The Book of Occultation

The Argument of the Sheikh of the Congregation, the Most Venerable Al-tusi

Our discourse with respect to the occultation of the Patron of the Age pursues two pathways:

One is that we say, since (a) it is proved that there must be an Imam in every age, (b) and that it is not possible that the people, being fallible, be at any give time without a chief, (c) and that the chief must be ascertained to be infallible, (d) and it is the case that such a chief is either manifest and known or hidden and unbeknownst, (e) and likewise it is clear that all those for whom a manifest imamate is claimed, their infallibility is not ascertained, but rather the outward appearance of their actions contradict infallibility, it is inferred that the infallible imam who must exist in every age is hidden and invisible. Likewise, taken into consideration that all those for whom infallibility is claimed, and are said to be invisible and hidden, such as the proclaimed hidden leaders of the Kisāniyya, Nawūsiyya, Fatihiyya, the Wāqifiyya, and others, their words are invalid, the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan and his occultation and his guardianship (Wilāya) is proved. This argument, relying on these premises, which are very transparent, and the fact that the truth is not outside the bounds of this Ummah, does not need take on the burden of proving his birth and explaining the reason of his occultation and proving his guardianship.

The second pathway of our argument is thus: The inquiry of the occultation of Ibn al-Hasan is secondary to proving his Imamate. Our adversary either submits to us in the question of his Imamate and inquires about the reason of his occultation, obliging us with answering him; or he does not submit to us in the question of his Imamate, in which case, to inquire about the reason of the occultation of someone whose Imamate has not been proven will be meaningless. If disputed about proving his Imamate, we prove it through our assertion as follows:

The necessity of Imamate in every condition and age as long as Divine obligations and duties fall on the shoulders of the fallible human beings is proved through forceful proofs.

ذكر الأدلة التى ذكرها شيخ الطائفة S على اثبات الغيبة {style="direction: rtl"}

قال(رحمة الله): اعلم أن لنا في الكلام في غيبة صاحب الزمان (ع) طريقين:

أحدهما أن نقول: إذا ثبت وجوب الإمامة في كل حال وأن الخلق مع كونهم غير معصومين لا يجوز أن يخلو من رئيس في وقت من الاوقات وأن من شرط الرئيس أن يكون مقطوعاً على عصمته فلا يخلو ذلك الرئيس من أن يكون ظاهراً معلوماً أو غائباً مستوراً فإذا علمنا أن كل من يدعى له الإمامة ظاهراً ليس بمقطوع على عصمته بل ظاهر أفعالهم وأحوالهم ينافي العصمة ممن هو غائب من الكيسانية والناووسية والفطحية والواقفة وغيرهم قولهم باطل علمنا بذلك صحة إمامة ابن الحسن وصحة غيبته وولايته ولا نحتاج إلى تكلف الكلام في إثبات ولادته وسبب غيبته مع ثبوت ما ذكرناه ولان الحق لا يجوز خروجه عن الأمة.

والطريق الثاني أن نقول: الكلام في غيبة ابن الحسن فرع على ثبوت إمامته والمخالف لنا إما أن يسلم لنا إمامته ويسأل عن سبب غيبته فنكلف جوابه أو (لا) يسلم لنا إمامته فلا معنى لسؤاله عن غيبة من لم يثبت إمامته ومتى نوزعنا في ثبوت إمامته دللنا عليها بأن نقول قد ثبت وجوب الإمامة مع بقاء التكليف على من ليس بمعصوم في جميع الأحوال والأعصار بالأدلة القاهرة.

It is likewise proved that one of the conditions of the Imam is to be certain of his infallibility. On the same token, it is clear that the truth is exclusive to this Ummah. With these premises proven and clear, we find the Ummah divided into a number of beliefs. One congregation says that there is no Imam. The premise averring the necessity of Imam in every age and condition invalidates this assertion. Another group claims the Imamate of someone whose infallibility is not certain, an assertion invalidated on the grounds of our proofs with regard to the necessity of certainty about the infallibility of the Imam. Observation testifies to the contrary of the contention of others who maintain the infallibility of their professed imams. Because the actions of these imams are apparent and their conditions violate infallibility, hence no need to take the burden of disproving a belief the contrary of which is so very evident. Entities for whom infallibility has been claimed and certain congregations have followed them, such as the Kisāniyya who maintain the imamate of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya, the Nāwūsiyya who profess the imamate of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad and that he has not died, and the Wāqifa who believe that Musā Ibn Ja‘far has not died—these beliefs are invalid for the reasons we will shortly state.

Thus, both pathways depend on the invalidation of the beliefs of these denominations in order for our purpose to be established. Likewise, the three principles—the necessity of the presence of an Imam, necessity of certainty of his infallibility, and that truth is exclusive to this Ummah—which we mentioned, must be established for this argument to stand. We will elaborate on each one of these premises in a brief manner, since their detail exists in our book on Imamate to an extent that can hardly be expanded further, whereas the purpose of this book is exclusive to the topic of occultation and no more. Allah is the One Who we seek success from for this with purpose.

The proof for the necessity of leadership is that it is a lutf and a principle that rationality testifies to its necessary validity. It is like knowing that God exists, a principle every mukallaf must be availed to. Don’t you see that it is evident that when an fallible group of people are without an awe-inspiring and venerable leader, who would stop the enemy, reprimand the criminal, seize the hand of the counterfeiter, and defend the weakling against the strong, mischief occurs, deceptions spread, debauchery increases and propriety becomes a rarity? And when they have a leader with these qualities the situation becomes the opposite, with integrity expanding and encompassing, mischief becoming uncommon and rare? This is so very obvious and any man of common sense would agree to it—rendering anyone who disputes it unworthy of conversation. We have fully responded to any imaginable query with this regard in Talkhīs al-Shāfi and Sharh al-Jumal, and will not lengthen the inquiry by mentioning them here.

I found one of the recent-day writers criticizing the work of al-Seyed al-Murtadhā in the question of occultation, wishfully assuming that he has discovered a line of reasoning and adorning his falsity as righteousness for someone who lacks talent and intellectuality. I would like to discuss his arguments.

وثبت أيضا أن من شرط الامام أن يكون مقطوعاً على عصمته وعلمنا أيضا أن الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة. فإذا ثبت ذلك وجدنا الأمة بين أقوال بين قائل: يقول لا إمام فما ثبت من وجوب الإمامة في كل حال يفسد قوله، وقائل يقول بامامة من ليس بمقطوع على عصمته فقوله يبطل بما دللنا عليه من وجوب القطع على عصمة الامام.

ومن ادعى العصمة لبعض من يذهب إلى إمامته فالشاهد يشهد بخلاف قوله لان أفعالهم الظاهرة وأحوالهم تنافي العصمة، فلا وجه لتكلف القول فيما نعلم ضرورة خلافه، ومن ادعيت له العصمة وذهب قوم إلى إمامته كالكيسانية القائلين بإمامة محمد بن الحنفية والناووسية القائلين بإمامة جعفر بن محمد وأنه لم يمت والواقفة الذين قالوا: إن موسى بن جعفر لم يمت فقولهم باطل من وجوه سنذكرها.

فصار الطريقان محتاجين إلى فساد قول هذه الفرق ليتم ما قصدناه ويفتقران إلى إثبات الاصول الثلاثة التي ذكرناها من وجوب الرئاسة، ووجوب القطع على العصمة، وأن الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة. ونحن ندل على كل واحد من هذه الاقوال بموجز من القول لان استيفاء ذلك موجود في كتبي في الإمامة على وجه لا مزيد عليه والغرض بهذا الكتاب ما يختص الغيبة دون غيرها والله الموفق لذلك بمنه.

والذي يدل على وجوب الرئاسة ما ثبت من كونها لطفا في الواجبات العقلية فصارت واجبة كالمعرفة التي لا يعرى مكلف من وجوبها عليه.

ألا ترى أن من المعلوم أن من ليس بمعصوم من الخلق متى خلوا من رئيس مهيب يردع المعاند ويؤدب الجاني ويأخذ على يد المتقلب ويمنع القوي من الضعيف وأمنوا ذلك، وقع الفساد وانتشر الحيل، وكثر الفساد، وقل الصلاح، ومتى كان لهم رئيس هذه صفته كان الامر بالعكس من ذلك، من شمول الصلاح وكثرته، وقلة الفساد ونـزارته والعلم بذلك ضروري لا يخفى على العقلاء فمن دفعه لا يحسن مكالمته وأجبنا عن كل ما يسأل على ذلك مستوفى في تلخيص الشافي وشرح الجمل لانطول بذكره ههنا. ووجدت لبعض المتأخرين كلاما اعترض به كلام المرتضى في الغيبة وظن أنه ظفر بطائل فموه به على من ليس له قريحة ولا بصر بوجوه النظر وأنا أتكلم عليه.

He says, The discourse about occultation and criticism thereof consists of three stages:

First: We prove to the Imāmiyya that occultation involves an evil aspect (qubh), or that conferring obligations during occultation involves an evil aspect. They will be required to prove that occultation does not involve any evil aspect, because if evil is involved, occultation becomes evil, through it may carry a good aspect, just as we say in conferring a duty that is beyond one’s capacity, that it involves an evil aspect, though it may involve a good aspect by being a lutf for others.

Second: Occultation violates the argument of the necessity of Imamate in every age. Because, if the fact that the presence of a venerable and awe-inspiring leader in charge of the affairs, who leads the public away from evil, makes his presence a necessary lutf in every age and conferring of obligations without him wrong, this principle cannot stand violated in the time of occultation, since we would be away from evil in the time of occultation if we were with a leader who has these qualities. This is the proof of the necessity of such Divinely ordained leadership. However, the existence of a leader as such is not proved in the time of the occultation, nor has been proven that it is unjust to have religious obligations when he is not present. Thus, the proof stands violated.

Third is to say that according to you, the benefit of Imamate is that it leads the society away from the wrong. However, this cannot be achieved with him being hiding and therefore, his existence and nonexistence have no difference. As his hidden existence does not correspond to his necessary existence you have argued for, your argument does not lead to the necessity of his existence during occultation. Therefore, though your argument indicates your point when he exists in the condition of administering the society, it does not prove an Imam who is not running the affairs of the society, nor is an Imam who is running the affairs of the society is.

The assessment of this argument is as follows: The first segment of his argument, “We prove to the Imāmiyya that occultation involves an evil aspect,” is a mere promise he makes. It was worthy that he had explained “the evil aspect” which he desired to prove to the Imāmiyya, so it would have been possible for us to contemplate it. He has not done that and therefore, his argument is inconclusive.

If he should say in the way of inquiring, “Do you reject that occultation involves a wrong aspect?” our response would be that wrong aspects are conceivable in the context of oppression, vanity, lie, debauchery, and ignorance, and none of these things are involved here. This leads us to reject the presence of any wrong aspect.

If it should be asserted that the wrong aspect is the fact that according to you, he is always the reason for the justification of conferment of religious obligations, whereas the lutf of his administration of the affairs and the fear of his chastisement are not materialized; this a breach in the lutf deferred to the mukallaf, hence the aspect of evil; the answer to this criticism would be that we have explained in the context of the necessity of Imamate, as we referred to it, that his administration of the affairs and fear of his chastisement are not availed to the mukallafs due to their own behavior.

فقال: الكلام في الغيبة والاعتراض عليها من ثلاثة أوجه: أحدها أن نلزم الامامية ثبوت وجه قبح فيها أو في التكليف معها فيلزمهم أن يثبتوا أن الغيبة ليس فيها وجه قبح لان مع ثبوت وجه القبح تقبح الغيبة وإن ثبت فيها وجه حسن كما نقول في قبح تكليف مالا يطاق أن فيه وجه قبح وإن كان فيه وجه حسن بأن يكون لطفا لغيره.

والثاني أن الغيبة تنقض طريق وجوب الإمامة في كل زمان لان كون الناس مع رئيس مهيب متصرف أبعد من القبيح لو اقتضى كونه لطفاً واجباً في كل حال وقبح التكليف مع فقده لانتقض بزمان الغيبة لأنا في زمان الغيبة نكون مع رئيس هذه سبيله أبعد من القبيح وهو دليل وجوب هذه الرئاسة، ولم يجب وجود رئيس هذه صفته في زمان الغيبة ولا قبح التكليف مع فقده، فقد وجد الدليل ولا مدلول وهذا نقض الدليل.

والثالث أن يقال: إن الفائدة بالإمامة هي كونه مبعدا من القبيح على قولكم وذلك لا يحصل مع وجوده غائبا فلم ينفصل وجوده من عدمه، وإذا لم يختص وجوده غائبا بوجه الوجوب الذي ذكروه لم يقتض دليلهم وجوب وجوده مع الغيبة، فدليلكم مع أنه منتقض حيث وجد مع انبساط اليد ولم يجب انبساط اليد مع الغيبة فهو غير متعلق بوجود إمام غير منبسط اليد، ولا هو حاصل في هذه الحال.

الكلام عليه أن نقول: أما الفصل الاول من قوله: "إنا نلزم الامامية أن يكون في الغيبة وجه قبح "وعيد منه محض لا يقترن به حجة فكان ينبغي أن يبين وجه القبح الذي أراد إلزامه إياهم لننظر فيه ولم يفعل فلا يتوجه وعيده وإن قال ذلك سائلا على وجه" ما أنكرتم أن يكون فيها وجه قبح " فانا نقول وجوه القبح معقولة من كون الشئ ظلما وعبئا وكذبا ومفسدة وجهلا وليس شئ من ذلك موجودا ههنا فعلمنا بذلك انتفاء وجود القبح.

فان قيل: وجه القبح أنه لم يزح علة المكلف على قولكم لان انبساط يده الذي هو لطف في الحقيقة والخوف من تأديبه لم يحصل فصار ذلك إخلالاً بلطف المكلف فقبح لاجله. قلنا: قد بينا في باب وجوب الإمامة بحيث أشرنا إليه أن انبساط يده والخوف من تأديبه إنما فات المكلفين لما يرجع إليهم.

Because they forced him to go into hiding by threatening him and did not empower him to run the society. Therefore, this is an evil that they have caused themselves. This is similar to a case where someone says, “Religious obligations with respect to a person who does not have the knowledge of the existence of Allah, the Exalted, is wrong, since he has not been availed to the knowledge that is lutf for him. Therefore, committing him to religious obligations is wrong.” The same way our adversary would answer a question as such—that the infidel did that on his own, because Allah assigned ways to His cognition and gave him the capacity to attain belief, and if he did not respect that and did not attain faith, he did that on his own and this does not render his subjection to religious duties wrong—we reply that though administration of affairs by the Imam is not a blessing that the mukallafs enjoy in the time of the occultation, but that is something they caused themselves. And should they provide the Imam with the power to run the affairs, he will appear and administer the society and his lutf will materialize. Therefore, religious duties are not wrong during his occultation, for the guilt rests in the mukallafs, and not in the Imam. We have explained similar cases in the books we referred to, and we will mention them should the need rise in the future.

As for the second segment of his argument: It is based on his own words. We do not say he did not understand what he stated, for this man is better than that, however, he desired to misguide and disguise lunacy in lucidity, by saying, “The argument for the necessity of the leadership stands violated by the occultation, since if the fact that an awe-inspiring Imam, who is in charge of the affairs makes people away from the wrong, renders his presence a necessary lutf in all ages and religious obligations without him unjust, this would be violated in the time of 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 contradiction.”

We said this is disguising lunacy in lucidity because he presupposes that we say the proof for the existence of the Imam stands in the time of occultation while there is no Imam, which is a contradiction. However, we do not say that. Rather, our proof in the time of the presence of the Imam is the very same proof in the time of his occultation, for the Imam is lutf in both conditions. We do not say that the leader does not exist in the age of occultation; rather, we maintain that the leader exists, however, due to the behavior of the mukallafīn he does not administer the affairs of the society, not that his administration of the society is not a lutf anymore. Rather, it is lutf as ever. And it has not materialized due to reasons not endorsed by Allah. This is similar to the following argument: “How can the knowledge of the existence of God be lutf, while the infidel does not know about God’s existence? Since the infidel is obliged with duties and he is not blessed with faith, it proves that the knowledge of God’s existence and faith is not always lutf. Because if it were, it would be self-contradictory.”

لأنهم أحوجوه إلى الاستتار بأن أخافوه ولم يمكنوه فاتوا من قبل نفوسهم وجرى ذلك مجرى أن يقول قائل: "من لم يحصل له معرفة الله تعالى، في تكليفه وجه قبح" لأنه لم يحصل ما هو لطف له من المعرفة فينبغي أن يقبح تكليفه فما يقولونه ههنا من أن الكافر أتي من قبل نفسه لان الله قد نصب له الدلالة على معرفته ومكنه من الوصول إليها.

فإذا لم ينظر ولم يعرف اتي في ذلك من قبل نفسه ولم يقبح ذلك تكليفه فكذلك نقول: انبساط يد الامام وإن فات المكلف فانما اتي من قبل نفسه ولو مكنه لظهر وانبسطت يده فحصل لطفه فلم يقبح تكليفه لان الحجة عليه لا له.

وقد استوفينا نظائر ذلك في الموضع الذي أشرنا إليه وسنذكر فيما بعد إذا عرض ما يحتاج إلى ذكره.

وأما الكلام في الفصل الثاني فهو مبني على ألفاظه ولا نقول إنه لم يفهم ما أورده لأن الرجل كان فوق ذلك لكن أراد التلبيس والتمويه وهو قوله إن دليل وجوب الرئاسة ينتقض بحال الغيبة لأن كون الناس مع رئيس مهيب متصرف أبعد من القبيح لو اقتضى كونه لطفاً واجباً على كل حال وقبح التكليف مع فقده ينتقض في زمان الغيبة ولم يقبح التكليف مع فقده فقد وجد الدليل ولا مدلول وهذا نقض.

وإنما قلنا إنه تمويه لأن ظن أنا نقول إن في حال الغيبة دليل وجوب الإمامة قائم ولا إمام فكان نقضا ولا نقول ذلك، بل دليلنا في حال وجود الامام بعينه هو دليل حال غيبته في أن في الحالين الامام لطف فذ نقول إن زمان الغيبة خلا من وجود رئيس بل عندنا أن الرئيس حاصل وإنما ارتفع انبساط يده لما يرجع إلى المكلفين على ما بيناه لا لأن انبساط يده خرج من كونه لطفا بل وجه اللطف به قائم وإنما لم يحصل لما يرجع إلى غير الله فجرى مجرى أن يقول قائل كيف يكون معرفة الله تعالى لطفاً مع أن الكافر لا يعرف الله فلما كان التكليف على الكافر قائماً والمعرفة مرتفعة دل على أن المعرفة ليست لطفا على كل حال لانها لو كانت كذلك لكان نقضاً.

Our response in the query of Imamate is similar to their response in the query of faith, to wit, belief in God is lutf as ever with regard to the infidel, but he has failed to gain it because of his failure to think, which would have led him to this belief, and therefore, conferring religious duties on him is not wrong. Likewise, we say that Imamate is lutf for the mukallaf in the time of occultation; and all that God must provide in order for this Imamate to materialize, He has provided. However, his administration of the society is not materialized because of the mukallfīn themselves. Therefore, the responses to both queries are parallel. Discourse with this regard is also detailed, as we mentioned.

And the third segment of his assertion: “The benefit of Imamate is that it takes the society away from the wrong according to you. However, this cannot be achieved with him in hiding and therefore, his existence and nonexistence have not much difference. As his hidden existence does not correspond to his necessary existence you have argued for, your argument—despite being contradicted when he is found administering the society, and administering the society is not necessary during the occultation**[1]**—does not lead to the existence of an Imam who is not running the affairs of the society, nor such an Imam exists at this time.”

We respond that the adversary has done little more than complicating his argument, as logicians say, by turning around premises and referring them to one another. Obviously, he has intended to disguise lunacy beneath lucidity, and fallacy beneath logic. Otherwise, the subject is clearer than to be ambiguous. When has the Imāmiyya said that the administration of the affairs by the Imam is not necessary during the time of occultation so it could be said your proof does not prove the necessity of the existence of an Imam who is not administering the society because this is the time of occultation? Rather, what we have enunciated time and again is that his administration of the society is necessary in all conditions, his occultation as well as his appearance. However, in the time of his appearance he is able to do administer the society and he does that, and in the time of occultation he is unable to perform that and does not do it, because public administration does not remain obligatory anymore. We explained that the mukallafīn are to be blamed for this, as they prohibited him, did not empower him, and took on the task themselves. We compared this to the subject of faith in the Deity time and again. Furthermore, we know that once religious duties have been conferred, Imamate is necessary because assigning him bears a lutf and he performs duties which no one else can. One has to bear in mind that empowering and assigning the right person is not in the capacity of “the senior and wise” (ahl al-hall wa al-*‘*aqd), especially so according to the *‘*Adliyya, the category this adversary belongs to.

[1] Evidently, the adversary has made great efforts to complicate his assertion and to hide his fallacies, as the noblest of all Sheikhs, the Sheikh of the Congregation, points out. This is how it sounds in Arabic, complicated and without fluency and consistency.

وجوابنا في الإمامة كجوابهم في المعرفة من أن الكافر لطفه قائم بالمعرفة وإنما فوت (على) نفسه بالتفريط في النظر المؤدي إليها فلم يقبح تكليفه فكذلك نقول: الرئاسة لطف للمكلف في حال الغيبة وما يتعلق بالله من إيجاده حاصل وإنما ارتفع تصرفه وانبساط يده لأمر يرجع إلى المكلفين فاستوى الامران والكلام في هذا المعنى مستوفى أيضا بحيث ذكرناه.

وأما الكلام في الفصل الثالث من قوله إن الفائدة بالإمامة هي كونه مبعداً من القبيح على قولكم وذلك لم يحصل مع غيبته فلم ينفصل وجوده من عدمه فإذا لم يختص وجوده غائبا بوجه الوجوب الذي ذكروه لم يقتض دليلهم وجوب وجوده مع الغيبة، فدليلكم مع أنه منتقض حيث وجد مع انبساط اليد ولم يجب انبساط اليد مع الغيبة فهو غير متعلق بوجود إمام غير منبسط اليد ولا هو حاصل في هذه الحال.

فانا نقول: إنه لم يفعل في هذا الفصل أكثر من تعقيد القول على طريقة المنطقيين من قلب المقدمات ورد بعضها على بعض ولا شك أنه قصد بذلك التمويه والمغالطة وإلا فالامر أوضح من أن يخفى متى قالت الامامية إن انبساط يد الامام لا يجب في حال الغيبة حتى يقول: دليلكم لا يدل على وجوب إمام غير منبسط اليد لان هذه حال الغيبة، بل الذي صرحنا دفعة بعد اخرى أن انبساط يده واجب في الحالين في حال ظهوره وحال غيبته غير أن حال ظهوره مكن منه فانبسطت يده وحال الغيبة لم يمكن فانقبضت يده لا أن انبساط يده خرج من باب الوجوب وبينا أن الحجة بذلك قائمة على المكلفين من حيث منعوه ولم يمكنوه فاتوا من قبل نفوسهم، وشبهنا ذلك بالمعرفة دفعة بعد اخرى. وأيضا فانا نعلم أن نصب الرئيس واجب بعد الشرع لما في نصبه من اللطف لتحمله القيام بما لا يقوم به غيره، ومع هذا فليس التمكين واقعا لاهل الحل والعقد من نصب من يصلح لها خاصة على مذهب أهل العدل الذين كلامنا معهم.

Therefore, no one says that the necessity of appointing the leader is diminished now as his empowerment is not possible. Our answer with respect to the occultation of the Imam is the same as their answer in the incapacity of “the senior and the wise” with respect to choosing a suitable candidate for Imamate. The only difference is that we say we know this through rationality and they say it is known through the Shar*‘*, which is a difference that does not divide us on the issue.

Critique: When “the senior and the wise” lack the power to choose who is best for Imamate, Allah bestows other altāf which take the place of an Imam who is in power. Therefore, religious commands remain intact and are not relinquished. Some of the Sheikhs have said that the appointment of an Imam is necessary in the Shar*‘* for worldly expediencies, and it is not necessary that Allah bestows a lutf when a worldly benefit is missing.

Answer: The idea that the appointment of the Imam is for worldly expediencies is false, for if it were as such, his appointment would not have been obligatory, whereas they have no disagreement that establishing Imamate is obligatory when possible. Additionally, the many affairs which the Imam leads—such as jihād, overseeing the governors and judges, distributing the spoils, executing the penalties and punishments—they are religious matters that cannot be abandoned. If they were for worldly expediencies, they would not be obligatory. Therefore, his argument is not binding.

As for the theory that Allah will do something to take the place of the presence of an Imam, it is a void idea, since if it were such, it would not be required to appoint an Imam in all conditions, even when it were possible, and it would be only a matter of choice, like the kifāyee obligations. The fact that we know that the appointment of the Imam is necessary in all conditions indicates the falsity of their assertion. Besides, either way**[1]** the logic of this reasoning encourages that when the infidel does not attain belief in Allah, He will do him a lutf that takes the place of belief in Him, which leads to the conclusion that belief in Allah is not always necessary. Or a parallel argument would follow that because the restraint from oppression that is attained when one has faith is a worldly expediency, belief in Allah should not be necessary for it. If it should be argued that there is no alternative to belief in Allah, on the same grounds we will assert that there is no alternative to the Imam. We have explained this fully in Talkhīs al-Shāfi. Likewise, if they should expound that abstinence from the wrong when one has belief is a religious matter, we would assert that its analogy in the being of the Imam is the same.

Critique: Given the existence of a leader who is obeyed and runs the affairs of the society is necessary, either it is all the work of Allah to offer, or it is for Allah to create him and for us to empower him with the administration of the society, or it is required of us both to create and empower him.

[1] Whether the appointment of the Imam is for worldly reasons or that Allah substitutes him by a lutf.

ومع هذا لا يقول أحد إن وجوب نصب الرئيس سقط الآن من حيث لم يقع التمكين منه، فجوابنا في غيبة الامام جوابهم في منع أهل الحل والعقد من اختيار من يصلح لإمامة ولا فرق بينهما فإنما الخلاف بيننا أنا قلنا علمنا ذلك عقلاً وقالوا ذلك معلوم شرعاً وذلك فرق من غير موضع الجمع.

فان قيل: أهل الحل والعقد إذا لم يتمكنوا من اختيار من يصلح للامامة فإن الله يفعل ما يقوم مقام ذلك من الالطاف فلا يجب إسقاط التكليف وفي الشيوخ من قال إن الامام يجب نصبه في الشرع لمصالح دنياوية وذلك غير واجب أن يفعل لها اللطف.

قلنا: أما من قال نصب الامام لمصالح دنياوية قوله يفسد لانه لو كان كذلك لما وجب إمامته ولا خلاف بينهم في أنه يجب إقامة الإمامة مع الاختيار على أن ما يقوم به الامام من الجهاد وتولية الامراء والقضاء، وقسمة الفئ، واستيفاء الحدود والقصاصات امور دينية لا يجوز تركها، ولو كان لمصلحة دنياوية لما وجب ذلك فقوله ساقط بذلك.

وأما من قال: يفعل الله ما يقوم مقامه باطل لأنه لو كان كذلك لما وجب عليه إقامة الإمام مطلقاً على كل حال ولكان يكون ذلك من باب التخيير كما نقول في فروض الكفايات وفي علمنا بتعيين ذلك ووجوبه على كل حال دليل على فساد ما قالوه.

