Objection: It was mentioned in your discourse that we know the death of Musa Ibn Ja’far (‘a), just as we know the death of his father and grandfather. In the same way, one can say: We know that Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-’Askari (‘a) did not have a son, just as we know he did not have ten sons, just as we know that the Messenger of Allah (S) did not have a son, who outlived him.

If you reply to the objection and 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 disagree on the second; your opponent can also say that if we knew about the death of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hanafiyyah, Ja’far Ibn Muhammad (‘a) and Musa Ibn Ja’far (‘a) in the same manner, we know the death of Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Husayn [Baqir] (‘a), there would not be any dispute in the former just as it is not possible to have a difference on the latter.

Reply: 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 times, prudence dictates that men of wisdom and letters hide their offspring for various considerations. Many kings hide their offspring for fear and for compassion for their progeny. This is observed often in the practice of Persian emperors and kings of 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.

It is also not uncommon amongst people. Some people marry a woman of low social prominence and class, while being from upper echelons and when they father a son from her, they consider it a challenge to their distinction to attribute it to himself; so they deny their relationship altogether, and some of them pity and offer that child some of their wealth. Sometimes a man of a low rank marries a woman of a noble family, because of her infatuation and without the knowledge of her family, either because her guardian does not exist, as many jurists allow; or the ruler has taken over her affairs and marries her to him. When a son is born from him, though the boy is healthy, she disowns him, because of her pride or because of fear of 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 that there is no encumbrance from declaring fatherhood - only then the negation of fatherhood can be known.

Our knowledge that the Messenger of Allah (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 consensus of Ummah that he did not have a son, who lived after him. The same cannot be claimed with respect to the offspring of Hasan (‘a), because Hasan (‘a) was interdicted and was practically a prisoner.1 There was much worry, concern and fear for the offspring, as it had been a known and famed article of Shi’a faith that the Twelfth Imam was going to establish the Order for termination of regimes; therefore, it was necessary to keep his birth confidential.

So, Imam Hasan al-’Askari (‘a) concealed him even from his family members, like Ja’far al-Kazzab, his brother, who was eyeing his inheritance and 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.

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.2

If it is said: The merit is the same between the two scenes, for in 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, to know of his malady, visit him during his sickness, 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 a long time passes while no reason can be thought of that his family would proclaim his death while he is alive.

The same is true with respect to birth, since women witness pregnancy and talk about it. Especially, if she is the honour of a nobleman, people will discuss the condition of such a person. 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 prominent and 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 to him or not. So, when we consider this, the ordinary behavior is same in both cases; and if Allah should desire to supersede the ordinary behavior, He can do it in either of the two.

It is possible that He may disallow through certain encumbrances, the pregnant woman to be seen and 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, his death is expected and hope is lost in his life, Allah transfers him to a mountain top and places 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 act instead 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 that coolness.

We would reply: First, we say that no one who believes in occultation has to take recourse to such nonsense, unless he is deprived of proofs and unable to refute a strong doubt. We will discuss this objection on the grounds it has been articulated and will say that the way mentioned for knowing someone’s death is not always correct, because sometimes all these elements combine, but the lie is revealed, because the person who displayed all this had a smart objective. He pretended to be sick and goes to his family displaying all that to test those who profess obedience and loyalty to him.

Cases similar to this have happened many times in the lives of kings and philosophers. Sometimes people consider heart attack to be death; then the mistake is revealed. This is also evident in public behavior. Death is only known through observation of cessation of sensation and suspension of pulse that lasts for a very long time. Many other signs, known through experience, can be included, which someone who has experience with the sick and has treated them knows.

Same was the case of Musa Ibn Ja’far (‘a), because he appeared before multitudes of people, who cannot fail to discern his condition or be confused by his situation. The suggestion that Allah may take away a person and bring another who looks like him in his place is not at all correct, 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 extremists (Ghulat) and downgraders (Mufawwidha) who denied that Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) and Imam Husayn (‘a) were killed. A line of reasoning that leads to such absurdity has to be specious.

The assertion that Allah causes coldness in the body around the heart, which acts instead 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, as per medical principles, the motion of the pulse and veins originates from the heart and fades only with the fading of natural heat. When the pulse ceases, the fading of natural heat is inferred and thus, death of the subject. This is not dependent on inhaling. Therefore, physicians examine the pulse when respiration stops or it is weak. Therefore, his argument and analogy to the 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 expectation of the birth of the child and there is no reason he should hide it. 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 Shari’ah allows birth to be proved through the testimony of a midwife and a verdict 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 Master of the Age (aj) and have met reliable men who met that sacred entity is rejected? And we will bring the narrations from those who have met him.

The opponent has expressed indirectly that it is possible that a reason may rise, requiring expediency that when the child is born, Allah transfers him to a mountain top or another place, where he can remain unknown and where no one finds out about him. Although since he applies the same analogy to death also, we have already explained the distinction between the two occasions.

• 1. Imam Hasan al-’Askari (‘a) spent all his life in Samarrah, which was like a big prison for him and under the close surveillance of the regime and all his movements were under observation, so much so that the agents of the Imam maintained secret contacts with the Imam. This harshness of the Bani Abbas rulers on Imam Hasan al-’Askari (‘a) is in fact the evidence that the Promised Mahdi (‘a) is the son of Imam Hasan al-’Askari (‘a) and the aim of their stance was to prevent the birth of Imam az-Zaman (aj) or to eliminate him after he was born, which is mentioned in detail in many books.
• 2. For proving the death of people or birth of a child it is possible that testimony may be referred to, because it is an evidential matter; but testimony is not reliable for denial of birth, because it is possible that the parents may, during to different reason, have kept the birth secret and it is that he says: But in this regard (in its background) if there is evidence; it is just as people testify for the right of inheritance for the issues of a deceased as other than them, there is no other issue of that deceased. Thus, under this testimony, negation of birth (absence of other issues) and evidence for inheritance for the issues of the deceased is present. In this way their testimony against the birth of Imam az-Zaman (aj) is not reliable. On the other hand, there are many testimonies and witnesses on the being of Imam az-Zaman (aj) as mentioned in this book many times.