining belief or a faith like the prophet hood of the prophets, and the Imamate of the Imams, or the Day of Judgment, or the Next world one should create certitude in them. Else any proof, any evidence, any testimony would not help because it is not in their range to create a belief. If a narrator has narrated and the source of his story is only one it should be attested by the standard of that only source and should be an argumentally established one. Else, such narration can not be trusted.

After this prelude we go back again to the issue of OHEEBAT (absence) of the Imam and his Imam hood. To trust we need the source of the stories or the narration that surround this subject to be trustworthy and reliable. Who can be more so than the very person of the Prophet himself? If what we hear does not convince us we revert to reason. What is wrong in it?

If he says all the news and the hidings and the narration are fabricated ones, deprived of reality and brefet of truth, from the side of Bani Ommiya and Bani Abbas, that is, by their courts and courtiers, to obnubilate the real status of the Imams and to solidate their own stations, that is, to propagate after than realities and spread a mist so that the mentalities could not visualize farther it could serve a fortress to them necessary for their safety. No one denies this.

Yes, it was so; and, indeed, such they worked. But to what end? All such fabricated stories, false narration, fake sayings, flame words, and feigned traditions are distinguished. Therefore, they are sifted from the real and authentic ones, as grains from dust. Besides, the narrators too who were hired for this mission are pretty much discredited into their biographies and they are no more credible in the science of HADITH (tradition). They are discarded. When distinction is drawn between the truth and the false it is not a problem to ascertain the correct one from the wrong. The credibility of the traditions that pertain the Imamate established. This subject is a vast one, which opens wider avenues of discussion before us. The enemy of the Shia has in every age taken stand against them. The writer says that the narration and traditions are all false and fabricated ones. If so, why the enemy at every time and in every era of a caliph whether he be from BANI OMM’YA or he be from BANI ABBAS? Why were the people restricted from telling and hearing the traditions (that is the Prophet’s words) that mirrored the real station of the Imams and reflected their tributes? They are lies. Why care? Why be afraid of lies? A lie lives shorter than truth. A lie is always lame. A lie can not form a dread. The BANI OMM’YAS and BANI ABBAS even imprisoned those who only narrated what they had heard from the Prophet (SAW) about any of the twelve Imams. They confiscated the belongings of those persons. We just ask WHY?

The writer is claiming that the traditions were a fraud. Volumes are written about the atrocities of the caliphs because of the traditions which the scholars spoken or wrote and the poets sang all in the praise of the Prophet’s Household - the Imams. Even the Sunni authorities, like BUKHARI has written in his book SAHEEH about Imam Sadiq (AS), he first curses them who had restricted the narration of such traditions. He says: “God curse them for turning down the truth.” Abu Hanifa, a student of Imam Sadiq (AS) too admits the greatness of the truth surrounding the Prophet’s Household, the AHLUL BAIT. But all this is a lie to the writer. We leave him to BUKHARI.

50. REALITY OF REASON OR AUDIENCE:

Reality of reason, as the writer says, is it preferable over the reality of hearing? This is a question well drawn and it can be well answered. The subject of IMAMAT is like that of prophet hood and the conditions surrounding a prophet. To prove a general Imam hood, that is, the need for an Imam and the conditions of Imam; reason is enough to prove it. Had the issue of IMAMAT been one of those that remained out of the premises conception and reason, not independent enough to have say in it, the hearing of the proof would suffice like that of the Prophet’s (SAW) teachings. What the Prophet (SAW) has advocated or instructed is in itself a ground for the reason to be taken in account. The condition that an Imam should have immunity from any wrong doings, that is, ESMAT, and for his appointment people have no part; it is reasonable. On the other hand, what is heard form the Prophet (SAW) in this regard is also a proofa ground to establish the truth? What the Prophet (SAW) said and what we heard from him is alike with reason sufficient to establish the truth. Reason can not accept what one accepts by hearing. For some items only hearing of the proof is essential. For example, the existence of an Imam, the benefits, the blessings that ensue there from can not be proved by reason; they can be established only by audible evidence. This is also applied to the prophet hood.

With regards to a particular Imam, the previous one introduces the coming one that is his successor - exactly the same as the prophets did. Jesus (AS) foretold the prophet hood of Mohammed (SAW). The predecessor informs the people as to whom his successor is. The testament of one prophet or imam to the prophet-hood or the Imam hood of the coming one is a proof to establish the truth of that prophet or the Imam. To explain here we should say that a miracle is a proof for the prophet. Almost all the prophets were blest with this power to perform miracles by the Greatness of God. The first Prophet can not establish the truth unless he should show or comply with the demands to show a miracle. God has sent His Prophet with the power to perform miracles because a miracle can not be denied, and it establishes the truth of his being a prophet. A miracle is a proof that of reason and that of hearing. The miracle can be seen by those who are there and can not be witnessed by those who are somewhere else. Here to them only the narration, the hearing is proof authentic enough to establish the truth. The Quran is the only miracle, which does not demand any hearing proof because of its eternality. It is the perfection of Islam and its rules and its morals.

The Imamat of the first Imam. A text that of Divine establishes its truth. It is the Prophet (SAW) who should establish the Imamate of the Imam he is appointing. The Prophet’s word here is authority because h is God’s command through the Prophet’s word.

Imam too performs miracle. The proof of Imamate is his miracle or the Prophet’s appointment or word. Since the Imam is appointed by the Prophet (SAW) by the command of God is the proof of his truth.

In other words it is upon the Prophet (SAW) to establish the Imamate whom he has introduced under God’s order. Supposingly the proofs, which are forwarded by the Prophet, were not available to us or they become doubtful or various interpretations had made it dubious, then the one man to turn to would have been Ali Bin Abi Taleb. As there being no one other than him referred to or mentioned by the Prophet. Since the man in guardian is one, the benefit of doubt can not be availed by any one else. It was one man, as told by the Prophet (SAW), instructed and specified by him. Here the truth goes to the favor of Ali Bin Abi Taleb because there was no one second to him.

An Imam appointed by God through His Prophet is infallible and immune from sin. He should act as a leader, guide, and guardian of the people in all their religious, social, political and social spheres. Ali Bin Abi Taleb was a Divine Imam immune from sin, infallible and impeccable. There was other than himself that such a claim was made.

As for the twelfth Imam, the earth should have God’s representative, ‘HUJJAT’, that is, the Authority, the witness. In no age can the earth remain without one. The claim of Imamate is made to him alone. So he stands as the Imam whether present or absent. The others who made the claim proved themselves liars. In the denial of Imamate we deny justice to God. It is the demand of justice, as reason dictates that God should keep His Authority in the world. If evil grows and is not checked then it could be attributed to God and that is absolutely unreasonable.