على أنه يلزم على الوجهين جميعاً المعرفة بأن يقال: الكافر إذا لم يحصل له المعرفة يفعل الله له ما يقوم مقامها فلا يجب عليه المعرفة على كل حال أو يقال إنما يحصل من الانـزجار عن فعل الظلم عند المعرفة أمر دنياوي لا يجب لها المعرفة فيجب من ذلك إسقاط وجوب المعرفة، ومتى قيل إنه لا بدل للمعرفة، قلنا وكذلك لا بدل للإمام، على ما مضى وذكرناه في تلخيص الشافي، وكذلك إن بينوا أن الانـزجار من القبيح عند المعرفة أمر ديني قلنا مثل ذلك في وجود الامام سواء.

فان قيل: لا يخلو وجود رئيس مطاع منبسط اليد من أن يجب على الله جميع ذلك أو يجب علينا جميعه أو يجب على الله إيجاده وعلينا بسط يده.

If you say all of that is necessary for Allah, your assertion will be contradicted by the time of occultation, as He has not created an Imam who is running the society. If it is required of us to do it all, it is a task that we do not have the capacity to perform, for we do not have the ability to create him. If it is required of Him to create him and for us to invest him with the power and authority of administration, then first, what is your proof? Second, it proceeds that we should be required to do something which is actually a lutf for someone else. How would it be possible that Zaid be required to empower the Imam so ‘Amr’s lutf can be materialized? Is this but a violation of principles?

Answer: Our assertion is that since the existence of an Imam with the authority to administer the society is proved to be a lutf, due to the arguments we have established for this purpose, and as his creation is not in our power, it would not be right that we should be required to create him, for it would be assigning a duty that is beyond our capacity. As for empowering him with administrative affairs and strengthening his scepter, many a time it is within our capacity and the capacity of Allah. However, when He does not do that, we infer that it is not necessary for Him to do so and that it is necessary for us, because he must be in charge of the affairs so the purpose of the Divinely ordained duties be materialized. We explained that should investing administrative powers be the work of Allah, the Exalted, He would compel the creation to that purpose. However, getting between him and his enemies, strengthening his command through angels, would lose the purpose of the Divinely ordained duties and would lead to compulsion. Therefore, it is our duty to empower him in every condition and should we not do that, it is something that we have done it ourselves. As for their assertion that this amounts to procuring lutf for someone else, it is incorrect, because we say, each person who helps the Imam and strengthens his scepter, enjoys a benefit specific for himself, may it carry expediency for others as well. It is like what you say about the apostles that their carriage of the burden of Prophethood and delivery of the message to the public bears expediency for others. This requires the adversary to answer a query about “the senior and the wise” that how is it that it is obligatory upon them to choose an Imam for expediencies that encompasses the entire Ummah and is that but a requiring one to do something that benefits someone else? Whatever may be your justification with regard to the situation of the apostles is our very answer here.

If it should be inquired, “Why do you believe that he must exist in the time of occultation, and why is it not possible that he does not exist?” We will respond that we consider his existence necessary for the following: His administration of the affairs and leadership of the society, which is lutf with respect to us, is not possible without his existence. And as his creation is not in our capacity, we said it is obligatory upon Allah, or else it would mean that we are not the missing part of the cause of materialization of lutf, meaning that, missing the lutf is His work and not ours. However, if He creates him but we do not vest the power of running the society in him, it is our work, and therefore, ordainment of duties is correct. Whereas, in the previous supposition it would be incorrect.

فان قلتم يجب جميع ذلك على الله، فانه ينتقض بحال الغيبة لانه لم يوجد إمام منبسط اليد وإن وجب علينا جميعه فذلك تكليف ما لا يطاق لانا لا نقدر على إيجاده وإن وجب عليه إيجاده وعلينا بسط يده وتمكينه فما دليلكم عليه مع أن فيه أنه يجب علينا أن نفعل ما هو لطف للغير وكيف يجب على زيد بسط يد الامام ليحصل لطف عمرو، وهل ذلك إلا نقض الاصول.

قلنا: الذي نقوله أن وجود الامام المنبسط اليد إذا ثبت أنه لطف لنا على ما دللنا عليه ولم يكن إيجاده في مقدورنا لم يحسن أن نكلف إيجاده لانه تكليف مالا يطاق وبسط يده وتقوية سلطانه قد يكون في مقدورنا وفي مقدور الله فإذا لم يفعل الله علمنا أنه غير واجب عليه وأنه واجب علينا لانه لابد من أن يكون منبسط اليد ليتم الغرض بالتكليف وبينا بذلك أن بسط يده لو كان من فعله تعالى لقهر الخلق عليه بالحيلولة بينه وبين أعدائه وتقوية أمره بالملائكة وبما أدى إلى سقوط الغرض بالتكليف، وحصول الالجاء، فإذا يجب علينا بسط يده على كل حال وإذا لم نفعله اتينا من قبل نفوسنا.

فأما قولهم: في ذلك إيجاد اللطف علينا للغير، غير صحيح لانا نقول إن كل من يجب عليه نصرة الامام وتقوية سلطانه له في ذلك مصلحة تخصه وإن كانت فيه مصلحة ترجع إلى غيره كما تقوله في أن الانبياء يجب عليهم تحمل أعباء النبوة والاداء إلى الخلق ما هو مصلحة لهم لان لهم في القيام بذلك مصلحة تخصهم وإن كانت فيها مصلحة لغيرهم.

ويلزم المخالف في أهل الحل والعقد بأن يقال: كيف يجب عليهم اختيار الامام لمصلحة ترجع إلى جميع الأمة وهل ذلك إلا إيجاب الفعل عليهم لما يرجع إلى مصلحة غيرهم فأي شئ أجابوا به فهو جوابنا بعينه سواء. فان قيل: لم زعمتم أنه يجب إيجاده في حال الغيبة وهلا جاز أن يكون معدوما. قلنا: إنما أوجبناه من حيث إن تصرفه الذي هو لطفنا إذا لم يتم إلا بعد وجوده وإيجاده لم يكن في مقدورنا قلنا عند ذلك أنه يجب على الله ذلك وإلا أدى إلى أن لا نكون مزاحي العلة بفعل اللطف فنكون اتينا من قبله تعالى لا من قبلنا وإذا أوجده ولم نمكنه من انبساط يده اتينا من قبل نفوسنا فحسن التكليف وفي الاول لم يحسن.

Inquiry: What do you mean by saying that we should empower him? Do you mean that we find him and converse with him? That is not possible without him being existent. You will be told that none of that is possible without him being manifest and without us knowing, or someone of us knowing, his place. If you say, “We mean by empowering him that we should submit to his obedience, fight under his command, refrain from helping the tyrants, and rise to his support when he calls us to his Imamate and proves it to us through his miracles,” we will say to you it is possible for us to do that during the occultation, even if it is a time without an Imam. How do you say then what we have been ordained to do cannot be performed without an Imam?

Answer: Our response here is what al-Murtadhā has mentioned in al-Dhakhīra and what we have mentioned in Talkhīs al-Shāfi. The lutf that reaches us from the Imam’s running the affairs and administering the society cannot materialize without three elements: One pertains to Allah, and that is that He creates the Imam. The second element pertains to the Imam, which is that he carries the burdens of Imamate and performs its duties. The third element pertains to us, and is to wit, to help him and support him and submit to him. The obligation of undertaking the tasks of Imamate is secondary to his existence, for a task cannot be undertaken by a nonexistent entity. Therefore, Allah’s creation of him is prior to his obligation of accepting leadership and our obligation of supporting him is secondary to these two elements because it is obligatory upon us to obey him when he exists and has undertaken to carry the burdens of Imamate and perform its tasks. With this prologue in mind, how can it be questioned that why does not he remain nonexistent? Should it be inquired, what is the difference between him being existent and hidden, and being nonexistent until Allah knows our determination to empower him and that is when He creates him; our answer will be that it is not worthy of Allah, the Exalted, to oblige us to empower someone who is nonexistent, for it is an impossible task. Therefore, he must exist. Should it be inquired that why does not Allah create him when He knows we are determined to help him altogether in one time since He will manifest him in time as such; we will answer that the imperativeness of supporting him and determination of his obedience is required in all conditions, which requires that to support and obey and to follow his path should be possible in all conditions, or else, obliging with this duty would be wrong. The suggestion would be relevant if we were not obliged in all conditions to his obedience and submission to his command and rather it were required of us at the time of his appearance. However, the reality is contrary to this.

We address our adversary who desires to convince us of the Hujja’s nonexistence on the grounds of his occultation and ask him why is it not possible that Allah, the Exalted, enacts the obligation of believing in him as a duty without creating signs and reasons for the validation of such belief, since He knows that we will not consider such signs and reasons, and when He discovers from our condition that we intend to consider them and are determined to think, He creates the reasons and proofs of believing in Him.

فان قيل: ما الذي تريدون بتمكيننا إياه؟ أتريدون أن نقصده ونشافهه وذلك لايتم إلا مع وجوده وقيل لكم لا يصح جميع ذلك إلا مع ظهوره وعلمنا أو علم بعضنا بمكانه وإن قلتم نريد بتمكيننا أن نبخع بطاعته والشد على يده ونكف عن نصرة الظالمين ونقوم على نصرته متى دعانا إلى إمامته ودلنا عليها بمعجزته قلنا لكم: فنحن يمكننا ذلك في زمان الغيبة وإن لم يكن الامام موجودا فيه. فكيف قلتم لايتم ما كلفناه من ذلك إلا مع وجود الامام.

قلنا الذي نقوله في هذا الباب ما ذكره المرتضى في الذخيرة وذكرناه في تلخيص الشافي أن الذي هو لطفنا من تصرف الامام وانبساط يده لايتم إلا بامور ثلاثة أحدها يتعلق بالله وهو إيجاده والثاني يتعلق به من تحمل أعباء الإمامة والقيام بها والثالث يتعلق بنا من العزم على نصرته، ومعاضدته، والانقياد له، فوجوب تحمله عليه فرع على وجوده لأنه لا يجوز أن يتناول التكليف المعدوم فصار إيجاد الله إياه أصلا لوجوب قيامه، وصار وجوب نصرته علينا فرعا لهذين الاصلين لانه إنما يجب علينا طاعته إذا وجد، وتحمل أعباء الإمامة وقام بها، فحينئذ يجب علينا طاعته، فمع هذا التحقيق كيف يقال: لم لا يكن معدوماً.

فان قيل: فما الفرق بين أن يكون موجودا مستتراً أو معدوماً حتى إذا علم منا العزم على تمكينه أوجده قلنا: لا يحسن من الله تعالى أن يوجب علينا تمكين من ليس بموجود لانه تكليف مالا يطاق فإذا لابد من وجوده.

فان قيل: يوجده الله إذا علم أنا ننطوي على تمكينه بزمان واحد كما أنه يظهر عند مثل ذلك، قلنا: وجوب تمكينه والانطواء على طاعته لازم في جميع أحوالنا فيجب أن يكون التمكين من طاعته والمصير إلى أمره ممكنا في جميع الاحوال وإلا لم يحسن التكليف وإنما كان يتم ذلك لو لم نكن مكلفين في كل حال لوجوب طاعته والانقياد لامره، بل كان يجب علينا ذلك عند ظهوره والامر بخلافه.

ثم يقال لمن خالفنا في ذلك وألزمنا عدمه على استتاره: لم لا يجوز أن يكلف الله تعالى المعرفة ولا ينصب عليها دلالة إذا علم أنا لا ننظر فيها حتى إذا علم من حالنا أنا نقصد إلى النظر ونعزم على ذلك، أوجد الادلة ونصبها فحينئذ ننظر.

We ask what is the difference between existent proofs and reasons, which are not considered and are not used to deduce faith from them, and nonexistent ones, which Allah will create when we decide to mull over them. And when the adversary says that creating proofs and reasons is a form of granting the capability to perform, like providing the necessary physical power and instrument for an act of obedience, without which to Allah’s requiring of a duty would be wrong; we will respond that likewise, the existence of the Imam is a necessary component of the required capability to obey the Lord and if the Imam does not exist, we will be unable to obey Him, just as if the reasons were nonexistent, it would have been impossible for us to infer the validity of religious belief from them. So the two cases are parallel. This line of reasoning refutes all criticisms applied here, which contain answers that do not satisfy us as answers and questions of the adversary in regard to them. This argument has been fully explicated in my books, specially so in Talkhīs al-Shāfi; therefore, we will not prolong the discourse by going into detail here.

The adversary has analogized that if Allah had made it obligatory upon us to make ritual ablution from the water of a specific well that does not have a rope for pulling water, but He declared, “Should you approach the well, I would create a rope for you for pulling water,” this would take away any excuse we may have. And should we not approach the well, the misgiving would be our own doing, not Allah’s. Likewise, a master says to his servant who is far from him, “Buy some meat for me from the market,” and the servant replies, “I cannot do that because I do not have the money for it.” The master replies, “If you come to me, I will give you the money.” This will eliminate the slave’s excuse and if he does not come near to take the money, it will be a misgiving caused by himself, not by his master. Same is the condition of the appearance of the Imam with regard to our duty of providing him help and power. Therefore, it is our lack of providing help and power that is the reason that he has not appeared in these conditions, not his lack of existence. Since if we had provided him help and power, he would have been created and he would have appeared.

This argument presupposes that it is our obligation to provide him help and power when he appears and it is not mandatory upon us in every condition. Even if we yield to the example he has mentioned, his argument does not stand, because if Allah, the Exalted, has ordained us to pull water right now, it is necessary that the rope be existent right now, because that is what eliminates the legitimate excuse. However, if He says, If you approach the well, I will create a rope for you, obligation is to approach, not to pull water. Therefore, the ability to approach is what is sufficient at that time, because he is not required to pull water from the well yet. It is when he approaches the well that he becomes ordained to pull water, and then it is necessary that He creates the rope for him. An analogous instance to this would be that if it were not obligatory on us in every condition to obey the Imam and empower him, in such times, his existence would not have been necessary.

ونقول ما الفرق بين دلالة منصوبة لا ينظر فيها وبين عدمها حتى إذا عزمنا على النظر فيها أوجدها الله.

ومتى قالوا: نصب الادلة من جملة التمكين الذي لا يحسن التكليف من دونه كالقدرة والآلة قلنا: وكذلك وجود الامام (ع) من جملة التمكين من وجوب طاعته ومتى لم يكن موجوداً لم يمكنا طاعته كما أن الادلة إذا لم تكن موجودة لم يمكنا النظر فيها فاستوى الأمران.

وبهذا التحقيق يسقط جميع ما يورد في هذا الباب من عبارات لا ترتضيها في الجواب وأسولة المخالف عليها وهذا المعنى مستوفى في كتبي وخاصة في تلخيص الشافي فلا نطول بذكره.

والمثال الذي ذكره من أنه لو أوجب الله علينا أن نتوضأ من ماء بئر معينة لم يكن لها حبل يستقى به وقال لنا إن دنوتم من البئر خلقت لكم حبلا تستقون به من الماء فانه يكون مزيحا لعلتنا.

ومتى لم ندن من البئر كنا قد اتينا من قبل نفوسنا لا من قبله تعالى، وكذلك لو قال السيد لعبده وهو بعيد منه: اشتر لي لحما من السوق فقال: لا أتمكن من ذلك لأنه ليس معي ثمنه، فقال: إن دنوت أعطيتك ثمنه فانه يكون مزيحا لعلته، ومتى لم يدن لاخذ الثمن يكون قد اتي من قبل نفسه لا من قبل سيده وهذه حال ظهور الامام مع تمكيننا فيجب أن يكون عدم تمكيننا هو السبب في أن لم يظهر في هذه الاحوال لا عدمه إذ كنا لو مكناه لوجد وظهر.

قلنا: هذا كلام من يظن أنه يجب علينا تمكينه إذا ظهر ولا يجب علينا ذلك في كل حال، ورضينا بالمثال الذي ذكره لأنه تعالى لو أوجب علينا الاستقاء في الحال لوجب أن يكون الحبل حاصلاً في الحال لأن به تنـزاح العلة لكن إذا قال: متى دنوتم من البئر خلقت لكم الحبل إنما هو مكلف للدنو لا للاستقاء فيكفي القدرة على الدنو في هذه الحال لانه ليس بمكلف للاستقاء منها فإذا دنا من البئر صار حينئذ مكلفا للاستقاء فيجب عند ذلك أن يخلف له الحبل فنظير ذلك أن لا يجب علينا في كل حال طاعة الامام وتمكينه فلا يجب عند ذلك وجوده.

However, since his obedience is obligatory in the present, and we do not find obedience to him to be stipulated with any condition or a specific time, it follows that he must be existent, so the legitimate excuse of the Divinely ordained duties is removed and such duties become fair. The response to the example of the master and his slave is the same. Because he ordered his servant to approach him at present, not to buy. And when he approaches him and he requires him to buy, he must give him the money. That is why we said that Allah, the Exalted, has set obligations for all who will come until the Day of Judgment, and it is not necessary that they should be existent and without legitimate excuses, for He has not set obligations over them now; when He creates them and removes their excuses with respect to the duties by granting them power and instruments and setting proofs, then the duties will encompass them. Thus, his fallacy loses its tenability by this elaboration.

Besides, if the Imam bears the Divine duty of establishing the order and carrying the burdens of Imamate, how is it possible that he be nonexistent? Would any sane person see it fair to commission someone nonexistent with acts and duties? Bear in mind that these duties of his are not stipulated to our empowerment of him at all, but rather, our obligation of empowering and strengthening him is secondary to him carrying these duties, as explained earlier and as it is very clear.

Furthermore, they are asked, Did not the Messenger of Allah (a.s) hide in the Mount of Abu Tālib for three years, where no one was able to reach him? Did he not hide in the Cave for three days? Why do not you apply the analogy there as well that Allah should discontinue his existence for that period, while keeping the duties over public for whom He sent him as a lutf? If they say that he hid after he called the people to his message and manifested his Prophethood, and when they threatened him he went into hiding; we will respond that likewise the Imam did not go into hiding but after his forefathers manifested his position and his qualities and guided the people to him, and when his father al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) feared for his life, he hid him. Therefore, both situations are identical.

Moreover, we demand them to give us an answer in the following case: Allah discerns from the condition of a person that it is in the best of his interest that He sends a particular prophet to him who will inform him of what is good for him, and He knows that should He send the said apostle, this person will kill him. If He prohibits him from killing the apostle through coercion, it will be disadvantageous for him and others. Is it fair that this person should be bound by the Divinely ordained duties while an apostle has not been sent to him, or should he not be bound by these duties? If they say that he should not be bound, we ask them, why not if it entails for him the possibility of knowing what is best for him by empowering the apostle to deliver to him the message? And if you say he must be bound to the Divinely ordained duties and the prophet is not sent to him, we will ask you, How is it possible to bind him by these duties when he the necessary lutf has not been conferred to him?

فلما كانت طاعته واجبة في الحال ولم نقف على شرطه ولا وقت منتظر وجب أن يكون موجودا لتنـزاح العلة في التكليف ويحسن.

والجواب عن مثال السيد مع غلامه مثل ذلك لانه إنما كلفه الدنو منه لا الشراء فإذا دنا منه وكلفه الشراء وجب عليه إعطاء الثمن ولهذا قلنا إن الله تعالى كلف من يأتي إلى يوم القيامة ولا يجب أن يكونوا موجودين مزاحي العلة لانه لم يكلفهم الآن فإذا أوجدهم وأزاح علتهم في التكليف بالقدرة والآلة ونصب الادلة حينئذ تناولهم التكليف، فسقط بذلك هذه المغالطة. على أن الامام إذا كان مكلفا للقيام بالامر وتحمل أعباء الإمامة كيف يجوز أن يكون معدوما وهل يصح تكليف المعدوم عند عاقل، وليس لتكليفه ذلك تعلق بتمكيننا أصلا، بل وجوب التمكين علينا فرع على تحمله على ما مضى القول فيه وهذا واضح.

ثم يقال لهم: أليس النبي (ص) اختفى في الشعب ثلاث سنين لم يصل إليه أحد واختفى في الغار ثلاثة أيام ولم يجز قياساً على ذلك أن يعدمه الله تلك المدة مع بقاء التكليف على الخلق الذين بعثه لطفا لهم، ومتى قالوا: إنما اختفى بعدما دعا إلى نفسه وأظهر نبوته فلما أخافوه استتر قلنا: وكذلك الامام لم يستتر إلا وقد أظهر آباؤه موضعه وصفته، ودلوا عليه، ثم لما خاف عليه أبو الحسن بن علي(ع) أخفاه وستره فالامر إذا سواء. ثم يقال لهم: خبرونا لو علم الله من حال شخص أن من مصلحته أن يبعث الله إليه نبيا معينا يؤدي إليه مصالحه وعلم أنه لو بعثه لقتله هذا الشخص ولو منع من قتله قهرا كان فيه مفسدة له أو لغيره هل يحسن أن يكلف هذا الشخص ولا يبعث إليه ذلك النبي أو لا يكلف فان قالوا: لا يكلف قلنا وما المانع منه، وله طريق إلى معرفة مصالحه بأن يمكن النبي من الاداء إليه وإن قلتم يكلفه ولا يبعث إليه قلنا وكيف يجوز أن يكلفه ولم يفعل به ما هو لطف له مقدور.

If they should say he has done that by his own choice, we will say that he has not done anything. Only Allah knew that he will not allow the apostle and knowing this does not justify that he should be bound by duties, which he does not know. If this should be fair then it is fair that anyone should be bound by duties he does not know when Allah knows that he will not consider them. An absurd supposition. Therefore, it must be said that Allah will send the apostle to this person and will require this person to submit to the apostle, so he may not have any legitimate excuse, and then He will protect His apostle through means which do not violate free-will, or renders him such that he is unable to kill the apostle, in which case he will not be able to reach him through his own actions. This is our very identical situation with the Imam during the occultation.

Should it be suggested that He must inform him through someone other than the apostle that it is in the best of his interest that the apostle has been sent to him, so he may know it is his own wrongdoing, our reply will be that on parallel grounds, Allah has informed us through the tongue of His Messenger and the Imams his forefathers, peace be unto them, the Hujja’s position and He has obliged us to obey him. And if we do not know what we should, it is our own guilt, hence the equivalence of the two situations.

As for the proof of the second principle, which is that it is the feature of the Imam that his infallibility must be ascertained, it is that the reason for which we need the Imam is our fallibility, for if the public were infallible, they would never need an imam. It is when they are fallible that they need him. This leads one to infer that the reason for the need to the Imam is fallibility, as we say that the reason for the need to an action to its efficient cause is its hudūth**[1]**, on the virtue of the fact that an entity that can have hudūth, it needs to an efficient cause in its hudūth, and an entity that cannot have hudūth, it never needs an efficient cause. This leads us to the inference that every muhdath needs a muhdith. On parallel grounds, the need of every fallible to an imam must be acknowledged, or the rule of causality will be violated. Should the Imam be a fallible, this reason for the need to an Imam will exist in him and his need for another Imam will be just as dire. And the same argument applies to his Imam, leading to the conclusion of infinite number of Imams or to an infallible imam, which is our purpose. We have established this argument in our books, therefore, we will not prolong the inquiry by raising further questions and answering them, as the purpose of this book is different from other books and this much suffices.

As for the third principle—the truth is exclusive to this Ummah—it is a common grounds agreed upon by us and our adversaries, even if we may disagree in its reason.

[1] Hudūth, sometimes translated as contingency, is the quality of a being that did not exist in a period of time and later on was created. A contingent being--that is, a hādith or muhdath-- is such an object, namely, it has a temporal point of beginning. A muhdith is a cause that brings such a hādith entity into being.

فان قالوا: اتي في ذلك من قبل نفسه، قلنا هو لم يفعل شيئا وإنما علم أنه لا يمكنه، وبالعلم لا يحسن تكليفه مع ارتفاع اللطف، ولو جاز ذلك لجاز أن يكلف مالا دليل عليه إذا علم أنه لا ينظر فيه، وذلك باطل.

ولابد أن يقال: إنه يبعث إلى ذلك الشخص ويوجب عليه الانقياد له، ليكون مزيحا لعلته فإما أن يمنع منه بما لا ينافي التكليف أو يجعله بحيث لا يتمكن من قتله، فيكون قد اتي من قبل نفسه في عدم الوصول إليه، وهذه حالنا مع الامام في حال الغيبة سواء.

فان قال: لابد أن يعلمه أن له مصلحة في بعثة هذا الشخص إليه على لسان غيره، ليعلم أنه قد اتي من قبل نفسه قلنا: وكذلك أعلمنا الله على لسان نبيه والائمة من آبائه (ع) موضعه، وأوجب علينا طاعته، فإذا لم يظهر لنا علمنا أنا اتينا من قبل نفوسنا فاستوى الامران.

وأما الذي يدل على الاصل الثاني وهو أن من شأن الامام أن يكون مقطوعا على عصمته، فهو أن العلة التي لاجلها احتجنا إلى الامام ارتفاع العصمة بدلالة أن الخلق متى كانوا معصومين لم يحتاجوا إلى إمام وإذا خلوا من كونهم معصومين احتاجوا إليه، علمنا عند ذلك أن علة الحاجة هي ارتفاع العصمة، كما نقوله في علة حاجة الفعل إلى فاعل أنها الحدوث بدلالة أن ما يصح حدوثه يحتاج إلى فاعل في حدوثه، وما لا يصح حدوثه يستغني عن الفاعل.

وحكمنا بذلك أن كل محدث يحتاج إلى محدث، فمثل ذلك يجب الحكم بحاجة كل من ليس بمعصوم إلى إمام وإلا انتقضت العلة فلو كان الامام غير معصوم، لكانت عل الحاجة فيه قائمة، واحتاج إلى إمام أخر، والكلام في إمامته كالكلام فيه فيؤدي إلى إيجاب أئمة لا نهاية لهم أو الانتهاء إلى معصوم وهو المراد.

وهذه الطريقة قد أحكمناها في كتبنا فلا نطول بالاسولة عليها لان الغرض بهذا الكتاب غير ذلك وفي هذا القدر كفاية. وأما الاصل الثالث وهو أن الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة فهو متفق عليه بيننا وبين خصومنا وإن اختلفنا في علة ذلك.

Because the proof of the validity of consensus of the Ummah in our belief is the fact that no age can remain without an infallible Imam, who cannot possibly do a wrong, based on our proofs, therefore, the truth does not leave this Ummah, for the infallible entity is amongst us; and according to our adversary, on the virtue of the arguments they mention, which conclude that consensus is a binding proof. Therefore, there is no need to occupy ourselves with proving this principle.

Having established these principles, the Imamate of the Patron of the Age (a.s) is proved; because everyone who believes that the Imam must be infallible, is certain that he is the Imam. There is no one who believes in the Imam’s infallibility and questions his Imamate, except parties that irrefutable proofs demonstrate the invalidity of their creed, such as al-Kisāniyya, al-Nāwūsiyya, and al-Wāqifa. When we disprove their claims, the Imamate of our Master is demonstrated.

