We previously mentioned that the concealed birth of the Master of the Age is not extraordinary, as the likes of it have occurred in narrated stories of kings. Scholars of Persia and other biographers of rulers have mentioned similar accounts, such as the well-known story of Kaikhisrau; whose mother was the daughter of Afrasyab, king of the Turks, and concealed his conception and birth, and whose grandfather, Kaikawas, the king of Persia, desired to kill him. So, his mother hid him and his story is famous in history. Tabari has mentioned it in his Tarikh.1

The Qur’an has spoken of Ibrahim and that his mother gave birth to him in secrecy and how she hid him in a cave until he grew up and then his story unravelled.2

It mentions the story of Musa (‘a) that his mother left him in the river fearing for his life from Fira’wn. This famous, and the Qur’an has mentioned it.3

The story of the Master of the Age is similar to these.

So how can it be said that it is against the ordinary? Some people have children from concubines that they hide from their wives, until they are at their deathbed and then they confess.

Some people hide their progeny due to their family, fearing that they will kill them in greed for inheritance. These events are not uncommon and they happen often. Therefore, one must not evince wonder in the like of it in the Master of the Age. We have witnessed many events like this and have heard much about them, therefore, we will not prolong the discourse with more examples, because it is clear in the practices of the society. There are many people we have found whose lineage was clarified a long time 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 afterwards that they can be related to a particular man or woman.

As for the acts of Ja’far Ibn ‘Ali, the uncle of the Master of the Age, his rejection of the testimony of the Imamiyyah that his brother, Hasan Ibn ‘Ali had a son born in his lifetime, his rejection of his existence after his brother, his usurpation of his brother’s inheritance, his behest to the rulers of the time to imprison the concubines of Hasan in order to force them to negate pregnancy to underscore his rejection that his brother had a son, and his declaration (hat any Shi’a, who claimed that Hasan left behind a successor 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’an has spoken of the wrongs of the sons of Yaqub to their brother Yusuf and how they threw him into (he well and sold him at a very insignificant price. And they were sons of prophet, and some believe they were prophets. If they can perpetrate such a grave error against their brother, how Ja’far Ibn ‘Ali cannot utter denials about his nephew in greed of worldly pleasures? Who can consider this impossible, but an obdurate opponent?

If it is said: How Hasan Ibn ‘Ali had a son while during his terminal illness, he addressed his final will regarding his trusts and monies to his mother, named Haditha and with patronymic of Umm Hasan, and entrusted his affairs to her? If he had a son, he would have mentioned him in his final will.

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

Anyone who thinks that this is the proof of the falsity of the Imamiyyah belief, he is not familiar with practices in the world. Imam as-Sadiq Ja’far Ibn Muhammad did same when he addressed his final will to five people, the first of whom was the ruler of that time, Mansur. He did not exclusively address his son Musa (‘a) in order to protect him. He addressed Rabi, the judge of the time, and his concubine Hamida Barbariyya, and he mentioned his son Musa Ibn Ja’far (‘a) last in order to hide his position and protect his life. He did not mention along with his son Musa (‘a) any other of his sons.

Perhaps it was to exclude the possibility of someone claiming the position of Imamate after him on the basis of his inclusion among addressees of the final will. And had not been Musa (‘a) 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, Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) would not have mentioned him in his final will and would have sufficed on the others, as did Hasan Ibn ‘Ali, the father of the Master of the Age.

• 1. Tarikhul Umam wa al-Mulook, Vol. 1, Pg. 509 and 516, Abu Ja’far Ibn Jarir Tabari, quoted from Kitab al-Ghaybah, Mariful Islamiya.
• 2. Refer to Surah al-Anam, 6:75-79. Tafsir Ayyashi, Vol. 1, Pg. 365; Tafsir al-Qummi, Vol. 1, Pg. 208; Bihar al-Anwar Vol. 12, Pg. 19; it is mentioned in traditions of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (‘a).
• 3. Refer to Surah al-Qasas, 28:7.