The arguments that prove the invalidity of the creed of al-Kisāniyya, who believe in the Imamate of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya, are many. One of them is that if he were an Imam, with ascertained infallibility, there must be explicit statements by the Messenger of Allah (a.s) and the Prince of the Believers Imam ‘Ali Ibn Abi Tālib (a.s) about him, because infallibility can only be determined through the word of another infallible entity. However, the Kisāniyya do not claim an explicit tradition with this regard. Instead, they rely on weak instances which have led them to confusion but are far from being explicit words, such as that the Prince of the Believers granted him the standard on the battle of the Camel in Basra, and such as his saying, “You are truly my son,” while al-Hasan and al-Husain (a.s) were also his sons. These instances do not establish his Imamate in any way, and rather, indicate his excellence and high position. Besides, the Shī‘a narrate that a conversation took place between him and ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain (a.s) with respect to him being worthy of Imamate and they both invoked a rock to issue a verdict and the rock testified on the Imamate of ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain (a.s). This humbled Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and he submitted the position to his nephew and professed belief in his Imamate. This narration is quite reputable before the Imāmiyya. Secondly, the Shī‘a have narrated inordinate number (mutawātir) of traditions from his father and his grandfather explicitly naming ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain for Imamate. These traditions are present in our books and we will not lengthen the book by bringing them here. Thirdly, there are the narrations recorded from the Messenger of Allah (a.s) by the commonality as well as the Chosen Congregation carrying explicit words with regard to the Twelve Imams and anyone who believes in their Imamate is certain of the demise of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and the continuation of Imamate to the Patron of the Age (a.s). Fourthly, this sect has died away. Not in our time, nor before us for a very lengthy time, a believer of this creed has existed. If it were a true faith, their extinction would not have been possible.

Query: How can their extinction be known and why is it not possible that in faraway lands, such as islands in the seas and sides of the earth, there may be nations believing in this word, just as it is possible that there may be people believing in the word of al-Hasan that someone who commits a major sin is a hypocrite.

لان عندنا أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام معصوم لا يجوز عليه الغلط على ما قلناه، فإذا الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة لكون المعصوم فيهم وعند المخالف لقيام أدلة يذكرونها دلت على أن الاجماع حجة فلا وجه للتشاغل بذلك. فإذا ثبتت هذه الاصول ثبت إمامة صاحب الزمان (ع) لان كل من يقطع على ثبوت العصمة للامام قطع على أنه الامام، وليس فيهم من يقطع على عصمة الامام ويخالف في إمامته إلا قوم دل الدليل على بطلان قولهم كالكيسانية والناووسية والواقفة فإذا أفسدنا أقوال هؤلاء ثبت إمامته (ع). أقول: وأما الذي يدل على فساد قول الكيسانية القائلين بإمامة محمد بن الحنفية فأشياء: منها: أنه لو كان إماما مقطوعا على عصمته لوجب أن يكون منصوصا عليه نصا صريحا، لان العصمة لاتعلم إلا بالنص، وهم لا يدعون نصا صريحا وإنما يتعلقون بامور ضعيفة دخلت عليهم فيها شبهة لا يدل على النص نحو إعطاء أمير المؤمنين إياه الراية يوم البصرة، وقوله له: " أنت ابني حقا " مع كون الحسن والحسين(ع) ابنيه وليس في ذلك دلالة على إمامته على وجه، وإنما يدل على فضله ومنـزلته، على أن الشيعة تروي أنه جرى بينه وبين علي بن الحسين (ع) كلام في استحقاق الإمامة فتحاكما إلى الحجر فشهد الحجر لعلي بن الحسين (ع) بالإمامة فكان ذلك معجزا له فسلم له الامر وقال بامامته، والخبر بذلك مشهور عند الامامية.

ومنها: تواتر الشيعة الامامية بالنص عليه من أبيه وجده وهي موجودة في كتبهم في أخبار لا نطول بذكره الكتاب. ومنها: الاخبار الواردة عن النبي (ص) من جهة الخاصة والعامة بالنص على الاثني عشر، وكل من قال بامامتهم قطع على وفات محمد بن الحنفية، وسياقة الإمامة إلى صاحب الزمان (ع). ومنها: انقراض هذه الفرقة فانه لم يبق في الدنيا في وقتنا ولا قبله بزمان طويل قائل يقول به، ولو كان ذلك حقا لما جاز انقراضهم.

فإن قيل: كيف يعلم انقراضهم وهلا جاز أن يكون في بعض البلاد البعيدة وجزائر البحر وأطراف الأرض أقوام يقولون بهذا القول، كما يجوز أن يكون في أطراف الأرض من يقول بمذهب الحسن في أن مرتكب الكبيرة منافق.

Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the followers of this path no longer exist. It would have been possible if Muslims were few in the world with scant number of scholars, whereas Islam has spread and scholars are in abundant numbers. So how can that be known?

Answer: This assertion leads to the impossibility of discerning the consensus of the Ummah on any principle or idea, as it is always convenient to say that perchance there is someone in some remote periphery of the earth who disagrees with this. It follows that there might be in faraway parts of the earth who says that cold does not violate fasting and that it is permissible for someone fasting to eat until sunrise. For the first was the view of Abu Talha al-Ansāri and the second that of Hudhaifa and al-A‘mash. Likewise, there are many other rulings of jurisprudence on which the companions and the tābi‘īn disagreed, and then later on the disagreements disappeared and the Ummah united on a different view. Therefore, it is worthy to doubt that and mistrust any consensus on any question that has previously been the subject of disagreement. This is argument of a person who says that consensus cannot be discerned and as this question is not exclusive to our subject, there is no reason we should go into its details here.

We know that the Ansār demanded caliphate and the Muhājirūn turned them away and then Ansār submitted to the idea of the Muhājirūn, according to the adversary. If someone should argue that Caliphate is possible for the Ansār, for a disagreement has occurred on this matter, and perchance there is someone in the peripheries of the earth who believes in this, whatever the adversary says in response to him, is our very identical answer here as well. If they argue that consensus is a valid proof before you only when the infallible is included, from where do you know his word is included amongst the words of the Ummah; we will answer that as Imam is one of the scholars of the Ummah, his word must be included amongst the words of the scholars, for he cannot be a loner and manifesting infidelity, because that is not permissible for him. Therefore, his view has to be one of the views, even if we may not know which one is the Imam’s. When we consider the views of the Ummah and find some scholars disagreeing, if we know them and their birth and place, we will not honor their views, for we know the Imam is not one of them. And if we doubt a scholar’s ancestry, the question will not be of consensus. Therefore, we consider the views of the scholars of the Ummah, and do not find anyone amongst them advancing this idea, which is the faith of the Kisāniyya or the Wāqifa. And if by supposition we find one or two instances, we know their place and their birth, and do not heed to their word and consider the views of the remainders, amongst whom we are certain that the Infallible is present. Therefore, this problem is solved by this explication and its weakness is demonstrated.

As for those who profess to the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad, namely, the Nāwūsiyya, and believe that he is alive and has not died and he is the Mahdi, the argument against them is clear, for we know Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad died just as his father and grandfather died and the Prince of the Believers was killed and the Messenger (a.s) passed away.

فلا يمكن ادعاء انقراض هذه الفرقة، وإنما كان يمكن العلم لو لكان المسلمون فيهم قلة والعلماء محصورين فأما وقد انتشر الاسلام وكثر العلماء فمن أين يعلم ذلك؟. قلنا: هذا يؤدي إلى أن لا يمكن العلم باجماع الأمة على قول ولا مذهب بأن يقال لعل في أطراف الأرض من يخالف ذلك ويلزم أن يجوز أن يكون في أطراف الأرض من يقول: إن البرد لا ينقض الصوم وأنه يجوز للصائم أن يأكل إلى طلوع الشمس لان الاول كان مذهب أبي طلحة الانصاري والثاني مذهب حذيفة والاعمش وكذلك مسائل كثيرة من الفقه كان الخلف فيها واقعا بين الصحابة والتابعين ثم زال الخلف فيما بعد واجتمع أهل الاعصار على خلافه فينبغي أن يشك في ذلك ولا يثق بالاجماع على مسألة سبق الخلاف فيها، وهذا طعن من يقول إن الاجماع لا يمكن معرفته ولا التوصل إليه والكلام في ذلك لا يختص بهذه المسألة فلا وجه لا يراده ههنا. ثم إنا نعلم أن الانصار طلبت الامرة ودفعهم المهاجرون عنها ثم رجعت الانصار إلى قول المهاجرين على قول المخالف فلو أن قائلا قال: يجوز عقد الإمامة لمن كان من الانصار الان الخلاف سبق فيه ولعل في أطراف الأرض من يقول به فما كان يكون جوابهم فيه؟ فأي شئ قالوه فهو جوابنا بعينه. فان قيل: إن كان الاجماع عندكم إنما يكون حجة لكون المعصوم فيه فمن أين تعلمون دخول قوله في جملة أقوال الأمة؟ قلنا المعصوم إذا كان من جملة علماء الأمة فلابد أن يكون قوله موجودا في جملة أقوال العلماء لانه لا يجوز أن يكون منفردا مظهرا للكفر فان ذلك لا يجوز عليه فإذا لابد أن يكون قوله في جملة الاقوال وإن شككنا في أنه الامام. فإذا اعتبرنا أقوال الأمة ووجدنا بعض العلماء يخالف فيه فان كنا نعرفه ونعرف مولده ومنشأه لم نعتد بقوله، لعلمنا أنه ليس بامام وإن شككنا في نسبه لم تكن المسألة إجماعا. فعلى هذا أقوال العلماء من الأمة اعتبرناها فلم نجد فيهم قائلا بهذا المذهب الذي هو مذهب الكيسانية أو الواقفة وإن وجدنا فرضا واحدا أو اثنين فانا نعلم منشأه ومولده فلا يعتد بقوله واعتبرنا أقوال الباقين الذين نقطع على كون المعصوم فيهم فسقطت هذه الشبهة على هذا التحرير وبان وهنها. فأما القائلون بامامة جعفر بن محمد من الناووسية وأنه حي لم يمت وأنه المهدي فالكلام عليهم ظاهر لانا نعلم موت جعفر بن محمد كما نعلم موت أبيه وجده وقتل علي (ع) وموت النبي (ص).

If dispute should be allowed in the case of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad, all these instances should be open to dispute, leading to the belief of the Ghulāth and the Mufawwidha, who denied the murder of the Prince of the Believers and that of al-Husain, peace be with them all. All pure sophistry.

As for the reason of the invalidity of the path of the Wāqifa, who stop at the Imamate of Abu al-Hasan Musā (a.s) and say that he is the Mahdi: Their assertion is invalid because his death was manifest and well known and widely reported, as the deaths of his father, grandfather, and his other forefathers before him were witnessed and reportedly widely. If we doubt in his death, we will not have any merits of distinction from the Nāwūsiyya, Kisāniyya, the Ghulāth, and the Mufawwidha, who disputed the deaths of his forefathers, peace be with them all. Besides, his death was widely witnessed, more so than the death of anyone of his forefathers, because it was very so more visible. They called the judges and the witnesses and a proclamation was made in Baghdad over the bridge and it was declared, “He is the person the Rāfidha believe is ever-alive and immortal, and has died now through a natural death.” And the other similar acts of publicity of his death are facts that cannot be disputed.

‘Allāmah al-Majlisi says, The Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) then records great number of traditions, which we have narrated on his authority in the chapter of the demise of al-Kādhim (a.s) of Bihār al-Anwār. Then the Sheikh of the Congregation continues,

The demise of the Holy Seventh Imam is more evident than to need the relation of a tradition about it, for an adversary on this matter is a person who rejects the obvious. Such doubts legitimize doubts in the death of anyone of his holy forefathers, peace be with them all, and others, rendering the death of anyone dubious. Notwithstanding that it is well-known that he bequeathed his son ‘Ali (a.s) after him and referred his affairs to him after his death. Narrations with this regard are more than to be accounted for.

‘Allamah al-Majlisi says, Then the revered Sheikh of the Congregation mentions some of the traditions which I have registered in the section pertinent to the Imamate of the Eighth Hujja (a.s). Then he says,

Query: It was mentioned in your discourse that we know the death of Musā Ibn Ja‘far just as we know the death of his father and grandfather. This justifies the following critique: We know that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari did not have a son, just as we know he did not have ten sons, just as we know that the Messenger of Allah (a.s) did not have a son who outlived him. If you should say that if we knew the former of the two the same way as we know the second, it would be impossible to have a disagreement on the former, just as it is impossible to have a disagreement on the second; your adversary can say that if we knew the death of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad and Musā Ibn Ja‘far in the same manner we know the death of Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain al-Bāqir, there would not be any dispute in the former just as it is not possible to have a difference on the latter.

فلو جاز الخلاف فيه لجاز الخلاف في جميع ذلك ويؤدي إلى قول الغلاة والمفوضة الذين جحدوا قتل علي والحسين(ع) وذلك سفسطة. وأما الذي يدل على فساد مذهب الواقفة الذين وقفوا في إمامة أبي الحسن موسى (ع) وقالوا: إنه المهدي. فقولهم باطل بما ظهر من موته، واشتهر واستفاض كما اشتهر موت أبيه وجده ومن تقدمه من آبائه (ع) ولو شككنا لم ننفصل من الناووسية والكيسانية والغلاة والمفوضة الذين خالفوا في موت من تقدم من آبائه (ع). على أن موته اشتهر ما لم يشتهر موت أحد من آبائه (ع) لانه اظهروا حضر القضاة والشهود ونودي عليه ببغداد على الجسر وقيل هذا الذي تزعم الرافضة أنه حي لا يموت، مات حتف أنفه، وما جرى هذا المجرى لا يمكن الخلاف فيه. أقول: ثم ذكر في ذلك أخبارا كثيرة روينا عنه في باب وفات الكاظم (ع) ثم قال: فموته (ع) أشهر من أن يحتاج إلى ذكر الرواية به لان المخالف في ذلك يدفع الضرورات والشك في ذلك يؤدي إلى الشك في موت كل واحد من آبائه (ع) وغيرهم، فلا يوثق بموت أحد. على أن المشهور عنه (ع) أنه أوصى إلى ابنه علي (ع) وأسند إليه أمره بعد موته والاخبار بذلك أكثر من أن تحصى. أقول: ثم ذكر بعض الاخبار التي أوردتها في باب النص عليه صلوات الله عليه ثم قال: فان قيل: قد مضى في كلامكم أنا نعلم موت موسى بن جعفر كما نعلم موت أبيه وجده فعليكم لقائل أن يقول إنا نعلم أنه لم يكن للحسن بن علي ابن كما نعلم أنه لم يكن له عشرة بنين وكما نعلم أنه لم يكن للنبي (ص) ابن من صلبه عاش بعد موته، فان قلتم لو علمنا أحدهما كما نعلم الآخر لما جاز أن يقع فيه خلاف كما لا يجوز أن يقع الخلاف في الآخر قيل: لمخالفكم أن يقول ولو علمنا موت محمد بن الحنفية وجعفر بن محمد وموسى بن جعفر كما نعلم موت محمد بن علي بن الحسين لما وقع الخلاف في أحدهما كما لم يجز أن يقع في الآخر.

Answer: To prove the negation of the birth of an offspring is impossible in any situation. It is not possible to claim that someone who is not known to have an offspring does not have an offspring. Such claims are made through likelihoods and conjectures and circumstances indicating that if he had an offspring, it would have been known and its news would have spread. However, many a time, prudence indicates that men of wisdom and letters hide their offspring for various considerations. Many kings hide their offspring for their fear and compassion for their progeny. This has been observed often in the routines of Persian emperors and kings of the antiquity and their stories are famous. People sire sons from their concubines or from their wives they have married secretly, so they reject and ignore their progeny, fearing enmity with their other wives and children. This is also not uncommon amongst the people. Some people marry a woman of low social prominence and class, while they are coming from the upper echelon and when they father a son from such a woman, they consider it a challenge to their distinction to attribute the son to himself so they deny their relationship altogether, and some of them pity and offer the boy some of their wealth. Sometimes a man of a low stature marries a woman coming from a noble family, many a time because of her infatuation in him and without her family knowing, either because her guardian does not exist as many jurists allow that, or the ruler has taken over her affairs and marries her to him. When a son is born for him, though the boy is healthy, she disowns the son because of her pride or because of her fear from her guardians or elders. Many other reasons are conceivable, which we will not mention to avoid lengthening the discourse. Therefore, it is not possible to negate fatherhood altogether. We can know that only when all the aspects are immaculate and it is known there is no encumbrance from declaring fatherhood—only then the negation of fatherhood can be known. Our knowledge that the Messenger of Allah (a.s) did not have a son who outlived him is due to our knowledge of his infallibility and his Prophethood, and that if he had a son he would have made it known, because there was no fear in making it public. Moreover, we know through the consensus of the Ummah that he did not have a son who lived after him.

The same cannot be claimed with respect to the offspring of al-Hasan (a.s) because al-Hasan (a.s) was interdicted and was practically a prisoner. There was much worry and concern and fear for the offspring, as it had been a known and famed article of the Shī‘a faith that the Twelfth Hujja is going to be the Establisher (Qā'im) of the Order for the termination of the governments. Therefore, he was inevitably wanted. Also he feared from his family members like Ja‘far his brother, who was eying the inheritance and the wealth with greed. Thus, he hid his son and doubts with respect to his birth were caused. It is not warranted to analogize the negation of having a son to the subject of knowing the death of a person. Because when someone dies, the deceased is seen and known, and his death is known through the circumstances and other evidences that compel anyone who sees them into conviction and when he informs someone who has not seen the deceased personally, he would be compelled to conviction as well.

قلنا: نفي ولادة الأولاد من الباب الذي لا يصح أن يعلم صدوره في موضع من المواضع ولا يمكن أحدا أن يدعي فيمن لم يظهر له ولد أن يعلم أنه لا ولد له وإنما يرجع في ذلك إلى غالب الظن والامارة بأنه لو كان له ولد لظهر وعرف خبره لان العقلاء قد يدعوهم الدواعي إلى كتمان أولادهم لاغراض مختلفة. فمن الملوك من يخفيه خوفا عليه وإشفاقا وقد وجد في ذلك كثير في عادة الاكاسرة والملوك الاول وأخبارهم معروفة. وفي الناس من يولد له ولد من بعض سراياه أو ممن تزوج به سرا فيرمي به ويجحده خوفا من وقوع الخصومة مع زوجته وأولاده الباقين وذلك أيضا يوجد كثيرا في العادة.

وفي الناس من يتزوج بامرأة دنيئة في المنـزلة والشرف وهو من ذوي الاقدار والمنازل فيولد له، فيأنف من إلحاقه به فيجحده أصلا وفيهم من يتحرج فيعطيه شيئا من ماله. وفي الناس من يكون من أدونهم نسبا فيتزوج بامرأة ذات شرف ومنـزلة لهوى منها فيه بغير علم من أهلها إما بأن يزوجه نفسها بغير ولي على مذهب كثير من الفقهاء أو تولى أمرها الحاكم فيزوجها على ظاهر الحال فيولد له فيكون الولد صحيحا وتنتفي منه أنفة وخوفا من أوليائها وأهلها! وغير ذلك من الاسباب التي لانطول بذكرها، فلا يمكن ادعاء نفي الولادة جملة، وإنما نعلم ما نعلمه إذا كانت الاحوال سليمة ويعلم أنه لا مانع من ذلك فحينئذ يعلم انتفاؤه.

فأما علمنا بأنه لم يكن للنبي (ص) ابن عاش بعده فانما علمناه لما علمنا عصمته ونبوته ولو كان له ولد لأظهره لأنه لا مخافة عليه في إظهاره وعلمنا أيضا باجماع الأمة على أنه لم يكن له ابن عاش بعده، ومثل ذلك لا يمكن أن يدعى العلم به في ابن الحسن (ع) لأن الحسن (ع) كان كالمحجور عليه، وفي حكم المحبوس، وكان الولد يخاف عليه، لما علم وانتشر من مذهبهم أن الثاني عشر هو القائم بالامر لإزالة الدول فهو مطلوب لا محالة.

وخاف أيضا من أهله كجعفر أخيه الذي طمع في الميراث والاموال فلذلك أخفاه ووقعت الشبهة في ولادته ومثل ذلك لا يمكن ادعاء العلم به في موت من علم موته لان الميت مشاهد معلوم يعرف بشاهد الحال موته، وبالامارات الدالة عليه يضطر من رآه إلى ذلك، فإذا أخبر من لم يشاهده علمه واضطر إليه، وجرى الفرق بين الموضعين.

The parallel analogy of the two situations is like the edict of the jurists that witnesses can only testify to prove rights, not to negate them, because negation is not subject to observation unless it is based on an affirmation. Therefore, the difference of the two situations is clear.

Query: The merit is the same between the two scenes, for in the case of death, many a time it is observed that the man is dying, just as midwives witness the birth of a child. However, not everyone witnesses the death of another man, just as not everyone witnesses the birth of a child. The best a man may know about the death of another person whom he has not seen die is to be his neighbor, know of his malady, visit him during his unwell period, then learn of his worsening condition, and then hear wailing from his house, while there has been no other sick person there. Then he sees the family of the sick neighbor sit in mourning and observes marks of grief and loss on their faces. Then his inheritance is distributed and long times pass while no reason can be thought off that his family would proclaim his death while he is alive. The same is true with respect to birth, since women witness the pregnancy and talk about it. Specially, if she is the honor of a nobleman, people will discuss the condition of such a person. And if he courts a concubine, his visits to her will not remain a secret. And when the child is born, people of the house will exude gaiety and jubilation. People will congratulate them if the family is a prominent one and the news will spread. And according to the prominence of the family, people will know that such and such has sired a baby, specially so when it is known that there is no objective in expressing that a baby has been born for him or not. So when we consider this, the ordinary behavior is the same in both cases. And if Allah should desire to supercede the ordinary behavior, He can do it in either one of the two. It is possible that He may disallow through certain encumbrances the pregnant woman to be seen and that her delivery not to be attended but by a few who are as trustworthy as themselves in safeguarding their secret. It is equally possible that a man should become sick and visitors visit him and when his malady worsens and his death is expected and hope is lost in his life, Allah transfers him to a mountain top and place in his stead a dead person who looks like him. Then through encumbrances He disallows him to be viewed except by trusted individuals. Then the corpse is buried and his funeral is attended by all those who expected his death and had lost hope in his life, all thinking that the one who is buried is the one who was sick. Many a time, it is possible that a man’s pulse and breathing ceases, and then Allah breaks the ordinary norms and takes him away from the people, while he is alive. Because a living individual needs pulse and breathing in order to exhale burning gases from around the heart through inhaling cool clean air, to cleanse the heart. It is possible that Allah creates coolness in the air surrounding the heart so it may work in the place of the cool air that enters through respiration and it is possible that He arranges that none of it may burn, for the heat that is produced therein is killed by the coolness.

Answer: First we say that no one who believes in the occultation takes recourse to such superstitions, unless he is deprived of proofs and unable to refute a strong doubt.

مثل ما يقول الفقهاء من أن البينة إنما يمكن أن يقوم على إثبات الحقوق لا على نفيها لان النفي لا تقوم عليه بينة إلا إذا كان تحته إثبات فباق الفرق بين الموضعين لذلك.

فان قيل: العادة تسوى بين الموضعين لان (في) الموت قد يشاهد الرجل يحتضر كما يشاهد القوابل الولادة، وليس كل أحد يشاهد احتضار غيره كما أنه ليس كل أحد يشاهد ولادة غيره ولكن أظهر ما يمكن في علم الانسان بموت غيره إذا لم يكن يشاهده أن يكون جاره ويعلم بمرضه ويتردد في عيادته ثم يعلم بشدة مرضه ثم يسمع الواعية من داره ولا يكون في الدار مريض غيره، ويجلس أهله للعزاء وآثار الحزن والجزع عليهم ظاهرة ثم يقسم ميراثه ثم يتمادى الزمان ولا يشاهد ولا يعلم لاهله غرض في إظهار موته وهو حي. فهذه سبيل الولادة لان النساء يشاهدن الحمل ويتحدثن بذلك سيما إذا كانت حرمة رجل نبيه يتحدث الناس بأحواله مثله وإذا استسر بجارية لم يخف تردده إليها ثم إذا ولد المولود ظهر البشر والسرور في أهل الدار وهنأهم الناس إذا كان المهنأ جليل القدر وانتشر ذلك وتحدث على حسب جلالة قدره فيعلم الناس أنه قد ولد له مولود سيما إذا علم أنه لا غرض في أن يظهر أنه ولد له ولد ولم يولد له. فمتى اعتبرنا العادة وجدناها في الموضعين على سواء وإن نقض الله العادة فيمكن في أحدهما مثل ما يمكن في الآخر فانه قد يجوز أن يمنع الله ببعض الشواغل عن مشاهدة الحامل وعن أن يحضر ولادتها إلا عدد يؤمن مثلهم على كتمان أمره ثم ينقله الله من مكان الولادة إلى قلة جبل أو برية لا أحد فيها ولا يطلع على ذلك إلا من لا يظهره على المأمون مثله. وكما يجوز ذلك فانه يجوز أن يمرض الانسان ويتردد إليه عواده فإذا اشتد وتوقع موته، وكان يؤيس من حياته، نقله الله إلى قلة جبل وصير مكانه شخصا ميتا يشبهه كثيرا من الشبهه ثم يمنع بالشواغل وغيرها من مشاهدته إلا بمن يوثق به ثم يدفن الشخص ويحضر جنازته من كان يتوقع موته ولا يرجو حياته فيتوهم أن المدفون هو ذاك العليل. وقد يسكن نبض الانسان وتنفسه وينقض الله العادة ويغيبه عنهم وهو حي لان الحي منا إنما يحتاج إليهما لاخراج البخارات المحترقة مما حول القلب بادخال هواء بارد صاف ليروح عن القلب وقد يمكن أن يفعل الله من البرودة في الهواء المطيفة بالقلب ما يجري مجرى هواء بارد يدخلها بالتنفس، فيكون الهواء المحدق بالقلب أبدا باردا ولا يحترق منه شئ لان الحرارة التي تحصل فيه يقوم بالبرودة. والجواب أنا نقول: أولا أنه لا يلتجئ من يتكلم في الغيبة إلى مثل هذه الخرافات إلا من كان مفلساً من الحجة، عاجزاً عن إيراد شبهة قوية.

We will discuss this critique on the grounds it has been articulated and will say that the way mentioned for knowing someone’s death is known is not always correct, because sometimes all of these elements combine but the lie reveals, because the person who displayed all of this had a smart objective. He pretended to be sick and goes forward to his family displaying all of that to test those who profess obedience and loyalty to him. Similar cases to this have happened many times in the lives of kings and philosophers. Sometimes people confuse a heart attack and exude all of that and then the mistake is revealed. This is also evident in the public behavior. Death is only known through observation of the cessation of sensation and suspension of pulse that last for very long times. Many other signs, known through experience, can be included also, which someone who has experience with the sick and has treated them knows. And this is the condition of Musā Ibn Ja‘far (a.s), because he appeared before multitudes of people, who cannot fail to discern his condition or confuse his situation. The suggestion that Allah may disappear one person and bring another who looks like him in his place is not correct at all, since this shuts the doorway of reasoning and leads to doubts in observations and that all that we see today is not which we saw yesterday, raising doubts about the death of all the deceased and advancing the belief of the Ghulāth and the Mufawwidha who denied that the Prince of the Believers and the Doyen of the Martyrs were killed. A line of reasoning that leads to such absurdity has to be specious.

The assertion that Allah works a coldness in the interior of the body around the heart, which makes do in stead of air, is a mere wishful effort of pretending to know medicine. It encourages doubts with respect to the death of all who are dead, as we mentioned. Besides, per medical principles, the motion of the pulse and veins originates from the heart, and fades only with the fading of the natural heat. When the pulse ceases, the fading of the natural neat is inferred and thus, death of the subject. This is not dependent on inhaling. Therefore, physicians examine the pulse when the respiration stops or it is weak. Therefore, his argument and his analogy to birth of a child is shown to be refutable.

His claim that births of children become well-known is correct only within the supposition he mentions that the birth be at the house of a nobleman, who has proclaimed the expectation of the birth of the child and there is no reason he should hide it and keep it a secret. However, if we suppose that for certain reasons, which we mentioned, the nobleman hides the matter and keeps it a secret, it is not necessary that the birth will be known at all, let alone be well-known. Besides, the Sharī’a allows that birth is proved through the testimony of a midwife and a fatwa is issued on the basis of her testimony, whether she is dead or alive. When this is allowed, on what basis the testimony of multitudes who have narrated the birth of the Patron of the Age (a.s) and have met the reliable men who have met that sacred entity is rejected? And we will bring the narrations from those who have met him. The adversary has expressed indirectly that it is possible that a reason may rise, requiring the expediency that when the child is born, Allah transfers him to a mountain top or another place, where he can remain unbeknownst and where no one finds out about him. He has done this only to demonstrate an analogy with similar expediency with respect to death and when we explained the distinction between the two occasions.

ونحن نتكلم على ذلك على ما به ونقول: إن ما ذكر من الطريق الذي به يعلم موت الانسان ليس بصحيح على كل وجه لانه قد يتفق جميع ذلك وينكشف عن باطل بأن يكون لمن أظهر ذلك غرض حكمي ويظهر التمارض ويتقدم إلى أهله باظهار جميع ذلك ليختبر به أحوال غيره ممن له عليه طاعة وأمر وقد سبق الملوك كثيرا والحكماء إلى مثل ذلك.

وقد يدخل عليم أيضا شبهة بأن يحلقه علة سكتة فيظهرون جميع ذلك ثم ينكشف عن باطل وذلك أيضا معلوم بالعادات وإنما يعلم الموت بالمشاهدة وارتفاع الحس، وخمود النبض، ويستمر ذلك أوقات كثيرة وربما انضاف إلى ذلك أمارات معلومة بالعادة من جرب المرضى ومارسهم يعلم ذلك. وهذه حالة موسى بن جعفر (ع) فانه اظهر للخلق الكثير الذي لا يخفى على مثلهم الحال ولا يجوز عليهم دخول الشبهة في مثله وقوله بأنه يغيب الله الشخص ويحضر شخصا على شبهه. أصله لا يصح لان هذا يسد باب الادلة ويؤدي إلى الشك في المشاهدات، وأن جميع ما نراه اليوم، ليس هو الذي رأيناه بالامس ويلزم الشك في موت جميع الاموات، ويجئ منه مذهب الغلاة والمفوضة الذين نفوا القتل عن أمير المؤمنين (ع) وعن الحسين (ع) وما أدى إلى ذلك يجب أن يكون باطلا. وما قاله إن الله يفعل داخل الجوف حول القلب من البرودة ما ينوب مناب الهواء ضرب من هو من الطب ومع ذلك يؤدي إلى الشك في موت جميع الاموات على ما قلناه. على أن على قانون الطب حركات النبض والشريانات من القلب وإنما يبطل ببطلان الحرارة الغريزية، فإذا فقد حركات النبض، علم بطلان الحرارة، وعلم عند ذلك موته، وليس ذلك بموقوف على التنفس، ولهذا يلتجؤن إلى النبض عند انقطاع النفس أو ضعفه، فيبطل ما قاله وحمله الولادة على ذلك. وما ادعاه من ظهور الامر فيه صحيح متى فرضنا الامر على ما قاله: من أنه يكون الحمل لرجل نبيه وقد علم إظهاره ولا مانع من ستره وكتمانه، ومتى فرضنا كتمانه وستره لبعض الاغراض التي قدمنا بعضها، لا يجب العلم به ولا اشتهاره على أن الولادة في الشرع قد استقر أن يثبت بقول القابلة، ويحكم بقولها في كونه حيا أو ميتا فإذا جاز ذلك كيف لا يقبل قول جماعة نقلوا ولادة صاحب الامر (ع) وشاهدوا من شاهده من الثقات، ونحن نورد الاخبار في ذلك عمن رآه وحكي له، وقد أجاز صاحب السؤال أن يعرض في ذلك عارض يقتضي المصلحة أنه إذا ولد أن ينقله الله إلى قلة جبل أو موضع يخفى فيه أمره ولا يطلع عليه أحد وإنما ألزم على ذلك عارضا في الموت وقد بينا الفصل بين الموضعين.

The other groups that have disagreed and have professed the Imamate of someone else—such as the Muhammadiyya, who believed in the Imamate of Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-Redhā (a.s); and the Fathiyya, who believed in the Imamate of ‘Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad al-Sādiq (a.s) and proclaim the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali at this time; and like the denomination that believes that the Patron of the Age has been conceived but is not born yet; and like the ones who believed that he has died and then he will live again; and like the people who believed in the Imamate of al-Hasan and claimed that his Imamate is certain and the birth of his son has not been proved and that we live in a time with no Imam—their words are very obviously false for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is their extinction. There is no one left today who believes in these doctrines anymore. And if they had been correct, they would not have perished. Another reason is that Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari died during the lifetime of his father. His death was well-known and traditions with that respect are evident and reputable. Anyone who rejects them is like someone who rejects the death of anyone of his forefathers, peace be with them.

‘Allāmah al-Majlisi (a.s) says, Then the Sheikh of the Congregation, may Allah sanctify his tomb, brings some of the narrations which we have chronicled in the previous volume. And then he says,

As for the saying that Abu Muhammad did not have any offspring and that there is a hidden conceived baby who will be born: It is invalid because this suggests that this age is devoid of an Imam of guidance and we have demonstrated the falsity thereof. Additionally, we will demonstrate that he sired a famous son and we will mention the traditions with that respect, which will invalidate this assertion as well.

As for the saying that the situation is confusing and it cannot be ruled whether al-Hasan sired a son or not, and until the birth of his son is established, we will adhere to the Imamate of al-Hasan: It is also invalidated through our assertion that no time can be without an Imam, because we know al-Hasan (a.s) is dead just as know many other people are dead. And we will establish the birth of his son as well, so their word will also be falsified.

As for the belief that there is no Imam after al-Hasan (a.s): It is invalid due to our rational as well as Shar‘i proofs that no time can be devoid of an Imam. The belief that Abu Muhammad passed away and then he will come back to life after his death is also invalid because it suggests the lack of an Imam from the time of his death until Allah brings him back to life. The argument, which is based on the tradition that “the Patron of this Order will live after he dies” and that he has been named Qā'im because he will rise after he dies, is invalid. Because first the tradition is not reliable, and even if it is reliable, it can be interpreted that it means he will rise after his name dies, that is, no one mentions him except those who believe in his Imamate and then Allah will manifest him to all of the creation.

وأما من خالف من الفرق الباقية الذين قالوا بامامة غيره كالمحمدية الذين قالوا بامامة محمد بن علي بن محمد بن علي الرضا (ع) والفطحية القائلة بامامة عبد الله بن جعفر بن محمد الصادق (ع) وفي هذا الوقت بامامة جعفر بن علي وكالفرقة القائلة أن صاحب الزمان حمل بعد لم يولد بعد وكالذين قالوا إنه مات ثم يعيش وكالذين قالوا بامامة الحسن وقالوا هو اليقين ولم يصح لنا ولادة ولده، فنحن في فترة، فقولهم ظاهر البطلان من وجوه:

أحدها: انقراضهم فانه لم يبق قائل يقول بشئ من هذه المقالات ولو كان حقال لما انقرض.

ومنها: أن محمد بن علي العسكري مات في حياة أبيه موتا ظاهرا والاخبار في ذلك ظاهرة معروفة من دفعه كمن دفع موت من تقدم من آبائه (ع).

أقول: ثم ذكر بعض ما أوردنا من الاخبار في المجلد السابق ثم قال: وأما من قال: إنه لا ولد لابي محمد ولكن ههنا حمل مستور سيولد فقوله باطل لان هذا يؤدي إلى خلو الزمان من إمام يرجع إليه وقد بينا فساد ذلك على أنا سندل على أنه قد ولد له ولد معروف ونذكر الروايات في ذلك فيبطل قول هؤلاء أيضا.

وأما من قال: إن الامر مشتبه فلا يدرى هل للحسن ولد أم لا؟ وهو مستمسك بالاول حتى يحقق ولادة ابنه فقوله أيضا يبطل بما قلناه من أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام لان موت الحسن (ع) قد علمناه كما علمنا موت غيره وسنبين ولادة ولده فيبطل قولهم أيضا.

وأما من قال: إنه لا إمام بعد الحسن (ع)، فقوله باطل بما دللنا عليه من أن الزمان لا يخلو من حجة لله عقلا وشرعا.

وأما من قال إن أبا محمد مات ويحيى بعد موته، فقوله باطل بمثل ما قلناه لانه يؤدي إلى خلو الخلق من إمام من وقت وفاته إلى حين يحييه الله، واحتجاجهم بما روي من أن صاحب هذا الامر يحيى بعد ما يموت وأنه سمي قائما لانه يقوم بعدما يموت، باطل لان ذلك يحتمل لو صح الخبر أن يكون أراد بعد أن مات ذكره حتى لا يذكره إلا من يعتقد إمامته فيظهره الله لجميع الخلق.

Besides, we have established that every Imam who stands in place of a previous Imam is called Qā'im. As for the believers of the Imamate of ‘Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far, namely the Fatahiyya, and that of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali, their creed is wrong because an Imam has to be infallible and these two were not infallible. Their evident actions, which contradict infallibility, are widely known and scholars have narrated them and are present in the books and we will not prolong the discourse by bringing them here. Besides, the established principle, which is beyond doubt amongst the Shī‘a, is that Imamate shall not pass from one brother to another after Hasan and Husain (a.s). Therefore, the Imamate of Ja‘far after his brother is void.

Having established the invalidity of all of these beliefs, the only valid belief that remains is that of the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (a.s) or else it would follow that the truth is outside this Ummah. When his Imamate is proved through this line of reasoning and we find him to be hidden from the eyes, considering his infallibility and that the duties of Imamate fall on his person and on his shoulders, we infer that he has not disappeared but for a reason that has allowed it and a necessity that has compelled him to it, even if we may not know it in detail. This is analogous to the diseases, which afflict the children and the cattle, and the creation of harmful elements and repulsive faces and the ambiguous verses of Qur’ān. When we say we know that Allah, the Exalted, is All-Wise and it is not possible that He does something that is not wise and valid, we infer that there are aspects of wisdom in these things, though we may not specifically know them. Likewise, we say about the Patron of the Time that we know he has not disappeared but for a wise matter, which has allowed him to do so, though know we may not in detail.

Objection: On the basis of his occultation, we question your belief in his Imamate. We say, if you cannot describe the wisdom of his disappearance, it indicates the invalidity of your belief in his Imamate. Because if it were valid, you were able to describe the wisdom of his occultation.

Answer: If it is fair to infer this conclusion from our position, the atheist view must proceed from the position of all of the ‘Adliyya that the Divine acts, which are seemingly devoid of aspect of wisdom, lead to the conclusion that their doer is not wise. Because the atheist says, “If He were wise, you would have been able to explain the aspect of wisdom in His actions.” Otherwise, what is the difference between our assertion and the assertion of the *‘*Adliyya? If you say, “We first inquire into Divine wisdom and once it is proved through independent proofs, then we find these acts that are hard to explain, we interpret them on the basis of His wisdom which has already been proved. Therefore, it does not lead to any contradiction of what we already know. And if the atheists do not accept His wisdom, the discussion will transfer to proving the Divine wisdom that has already been proved through independent arguments.” We will say the same here, to wit, his occultation is secondary to his Imamate. Knowing his Imamate through independent proofs and realizing his infallibility through other sets of proofs, we interpret his occultation and disappearance on grounds that are compatible to his infallibility. Therefore, there is no difference between the two areas.

على أنا قد بينا أن كل إمام يقوم بعد الامام الاول يسمى قائما. وأما القائلون بامامة عبد الله بن جعفر من الفطحية وجعفر بن علي فقولهم باطل بما دللنا عليه من وجوب عصمة الامام، وهما لم يكونا معصومين، وأفعالهما الظاهرة التي تنافي العصمة معروفة نقلها العلماء، وهو موجود في الكتب فلا نطول بذكرها الكتاب.

على أن المشهور الذي لا مرية فيه بين الطائفة أن الإمامة لا تكون في أخوين بعد الحسن والحسين(ع) فالقول بامامة جعفر بعد أخيه الحسن يبطل بذلك، فإذا ثبت بطلان هذه الاقاويل كلها لم يبق إلا القول بامامة ابن الحسن (ع) وإلا لادى إلى خروج الحق عن الأمة وذلك باطل.

وإذا ثبتت إمامته بهذه السياقة ثم وجدناه غائبا عن الابصار، علمنا أنه لم يغب مع عصمته وتعين فرض الإمامة فيه وعليه، إلا لسبب سوغه ذلك وضرورة ألجأته إليه، وإن لم يعلم على وجه التفصيل، وجرى ذلك مجرى الكلام في إيلام الاطفال والبهائم وخلق المؤذيات والصور والمشينات ومتشابه القرآن إذا سئلنا عن وجهها بأن نقول: إذا علمنا أن الله تعالى حكيم لا يجوز أن يفعل ما ليس بحكمة ولا صواب، علمنا أن هذه الاشياء لها وجه حكمة، وإن لم نعلمه معينا، كذلك نقول في صاحب الزمان فانا نعلم أنه لم يستتر إلا لامر حكمي سوغه ذلك، وإن لم نعلمه مفصلا.

فان قيل: نحن تعترض قولكم في إمامته بغيبته بأن نقول: إذا لم يمكنكم بيان وجه حسنها دل ذلك على بطلان القول بامامته، لانه لو صح لامكنكم بيان وجه الحسن فيه. قلنا: إن لزمنا ذلك لزم جميع أهل العدل قول الملاحدة إذا قالوا إنا نتوصل بهذه الافعال التي ليست بظاهر الحكمة إلى أن فاعلها ليس بحكيم لانه لو كان حكيما لامكنكم بيان وجه الحكمة فيها وإلا فما الفصل؟ فإذا قلتم: نحن أولا نتكلم في إثبات حكمته فإذا ثبت بدليل منفصل ثم وجدنا هذه الافعال المشتبهة الظاهر حملناها على ما يطابق ذلك فلا يؤدي إلى نقض ما علمنا ومتى لم يسلموا لنا حكمته، انتقلت المسألة إلى القول في حكمته. قلنا مثل ذلك ههنا، من أن الكلام في غيبته فرع على إمامته وإذا علمنا إمامته بدليل وعلمنا عصمته بدليل آخر وعلمناه غاب، حملنا غيبته على وجه يطابق عصمته فلا فرق بين الموضعين.

Then the interlocutor is asked, “Is it possible that the occultation may have a valid reason that has caused it and a wise explanation that has prompted it or it is not possible?” If he should say, “It is possible,” he will be told, “If it is possible, then why does occultation lead you to conclude the nonexistence of the Imam in this time, despite that you consider it possible that occultation may have a reason that is not incompatible with the existence of the Imam? Is it not like the argument of a person, who negates the wisdom of the Creator on the basis of pains and diseases of the children, notwithstanding his acknowledgement that their pains and diseases may have a valid explanation that does not violate wisdom? Or the argument of a person who argues on the basis of the superficies of the ‘ambiguous verses’ that the Almighty is similar to physiques and creates the actions of the servants, despite his profession that these verses may have valid interpretations that do not violate the principles of wisdom and Divine justice and monotheism and negation of His physicality.” If he should say, “I do not consider this possible.” It will be said to him, “This is utter obstinacy in a subject that your knowledge does not encompass it dimensions, and you cannot be certain in a question as such. How do you say it is not possible? How is this statement different from the assertion of someone who says that the ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have valid interpretations that conform to the arguments of rationality and they must be interpreted literally?” If it is said, “We are able to illustrate the explanation of the ‘ambiguous verses’ in detail, and rather, the knowledge of a portion thereof is sufficient for and if more than that is offered, that is merely complimentary.” If you can satisfy yourselves with an assertion such as that, likewise, we are capable of providing reasons for the validity of occultation and the wise purpose therein that is not incompatible with his infallibility, which we will mention hereafter and we have elaborated upon it sufficiently in Kitāb al-Imāma. They are further asked, “How can the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (a.s) be proved and substantiated by the succession of rational principles we established, yet it can be said that occultation cannot have a valid reason? Is it but contradiction? Is it but parallel to the position of profession of monotheism and Divine equity and then averring that the ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have an interpretation that conforms to these principles?” If they say, “We do not accept the Imamate Ibn al-Hasan,” then our discourse with them is with respect to proving Imamate, not the wisdom of occultation, and the proofs of his Imamate (a.s) have been fully discussed and there is no reason to repeat them. We say this because the argument of the wisdom of occultation of the Imam is secondary to his Imamate. However, before his Imamate is proved, there is no justification to discuss the reason of his occultation, as there is no justification to interpret ‘the ambiguous verses’ and the pains of children and the necessity of following religious duties before believing in One God and His equity.

Query: Does not the inquisitor have the choice to inquire about the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan, in order to know its validity, or to inquire about the reason of occultation?”

ثم يقال للمخالف: أيجوز أن يكون للغيبة سبب صحيح اقتضاها، ووجه من الحكمة أوجبها أم لا يجوز ذلك.

فان قال: يجوز ذلك، قيل له: فإذا كان ذلك جائزا فكيف جعلت وجود الغيبة دليلا على فقد الامام في الزمان، مع تجويزك لها سببا لا ينافي وجود الامام؟ وهل يجري ذلك إلا مجرى من توصل بايلام الاطفال إلى نفي حكمة الصانع وهو معترف بأنه يجوز أن يكون في إيلامهم وجه صحيح لا ينافي الحكمة، أو من توصل بظاهر الآيات المتشابهات إلى أنه تعالى مشبه للاجسام وخالق لافعال العباد مع تجويز أن تكون لها وجوه صحيحة توافق الحكمة والعدل والتوحيد ونفي التشبيه.

وإن قال: لا اجوز ذلك. قيل: هذا تحجر شديد فيما لا يحاط بعلمه. ولا يقطع على مثله، فمن أين قلت: إن ذلك لا يجوز وانفصل ممن قال لا يجوز أن يكون للآيات المتشابهات وجوه صحيحة يطابق أدلة العقل ولابد أن يكون على ظواهرها، ومتى قيل نحن متمكنون من ذكر وجوه الآيات المتشابهات مفصلا بل يكفيني علم الجملة ومتى تعاطيت ذلك كان تبرعا، وإن أقنعتم أنفسكم بذلك فنحن أيضا نتمكن من ذكر وجه صحة الغيبة وغرض حكمي لا ينافي عصمته وسنذكر ذلك فيما بعد وقد تكلمنا عليه مستوفى في كتاب الإمامة.

ثم يقال: كيف يجوز أن يجتمع صحة إمامة ابن الحسن (ع) بما بيناه من سياقة الاصول العقلية مع القول بأن الغيبة لا يجوز أن يكون لها سبب صحيح وهل هذا إلا تناقض ويجري مجرى القول بصحة التوحيد والعدل، مع القطع على أنه لا يجوز أن يكون للآيات المتشابهات وجه يطابق هذه الا صول ومتى قالوا نحن لا نسلم إمامة ابن الحسن كان الكلام معهم في ثبوت الإمامة، دون الكلام في سبب الغيبة، وقد تقدمت الدلالة على إمامته (ع) بما لا يحتاج إلى إعادته وإنما قلنا ذلك لان الكلام في سبب غيبة الامام (ع) فرع على ثبوت إمامته فأما قبل ثبوتها فلا وجه للكلام في سبب غيبته كما لا وجه للكلام في وجوه الآيات المتشابهات وإيلام الاطفال وحسن التعبد بالشرائع قبل ثبوت التوحيد والعدل.

فان قيل ألا كان السائل بالخيار بين الكلام في إمامة ابن الحسن ليعرف صحتها من فسادها وبين أن يتكلم في سبب الغيبة.

Answer: There is no such choice, because a person who doubts the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan, the discourse with him must be about the explicit narrations of his Imamate and one must avail him to the proofs of his Imamate. It is not rational to discuss with him the reason of his occultation while he doubts his very Imamate, because the inquiry of the offshoots is not sensible but after the authentication of the fundamentals. We prioritized the inquiry of his Imamate over the inquiry of his occultation and its wisdom because his Imamate is based on intellectual matters that are beyond skepticism, whereas, the wisdom of occultation may seem obscure and confusing. Therefore, to discuss the clear and the manifest is worthier than the discussion of the perplexing and the complicated. This is parallel to our dialogue with the adversaries of the religion, where we prioritize the discussion of the Apostleship of our Messenger over discussing their claim that their religion has come for the eternity. Because the former is clear and manifest and the latter is complex. This criterion is identically present here. And if they should argue back that there is a certain evil aspect involved in occultation, this has already been answered that aspects of evil are conceivable, such as that occultation is an act of oppression, lie, vanity, ignorance, or that it leads to mischief. And none of these are involved in the occultation of the Imam. Therefore, it should not be claimed that there is an evil aspect involved in it.

Query: Why does not Allah bar the people from reaching the Imam and why does not He protect him in a way so he may establish his rule and our lutf is materialized for us? Just as we say about the Prophet when Allah sent him, He protected him until he had delivered the Shari‘a, it would be necessary that the Imam’s case be the same.

Answer: Protection is of two kinds. One of kind 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 the necessary measures for this objective to materialize, he has done that on his own, and it is not the work of his Creator. The other kind of protection is that He literally protects him from his adversaries by using coercion 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.

As for the Prophet (a.s), we say that God must protect him so he may deliver religious laws because it’s not possible to discern religious laws except through him.

قلنا: لا خيار في ذلك لان من شك في إمامة ابن الحسن يجب أن يكون الكلام معه في نص إمامته والتشاغل بالدلالة عليها ولايجوز مع الشك فيها أن يتكلم في سبب الغيبة لان الكلام في الفروع لا يسوغ إلا بعد إحكام الاصول لها، كما لا يجوز أن يتكلم في سبب إيلام الاطفال قبل ثبوت حكمة القديم تعالى وأنه لا يفعل القبيح.

وإنما رجحنا الكلام في إمامته على الكلام في غيبته وسببها لان الكلام في إمامته مبني على امور عقلية لا يدخلها الاحتمال وسبب الغيبة ربما غمض واشتبه فصار الكلام في الواضح الجلي أولى من الكلام في المشتبه الغامض كما فعلناه مع المخالفين للملة فرجحنا الكلام في نبوة نبينا على الكلام على ادعائهم تأبيد شرعهم لظهور ذلك وغموض هذا وهذا بعينه موجود ههنا.

ومتى عادوا إلى أن يقولوا: الغيبة فيها وجه من وجوه القبح فقد مضى الكلام عليه، على أن وجوه القبح معقولة وهي كونه ظلما أو كذبا أو عبثا أو جهلا أو استفسادا وكل ذلك ليس بحاصل فيها فيجب أن لا يدعى فيه وجه القبح.

فان قيل: ألا منع الله الخلق من الوصول إليه، وحال بينهم وبينه، ليقوم بالامر ويحصل ما هو لطف لنا كما نقول في النبي إذا بعثه الله تعالى يمنع منه ما لم يؤد (الشرع) فكان يجب أن يكون حكم الامام مثله.

قلنا: المنع على ضربين أحدهما لا ينافي التكليف بأن لا يلجأ إلى ترك القبيح والآخر يؤدي إلى ذلك فالاول قد فعله الله من حيث منع من ظلمه بالنهي عنه والحث على وجوب طاعته والانقياد لامره ونهيه وأن لا يعصى في شئ من أوامره، وأن يساعد على جميع ما يقوى أمره ويشيد سلطانه، فان جميع ذلك لا ينافي التكليف فإذا عصى من عصى في ذلك ولم يفعل ما يتم معه الغرض المطلوب، يكون قد اتي 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 ساقطاً.

فأما النبي (ص) فانما نقول يجب أن يمنع الله منه حتى يؤدي الشرع لانه لا يمكن أن يعلم ذلك إلا من جهته.

Therefore, it’s necessary that God protects him. However, the Imam is not like him because as far as the delivery of the religious laws are concerned, the public does not have any excuse and all rules they need are indicated by their proofs and it is possible for them to learn them without the need to the Imam’s words. If we suppose that religious duties cannot be known except through the words of the Imam, then it will be necessary that God Almighty should protect him and manifest him in such a way that no harm can reach him, as in the case of the Messenger (a.s). The like of the case of the Imam is that once a prophet has delivered the message and then his security is threatened, it is not necessary for God to protect him, because the excuse of the public has been removed through his delivery and they have a path to discern the lutf conferred upon them. However, it is possible that there might be another message that must be delivered in the future, which may require God to protect him as He protected him in the beginning. Thus we equated the matter between the Prophet and the Imam.

Query: Explain it to us anyway—though you are not bound to—the reason of the occultation and what can be its reason be, in a way that it may be clearer in reasoning and more cogent in demonstration.

Answer: What one can be certain of to be the reason of the occultation of the Imam is his fear for his life by murder through the threats of the oppressors to him and their disallowance of him to administer the affairs he is responsible to direct and administer. As he fears for his life, it becomes necessary that he goes into occultation and hiding, just like the Messenger (a.s), who once hid in the Mountain and another time in the cave and he had no reason but the threat of harm against him. It cannot be suggested that the Prophet (a.s) went into hiding from his people after he had delivered what he was required to deliver and they did not have any need to him anymore—whereas the discourse with respect to the Imam is contrary to that—and furthermore, the hiding of the Prophet was not long and stretched, whereas ages have passed since the beginning of the occultation of the Imam. This suggestion is foul because the reality is not as hinted, because the Prophet (a.s) went into hiding in the Mountain and in the cave in Mecca before the migration, a time when he had not delivered the entirety of religious codes. Most of the religious rules and a considerable portion of the Qur’ān descended in Medina. So how did you rule that it was after the delivery? If the matter was as hinted that the delivery had been completed before the Prophetic occultation, the completion of delivery does not fulfill the need to his administration and leadership, his orders and prohibitions, for no one can say that after the religious laws have been delivered, no one needs the Prophet’s leadership. The adversary does not believe in such a view. This is a reply to a person, who says that the Prophet (a.s) had delivered all that our welfare depended on, and what he was going to deliver in the future was not expedient to be delivered to the public presently; and therefore, his occultation was reasonable, whereas, the Imam is not like that according to you, as his active leadership in every instant is a lutf to the creation, therefore, in no circumstance his occultation is warranted and his aide and protection is necessary so he may appear and the legitimate reason of not following religious codes by the mukallaf be removed.

فلذلك وجب المنع منه، وليس كذلك الامام لان علة المكلفين مزاحة فيما يتعلق بالشرع، والادلة منصوبة على ما يحتاجون إليه، ولهم طريق إلى معرفتها من دون قوله، ولو فرضنا أنه ينتهي الحال إلى حد لايعرف الحق من الشرعيات إلا بقوله لوجب أن يمنع الله تعالى منه ويظهره بحيث لا يوصل إليه مثل النبي (ص).

ونظير مسألة الامام أن النبي إذا أدى ثم عرض فيما بعد ما يوجب خوفه لا يجب على الله المنع منه، لان علة المكلفين قد انـزاحت بما أداه إليهم فلهم طريق إلى معرفة لطفهم اللهم إلا أن يتعلق به أداء آخر في المستقبل فانه يجب المنع منه كما يجب في الابتداء، فقد سوينا بين النبي والامام. فان قيل: بينوا على كل حال وإن لم يجب عليكم وجه علة الاستتار، وما يمكن أن يكون علة على وجه ليكون أظهر في الحجة وأبلغ في باب البرهان؟ قلنا مما يقطع على أنه سبب لغيبة الامام هو خوفه على نفسه بالقتل باخافة الظالمين إياه ومنعهم إياه من التصرف فيما جعل إليه التدبير والتصرف فيه، فإذا حيل بينه وبين مراده، سقط فرض القيام بالإمامة، وإذا خاف على نفسه وجبت غيبته ولزم استتاره كما استتر النبي (ص) تارة في الشعب واخرى في الغار، ولا وجه لذلك إلا الخوف من المضار الواصلة إليه. وليس لاحد أن يقول: إن النبي (ص) ما استتر عن قومه إلا بعد أدائه إليهم ما وجب عليه أداؤه ولم يتعلق بهم إليه حاجة وقولكم في الامام بخلاف ذلك وأيضا فان استتار النبي (ص) ما طال ولا تمادى، واستتار الامام قد مضت عليه الدهور، وانقرضت عليه العصور. وذلك أنه ليس الامر على ما قالوه لان النبي (ص) إنما استتر في الشعب والغار بمكة قبل الهجرة وما كان أدى جميع الشريعة فان أكثر الاحكام ومعظم القرآن نـزل بالمدينة فكيف أوجبتم أنه كان بعد الاداء ولو كان الامر على ما قالوه من تكامل الاداء قبل الاستتار، لما كان ذلك رافعا للحاجة إلى تدبيره وسياسته وأمره ونهيه، فان أحدا لا يقول إن النبي (ص) بعد أداء الشرع غير محتاج إليه ولا مفتقر إلى تدبيره، ولا يقول ذلك معاند.

وهو الجواب عن قول من قال إن النبي (ص) ما يتعلق من مصلحتنا قد أداه وما يؤدي في المستقبل لم يكن في الحال مصلحة للخلق فجاز لذلك الاستتار، وليس كذلك الامام عندكم لان تصرفه في كل حال لطف للخلق، فلا يجوز له الاستتار على وجه، ووجب تقويته والمنع منه، ليظهر وينـزاح علة المكلف.

This is foul because we explained that though the Prophet (a.s) had delivered all that mankind’s welfare depended on at that time, his leadership and his orders and prohibitions were needed without any dispute amongst scholars. However, despite that, it was permissible for him to go into hiding. Likewise is the Imam. Besides, Allah’s order to the Prophet (a.s) to hide in the Mountain at one time and in the cave the other, is a sort of protection, because it is not full protection in which He would literally defend him against his enemies through making his enemies weak or strengthening him through angels. Because it is possible to conceive harm to the religion stemming from strengthening him through such measures. Therefore, it is not right for God to do that. And if it should be devoid of any aspect of wrong, and God knows that expediency requires so, He would strengthen him through angels and defend him against his enemies. And when He does not do that, and it is proved that He is All-Wise and that it is incumbent upon Him to disallow any legitimate excuse on part of the mukallafīn not to obey the religious codes, we discern that His taking such measures would evoke no benefit but rather it would be inexpedient. What we say is that in general it is incumbent upon Allah to strengthen the hand of the Imam to facilitate his uprise and his administration of the society and to perform that through angels and men. However, when He does not do that through angels, we discern it is because it involves inexpediency. Therefore, this must be rendered through men. And should they not perform that, it is something of their own misdoing not that of the Lord’s. Thus, this explication invalidates all criticisms of this sort expressed at this juncture. If it is permissible for the Prophet (a.s) to undergo hiding, inasmuch as he was needed, due to the fear of harm, and the blame in this regard faces the individuals who threatened him and forced him to go into hiding, likewise, the occultation of the Imam is on the same grounds. To make a distinction in this regard in terms of the length and shortness of the occultation, is not correct, because there is no difference between short and brief occultation and lengthy and protracted occultation, since when the blame of hiding does not rest on the person who is undergone hiding, bur rather on the ones who have forced him to going into doing so, the cause that has prompted the hiding can have a long duration as it can a short one.

Query: If it is fear that has forced him to go into hiding, verily his forefathers, according to you, were living under taqiyya and fear from their enemies. Why did not they go into hiding also?

Answer: Fear from their enemies did not threaten his holy forefathers, peace be with them, as they adhered to taqiyya and ostensibly retracted from the claim of Imamate and denied it from themselves. Whereas, the Imam of the Age faces every fear because he is the one to rise with the sword and make the call for his leadership and fight his adversaries. Where is the similarity between his fear from his enemies and the fear of his forefathers, if there is no scarcity of reflection?

لأنا قد بينا أن النبي (ص) مع أنه أدى المصلحة التي تعلقت بتلك الحال، لم يستغن عن أمره ونهيه وتدبيره، بلا خلاف بين المحصلين، ومع هذا جاز له الاستتار، فكذلك الامام.

على أن أمر الله تعالى له بالاستتار في الشعب تارة، وفي الغار اخرى فضرب من المنع منه لانه ليس كل المنع أن يحول بينهم وبينه بالعجز أو بتقويته بالملائكة لأنه لا يمتنع أن يفرض في تقويته بذلك مفسدة في الدين فلا يحسن من الله فعله ولو كان خاليا من وجوه الفساد وعلم الله أنه يقتضيه المصلحة لقواه بالملائكة، وحال بينهم وبينه، فلما لم يفعل ذلك مع ثبوت حكمته، ووجوب إزاحة علة المكلفين علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة بل مفسدة.

وكذلك نقول في الامام أن الله فعل من قتله بأمره بالاستتار والغيبة، ولو علم أن المصلحة يتعلق بتقويته بالملائكة لفعل، فلما لم يفعل مع ثبوت حكمته، ووجوب إزاحة علة المكلفين في التكليف، علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة، بل ربما كان فيه مفسدة. بل الذي نقول أن في الجملة يجب على الله تعالى تقوية يد الامام، بما يتمكن معه من القيام وينبسط يده، ويمكن ذلك بالملائكة وبالبشر، فإذا لم يفعله بالملائكة علمنا أنه لاجل أنه تعلق به مفسدة، فوجب أن يكون متعلقا بالبشر فإذا لم يفعلوه اتوا من قبل نفوسهم لا من قبله تعالى، فيبطل بهذا التحرير جميع ما يورد من هذا الجنس وإذا جاز في النبي (ص) أن يستتر مع الحاجة إليه لخوف الضرر، وكانت التبعة في ذلك لازمة لمخيفيه ومحوجيه إلى الغيبة، فكذلك غيبة الامام سواء.

فأما التفرقة بطول الغيبة وقصرها فغير صحيحة لانه لافرق في ذلك بين القصير المنقطع والطويل الممتد لانه إذا لم يكن في الاستتار لائمة على المستتر إذا احوج إليه بل اللائمة على من أحوجه إليها جاز أن يتطاول سبب الاستتار كما جاز أن يقصر زمانه.

فان قيل: إذا كان الخوف أحوجه إلى الاستتار، فقد كان آباؤه عندكم على تقية وخوف من أعدائهم، فكيف لم يستتروا؟

قلنا ما كان على آبائه (ع) خوف من أعدائه مع لزوم التقية، والعدول عن التظاهر بالإمامة، ونفيها عن نفوسهم، وإمام الزمان كل الخوف عليه لانه يظهر بالسيف، ويدعو إلى نفسه، ويجاهد من خالفه عليه، فأي تشبه بين خوفه من الاعداء وخوف آبائه (ع) لولا قلة التأمل.

Moreover, when anyone of his forefathers, peace be with them, was murdered or died, there was someone qualified for Imamate from their progeny to replace him and fill his position, whereas the case of the Patron of the Age is diametrically opposite to this, since it is well-known that there is no one to succeed him and sit in his position. Therefore, the difference between the two instances is clear. We have also previously elucidated the difference between the instance that he exists in hiding where no one or few can reach him and the instance of his nonexistence until his capacity of governance is known and then God creates him.

Likewise is their criticism, which asks what is the difference between his existence in a way that no one can reach him and his existence in the heaven. Because we shall say that if he exists in the heaven in a way that the condition of the dwellers of the earth does not remain hidden from him, the heaven is like the earth in such a case, and if it does remain hidden, such an existence equates to his nonexistence. Then the argument is turned around against them about the Prophet (a.s) by asking, “What is the difference between the prophetic existence in hiding and his nonexistence and his being in the heaven?” Whatever answer they will give with respect to this question is our very answer to them with respect to their question, as we elaborated earlier. They cannot make a distinction between the two cases, saying that the Prophet (a.s) did not hide from everyone and merely hid from his enemies and the Imam of the Age is hiding from everyone; because first, we are not certain that he is hiding from all of his devotees, and such incertitude is sufficient in this argument. Furthermore, when the Prophet (a.s) hid in the cave, he was hiding from his devotees and his enemies and there was no one with him except only Abu Bakr, and it was possible that he had gone into hiding without anyone, friend or foe, had prudence demanded that.

Query: What is the case with the penal codes in the time of occultation? If they are not enforced against criminals, as the Shari‘a has demanded, then it is an abrogation (naskh) of the Shari‘a. And if they are still in effect, then who is going to implement them?

Answer: Rightful punishments remain in the account of the people who deserve them. If the deservers are still alive when the Imam appears, he will enforce these punishments against them on the basis of either testimonials or their own confessions. And if this is not done because the deservers have died, then the sin of suspension of the punishments rests on the people who threatened the Imam and forced him into occultation. This does not constitute the abrogation (naskh) of penal codes, however; because, a penal code has to be upheld only when there is the power and capacity for upholding it and when there is no encumbrance on the way. Its enforcement is not binding if there is encumbrance. Abrogation (naskh) is involved when a code is not to be enforced even when there is the power and capacity to enforce it and there is no encumbrance. Such people are asked, “What do you say about the state in which ‘the wise and the senior’ (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd) are not able to select an Imam? What is the case of the penalties?” If you say they are not binding, this is abrogation (naskh) on the same merits you accused us of abrogation. And if you say penalties remain enforceable with respect to their deservers, this is our very answer as well.

على أن آباءه (ع) متى قتلوا أو ماتوا كان هناك من يقوم مقامهم، ويسد مسدهم يصلح للإمامة من أولاده وصاحب الأمر بالعكس من ذلك لأن المعلوم أنه لا يقوم أحد مقامه ولا يسد مسده، فبان الفرق بين الامرين.

وقد بينا فيما تقدم الفرق بين وجوده غائبا لا يصل إليه أحد أو أكثر، وبين عدمه حتى إذا كان المعلوم التمكن بالامر يوجده.

وكذلك قولهم: ما الفرق بين وجوده بحيث لا يصل إليه أحد وبين وجوده في السماء بأن قلنا إذا كان موجوداً في السماء بحيث لا يخفى عليه أخبار أهل الأرض فالسماء كالأرض وإن كان يخفى عليه أمرهم فذلك يجري مجرى عدمه، ثم يقلب عليهم في النبي (ص) بأن يقال: أي فرق بين وجوده مستتراً وبين عدمه وكونه في السماء فأي شئ قالوه قلنا مثله على ما مضى القول فيه.

وليس لهم أن يفرقوا بين الامرين بأن النبي (ص) ما استتر من كل أحد وإنما استتر من أعدائه وإمام الزمان مستتر عن الجميع لانا أولا لانقطع على أنه مستتر عن جميع أوليائه والتجويز في هذا الباب كاف على أن النبي (ص) لما استتر في الغار كان مستتراً من أوليائه وأعدائه، ولم يكن معه إلا أبو بكر وحده وقد كان يجوز أن يستتر بحيث لا يكون معه أحد من ولي ولا عدو إذا اقتضت المصلحة ذلك.

فان قيل: فالحدود في حال الغيبة ما حكمها؟ فان سقطت عن الجاني على ما يوجبها الشرع فهذا نسخ الشريعة، وإن كانت باقية فمن يقيمها؟ قلنا الحدود المستحقة باقية في جنوب مستحقيها فان ظهر الامام ومستحقوها باقون أقامها عليهم بالبينة أو الاقرار وإن كان فات ذلك بموته كان الاثم في تفويتها على من أخاف الامام وألجأه إلى الغيبة.

وليس هذا نسخاً لإقامة الحدود لأن الحد إنما يجب إقامته مع التمكن وزوال المنع، ويسقط مع الحيلولة، وإنما يكون ذلك نسخاً لو سقط إقامتها مع الامكان، وزوال الموانع، ويقال لهم ما تقولون في الحال التي لا يتمكن أهل الحل والعقد من اختيار الامام، ماحكم الحدود؟ فان قلتم سقطت، فهذا نسخ على ما ألزمتمونا وإن قلتم هي باقية في جنوب مستحقيها فهو جوابنا بعينه.

Doubt: Abu ‘Ali has argued that in the conditions in which “the senior and the wise” are not able to select an Imam, Allah does works that stand in place of enforcing the penalties and take away the excuse of the mukallafs; and Abu Hāshim has said that enforcing penalties is a worldly matter and has no relationship with religion.

Answer: If we say the same thing that Abu ‘Ali has said, it will not be disadvantageous to our position, because enforcement of penal codes is not the reason for which we consider the existence of the Imam necessary, so when they are not enforced, it could lead to the untenability of the proofs of Imamate. Enforcing penal codes is religio-legal matter, and we said that it is possible that the obligation of its enforcement lose its imperativeness when the Imam lacks power, or that it may remain owing in the accounts of the criminals. As there are these possibilities, it is also possible that Allah does works that replace the enforcement of penal codes. If we should accept Abu ‘Ali’s assertion, it will not harm our stance at all. As for Abu Hāshim’s view that penal codes are for worldly benefits, it is unacceptable; because penal codes are obligatory acts of worship, and if they were for sheer worldly benefits, they would not be obligatory. Besides, he believes that enforcing the penalties falls in the category of requitals, and legal penalties are part of Divine punishments, some of which have been brought in this life for certain expediencies. How can he still say that they are for worldly expediencies? Therefore, this argument does not stand.

Query: What is the path for finding the truth in the time of the occultation of the Imam? If you say that there is no way, you have led the public to confusion and misguidance and doubt in all their affairs. And if you say that the truth is found through its proofs, you will be told that this is a clear admission of lack of need to the Imam through these proofs.

Answer: True propositions are of two sorts: One kind is supported by rational arguments and the other kind is based on proofs that are narrated. Propositions based on intellectual premises are established and discerned through their proofs, and propositions based on narrations are substantiated through their proofs, which comprise the sayings of the Prophet (a.s) and the Imams, who have explained the subjects and elaborated them and have left nothing unexplained. However the case is as we assert, we have proved the need to the Imam, because the reason of this need, which is continuous in every time and age, is that he is lutf for us, as discussed earlier, and no one can take his place. The need to narration is also clear, because though narrations are from the Prophet (a.s) and the forefathers of the Imam, peace be with them, it is possible that the narrators turn away from them, either intentionally or by mistake, and the narration may remain disconnected or through someone who is not reliable. We have discussed fully in Talkhīs al-Shāfi and will not prolong the inquiry by bringing it here.

Query: We suppose that some of the narrators concealed the Shari‘a and the word of the Imam is needed and the truth may not be known but through him, and on the other hand, the fear of life from his enemies continues. So what is the solution?

فان قيل: قد قال أبو علي إن في الحال التي لا يتمكن أهل الحل والعقد من نصب الامام يفعل الله ما يقوم مقام إقامة الحدود وينـزاح علة المكلف وقال أبو هاشم إن إقامة الحدود دنياوية لاتعلق لها بالدين.

قلنا: أما ما قاله أبو علي فلو قلنا مثله ما ضرنا لان إقامة الحدود ليس هو الذي لاجله أوجبنا الامام حتى إذا فات إقامته انتقص دلالة الإمامة بل ذلك تابع للشرع، وقد قلنا إنه لا يمتنع أن يسقط فرض إقامتها في حال انقباض يد الامام أو تكون باقية في جنوب أصحابها وكما جاز ذلك جاز أيضا أن يكون هناك ما يقوم مقامها فإذا صرنا إلى ما قاله لم ينتقض علينا أصل. وأما ما قاله أبو هاشم من أن ذلك لمصالح الدنيا فبعيد لأن ذلك عبادة واجبة ولو كان لمصلحة دنياوية لما وجبت. على أن إقامة الحدود عنده على وجه الجزاء والنكال جزء من العقاب وإنما قدم في دار الدنيا بعضه، لما فيه من المصلحة، فكيف يقول مع ذلك أنه لمصالح دنياوية فبطل ما قالوه.

فان قيل: كيف الطريق إلى إصابة الحق مع غيبة الامام فان قلتم: لا سبيل إليها جعلتم الخلق في حيرة وضلالة، وشك في جميع امورهم، وإن قلتم يصاب الحق بأدلته، قيل لكم: هذا تصريح بالاستغناء عن الامام بهذه الادلة.

قلنا: الحق على ضربين عقلي وسمعي فالعقلي يصاب بأدلته والسمعي عليه أدلة منصوبة من أقوال النبي (ص) ونصوصه وأقوال الائمة من ولده وقد بينوا ذلك وأوضحوه، ولم يتركوا منه شيئا لا دليل عليه، غير أن هذا وإن كان على ما قلناه، فالحاجة إلى الامام قد بينا ثبوتها لان جهة الحاجة المستمرة في كل حال وزمان كونه لطفا لنا على ما تقدم القول فيه، ولا يقوم غيره مقامه، والحاجة المتعلقة بالسمع أيضا ظاهرة لان النقل وإن كان واردا عن الرسول (ص) وعن آباء الامام (ع) بجميع ما يحتاج إليه في الشريعة فجائز على الناقلين العدول عنه إما تعمدا وإما لشبهة فيقطع النقل أو يبقى فيمن لا حجة في نقله وقد استوفينا هذه الطريقة في تلخيص الشافي فلا نطول بذكره.

فان قيل: لو فرضنا أن الناقلين كتموا بعض منهم الشريعة واحتيج إلى بيان الامام ولم يعلم الحق إلا من جهته، وكان خوف القتل من أعدائه مستمراً كيف يكون الحال؟

If you should say that he will appear despite his fear for his life, it follows that his fear for his life does not warrant his occultation in the first place, and thus, he must appear. If you say that he will not appear and the duties that have not reached the Ummah are not binding, it is an assertion against the consensus (ijmā*‘*), which says that everything the Prophet (a.s) has introduced in his Shari‘a and has explained it, is imperative and binding to the Ummah until the Day of Judgment. If you say that the duty is still binding, you are suggesting a duty that is beyond our capacity and an obligation to perform a task, which we do not know.

Answer: We have answered this question in Talkhīs al-Shāfi in detail. In brief, if Allah knows that some of the narrations pertinent to the biding religious laws have not reached the people in a situation of Imam’s taqiyya and fear from his enemies, He will annul their imperativeness from the people who do not have access them. However, if consensus (ijmā’) proves that religious duties are continuously binding over all of the Ummah until the Day of Judgment, it can be inferred that if such an interruption in transmission of narrations occurs, it will be only in a situation when the Imam is able to appear and make declarations and clarifications. Al-Syed al-Murtadhā (a.s) was lately saying that it is possible that there may be many things that have not reached us and are entrusted with the Imam and the narrators have concealed them and have not narrated them. However, it does not follow that people are not bound by these religious duties, because if the reason of occultation is his fear for his life from the people who have threatened him, the people who have forced him into hiding are ultimately responsible for the missed teachings of the Imam and his leadership, as they forced him into occultation. And if should these people end threatening him, he will appear and the lutf of his leadership will materialize and the teachings he has to offer will manifest. Therefore, he has not caused this concealment of the religious teachings. However, if the enemies do not end the fear and it continues, they are responsible for both cases. This argument is strong and supported by principles.

Amongst our scholars there is a view that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is his fear they will spread his news and discuss their gatherings with him out of happiness, which will lead to fear from the enemies. This is criticized because the wise Shī‘a cannot fail to discern the harm posed to him and themselves from expressing their gathering with the Imam. So, how can they inform about it while they know the extent of the general harm that is threatening them? If this is possible in the case of one or two individuals, this cannot be said about the congregation of his Shī‘a to whom he is not appearing. Besides, it follows that his Shī‘a have lost the occasion of benefiting from him in a way that cannot be made up for, because if his hiding is based on the prediction of something they will do in the future, it is not within their capacity to do something that will facilitate the rise of the Imam. This precipitates the nullification of the religious duties in which the Imam is lutf for them.

فان قلتم يظهر وإن خاف القتل، فيجب أن يكون خوف القتل غير مبيح له الاستتار، ويلزم ظهوره، وإن قلتم لا يظهر وسقط التكليف في ذلك الشئ المكتوم عن الأمة خرجتم من الاجماع لانه منعقد على أن كل شئ شرعه النبي (ص) وأوضحه فهو لازم للامة إلى أن يقوم الساعة فان قلتم إن التكليف لا يسقط صرحتم بتكليف مالا يطاق، وإيجاب العمل بما لا طريق إليه.

قلنا: قد أجبنا عن هذا السؤال في التلخيص مستوفى وجملته أن الله تعالى لو علم أن النقل ببعض الشرع المفروض ينقطع في حال تكون تقية الامام فيها مستمرة، وخوفه من الاعداء باقيا، لاسقط ذلك عمن لا طريق له إليه، فإذا علمنا بالاجماع أن تكليف الشرع مستمر ثابت على جميع الأمة إلى قيام الساعة علمنا عند ذلك أنه لو اتفق انقطاع النقل لشئ من الشرع لما كان ذلك إلا في حال يتمكن فيها الامام من الظهور والبروز والاعلام والانذار.

وكان المرتضى يقول أخيراً: لا يمتنع أن يكون هاهنا امور كثيرة غير واصلة إلينا هي مودعة عند الامام، وإن كان قد كتمها الناقلون ولم ينقلوها، ولم يلزم مع ذلك سقوط التكليف عن الخلق لانه إذا كان سبب الغيبة خوفه على نفسه من الذين أخافوه، فمن أحوجه إلى الاستتار اتي من قبل نفسه في فوت ما يفوته من الشرع، كما أنه اتي من قبل نفسه فيما يفوته من تأديب الامام وتصرفه من حيث أحوجه إلى الاستتار، ولو أزال خوفه لظهر، فيحصل له اللطف بتصرفه وتبين له ما عنده فما انكتم عنه، فإذا لم يفعل وبقي مستترا اتي من قبل نفسه في الأمرين وهذا قوي يقتضيه الأصول.

وفي أصحابنا من قال: إن علة استتاره عن أوليائه خوفه من أن يشيعوا خبره، ويتحدثوا باجتماعهم معه سروراً، فيؤدي ذلك إلى الخوف من الاعداء وإن كان غير مقصود. وهذا الجواب يضعف لان عقلاء شيعته لا يجوز أن يخفى عليهم ما في إظهار اجتماعهم معه من الضرر عليه وعليهم فكيف يخبرون بذلك مع علمهم بما عليهم فيه من المضرة العامة، وإن جاز على الواحد والاثنين لا يجوز على جماعة شيعته الذين لا يظهر لهم. على أن هذا يلزم عليه أن يكون شيعته قد عدموا الانتفاع به على وجه لا يتمكنون من تلافيه وإزالته لانه إذا علق الاستتار بما يعلم من حالهم أنهم يفعلونه، فليس في مقدورهم الآن ما يقتضي ظهور الامام وهذا يقتضي سقوط التكليف الذي الامام لطف فيه عنهم.

There is another view that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is because of his enemies; because the subjects, both devotees and enemies, can benefit from the Imam when his reign prevails and he runs the affairs and he is apparent and is exerting leadership without any encumbrance or challenge. Whereas, the enemies have obviously barred and prevented him from this. They have said that there is no purpose in his clandestine appearance to some of his devotees, because the expected benefit of leading the Ummah cannot be fulfilled but through his appearance and exertion of leadership for all. Therefore, the reason for the Imam’s hiding in the way in which it is lutf and prudent for all is the same. It is possible to question this assertion by saying that though the enemies have prevented him from appearing to exert leadership and administration, they have not, however, barred him from meeting the specific devotees of his he would wish to meet, who believe in obedience to him and adherence to his orders. If there is no benefit in this sort of meeting that is restricted and specific, because he is ordained for all, this suggests that the Imāmiyya Shī‘a are not availed to any benefit from the demise of the Prince of the Believers until the days of al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari and until the Qā'im. It also suggests that the devotees of the Prince of the Believers (a.s) and his Shī‘a did not enjoy any benefit from seeing him prior to his assumption of the administration and the scepter. The asserter of these words has reached where no sensible man would reach. Besides, even if it is accepted that the Imam can only benefit when he is apparent to all of the subjects and his orders are executed over them, their view loses its tenability from another aspect, namely, it follows that the religious rules for the sake of which the Imam is the lutf, will lose their imperativeness. Because if the Imam does not appear to them, probably it is not because of them and nor it is in their capacity to remove the cause of his occultation. Therefore, the religious rules must not be binding for them. Because if one nation can prevent the lutf of another nation of mukallafs, and the duties for which that lutf was a lutf, remain binding for them, on the same token, it is possible that one mukallaf may prevent another mukallaf through imprisonment or other similar means, which he cannot remove, and on virtue of which he cannot walk, but the duty of walking shall continue to bind him. They cannot differentiate between such imprisonment and lutf, as the former renders the duty impossible and its occurrence is not imaginable whereas the absence of lutf is not like that. Because majority of the ‘adliyya believe that the absence of lutf is like the absence of power and means, and that a duty with respect to someone who is devoid of the required lutf is like a duty without the power and means of accomplishment and presence of encumbrances, and that a person who deserves a lutf and does not receive it has legitimate excuse not to comply with the Divine rulings, just as someone who is imprisoned and restricted has a legitimate excuse not to perform a task that cannot be performed while incarcerated.

The appropriate answer to this question which we mentioned on behalf of the adversary is to say that first, we do not believe in his occultation from all of his devotees.

وفي أصحابنا من قال: علة استتاره عن الاولياء ما يرجع إلى الاعداء، لان انتفاع جميع الرعية من ولي وعدو بالامام إنما يكون بأن ينفذ أمره ببسط يده فيكون ظاهرا متصرفا بلا دافع ولا منازع، وهذا مما المعلوم أن الاعداء قد حالوا دونه ومنعوا منه.

قالوا: ولا فائدة في ظهوره سرا لبعض أوليائه لان النفع المبتغى من تدبير الأمة لا يتم إلا بظهوره للكل ونفوذ الأمر، فقد صارت العلة في استتار الامام على الوجه الذي هو لطف ومصلحة للجميع واحدة. ويمكن أن يعترض هذا الجواب بأن يقال: إن الاعداء وإن حالوا بينه وبين الظهور على وجه التصرف والتدبير، فلم يحولوا بينه وبين لقاء من شاء من أوليائه على سبيل الاختصاص، وهو يعتقد طاعته ويوجب اتباع أوامره، فان كان لا نفع في هذا اللقاء لاجل الاختصاص لانه نافذ الأمر للكل فهذا تصريح بأنه لا انتفاع للشيعة الامامية بلقاء أئمتها من لدن وفاة أمير المؤمنين إلى أيام الحسن بن علي إلى القائم (ع) لهذه العلة.

ويوجب أيضا أن يكون أولياء أمير المؤمنين (ع) وشيعته لم يكن لهم بلقائه انتفاع قبل انتقال الأمر إلى تدبيره وحصوله في يده وهذا بلوغ من قائله إلى حد لا يبلغه متأمل، على أنه لو سلم أن الانتفاع بالامام لا يكون إلا مع الظهور لجميع الرعية ونفوذ أمره فيهم لبطل قولهم من وجه آخر وهو أنه يؤدي إلى سقوط التكليف الذي الامام لطف فيه عن شيعته لانه إذا لم يظهر لهم العلة لا يرجع إليهم ولا كان في قدرتهم وإمكانهم إزالته فلابد من سقوط التكليف عنهم لانه لو جاز أن يمنع قوم من المكلفين غيرهم لطفهم، ويكون التكليف الذي ذلك اللطف لطف فيه مستمرا عليهم، لجاز أن يمنع بعض المكلفين غيره بقيد وما أشبهه من المشي على وجه لا يمكن من إزالته، ويكون تكليف المشي مع ذلك مستمرا على الحقيقة.

وليس لهم أن يفرقوا بين القيد وبين اللطف من حيث كان القيد يتعذر معه الفعل ولا يتوهم وقوعه وليس كذلك فقد اللطف لان أكثر أهل العدل على أن فقد اللطف كفقد القدرة والآلة وأن التكليف مع فقد اللطف فيمن له لطف معلوم كالتكليف مع فقد القدرة والآلة ووجود الموانع، وأن من لم يفعل له اللطف ممن له لطف معلوم غير مزاح العلة في التكليف كما أن الممنوع غير مزاح العلة. والذي ينبغي أن يجاب عن السؤال الذي ذكرناه عن المخالف أن نقول: إنا أولا لا نقطع على استتاره عن جميع أوليائه.

Rather, it is possible that he appears to the majority of them. Everyone can only know his own condition. If the Imam appears to him, his excuse not to comply with religious duties ends. And if he does not appear to him, he discerns that the nonappearance is because of himself­­­—though he may not know specifically why­—otherwise, binding him with religious duties would be wrong. When he knows that he is obliged with religious duties and that his Imam is in occultation from him, he discerns that it is because of himself. This is similar to the view of our scholars that someone who has not contemplated the means of cognition of Allah, the Exalted, and thus, has not found certitude about Him, he must be certain that this is due to a shortcoming of himself or else religious duties must not be required from him.

Based on this, the strongest reason that can be given for this is that if the Imam appears and his person is not recognized and identified, it is necessary that he works a miracle to indicate his truthfulness. And it requires reflection to know whether something is a miracle, which can be subject to doubts. Therefore, it is not possible that it be evident from the condition of a person to whom the Imam has not appeared that if he appears to him and shows him a miracle, he may not reflect well and have doubts and believe that he is a liar and spread this news and cause the harm that was mentioned earlier.

Query: What is the fault of the devotee to whom the Imam has not appeared because such prediction can be made about him, and how can he reflect on the miracle that will come with the Imam and what can he do to compensate for the cause of the occultation?

Answer: The reason for hiding from the devotees is nothing but the known fact of his shortcoming and his capacity for its recompense, because it is possible that it should be known from the condition of the devotee that when the Imam appears to him, he will not mull the miracle that will be with the Imam, which will be a misdoing of his own, leading to lack of discrimination between miracles and ordinary events and a proof and a doubt. If the devotee were in a better position, he would not have failed the miracle of the Imam. Therefore, he must make up for this shortcoming of his. No one can say that this is a duty that is beyond his capacity and reliance on an unknown event in the future, because this devotee does not know his specific shortcoming in contemplation and reasoning, so he could make up for it and prepare himself for it; we believe you are binding him to something that does not legitimately bind him. That can be the case with regard to a religious duty that is sometimes clear and sometimes confusing with some other duty; and if the capacity with respect to both duties exists, then when the devotee introspects and sees that the Imam does not appear to him and he does not consider the aforementioned wrong reasons of the occultation valid, he realizes that the reason of the occultation is indebted to himself. And when he realizes that the strongest of the proofs is what we mentioned, he discerns that the shortcoming is his own with respect to the miraculous signs and their conditions.

بل يجوز أن يظهر لاكثرهم ولا يعلم كل إنسان إلا حال نفسه، فان كان ظاهرا له فعلته مزاحة وإن لم يكن ظاهرا له علم أنه إنما لم يظهر له لامر يرجع إليه وإن لم يعلمه مفصلا لتقصير من جهته وإلا لم يحسن تكليفه.

فإذا علم بقاء تكليفه عليه واستتار الامام عنه، علم أنه لامر يرجع إليه، كما يقول جماعتنا فيمن لم ينظر في طريق معرفة الله تعالى فلم يحصل له العلم وجب أن يقطع على أنه إنما لم يحصل لتقصير يرجع إليه وإلا وجب إسقاط تكليفه، وإن لم يعلم ما الذي وقع تقصيره فيه.

فعلى هذا التقدير أقوى ما يعلل به ذلك أن الامام إذا ظهر ولا يعلم شخصه وعينه من حيث المشاهدة، فلابد من أن يظهر عليه علم معجز يدل على صدقه والعلم بكون الشئ معجزا يحتاج إلى نظر يجوز أن يعترض فيه شبهة، فلا يمنع أن يكون المعلوم من حال من لم يظهر له أنه متى ظهر وأظهر المعجز لم ينعم النظر فيدخل فيه شبهة، ويعتقد أنه كذاب ويشيع خبره فيؤدي إلى ما تقدم القول فيه.

فان قيل: أي تقصير وقع من الولي الذي لم يظهر له إلامام لاجل هذا المعلوم من حاله، وأي قدرة له على النظر فيما يظهر له الامام معه وإلى أي شئ يرجع في تلافي ما يوجب غيبته. قلنا: ما أحلنا في سبب الغيبة عن الاولياء إلا على معلوم يظهر موضع التقصير فيه وإمكان تلافيه، لانه غير ممتنع أن يكون من المعلوم من حاله أنه متى ظهر له الامام قصر في النظر في معجزه، فانما اتي في ذلك لتقصيره الحاصل في العلم بالفرق بين المعجز والممكن، والدليل من ذلك والشبهة، ولو كان من ذلك على قاعدة صحيحة لم يجز أن يشتبه عليه معجز الامام عند ظهوره له، فيجب عليه تلافي هذا التقصير واستدراكه. وليس لأحد أن يقول: هذا تكليف لما لا يطاق وحوالة على غيب، لان هذا الولي ليس يعرف ما قصر فيه بعينه من النظر والاستدلال فيستدركه حتى يتمهد في نفسه ويتقرر، ونراكم تلزمونه مالا يلزمه، وذلك إنما يلزم في التكليف قد يتميز تارة ويشتبه اخرى بغيره، وإن كان التمكن من الامرين ثابتا حاصلا، فالولي على هذا إذا حاسب نفسه ورأى أن الامام لا يظهر له وأفسد أن يكون السبب في الغيبة ما ذكرناه من الوجوه الباطلة وأجناسها علم أنه لابد من سبب يرجع إليه. وإذا علم أن أقوى العلل ما ذكرناه علم أن التقصير واقع من جهته في صفات المعجز وشروطه.

Therefore, he must reflect on that and get rid of doubts and anything that causes confusion. Whoever takes toils in this regard and reflects well, he will definitely discover the difference between the right and the wrong. Man is himself on occasions as this knowledgeable of himself. It is not possible to do anything beyond to ask to go to the extreme in investigation and research and finding and submitting to truth. We mentioned that this case is similar to what we say to our adversaries when they look into our proofs and do not attain satisfaction.

Query: If the case is as you are saying, it would be necessary that he does not know any of the miracles in this condition and this leads to not knowing the Prophethood and the veracity of the Prophet, which further takes him outside the bounds of not only imān but also Islam.

Answer: That does not follow because it is not impossible to be subject to doubts in certain miracles and not all of them. It is not necessary that if doubts arise with respect some miracles, they do with respect to all of them. Therefore, it is possible that the miracle indicating Prophethood not be subject to doubt and thusly he attains certitude that it is a miracle and realizes the Prophethood of the Prophet (a.s) and the miracle that appears on the hands of the Imam be another matter, in which he could have doubts, and thus, he finds doubts in his Imamate, even if he is a believer in the Prophethood. This is as we say. If someone who believes in the Prophethood of Moses (a.s) due to his miracles which prove his Divine mission, does not properly view the miracles that manifested from Jesus and our Messenger Muhammad (a.s), it is not necessary to believe that he did not view these miracles, because it is possible that he may be aware of them and how they indicate their purpose, though he may not know these are miracles and their indication of their purpose has been unclear to him. If it should be said that according to this, everyone to whom the Imam has not appeared should be certain that he is committing a major sin, which is an extension of kufr, because he is guilty, according to what you have presumed him to be, with respect to the occultation of the Imam and his loss of what is beneficial for him; this makes the devotee of the Imam his enemy. We will say that it is not necessary that the said shortcoming be kufr or a great sin in this condition. He did not believe that the Imam is not his Imam, nor did he threaten his life. He merely failed to understand certain things, which was like a cause for that it was known from his condition that this doubt in Imamate will occur from him in the future and has not occurred now. Thus, he is not necessarily a disbeliever, or like a person who considers the Imam a liar or doubts his truthfulness. It is a sin and a mistake that do not negate belief and merits for rewards. The devotee of the Imam does not go into the same category as his enemy in this case, because the enemy holds an opinion about the Imam which amounts to disbelief and a major sin, and the devotee is opposite to that. We said that what is “like a cause” for disbelief is not necessarily disbelief at this stage, because if someone of us believes that someone he is an independent cause with respect to other objects, it will be ignorance and mistake, but not kufr.

فعليه معاودة النظر في ذلك عند ذلك، وتخليصه من الشوائب وما يوجب الالتباس، فانه من اجتهد في ذلك حق الاجتهاد، ووفى النظر شروطه فانه لابد من وقوع العلم بالفرق بين الحق والباطل، وهذه المواضع الانسان فيها على نفسه بصيرة، وليس يمكن أن يؤمر فيها بأكثر من التناهي في الاجتهاد والبحث والفحص والاستسلام للحق وقد بينا أن هذا نظير ما نقول لمخالفينا إذا نظروا في أدلتنا ولم يحصل لهم العلم سواء. فان قيل: لو كان الأمر على ما قلتم لوجب أن لا يعلم شيئا من المعجزات في الحال وهذا يؤدي إلى أن لا يعلم النبوة وصدق الرسول وذلك يخرجه عن الاسلام فضلا عن الايمان. قلنا: لا يلزم ذلك لانه لا يمتنع أن يدخل الشبهة في نوع من المعجزات دون نوع، وليس إذا دخلت الشبهة في بعضها دخل في سائرها، فلا يمتنع أن يكون المعجز الدال على النبوة لم يدخل عليه فيه شبهة، فحصل له العلم بكونه معجزا وعلم عند ذلك نبوة النبي (ص) والمعجز الذي يظهر على يد الامام إذا ظهر يكون أمرا آخرا يجوز أن يدخل عليه الشبهة في كونه معجزا فيشك حينئذ في إمامته وإن

كان عالما بالنبوة، وهذا كما نقول أن من علم نبوة موسى (ع) بالمعجزات الدالة على ثبوته إذا لم ينعم النظر في المعجزات الظاهرة على عيسى ونبينا محمد(ص) لا يجب أن يقطع على أنه ما عرف تلك المعجزات لانه لا يمتنع أن يكون عارفا بها وبوجه دلالتها وإن لم يعلم هذه المعجزات واشتبه عليه وجه دلالتها. فان قيل: فيجب على هذا أن يكون كل من لم يظهر له الامام يقطع على أنه على كبيرة تلحق بالكفر لانه مقصر على ما فرضتموه فيما يوجب غيبة الامام عنه ويقتضي فوت مصلحته، فقد لحق الولي على هذا بالعدو. قلنا: ليس يجب في التقصير الذي أشرنا إليه أن يكون كفرا ولا ذنبا عظيما لانه في هذه الحال ما اعتقد الامام أنه ليس بامام ولا أخافه على نفسه وإنما قصر في بعض العلوم تقصيرا كان كالسبب في أن علم من حاله أن ذلك الشك في الإمامة يقع منه مستقبلا والآن فليس بواقع، فغير لازم أنه يكون كافرا، غير أنه وإن لم يلزم أن يكون كفراً ولا جاريا مجرى تكذيب الامام والشك في صدقه فهو ذنب وخطأ لا ينافيان الايمان واستحقاق الثواب ولن يلحق الولي بالعدو على هذا التقدير، لأن العدو في الحال معتقد في الامام ما هو كفر وكبيرة والولي بخلاف ذلك. وإنما قلنا إن ما هو كالسبب في الكفر لا يجب أن يكون كفرا في الحال أن أحدا لو اعتقد في القادر منا بقدرة أنه يصح أن يفعل في غيره من الاجسام مبتدءا كان ذلك خطأ وجهلا ليس بكفر.

It may be possible to predict about such a person that if a prophet comes to him and does a miracle that Allah puts an object into his hand, that he will not accept that. Definitely, if he knew it were a miracle, he would have accepted it and his belief about the power of the person would be like a cause for this and this is not kufr.

Query: This answer too does not conform to your principles, because your denomination believes that someone who has faith in God His attributes, the Prophet and Imamate, he cannot commit an act of kufr. If this is the case, how do you explain the reason of the hiding of the Imam from the Shī‘a if the Imam appears and manifests miracles, the devotee will doubt in the miracle and will not recognize it. And doubts with regard to that is kufr. This is not compatible with the principles of your religion.

Answer: The premise you have mentioned is wrong, because to doubt the miracle that will appear on the hands of the Imam is not inconsistent with belief in the person of the Imam in general. It is inconsistent with the fact that what is generally known and believed in is he this specific person or not. And such a doubt is not kufr. If such doubt were kufr, it would be kufr, even if he does not manifest a miracle, because before the miracle is worked, he doubted whether this person was the Imam or someone else. It would be consistent with his belief in the Imamate of the Imam in general, if he doubts his Imamate in general, and that is impossible. Al-Murtadha (a.s) used to say, that the question of the adversary from us that why the Imam does not appear to his devotees is irrelevant, because if he means that the lutf of the devotee does not exist and therefore, his religious duties are not binding, it is not correct. Because his lutf exists, since he knows that he has an Imam who is in occultation and he expects him to rise any hour and rule over the world. Therefore, he must fear that the Imam may appear and punish him and thus, must abstain from wrong acts and perform his obligations. Thus, the occultation for him is as if the Imam is in a nearby land. Many a time, the condition of occultation is more so effective in this regard, because in such a case the Imam can be with him in his land and in his neighborhood and watching him without his knowledge.

We had mentioned previously that the concealment of the birth of the Patron of the Age is not unordinary, as the likes of it have occurred in the narrated stories of kings. Scholars of Persia and other narrators of the lives of rulers and have mentioned similar accounts, such as the well-known story of Kaikhisrau; whose mother was the daughter of Afrāsyāb, the king of the Turks, and concealed his conception and birth, and whose grandfather, Kaikāwūs, the king of Persia, desired to kill him. So his mother hid him and his story is famous in the books of history. Al-Tabari has mentioned it.

The Qur‘ān has spoken of Abraham and that his mother give birth to him in secrecy and how he hid him in a cave until he grew up and then his story unraveled. It mentions the story of Moses (a.s) that his mother threw her in the water for her fear of his life from the Pharaoh.

ولا يمتنع أن يكون المعلوم من حال هذا المعتقد أنه لو ظهر نبي يدعو إلى نبوته، وجعل معجزه أن يفعل الله تعالى على يده جسما بحيث لا يصل إليه أسباب البشر أنه لا يقبله، وهذا لا محالة لو علم أنه معجز كان يقبله، وما سبق من اعتقاده في مقدور العبد، كان كالسبب في هذا، ولم يلزم أن يجري مجراه في الكفر. فان قيل: إن هذا الجواب أيضا لا يستمر على أصلكم لان الصحيح من مذهبكم أن من عرف الله تعالى بصفاته وعرف النبوة والإمامة وحصل مؤمنا لا يجوز أن يقع منه كفر أصلا فإذا ثبت هذا فكيف يمكنكم أن تجعلوا علة الاستتار عن الولي أن المعلوم من حاله أنه إذا ظهر الامام فظهر علم معجز شك فيه ولا يعرفه، وإن الشك في ذلك كفر. وذلك ينقض أصلكم الذي صححتموه. قيل: هذا الذي ذكرتموه ليس بصحيح لان الشك في المعجز الذي يظهر على يد الامام ليس بقادح في معرفته لعين الامام على طريق الجملة وإنما يقدح في أن ما علم على طريق الجملة وصحت معرفته، هل هو هذا الشخص أم لا؟ والشك في هذا ليس بكفر لانه لو كان كفرا لوجب أن يكون كفرا وإن لم يظهر المعجز، فانه لا محالة قبل ظهور هذا المعجز على يده شاك فيه، ويجوز كونه إماما وكون غيره كذلك، وإنما يقدح في العلم الحاصل له على طريق الجملة أن لو شك في المستقبل في إمامته على طريق الجملة، وذلك مما يمنع من وقوعه منه مستقبلا. وكان المرتضى رحمه الله يقول: سؤال المخالف لنا: لم لا يظهر الامام للاولياء؟ غير لازم لا (نه) إن كان غرضه أن لطف الولي غير حاصل، فلا يحصل تكليفه فانه لا يتوجه فان لطف الولي حاصل لانه إذا علم الولي أن له إماما غائبا يتوقع ظهوره ساعة، ويجوز انبساط يده في كل حال فان خوفه من تأديبه حاصل، وينـزجر لمكانه عن المقبحات، ويفعل كثيرا من الواجبات فيكون حال غيبته كحال كونه في بلد آخر بل ربما كان في حال الاستتار أبلغ لانه مع غيبته يجوز أن يكون معه في بلده وفي جواره، ويشاهده من حيث لا يعرفه ولا يقف على أخباره، وإذا كان في بلد آخر ربما خفي عليه خبره فصار حال الغيبة الانـزجار حاصلا عن القبيح على ما قلناه، وإذا لم يكن قد فاتهم اللطف جاز استتاره عنهم وإن سلم أنه يحصل ما هو لطف لهم ومع ذلك يقال لم لا يظهر لهم قلنا ذلك غير واجب على كل حال فسقط السؤال من أصله. على أن لطفهم بمكانه حاصل من وجه آخر وهو أن بمكانه يثقون جميع الشرع إليهم ولولاه لما وثقوا بذلك، وجوزوا أن يخفى عليهم كثير من الشرع وينقطع دونهم، وإذا علموا وجوده في الجملة أمنوا جميع ذلك، فكان اللطف بمكانه حاصلا من هذا الوجه أيضا. وقد ذكرنا فيما تقدم أن ستر ولادة صاحب الزمان ليس بخارق العادات إذ جرى أمثال ذلك فيما تقدم من أخبار الملوك وقد ذكره العلماء من الفرس ومن روى أخبار الدوليين، من ذلك ما هو مشهور كقصة كيخسرو وما كان من ستر امه حملها وإخفاء ولادتها وامه بنت ولد أفراسياب ملك الترك وكان جده كيقاووس أراد قتل ولده فسترته امه إلى أن ولدته وكان من قصته ما هو مشهور في كتب التواريخ ذكره الطبري. وقد نطق القرآن بقصة إبراهيم وأن أمه ولدته خفياً وغيبته في المغارة حتى بلغ وكان من أمره ما كان، وما كان من قصة موسى (ع) وأن ألقته في البحر خوفا عليه وإشفاقا من فرعون عليه.

This is a famous story and the Qur‘ān has mentioned it. The story of the Patron of the Age is similar and equal to these. So how can it be said that it is against the ordinary? Some people have a son from concubine that he hides her from his wife until he is at his deathbed, when he confesses. Some people hide their progeny because of their family, fearing that they will kill his son out of greed in the bequeathals. These events are not uncommon and they happen. Therefore, one must not evince wonder in the like of it in the Patron of the Age. We have witnessed many events like this and have heard much about them, therefore, we will not prolong the discourse with bringing examples, because it is clear in the practices of the society. There are many people we have found whose lineage has been clarified long times after their fathers’ death. No one knew such a person’s lineage until two Muslims testify that his father had confided in them in secrecy due to his fear from his wife and his family; so they testify after

As for the acts of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali, the uncle of the Patron of the Age, his rejection of the testimonials of the Imāmiyya that his brother al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali had a son born in his lifetime, his rejection of his existence after his brother, his usurpation of his brother’s bequeathals and inheritance, his behest to the rulers of the time to imprison the concubines of al-Hasan in order to force them to negate pregnancy to underscore his rejection that his brother had a son, and his declaration that any Shī‘a who claimed that al-Hasan left behind a Heir was worthy to be killed, these cannot confuse a learned man, because everyone agrees that Ja‘far was not infallible like prophets, that had he been so it would have been impossible for him to reject the truth and uphold the wrong. Rather, he was fallible and able to make mistakes. The Qur’ān has spoken of the wrongs of the sons of Jacob to their brother Joseph and how did they throw them into the well and sold them at a very insignificant price. And they were the progeny of the prophets, and some people believe they were prophets. If they can perpetrate such a grave error against their brother, how cannot Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali utter denials about his nephew out of greed for the worldly pleasures? Who can consider this impossible but a bullheaded adversary?

Query: How is it possible that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali may have a son while during the malady in which he passed away, he addresses his final will regarding his trusts and alms to his mother, whose name was Hadīth and whose patronym was Umm al-Hasan, and refers their affairs to her? If he had a son, he would have mentioned it in his final will.

Answer: He did that in order to advance the purpose he had in hiding his birth and concealing him from the rulers of the time. Had he mentioned his son and addressed his final will to him, he would have breached his sole purpose. He needed the men of the government and yeomen of the king and the witnesses of the judges to refer to her in order to safeguard his trusts and alms and also to maintain secrecy of the existence of his son by not mentioning him and to protect his life by not mentioning him.

وذلك مشهور نطق به القرآن ومثل ذلك قصة صاحب الزمان سواء فكيف يقال إن هذا خارج عن العادات. ومن الناس من يكون له ولد من جارية يستترها من زوجته برهة من الزمان حتى إذا حضرته الوفاة أقر به وفي الناس من يستتر أمر ولده خوفا من أهله أن يقتلوه طمعا في ميراثه، قد جرت العادات بذلك فلا ينبغي أن يتعجب من مثله في صاحب الزمان وقد شاهدنا من هذا الجنس كثيرا وسمعنا منه غير قليل فلا نطول بذكره لانه معلوم بالعادات وكم وجدنا من ثبت نسبه بعد موت أبيه بدهر طويل ولم يكن أحد يعرفه إذا شهد بنسبه رجلان مسلمان ويكون أشهدهما على نفسه سراً عن أهله وخوفا من زوجته وأهله فوصى به فشهدا بعد موته أو شهدا بعقده على امرأة عقدا صحيحا فجاءت بولد يمكن أن يكون منه فوجب بحكم الشرع إلحاقه به والخبر بولادة ابن الحسن وارد من جهات أكثر مما يثبت الانساب في الشرع ونحن نذكر طرفاً من ذلك فيما بعد إنشاء الله تعالى.

وأما إنكار جعفر بن علي عم صاحب الزمان شهادة الامامية بولد لاخيه الحسن بن علي ولد في حياته، ودفعه بذلك وجوده بعده وأخذه تركته وحوزه ميراثه وما كان منه في حمله سلطان الوقت على حبس جواري الحسن واستبذالهن بالاستبراء من الحمل ليتأكد نفيه لولد أخيه وإباحته دماء شيعته بدعواهم خلفا له بعده كان أحق بمقامه، فليس لشبهة يعتمد على مثلها أحد من المحصلين لاتفاق الكل على أن جعفراً لم يكن له عصمة كعصمة الانبياء فيمتنع عليه لذلك إنكار حق ودعوى باطل، بل الخطاء جائز عليه، والغلط غير ممتنع منه، وقد نطق القرآن بما كان من ولد يعقوب مع أخيهم يوسف وطرحهم إياه في الجب وبيعهم إياه بالثمن البخس وهم أولاد الانبياء.

وفي الناس من يقول: كانوا أنبياء، فإذا جاز منهم مثل ذلك مع عظم الخطاء فيه فلم لا يجوز مثله من جعفر بن علي مع ابن أخيه، وأن يفعل معه من الجحد طمعاً في الدنيا ونيلها، وهل يمنع من ذلك أحد إلا مكابر معاند. فان قيل: كيف يجوز أن يكون للحسن بن علي ولد مع إسناده وصيته في مرضه الذي توفي فيه إلى والدته المسماة بحديث المكناة بام الحسن بوقوفه وصدقاته وأسند النظر إليها في ذلك ولو كان له ولد لذكره في الوصية. قيل: إنما فعل ذلك قصداً إلى تمام ما كان غرضه في إخفاء ولادته، وستر حاله عن سلطان الوقت، ولو ذكر ولده أو أسند وصيته إليه لناقض غرضه خاصة وهو احتاج إلى الاشهاد عليها وجوه الدولة وأسباب السلطان، وشهود القضاة ليتحرس بذلك وقوفه ويتحفظ صدقاته ويتم به الستر على ولده باهمال ذكره وحراسة مهجته بترك التنبيه على وجوده.

Anyone who thinks that this is the proof of the falsity of the Imāmiyya belief, he is not familiar with practices in the world. Al-Sādiq Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad (a.s) did similar to this when he addressed his final will to five people, the first of whom was the king of the time Mansūr. He did not exclusive address his son Musā (a.s) in them in order to protect him. He addressed al-Rabī‘, the judge of the time, and his concubine Hamidā al-Barbariyya, and he mentioned his son Musā Ibn Ja‘far (a.s) last in order to hide his position and protect his life. He did not mention along with his son Musā (a.s) any other of his sons. Perhaps they included someone who would have claimed the position of Imamate after him and had argued so on the basis of his inclusion in the addressees of the final will. And had not been Musā (a.s) prominent and well known amongst his sons, and his position and relationship to him famous, and his scholarship and erudition well established, and had he been unknown, al-Sādiq (a.s) would not have mentioned him in his final will and would have sufficed on the others, as did al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali the father of the Patron of the Age.

Query: Your assertion that since the birth of the Patron of the Age until this day, which is a long period of time, no one knows his place and his residence, nor does anyone reliable brings any news about him. This is extraordinary, because everyone else who underwent hiding from an oppressor due to fear of his life or other reasons, he does not go into a very lengthy hiding and it does not take more than twenty years. Likewise, he does not hide from everyone the place of his hiding and some of his trusted followers and his family do know his place and bring the news of his meeting. Your belief is very different from that.

Answer: The case is not as suggested. A number of the companions of Abu Muhammad al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) saw him during the life of his father and they were his companions and close devotees after his father’s demise. They were middlemen between him and his Shī‘a and were well known, as we have narrated, and carried religious guidance to the Shī‘a and brought his answers to their questions and received their religious dues from them for him. They were a congregation who were declared righteous by al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) in his lifetime and he had appointed them his trustees and had designated them with overseeing his properties and his affairs, mentioning them by their names and names of their fathers such as Abu ‘Amr ‘Othmān Ibn Sa‘īd al-Sammān, his son Abu Ja‘far Muhammad Ibn ‘Othmān Ibn Sa‘īd, and others that we will mention in detail. They were wise, trustworthy, extremely reliable, intelligent, and men of great noble characters. They were respected by the rulers of the time for their respectability and majesty, and were honored for their trustworthiness and famed noble characters. They were so trustworthy that they would return even their enemies’ trusts. This invalidates the assertion that no one has seen our master. After the companions of his father, communication was intact with him through the emissaries between him and his Shī‘a, whose words were trusted and their piety and trustworthiness made them reliable. We may bring some of their narratives in this regard in the future.

ومن ظن أن ذلك دليل على بطلان دعوى الإمامية في وجود ولد للحسن (ع) كان بعيداً من معرفة العادات وقد فعل نظير ذلك الصادق جعفر بن محمد (ع) حين أسند وصيته إلى خمسة نفر أولهم المنصور إذ كان سلطان الوقت، ولم يفرد ابنه موسى (ع) بها إبقاء عليه، وأشهد معه الربيع وقاضي الوقت وجاريته ام ولده حميدة البربرية وختمهم بذكر ابنه موسى بن جعفر (ع) لستر أمره وحراسة نفسه ولم يذكر مع ولده موسى أحداً من أولاده الباقين لعله كان فيهم من يدعي مقامه بعده، ويتعلق بادخاله في وصيته، ولو لم يكن موسى ظاهراً مشهوراً في أولاده معروف المكان منه، وصحة نسبه واشتهار فضله وعلمه، وكان مستورا لما ذكره في وصيته، ولاقتصر على ذكر غيره، كما فعل الحسن بن علي والد صاحب الزمان.

فان قيل: قولكم أنه منذ ولد صاحب الزمان إلى وقتنا هذا مع طول المدة لا يعرف أحد مكانه، ولا يعلم مستقره ولا يأتي بخبره من يوثق بقوله، خارج عن العادة، لان كل من اتفق له الاستتار عن ظالم لخوف منه على نفسه أو لغير ذلك من الاغراض يكون مدة استتاره قريبة ولا يبلغ عشرين سنة ولا يخفى أيضا عن الكل في مدة استتاره مكانه، ولابد من أن يعرف فيه بعض أوليائه وأهله مكانه أو يخبره بلقائه وقولكم بخلاف ذلك. قلنا: ليس الأمر على ما قلتم لان الامامية تقول: إن جماعة من أصحاب أبي محمد الحسن بن علي (ع) قد شاهدوا وجوده في حياته وكانوا أصحابه وخاصته بعد وفاته، والوسائط بينه وبين شيعته، معروفون بما ذكرناهم فيما بعد، ينقلون إلى شيعته معالم الدين، ويخرجون إليهم أجوبته في مسائلهم فيه، ويقبضون منهم حقوقه وهم جماعة كان الحسن بن علي (ع) عدلهم في حياته، واختصهم امناء له في وقته، وجعل إليهم النظر في أملاكه والقيام باموره بأسمائهم وأنسابهم وأعيانهم كأبي عمرو عثمان بن سعيد السمان، وابنه أبي جعفر محمد بن عثمان بن سعيد، وغيرهم ممن سنذكر أخبارهم فيما بعد إنشاء الله، وكانوا أهل عقل وأمانة، وثقة ظاهرة، ودراية، وفهم، وتحصيل، ونباهة كانوا معظمين عند سلطان الوقت لعظم أقدارهم وجلالة محلهم مكرمين لظاهر أمانتهم واشتهار عدالتهم حتى أنه يدفع عنهم ما يضيفه إليهم خصومهم، وهذا يسقط قولكم إن صاحبكم لم يره أحد ودعواهم خلافه.

فأما بعد انقراض أصحاب أبيه فقد كان مدة من الزمان أخباره واصلة من جهة السفراء الذين بينه وبين شيعته ويوثق بقولهم ويرجع إليهم لدينهم وأمانتهم وما اختصوا به من الدين والنـزاهة، وربما ذكرنا طرفاً من أخبارهم فيما بعد.

Narrations form his holy forefathers (a.s) had preceded him that the Qā'im (a.s) will have two occultations, one of which is longer than the other; and that in the first communication with him will be established and in the second one, communication with him will not be established. The events unfolded as predicted by these narrations, enhancing the strength of our arguments. We will explain this reasoning in the future, God willing. This is not an event so out of the ordinary, as they have suggested. Even if it were so, it is reasonable that Allah may violate the ordinary in the case of hiding a specific person and conceal him because it is expedient and wise. Khidhr (a.s) is alive since before our time, since the time of Moses (a.s) according to the majority of the Ummah until our time. This is a matter of consensus amongst historians that no one knows his place of residence and no one knows if he has any companions except his story with Moses in the Qur’ān and the various narratives that some people think they have seen him as a pious man and after separation from him have came to the conclusion that he has been al-Khidhr.

There is the story of the hiding of Moses the son of ‘Imrān from his homeland and his flight from the Pharaoh and his folks, as spoken by the Qur’ān. No one found him for a long period of time, nor did they recognize him until God sent him as an apostle and he made the call to follow him and then the friend and the foe recognized him.

There is the story of Joseph the son of Jacob, to which a Surah of the Qur’ān is dedicated and it recounts how he was hidden from his father, an apostle who received revelations day and night, yet the news of his son is hidden from him and his sons, who would meet him and transact with him and would not recognize him. Years past like before Allah revealed his story and united him with his father and brothers. Such an event is extraordinary and we have not heard the like of it.

There is the story of Jonah the son of Mathew, the messenger of God, with his people and his flight from them when they disputed him for long and violating him did not concern them much. So he went into occultation from them and from everyone so much so that no one knew where he was. God hid him in the abdomen of a fish and saved his life for the sake of expediency until that period was passed and God returned him to his people and united them. This is also extraordinary and far from the ordinary events we hear, narrated by the Qur’ān.

Likewise is the story of the “people of the cave” narrated by the Qur’ān how their story unfolded and how they hid from their people and fled to save their religion. If the Qur’ān had not spoken about it, our adversaries would have rejected this in order to facilitate their denial of the occultation of the Patron of the Age. However, Allah informed us that they remained three hundred years like that in hiding, in fear, and then Allah brought them back to life and they returned to their people. Their story is well known.

وقد سبق الخبر عن آبائه (ع) بأن القائم له غيبتان اخراهما أطول من الاولى، فالاولى يعرف فيها خبره، والاخرى لا يعرف فيها خبره، فجاء ذلك موافقا لهذه الاخبار، فكان ذلك دليلا ينضاف إلى ما ذكرناه، وسنوضح عن هذه الطريقة فيما بعد إنشاء الله تعالى.

فأما خروج ذلك عن العادات فليس الأمر على ما قالوه ولو صح لجاز أن ينقض الله تعالى العادة في ستر شخص ويخفي أمره لضرب من المصلحة وحسن التدبير لما يعرض من المانع من ظهوره. وهذا الخضر (ع) موجود قبل زماننا من عهد موسى (ع) عند أكثر الأمة وإلى وقتنا هذا باتفاق أهل السير، لا يعرف مستقره ولا يعرف أحد له أصحابا إلا ما جاء به القرآن من قصته مع موسى وما يذكره بعض الناس أنه يظهر أحيانا ويظن من يراه أنه بعض الزهاد، فإذا فارق مكانه توهمه المسمى بالخضر ولم يكن عرفه بعينه في الحال ولاظنه فيها، بل اعتقد أنه بعض أهل الزمان. وقد كان من غيبة موسى بن عمران عن وطنه وهربه من فرعون ورهطه ما نطق به القرآن ولم يظفر به أحد مدة من الزمان ولا عرفه بعينه، حتى بعثه الله نبيا ودعا إلى فعرفه الولي والعدو. وكان من قصة يوسف بن يعقوب ما جاء به سورة في القرآن وتضمنت استتار خبره عن أبيه وهو نبي الله يأتيه الوحي صباحا ومساء يخفى عليه خبر ولده، وعن ولده أيضا حتى أنهم كانوا يدخلون عليه ويعاملونه ولا يعرفونه وحتى مضت على ذلك السنون والازمان ثم كشف الله أمره وظهره خبره وجمع بينه وبين أبيه وإخوته وإن لم يكن ذلك في عادتنا اليوم ولا سمعنا بمثله.

وكان من قصة يونس بن متى نبي الله مع قومه وفراره منهم حين تطاول خلافهم له واستخفافهم بجفوته وغيبته عنهم وعن كل أحد حتى لم يعلم أحد من الخلق مستقره وستره الله في جوف السمكة وأمسك عليه رمقه لضرب من المصلحة إلى أن انقضت تلك المدة ورده الله إلى قومه. وجمع بينهم وبينه، وهذا أيضا خارج عن عادتنا وبعيد من تعارفنا وقد نطق به القرآن وأجمع عليه أهل الاسلام. ومثل ما حكيناه أيضا قصة أصحاب الكهف وقد نطق بها القرآن وتضمن شرح حالهم واستتارهم عن قومهم فرارا بدينهم ولولا ما نطق القرآن به لكان مخالفونا يجحدونه دفعا لغيبة صاحب الزمان، وإلحاقهم به، لكن أخبر الله تعالى أنهم بقوا ثلاثمائة سنة مثل ذلك مستترين خائفين ثم أحياهم الله فعادوا إلى قومهم وقصتهم مشهورة في ذلك.

There is the story of the “owner of the donkey,” whose story is narrated by the Qur’ān and the “people of the book” believe that he was a prophet. God made him dead and then brought him back to life. His food and drink did not change. That was very extraordinary.

If all these events are well known, they how can they reject the occultation of the Patron of the Age? Except that the adversary may be an atheist, nihilist, negating all of these as impossibilities, in which case we will not discuss with him the subject of occultation. But rather our discourse with him will change to the very existence of God and that this is within the bounds of God’s infinite power. Our discourse with regard to occultation is with someone who is a Muslim and confesses that this is within the realm of power of God and we are showing him similar examples to him.

Similar examples of this narrated by historians and biographers are many such as in the stories of the kings of the Persians and their hiding from their people for a period in which they do not know their whereabouts and they return to show their purpose from the enterprise. Though the Qur’ān has not spoken of this, it is chronicled in history. Likewise a number of rulers of Rome and India had hidings and unordinary events which we will not mention, because the adversary may reject them as is their habit in order to reject the traditions.

Query: Your claim of the long life of your Patron is an extraordinary, as according to you, he remains a man of complete intelligence, strength and youthful looks. Because he is, according to you, at this time, which is 447 A.H., he is a hundred and ninety seven years old, as his birth was at 256. Ordinarily, no man lives this long. How did ordinary norms stand violated about him, whereas they are not violated except in the cases of the prophets?

Reply: There are two answers for this. One is that we do not accept that this is a violation of all ordinary norms. Rather, similar long lives, and lives longer than his, have been recorded, and we mentioned some of them such as the story of al-Khidhr (a.s) and the narrative of “the people of the cave” and others. Allah has reported that Noah (a.s) lived fifty short of one thousand years amongst his people. Historians say that he lived longer than that, and the said period was the length of time in which he called his people to faith after he was sixty years old. It has been narrated that Salmān al-Fārsi met Jesus the son of Mary and lived until the time of our Prophet (a.s). His story is famous. The story of people living with long lives amongst Arabs and non-Arabs is famous and chronicled in books and in history. Scholars of hadīth have narrated that the Dajjāl is living and alive and that he was present in the time of the Prophet (a.s). The Dajjāl is the enemy of God; if a long life is possible with respect to an enemy of God because of certain expediencies, how cannot the same be possible about a bosom friend of God? This is but obduracy.

وقد كان من أمر صاحب الحمار الذي نـزل بقصته القرآن وأهل الكتاب يزعمون أنه كان نبيا فأماته الله مائة عام ثم بعثه وبقى طعامه وشرابه لم يتغير وكان ذلك خارقا للعادة وإذا كان ما ذكرناه معروفا كائنا كيف يمكن مع ذلك إنكار غيبة صاحب الزمان. اللهم إلا أن يكون المخالف دهريا معطلا ينكر جميع ذلك ويحيله فلا نكلم معه في الغيبة بل ينتقل معه إلى الكلام في أصل التوحيد وأن ذلك مقدور وإنما نكلم في ذلك من أقر بالاسلام، وجوز ذلك مقدورا لله، فنبين لهم نظائره في العادات.

وأمثال ما قلناه كثيرة مما رواه أصحاب السير والتواريخ من ملوك فرس وغيبتهم عن أصحابهم مدة لا يعرفون خبره ثم عودهم وظهورهم لضرب من التدبير وإن لم ينطق به القرآن فهو مذكور في التواريخ وكذلك جماعة من حكماء الروم والهند قد كانت لهم غيبات وأحوال خارجة عن العادات لانذكرها لان المخالف ربما جحدها على عادتهم جحد الاخبار وهو مذكور في التواريخ.

فان قيل: ادعاؤكم طول عمر صاحبكم أمر خارق للعادات مع بقائه على قولكم كامل العقل تام القوة والشباب لانه على قولكم له في هذا الوقت الذي هو سنة سبع وأربعين وأربعمائة مائة وإحدى وتسعون سنة لان مولده على قولكم سنة ست وخمسين ومائتين ولم تجر العادة بأن يبقى أحد من البشر هذه المدة فكيف انتقضت العادة فيه، ولا يجوز انتقاضها إلا على يد الانبياء. قلنا: الجواب عن ذلك من وجهين أحدهما أن لا نسلم أن ذلك خارق لجميع العادات، بل العادات فيما تقدم قد جرت بمثلها وأكثر من ذلك، وقد ذكرنا بعضها كقصة الخضر (ع) وقصة أصحاب الكهف وغير ذلك، وقد أخبر الله عن نوح (ع) أنه لبث في قومه ألف سنة إلا خمسين عاما وأصحاب السير يقولون أنه عاش أكثر من ذلك، وإنما دعا قومه إلى الله هذه المدة المذكورة بعد أن مضت عليه ستون من عمره، وروى أصحاب الاخبار أن سلمان الفارسي لقي عيسى ابن مريم وبقي إلى زمان نبينا (ص) وخبره مشهور وأخبار المعمرين من العجم والعرب معروفة مذكورة في الكتب والتواريخ وروى أصحاب الحديث أن الدجال موجود وأنه كان في عصر النبي (ص) وأنه باق إلى الوقت الذي يخرج فيه وهو عدو الله فإذا جاز ذلك في عدو الله لضرب من المصلحة فكيف لا يجوز مثله في ولي الله إن هذا من العناد.

‘Allama Majlisi says, Then the Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) stories of people with long ages, as we will bring in the future. Then he proceeds as follows:

If our adversary considers this impossible from astrologers and physicists, then the inquiry is about the basics of this question. The world is a creation and it has a Creator, Who has set the ordinary norms of short and long lives and He is capable of lengthening lives and taking lives. If this is clarified, then the inquiry becomes easy. If our adversary accepts this but says this is out of the ordinary norms, we have already responded to that it is not out of all of the ordinary events. If he says it is out of the bounds of our ordinary events, we will reply, What is wrong with that? If they should say that such events are not possible but in the times of the prophets, we will say that we dispute that assertion. We believe hat extraordinary events can be worked by the prophets, Imams, and virtuous servants of God. The majority of scholars of hadīth, and many of the Mu‘tazelites and the Hashawiyya accept this. And if they call them “karāmāt,” that is a difference only in words. We have proved the possibility of these events in our books and have explained extraordinary events proves the truth of the person who brings them forth; and we discern he is either a prophet, an Imam, or a virtuous man through his words. All the doubts the raise with this regard, we have responded to them in our books and will not prolong the discussion by bringing them here.

The frailty and feebleness of the body that comes with the passage of the time and old age is not something that is inevitable. Allah has set the ordinary pattern that this comes along as the time goes by. This is not however necessary and God is able not to do according to the pattern He has set. If this is accepted, it is proved that the phenomenon of long lives is possible. We recorded narratives of people who did not change with the passage of time and their old age. How someone who believes that Allah will settle the believers forever in the Paradise as youths who will never grow old can reject this?

Another Proof

Of the proofs proving the Imamate of the Patron of the Age and that his occultation is not an impossible phenomenon is the narrations of the two distinct denominations, the commonality and the Imāmiyya, that the Imams after the Prophet (a.s) are twelve, not more not less. When this is proved, anyone who is certain of it, will be certain of the Imamate of the Twelve Imams we profess their Imamate and of the existence of Ibn al-Hasan and his occultation. Because anyone who disagrees with the Imāmiyya on anyone of these Imams, their Imams do not remain on this number, but rather, increase. When this specific number is proved through the narrations we will bring, our objective is proved.

‘Allama Majlisi says, Then the Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) narrates some of the narrations about the Twelve Imams from both denominations, which we have recorded. Then he says:

أقول: ثم ذكر رحمه الله أخبار المعمرين على ما سنذكره ثم قال: إن كان المخالف لنا في ذلك من يحيل ذلك من المنجمين وأصحاب الطبايع فالكلام لهم في أصل هذه المسالة فان العالم مصنوع وله صانع أجرى العادة بقصر الاعمار وطولا، وأنه قادر على إطالتها وعلى إفنائها فإذا بين ذلك سهل الكلام. وإن كان المخالف في ذلك من يسلم ذلك غير أنه يقول: هذا خارج عن العادات، فقد بينا أنه ليس بخارج عن جميع العادات، ومتى قالوا خارج عن عاداتنا قلنا وما المانع منه. فان قيل: ذلك لا يجوز إلا في زمن الانبياء قلنا نحن ننازع في ذلك وعندنا يجوز خرق العادات على يد الانبياء والائمة والصالحين وأكثر أصحاب الحديث يجوزون ذلك وكثير من المعتزلة والحشوية، وإن سموا ذلك كرامات كان ذلك خلافا في عبارة، وقد دللنا على جواز ذلك في كتبنا، وبينا أن المعجز إنما يدل على صدق من يظهر على يده ثم نعلمه نبياً أو إماماً أو صالحاً بقوله، وكلما يذكرونه من شبههم قد بينا الوجه فيه في كتبنا لا نطول بذكره ههنا. فأما ما يعرض من الهرم بامتداد الزمان، وعلو السن، وتناقض بنية الانسان فليس مما لابد منه وإنما أجرى الله العادة بأن يفعل ذلك عند تطاول الزمان ولا إيجاب هناك، وهو تعالى قادر أن لا يفعل ما أجرى العادة بفعله، وإذا ثبتت هذه الجملة ثبت أن تطاول الاعمار ممكن غير مستحيل، وقد ذكرنا فيما تقدم عن جماعة أنهم لم يتغيروا مع تطاول أعمارهم وعلو سنهم، وكيف ينكر ذلك من يقر بأن الله تعالى يخلد المؤمنين في الجنة شبانا لايبلون، وإنما يمكن أن ينازع في ذلك من يجحد ذلك ويسنده إلى الطبيعة وتأثير الكواكب الذي قد دل الدليل على بطلان قولهم باتفاق منا ومن خالفنا في هذه المسألة من أهل الشرع، فسقطت الشبهة من كل وجه.

دليل آخر {style="direction: rtl"}

ومما يدل على إمامة صاحب الزمان وصحة غيبته، ما رواه الطائفتان المختلفان، والفرقتان المتباينتان العامة والامامية أن الائمة بعد النبي (ص) اثنا عشر لا يزيدون ولا ينقصون، وإذا ثبت ذلك فكل من قال بذلك قطع على الائمة الاثني عشر الذين نذهب إلى إمامتهم، وعلى وجود ابن الحسن وصحة غيبته، لان من خالفهم في شئ من ذلك لا يقصر الإمامة على هذا العدد بل يجوز الزيادة عليها، وإذا ثبت بالاخبار التي نذكرها هذا العدد المخصوص ثبت ما أردناه. أقول: ثم أورد- رحمه الله- من طرق الفريقين بعض ما أوردناه في باب النصوص على الاثني عشر (ع). ثم قال (ره):

Query: First prove to us the veracity of these narrations, for they are singularly narrated traditions and do not prove a topic for sure. This is a subject that requires certainty. Second, prove to us that these narrations intend the Imams you believe in. The traditions you narrated from your adversaries, and the majority of the narrations your narrated through your own sources, if we set aside their disputability, they do not mention the Imamate of your Imams, because they include others. How do you say that your Imams are the ones intended by these traditions?

Answer: The proof of the veracity of these narrations is that the Shī‘a Imāmiyya have narrated this through tawātur in inordinate numbers of narrators and the reliable chains of narrations thereof are recorded in the books of the Imāmiyya in the proofs of the Imamate of the Prince of the Believers (a.s). Besides, the narration by the two different denominations, which have different beliefs, is a proof of the veracity of the narrations they both agree upon. That is because customary that anyone who believes in an idea, which is proved through narration, then he has every motivation to narrate those narrations, and his adversary will have every motivation to invalidate his narrations or to weaken him and reject his narrations. Such is the practice in praising individuals or criticizing them. When we see that a congregation averse to this one narrates the same narrations they have narrated, and have not questioned its narration or its content, this indicates that God has undertaken the narration thereof and have forced them to narrate it. And this is a proof of the veracity of the narration.

The proof of the fact that our Imams are intended by these narrations is that when it is proved through these traditions that the Imams are twelve Imams and that they neither exceed this number, nor are they short of it, our creed is proved, because the Ummah is divided into denominations: we, who believe in this number and believe in the Imamate of our Imams, and others who do not believe in this number and their Imamate. If someone should believe in the number and does not believe in their Imamate, he is treading outside the bounds of consensus (ijmā), and any belief outside the bounds of consensus (ijmā‘) is definitely void.

Also of the proofs of the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (a.s) and his occultation is the widespread and well known traditions and sayings from his forefathers, peace be with them, uttered long before these times. These traditions state that the Patron of the Age will have an occultation and they describe the qualities of his occultation and the disputes and events that will take place in its duration. They state that he will have two occultations, one of which will be longer than the other, and that in the first one communication will be open with him and in the second his news will not be coming. The later events unfolded as predicted by the traditions. Had they not been correct, and had his Imamate not been valid, they had not corresponded with events which happened later, because that cannot happen but through God’s delivery through the tongue of His Messenger.

فان قيل: دلوا أولا على صحة هذه الاخبار فانها أخبار آحاد لا يعول عليها فيم طريقه العلم، وهذه مسألة علمية ثم دلوا على أن المعني بها من تذهبون إلى إمامته فان الاخبار التي رويتموها عن مخالفيكم وأكثر ما رويتموها من جهة الخاصة إذا سلمت فليس فيها صحة ما تذهبون إليه، لانها تتضمن غير ذلك فمن أين لكم أن أئمتكم هم المرادون بها دون غيرهم.

قلنا: أما الذي يدل على صحتها فإن الشيعة الامامية يروونها على وجه التواتر خلفا عن سلف وطريقة تصحيح ذلك موجود في كتب الامامية في النصوص على أمير المؤمنين (ع) والطريقة واحدة.

وأيضا فان نقل الطائفتين المختلفتين المتباينتين في الاعتقاد يدل على صحة ما قد اتفقوا على نقله، لان العادة جارية أن كل من اعتقد مذهبا وكان الطريق إلى صحة ذلك النقل فان دواعيه تتوفر إلى نقله، وتتوفر دواعي من خالفه إلى إبطال ما نقله أو الطعن عليه، والانكار لروايته، بذلك جرت العادات في مدائح الرجال وذمهم، وتعظيمهم والنقص منهم، ومتى رأينا الفرقة المخالفة لهذه الفرقة قد نقلت مثل نقلها، ولم يتعرض للطعن على نقله، ول ينكر متضمن الخبر، دل ذلك على أن الله تعالى قد تولى نقله وسخرهم لروايته، وذلك دليل على صحة ما تضمنه الخبر. وأما الدليل على أن المراد بالاخبار والمعني بها أئمتنا (ع) فهو أنه إذا ثبت بهذه الاخبار أن الائمة محصورة في الاثني عشر إماما وأنهم لا يزيدون ولا ينقصون، ثبت ما ذهبنا إليه، لان الأمة بين قائلين: قائل يعتبر العدد الذي ذكرناه فهو يقول إن المراد بها من نذهب إلى إمامته، ومن خالف في إمامتهم لا يعتبر هذا العدد، فالقول مع اعتبار العدد أن المراد غيرهم، خروج عن الاجماع وما أدى إلى ذلك وجب القول بفساده.

ويدل أيضا على إمامة ابن الحسن (ع) وصحة غيبته ما ظهر وانتشر من الاخبار الشائعة الذائعة عن آبائه (ع) قبل هذه الاوقات بزمان طويل من أن لصاحب هذا الأمر غيبة، وصفة غيبته، وما يجري فيها من الاختلاف، ويحدث فيها من الحوادث، وأنه يكون له غيبتان إحداهما أطول من الاخرى وأن الاولى يعرف فيها أخباره والثانية لا يعرف فيها أخباره فوافق ذلك على ما تضمنته الاخبار ولولا صحتها وصحة إمامته لما وافق ذلك، لان ذلك لا يكون إلا باعلام الله على لسان نبيه.

This path of reasoning is also a measure on the basis of which scholars have previously argued. We will mention just a few of the narrations that carry this meaning, to indicate the veracity of our claim, because complete incorporation of all the narration with this regard will be long and they are present in the books of hadīth and can be found there.

‘Allama Majlisi says Then the Sheikh of the Congregation narrates the narrations, which we have narrated from him in the previous and coming chapters of Bihār al-Anwār. Then he proceeds,

If it should be said that all of these narrations are singularly narrated traditions, which cannot be conclusive in a subject as this, as it requires certainty, we will reply that our argument is based on the portion of these narrations, which predict an event before its happening and then that event happens as predicted. This is the proof of the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan because the knowledge of an event before it happens cannot be known but through Almighty God. Even if there were not but one tradition and its content corresponded to events later on, that is sufficient. That is why the predictions of the Qur’ān about future events are the proofs of the truthfulness of the Messenger (a.s) and that Qur’ān is from God, the Almighty, inasmuch as it is heard from a single narrator. But it does prove this single narrator’s truth on the basis of this argument. Besides, narrations in this regard are mutawātir, narrated in inordinate numbers both by the same words and recounting the same concepts. As for the inordinate number of traditions carrying the same wordings, the Shī‘a have narrated such each such narration by mutawātir measures. And this concept has been narrated in inordinate numbers through different words, because the great number of narrations, their different occasions, and their distinct chains, and the remote narrators thereof, prove their veracity. Because not all of them can be false. That is why on many occasions the miracles of the Prophet (a.s) other than the Qur’ān, and many other themes in the Shar‘ are proved through tawātur, through the wordings may be singularly narrated. This is an accepted measure before our adversaries in this question. Therefore, they should not abandon and forget it when we come to discuss Imamate. It is not worthy that close-mindedness leads one where he rejects self-evident things. This measure is accepted in praising or denouncing men. Therefore, they have argued for the generosity of Hātam and bravery of ‘Amr and other things in the same way, though every instance of Hātam’s generosity and ‘Amr’s stance in the battles is a singularly narrated incident. This is abundantly clear.

Of the proofs of the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan, in addition to what has been mentioned so far, is that there is no dispute between the Ummah that a Mahdi will rise in this Ummah who will fill the earth with justice and equity as it shall be filled with oppression and inequity. When we have established that the Mahdi is from the progeny of al-Husain and have invalidated any claimant for this position other than Ibn al-Hasan (a.s) it is proved that he is the one intended by these narrations.

وهذه أيضا طريقة اعتمدها الشيوخ قديماً. ونحن نذكر من الاخبار التي تضمن ذلك طرفا ليعلم صحة ما قلناه لان استيفاء جميع ماروي في هذا المعنى يطول، وهو موجود في كتب الاخبار من أراده وقف عليه من هناك.

أقول: ثم نقل الاخبار التي نقلنا عنه (ره) في الابواب السابقة واللاحقة ثم قال: فان قيل: هذه كلها أخبار آحاد لا يعول على مثلها في هذه المسألة لانها مسألة علمية. قلنا: موضع الاستدلال من هذه الاخبار ما تضمنه الخبر بالشئ قبل كونه فكان كما تضمنه فكان ذلك دلالة على صحة ما ذهبنا إليه من إمامة ابن الحسن لان العلم بما يكون لا يحصل إلا من جهة علام الغيوب، فلو لم يرد إلا خبر واحد ووافق مخبره ما تضمنه الخبر، لكان ذلك كافيا، ولذلك كان ما تضمنه القرآن من الخبر بالشئ قبل كونه دليلا على صدق النبي (ص) وأن القرآن من قبل الله تعالى، وإن كان المواضع التي تضمن ذلك محصورة، ومع ذلك مسموعة من مخبر واحد، لكن دل على صدقه من الجهة التي قلناها، على أن الاخبار متواتر بها لفظا ومعنى.

فأما اللفط فان الشيعة تواترت بكل خبر منه، والمعنى أن كثيرة الاخبار واختلاف جهاتها وتباين طرقها، وتباعد رواتها، تدل على صحتها، لانه لا يجوز أن يكون كلها باطلة ولذلك يستدل في مواضع كثيرة على معجزات النبي (ص) التي هي سوى القرآن وامور كثيرة في الشرع يتواتر، وإن كان كل لفظ منه منقولا من جهة الآحاد وذلك معتمد عند من خالفنا في هذه المسألة، فلا ينبغي أن يتركوه وينسوه إذا جئنا إلى الكلام في الإمامة، والعصبية لا ينبغي أن ينتهي بالانسان إلى حد يجحد الامور المعلومة.

وهذا الذي ذكرناه معتبر في مدائح الرجال وفضائلهم ولذلك استدل على سخاء حاتم وشجاعة عمرو وغير ذلك بمثل ذلك وإن كان كل واحد مما يروى من عطاء حاتم ووقوف عمرو في موقف من المواقف، من جهة الآحاد وهذا واضح.

ومما يدل أيضا على إمامة ابن الحسن زائدا على ما مضى أنه لا خلاف بين الأمة أنه سيخرج في هذه الأمة مهدي يملأ الأرض قسطاً وعدلاً كما ملئت ظلماً وجوراً وإذا بينا أن ذلك المهدي من ولد الحسين وأفسدنا قول من يدعي ذلك من ولد الحسين سوى ابن الحسن ثبت أن المراد به هو (ع).

‘Allamah Majlisi says, Then the Sheikh of the Congregation mentions the traditions of the commonality and the Chosen Congregation about the Mahdi (a.s) which we have mentioned. Then he proceeds,

The fact that he is from the progeny of al-Husain (a.s) is proved by the narrations we mentioned, which describe that the Imams are twelve and mention their details. And because everyone who believes in the number we have mentioned, he believes that the Mahdi is from the progeny of al-Husain (a.s).

‘Allama Majlisi says, Then the Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) mentions the traditions in this regard, as we have narrated from him. Then he says,

Query: Is it not that these traditions have been the subject of dispute by various groups? The Sabā’iyya have said that he is the Prince of the Believers (a.s) and he has not died. Some have said that he is Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad who has not died. Some have said that he is al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari (a.s) and he as not died. Some have said that the Mahdi is he is his brother Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali, who is alive and has not died. What is your proof that would invalidate these assertions?

Answer: We have invalidated all of these assertions by proving that the individuals they believe to be alive are dead, and by proving that the Imams are Twelve, and by the rational arguments concluding the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan through the miracles that prove his Imamate and through the narratives of his birth and his miracles that prove his Imamate. The assertion that the Prince of the Believers is alive is of an obdurate person, for the knowledge of his death and martyrdom is more famed than the story of the death of anyone else. To doubt his death encourages doubting the death of the Prophet and all of his companions. Furthermore, his final will and the prediction of the Prophet (a.s) that you will be killed and that your beard will be crimsoned with your blood also invalidates this assertion. These are facts that do not require us to bring narrations to prove them. As for the death of Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Hanafiyya and the invalidation of those who claim his Imamate, we talked about it previously in this book. Also, when we prove that the Mahdi is from the progeny of al-Husain (a.s) the belief of the adversary of his Imamate is invalidated. As for the Nāwūsiyya, who express uncertainty after Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad (a.s) we explained the invalidity of their belief, as we know that Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad (a.s) passed away and that his son Musā Ibn Ja‘far rightly succeeded him and that the Imamate of the Twelve Imams is a proven fact. The fact that he expressly confided a final will underscores our point. As for the Wāqifa who pause at the Imamate of Musā Ibn Ja‘far (a.s) saying that he is the Mahdi, we have invalidated their belief by proving that Musā Ibn Ja‘far (a.s) passed away and that his death was a well-known historical reality and that his son al-Redhā (a.s) was the Imam after him, and this much is sufficient for the reasonable people. As for the Muhammmadiyya, who said that Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari is the Imam and that he is alive and has not died, their assertion is invalid on the basis of our proofs of the Imamate of his brother al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali the father of the Qā'im (a.s).

أقول: ثم أورد ما نقلنا عنه سابقا من أخبار الخاصة والعامة في المهدي (ع) ثم قال: وأما الذي يدل على أنه يكون من ولد الحسين (ع) فالاخبار التي أوردناها في أن الائمة اثنا عشر وذكر تفاصيلهم فهي متضمنة لذلك، ولان كل من اعتبر العدد الذي ذكرناها قال: المهدي من ولد الحسين (ع). وهو من أشرنا إليه.

ثم أورد (ره) الاخبار في ذلك على ماروينا عنه ثم قال: فان قيل: أليس قد خالف جماعة فيهم من قال: المهدي من ولد علي (ع) فقالوا: هو محمد بن الحنفية وفيهم من قال من السبائية هو علي (ع) لم يمت وفيهم من قال: جعفر بن محمد لم يمت، وفيهم من قال: موسى بن جعفر لم يمت، وفيهم من قال: الحسن بن علي العسكري(ع) لم يمت، وفيهم من قال: المهدي هو أخوه محمد بن علي وهو حي باق لم يمت، ما الذي يفسد قول هؤلاء؟ قلت: هذه الاقوال كلها قد أفسدناها بما دللنا عليه من موت من ذهبوا إلى حياته وبما بينا أن الائمة اثنا عشر وبما دللنا على صحة إمامة ابن الحسن من الاعتبار، وبما سنذكره من صحة ولادته وثبوت معجزاته الدالة على إمامته. فأما من خالف في موت أمير المؤمنين وذكر أنه حي باق فهو مكابر فان العلم بموته وقتله أظهر وأشهر من قتل كل أحد وموت كل إنسان والشك في ذلك يؤدي إلى الشك في موت النبي وجميع أصحابه ثم ما ظهر من وصيته وأخبار النبي (ص) إياه أنك تقتل وتخضب لحيتك من رأسك يفسد ذلك أيضا وذلك أشهر من أن يحتاج أن يروى فيه الاخبار. وأما وفات محمد بن علي، ابن الحنيفة وبطلان قول من ذهب إلى إمامته فقد بينا فيما مضى من الكتاب وعلى هذه الطريقة إذا بينا أن المهدي من ولد الحسين (ع) بطل قول المخالف في إمامته (ع). وأما الناووسية الذين وقفوا على جعفر بن محمد (ع) فقد بينا أيضا فساد قولهم بما علمناه من موته، واشتهار الأمر فيه، وبصحة إمامة ابنه موسى بن جعفر (ع)، وبما ثبت من إمامة الاثني عشر (ع) ويؤكد ذلك ما ثبت من صحة وصيته إلى من أوصى إليه، وظهور الحال في ذلك. وأما الواقفة الذين وقفوا على موسى بن جعفر وقالوا هو المهدي فقد أفسدنا أقوالهم بما دللنا عليه من موته، واشتهار الأمر فيه، وثبوت إمامة ابنه الرضا (ع) وفي ذلك كفاية لمن أنصف.

وأما المحمدية الذين قالوا بامامة محمد بن علي العسكري وأنه حي لم يمت، فقولهم باطل لما دللنا به على إمامة أخيه الحسن بن علي أبي القائم (ع).

Furthermore, Muhammad died in the lifetime of his father and his death was apparent and visible like the death of his father and grandfather. To dispute that would amount to disputing a self-evident reality. As for those who believe that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali has not died and he is alive and he is the Mahdi, their assertion is invalid because we know he died just as we know his forefathers before him died. And the path of knowing their death is the same and the proofs are the same. Besides, the followers of these ideas have perished and no longer exist, and had they been righteous in their beliefs, they would not have perished.

‘Allama Majlisi says, The Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) brings for all of this great many traditions, which he have narrated in the previous volumes in section more suiting for them. Then he proceeds to say,

As for the belief that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) will come back to life after his demise and he will establish the Divinely ordained government, arguing on the basis of the tradition from Abu ‘Abdillah (a.s), “He is been named Qā'im because he will rise after his demise.” Their belief is wrong because it is proved that he has passed away, and the assertion that he will come back to life requires proof. If it is possible for them to say that, it is possible for the Wāqifa to say that Musā Ibn Ja‘far will come back to life after his death. Additionally, it follows that the era will be devoid an Imam after the demise of al-Hasan until he comes back to life, which has been rationally proven to be invalid. The traditions, which assert that should the earth remain without an Imam for an hour it would perish, invalidate this belief. The saying of the Prince of the Believers (a.s), “O’ Allah, you do not leave the earth with out a Hujja, either apparent and famed or hidden and unknown” prove this. Even if we accept the reliability of the tradition “he will rise after his demise,” it could mean that he will rise after his name will die and after he will be hiding and will not be known, which is possible in the language. Our proof that the Imams are Twelve also disproves this claim. Besides, the followers of this creed have perished, and praise belongs to the Lord. Had they been righteous in their beliefs, they would not have perished.

As for those who believe that the time remains devoid of an Imam after al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali, their belief is invalid because we have proved through rational as well as narrational proofs that the time does not remain devoid of an Imam in any condition. Their argument that there were times when there were no prophets cannot benefit them, since we do not believe that there has to be a prophet in every age and such an assertion does not prove the possibility that an era can be without an Imam. Besides, the followers of this creed have perished as well, and praise belongs to the Lord. Therefore, this belief is also invalid.

As for the believers in the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali after his brother, their belief is wrong because an Imam has to be infallible and beyond making mistakes and he has to be the most knowledgeable of all of the Ummah in the rulings. However, indisputably Ja‘far was not infallible.

وأيضا فقد مات محمد في حياة أبيه (ع) موتا ظاهرا كما مات أبوه وجده فالمخالف في ذلك مخالف في الضرورة. وأما القائلون بأن الحسن بن علي لم يمت وهو حي باق وهو المهدي فقولهم باطل بما علمنا موته كما علمنا موت من تقدم من آبائه، والطريقة واحدة، والكلام عليهم واحد، هذا مع انقراض القائلين به واندراسهم، ولو كانوا محقين لما انقرضوا.

أقول: وقد أورد لكل ما ذكر أحبارا كثيرة أوردناها مع غيرها في المجلدات السابقة في الابواب التي هي أنسب بها ثم قال: وأما من قال: إن الحسن بن علي (ع) يعيش بعد موته وأنه القائم بالامر وتعلقهم بما روي عن أبي عبد الله (ع) أنه قال: "إنما سمي القائم لانه يقوم بعد ما يموت" فقوله باطل بما دللنا عليه من موته وادعاؤهم أنه يعيش يحتاج إلى دليل ولو جاز لهم ذلك لجاز أن تقول الواقفة إن موسى بن جعفر يعيش بعد موته، على أن هذا يؤدي إلى خلو الزمان من إمام بعد موت الحسن إلى حين يحيى وقد دللنا بأدلة عقلية على فساد ذلك.

ويدل على فساد ذلك الاخبار التي مضت في أنه لو بقيت الأرض بغير إمام ساعة لساخت. وقول أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه اللهم إنك لا تخلي الأرض بغير حجة إما ظاهرا مشهورا أو خائفا مغمورا يدل على ذلك على أن قوله "يقوم بعد ما يموت" لو صح الخبر احتمل أن يكون أراد "يقوم بعد ما يموت ذكره" ويخمل ولا يعرف، وهذا جائز في اللغة وما دللنا به على أن الائمة اثنا عشر يبطل هذا المقال لانه (ع) هو الحادي عشر، على أن القائلين بذلك قد انقرضوا ولله الحمد ولو كان حقا لما انقرض القائلون به.

وأما من ذهب إلى الفترة بعد الحسن بن علي وخلو الزمان من إمام فقولهم باطل بما دللنا عليه من أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام في حال من الاحوال بأدلة عقلية وشرعية وتعلقهم بالفترات بين الرسل باطل لان الفترة عبارة عن خلو الزمان من نبي ونحن لا نوجب النبوة في كل حال، وليس في ذلك دلالة على خلو الزمان من إمام، على أن القائلين بذلك قد انقرضوا ولله الحمد، فسقط هذا القول أيضا.

وأما القائلون بإمامة جعفر بن علي بعد أخيه، فقولهم باطل بما دللنا عليه من أنه يجب أن يكون الامام معصوما، لا يجوز عليه الخطاء، وأنه يجب أن يكون أعلم الأمة بالاحكام وجعفر لم يكن معصوما بلا خلاف.

The actions manifested by him, which contradict the notion of his infallibility, are more than to be enumerated and we will not prolong the book by chronicling them here. Should a need arise in the future we shall mention some of them. As for his knowledgeability, he did not have any. How can he be an Imam then? Besides the followers of this creed have perished, and due to Allah is all praise and gratitude. As for the assertion that Abu Muhammad (a.s) did not have a son, it is invalid because we proved that the Imams are Twelve and this Divinely ordained authority is bestowed to them. As for the one who thinks that the situation is confusing to him and he does not know whether Abu Muhammad (a.s) did have a son or not, and that he will adhere to the Imamate of Abu Muhammad (a.s) until it is proved that he had a son, his assertion is invalid because we proved the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (a.s) and we proved that the Imams are twelve. Retaining these proofs in mind, on need not be confused, but rather, it is most convincing that al-Hasan’s son is the Imam. It is further strengthened by our proofs that no Imam passes away until he sires an heir and sees his legatee. Our rational and narrational arguments that the era does not remain devoid of an Imam also invalidate this assertion. Their elicitation of the narration “Adhere to the first until the next one is possible for you” is unreasonable, as this is a singularly narrated tradition. Besides, Sa‘d Ibn ‘Abdillah has interpreted it thusly, “Adhere to the first one until the second one appears to you.” In this case, it is a proof of the Heir (a.s) because it requires to adhere to the first and not to seek the news of the next when he is in hiding and occultation due to taqiyya, until Allah gives him permission to appear and he will be the one whose rule will manifest and whose person will be famed. Furthermore, believers in this dogma no longer exist, and praise belongs to the Lord.

As for those who have proclaimed the Imamate of al-Hasan and have said that Imamate has ended as Prophethood has, their assertion is worthless because we have proved through rationality and traditions that no time can remain devoid of an Imam and that the Imams are twelve and that the Qā'im was born after al-Hasan. Besides, they have also gone extinct, and praise belongs to the Lord.

We also demonstrated the invalidity of the promoters of the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali, namely, the Fatahiyya, who believe in the Imamate of ‘Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far after the demise of al-Sādiq (a.s). And when ‘Abdullah passed away without leaving any son behind, they came back to the Imamate of Musā Ibn Ja‘far and after him proclaimed the Imamate of al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali. And when al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali died, they claimed the Imamate of Ja‘far. Their belief is false for the reasons we invalidated the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn ‘Ali and because there is no disagreement amongst the Imāmiyya that Imamate pass from one brother too another after al-Hasan and al-Husain and we have brought in that regard great many traditions. Another reason is that there is no disagreement that Ja‘far was not infallible, while it is proved that an Imam has to be infallible. His actions contradict his being infallible. It is narrated that when Ja‘far was born for Abu al-Hasan (a.s), people congratulated him.

وما ظهر من أفعاله التي تنافي العصمة أكثر من أن تحصى لا نطول بذكرها الكتاب، وإن عرض فيما بعد ما يقتضي ذكر بعضها ذكرناه، وأما كونه عالما فانه كان خاليا منه، فكيف تثبت إمامته، على أن القائلين بهذه المقالة قد انقرضوا أيضا ولله الحمد والمنة. وأما من قال: لا ولد لابي محمد (ع) فقوله يبطل بما دللنا عليه من إمامة الاثني عشر وسياقة الأمر فيهم.

وأما من زعم أن الأمر قد اشتبه عليه، فلا يدري هل لابي محمد (ع) ولد أم لا إلا أنهم متمسكون بالاول حتى يصح لهم الآخر فقوله باطل بما دللنا عليه من صحة إمامة ابن الحسن، وبما بينا من أن الائمة اثنا عشر، ومع ذلك لا ينبغي التوقف بل يجب القطع على إمامة ولده، وما قدمناه أيضاً من أنه لا يمضي إمام حي حتى يولد له ويرى عقبه، وما دللنا عليه من أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام عقلاً وشرعاً يفسد هذا القول أيضاً.

فأما تمسكهم بما روي "تمسكوا بالاول حتى يصح لكم الآخر" فهو خبر واحد ومع هذا فقد تأوله سعد بن عبد الله بتأويل قريب قال قوله " تمسكوا بالاول حتى يظهر لكم الآخر " هو دليل على إيجاب الخلف لانه يقتضي وجوب التمسك بالاول ولا يبحث عن أحوال الآخر إذا كان مستورا غائبا في تقية حتى يأذن الله في ظهوره، ويكون (هو) الذي يظهر أمره ويشهر نفسه، على أن القائلين بذلك قد انقرضوا والحمد لله.

وأما من قال بإمامة الحسن وقالوا: انقطعت الإمامة كما انقطعت النبوة فقولهم باطل بما دللنا عليه من أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام عقلاً وشرعاً وبما بينا من أن الائمة اثنا عشر وسنبين صحة ولادة القائم بعده، فسقط قولهم من كل وجه على أن هؤلاء قدانقرضوا بحمد الله. وقد بينا فساد قول الذاهبين إلى إمامة جعفر بن علي من الفطحية الذين قالوا بامامة عبد الله بن جعفر لما مات الصادق (ع) فلما مات عبد الله ولم يخلف ولدا رجعوا إلى القول بإمامة موسى بن جعفر ومن بعده إلى الحسن بن علي فلما مات الحسن قالوا بامامة جعفر وقول هؤلاء يبطل بوجوه أفسدناها ولانه لا خلاف بين الامامية أن الإمامة لا تجتمع في أخوين بعد الحسن والحسين وقد أوردنا في ذلك أخبارا كثيرة. ومنها أنه لا خلاف أنه لم يكن معصوماً وقد بينا أن من شرط الامام أن يكون معصوماً وما ظهر من أفعاله ينافي العصمة وقد روي أنه لما ولد لابي الحسن جعفر هنئوه به.

But they did not see any signs of gaiety in him. He was asked about it. The Imam replied, “Take his matter easy. He will misguide a great many congregation.” His shameful actions and sayings narrated are more than to be recounted and we keep will keep our clean by not mentioning them.

As for the one who says that the Heir has a son and that the Imams are thirteen, their assertion is invalid because of our proofs that the Imams are twelve. Therefore, this assertion has to be discarded. Besides, all of these sects have perished, thanks God, and there is not a person who would uphold any of these beliefs, and this itself is the proof of their falsity. This is the end of the inquiry by the Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s).

‘Allama Majlisi says, The inquiries of the Sheikh of the Congregation the most respected al-Tūsi (a.s) ask for detailed explanation and analysis and further substantiation that our book is not the place to conduct them. We brought his inquiry here because his book is one of the sources from which we have narrated our traditions. The place where these rational and intellectual arguments need to be further elaborated on is the books of theology.

As far as the traditions relevant to the subject is concerned, we have treated the matter with such generosity and efficiency that there is no capacity of doubts for any reasonable person, and rather even an adversary. We will expand on the submission of the Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) while replying to the queries of the adversary that every Shī‘a from whom the Imam of the Age is hiding during the time of the occultation, he is guilty and sinful. It follows that no one of the righteous and saved congregation can be described as an ‘ādil, since this sin of theirs that has prevented his appearance is either a major sin or a minor sin they have repeatedly committed. And both cases negate being ‘ādil. So how can the narrators of the traditions and the Imams of congregational prayers can be ruled to be ‘ādil? How can their word be accepted in testimonials? On the other hand we definitely know that in every age there are men of great piety who will not hesitate to confess his Imamate and profess obedience to him as soon as the Qā'im (a.s) appears and manifests a minor miracle. There is no doubt that in many ages of the past, the prophets and their successors were imprisoned and cut off from public access. Considering the condition of their followers, it was abundantly clear that they were not guilty for that. When the Prophet (a.s) hid in the cave, his appearance to the Prince of the Believers and being in his presence was a lutf for the latter. Meanwhile, it is not possible to suggest that the shortcoming in this regard was that of the Prince of the Believers’.

The reasonable answer is that lutf is a condition for the validity of religious duties only if it does not entail harm. We know that if Almighty God manifested a sign indicating His will when a sin is committed, for instance darkening the faces of the sinful person, it would encourage them to obey and discourage them to defy.

فلم يروا به سروراً فقيل له في ذلك فقال هون عليك أمره سيضل خلقاً كثيراً وما روي فيه وله من الأفعال والأقوال الشنيعة أكثر من أن تحصى ننزه كتابنا عن ذلك.

فأما من قال إن للخلف ولداً وأن الأئمة ثلاثة عشر فقولهم يفسد بما دللنا عليه من أن الأئمة عليهم السلام اثنا عشر فهذا القول يجب اطراحه على أن هذه الفرق كلها قد انقرضت بحمد الله ولم يبق قائل بقولها وذلك دليل على بطلان هذه الأقاويل انتهى كلامه قدس الله روحه.

و أقول تحقيقاته رحمه الله في هذا المبحث يحتاج إلى تفصيل وتبيين وإتمام ونقض وإبرام ليس كتابنا محل تحقيق أمثال ذلك وإنما أوردنا كلامه لأنه كان داخلا فيما اشتمل عليه أصولنا التي أخذنا منها ومحل تحقيق تلك المباحث من جهة الدلائل العقلية الكتب الكلامية وأما ما يتعلق بكتابنا من الأخبار المتعلقة بها فقد وفينا حقها على وجه لا يبقى لمنصف بل معاند مجال الشك فيها.

و لنتكلم فيما التزمه ره في ضمن أجوبة اعتراضات المخالف من كون كل من خفي عليه الإمام من الشيعة في زمان الغيبة فهم مقصرون مذنبون فنقول:

يلزم عليه أن لا يكون أحد من الفرقة المحقة الناجية في زمان الغيبة موصوفا بالعدالة لأن هذا الذنب الذي صار مانعا لظهوره (ع) من جهتهم إما كبيرة أو صغيرة أصروا عليها وعلى التقديرين ينافي العدالة فكيف كان يحكم بعدالة الرواة والأئمة في الجماعات وكيف كان يقبل قولهم في الشهادات مع أنا نعلم ضرورة أن كل عصر من الأعصار مشتمل على جماعة من الأخيار لا يتوقفون مع خروجه (ع) وظهور أدنى معجز منه في الإقرار بإمامته وطاعته وأيضا فلا شك في أن في كثير من الأعصار الماضية كان الأنبياء والأوصياء محبوسين ممنوعين عن وصول الخلق إليهم وكان معلوماً من حال المقرين أنهم لم يكونوا مقصرين في ذلك بل نقول لما اختفى الرسول ص في الغار كان ظهوره لأمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه وكونه معه لطفا له ولا يمكن إسناد التقصير إليه. فالحق في الجواب أن اللطف إنما يكون شرطا للتكليف إذا لم يكن مشتملا على مفسدة فإنا نعلم أنه تعالى إذا أظهر علامة مشيته عند ارتكاب المعاصي على المذنبين كان يسود وجوههم مثلاً فهو أقرب إلى طاعتهم وأبعد عن معصيتهم.

However, because this would bring about many harms and wrongs, He does not do that. It is possible that his appearance to his devotees only may entail great calamities for the followers of the Qā'im (a.s) causing their annihilation and destruction. His appearance in such circumstances will not be lutf for them. His assertion that religious duties without lutf are like religious duties with a deity, if we accept its validity, is true when it is lutf and disallowing harms and damages are not involved.

To derive a conclusion, after al-husn wa al-qubh al-‘aqlīyayn are proved, and that common sense indicates that lutf is obligatory from Allah, and that the existence of the Imam is lutf on the basis of the consensus of all men of reason that prudence lies in the existence of a chief who calls to the betterment and disallows mischief, and that his existence is most beneficial for the public and encourages them to righteousness, and that he must be infallible and that infallibility can be known only through revelation, and that consensus is established on the fallibility of everyone but the Patron of the Age, the existence of the Patron of the Age is proved.

His occultation from the adversaries is apparent and is due to their guilt. As for occultation from those who believe him, it is possible that some of them maybe guilty and the others may be denied some of the blessings of his presence for larger considerations of harms that would stem from the adversaries, or for an expediency for them in his occultation so that they believe in him despite the concealment and doubts and the severity of problems, which further leads them to greater rewards. Besides, the Imam’s delivery of his benefits and guidance does not depend on his appearance in such a manner that they would know him. It is possible that the majority of the Shī‘a receive great many blessings from him, unbeknownst to them, as suggested by the narration, which will come, “He is in his occultation like the sun above the clouds.” Moreover, the occultations of the prophets are sufficient evidence that such sort of existence of the Hujja is a blessing, or else it would not have been sanctioned by Almighty God.

As for the queries imaginable with respect to any of these premises and answers thereof, they are deferred to the books pertinent to the subject.

لكن لاشتماله على كثير من المفاسد لم يفعله فيمكن أن يكون ظهوره (ع) مشتملا على مفسدة عظيمة للمقرين يوجب استئصالهم واجتياحهم فظهوره (ع) مع تلك الحال ليس لطفا لهم وما ذكره رحمه الله من أن التكليف مع فقد اللطف كالتكليف مع فقد الإله فمع تسليمه إنما يتم إذا كان لطفا وارتفعت المفاسد المانعة عن كونه لطفا.

و حاصل الكلام أن بعد ما ثبت من الحسن والقبح العقليين وأن العقل يحكم بأن اللطف على الله تعالى واجب وأن وجود الإمام لطف باتفاق جميع العقلاء على أن المصلحة في وجود رئيس يدعو إلى الصلاح ويمنع عن الفساد وأن وجوده أصلح للعباد وأقرب إلى طاعتهم وأنه لا بد أن يكون معصوما وأن العصمة لا تعلم إلا من جهته تعالى وأن الإجماع واقع على عدم عصمة غير صاحب الزمان (ع) يثبت وجوده.

و أما غيبته عن المخالفين فظاهر أنه مستند إلى تقصيرهم وأما عن المقرين فيمكن أن يكون بعضهم مقصرين وبعضهم مع عدم تقصيرهم ممنوعين من بعض الفوائد التي تترتب على ظهوره (ع) لمفسدة لهم في ذلك ينشأ من المخالفين أو لمصلحة لهم في غيبته بأن يؤمنوا به مع خفاء الأمر وظهور الشبه وشدة المشقة فيكونوا أعظم ثوابا مع أن إيصال الإمام فوائده وهداياته لا يتوقف على ظهوره بحيث يعرفونه فيمكن أن يصل منه (ع) إلى أكثر الشيعة ألطاف كثيرة لا يعرفونه كما سيأتي عنه (ع) أنه في غيبته كالشمس تحت السحاب على أن في غيبات الأنبياء دليلا بينا على أن في هذا النوع من وجود الحجة مصلحة وإلا لم يصدر منه تعالى.

و أما الاعتراضات الموردة على كل من تلك المقدمات وأجوبتها فموكول إلى مظانه.