Having established the invalidity of all these beliefs, the only creed that remains is that of Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (‘a) or else it would follow that truth is beyond this Ummah. When his Imamate is proved through this reasoning and we find him hidden from people, 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 children and cattle, and the creation of harmful elements, repulsive faces and ambiguous verses of Qur’an.

When we say: we know that Allah, the Exalted, is All-Wise and it is not possible for Him to do 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 we may not know in detail.

If it is said: 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 invalidity of your belief in his Imamate, because if it were valid, you should be able to describe the wisdom of his occultation.

We would reply: If it is fair to infer this conclusion from our position, the atheist view must proceed from the position of all the followers of justice that 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 followers of justice?

If you say: “We first inquire into Divine wisdom and once it is proved through independent proofs, we interpret the acts that are hard to explain 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 Divine wisdom that has already been proved through independent arguments.”

We will say the same here that 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 compatible to his infallibility. Therefore, there is no difference between the two areas.

Then the opponent of occultation 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, “Then why does occultation lead you to conclude the non-existence of the Imam in (his time despite considering it possible that it may have a reason not incompatible with the existence of 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 children, notwithstanding his acknowledgement that their pains and diseases may have a valid explanation that does not violate divine wisdom?

Or the argument of a person who argues on the basis of the superficialities of ‘ambiguous verses’1 that the Almighty is similar to physical bodies and creates the actions of people, despite his profession that these verses may have valid interpretations that do not violate the principles of wisdom, Divine justice, monotheism and negation of His physicality.”

If he should say, “I don’t consider this possible." He will be told, “This is utter obstinacy in a subject, which your knowledge does not encompass, 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 ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have valid interpretations that conform to reason, and they must be interpreted literally?

If it is said: “We are able to explain ‘ambiguous verses’ in detail, and rather, the knowledge of a portion thereof is sufficient for and if more than that is offered, it is merely complimentary." If you can satisfy yourselves with an assertion such as that, likewise, we are capable of providing reasons for 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 Kitab al-Imamah.

They are further asked, “How can the Imamate of Ibn al-Hasan (‘a) be proved and substantiated by succession of rational principles we established, yet it can be said that occultation cannot have a valid reason? Is it not but contradiction? Is it not but parallel to professing monotheism and Divine Justice and at the same time averring that ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have an interpretation that conforms to these principles?"

If they say, "We don’t accept the Imamate of 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) 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 ‘ambiguous verses’, pains of children and necessity of following religious duties before believing in One God and His justice.

If it is said: Does the inquisitor not 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?”

We would reply: 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 provide him 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 fundamentals. We gave preference to 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 to discuss the perplexing and the complicated. This is parallel to our dialogue with the opponents of religion, where we give preference to the discussion of the prophethood of our Messenger over discussing their claim that their religion has come for eternity. Because the former is clear and manifest and the latter is complex. This criterion is identically present here.

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.

If it is said: 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 grace is materialized for us? Just us we say about the Prophet when Allah sent him, He protected him until he had delivered the Shari’ah, it would be necessary that the Imam’s case be the same.

We would reply: Protection is of two kinds. One is not incompatible with conferment of religious duties as it does not compel the subject to forsake the wrong. The other kind of protection leads to such compulsion.

And Allah has provided the first protection, as He has protected the Imam from oppression by forbidding it and by encouraging obedience to him and compliance to his orders and prohibitions and that he may not be disobeyed in any of his orders and that he should be helped in all matters that strengthen his rule and power. All such measures are compatible with conferment of obligations.

If someone disobeys with this regard and does not take necessary measures for this objective to materialize, he has done that on his own, and it is not the act of his Creator.

The other kind of protection is that He literally protects him from his enemies by force and compulsion and by rendering them incapable of oppressing and disobeying him. Therefore, this is not compatible with religious' duties, which require free choice in order to have meaning, and thus, religious obligations must be annulled.

As for the Prophet (S), we say that God must protect him so he may deliver religious laws, because it is not possible to discern religious laws, except through him. However, the Imam is not like him, because as far as the delivery of religious laws is concerned, the public does not have any excuse2 and all rules they need are indicated by their proofs and it is possible for them to learn them without needing 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 (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 grace imposed 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.

If it is said: Explain it to us anyway - though you are not bound to - the reason of occultation, in a way that it may be clearer in reasoning and more convincing in demonstration.

We would reply: 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 (S), who once hid in the mountains 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 (S) went into hiding from his people after he had delivered what he was required to deliver and they did not have any need of him anymore - whereas the discourse with respect to the Imam is contrary - and furthermore, the hiding of the Prophet was not prolonged, whereas ages have passed since the beginning of the occultation of the Imam.

This suggestion is foul, because the reality is not as hinted as the Prophet (S) went into hiding in Sheb Abu Talib and in the cave in Mecca before migration, a time when he had not delivered the entirety of religious laws.

Most religious rules and a considerable portion of the Qur’an descended in Medina. So how did you claim that it was after the delivery? If the matter was as hinted that the delivery was complete before the prophetic occultation, the completion of delivery does not fulfill the need of his administration and leadership, his orders and prohibitions, for no one can say that after delivery of religious laws, no one needs the Prophet's leadership. The opponent does not believe in such a view.

This is a reply to a person, who says that the Prophet (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 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 grace to creation, therefore, in no circumstance his occultation is warranted and his aid and protection is necessary, so he may appear and the legitimate reason of not following religious laws by the duty-bound (Mukallaf) be removed.

This is invalid, because we explained that though the Prophet (S) had delivered all that mankind’s welfare depended on at that time, his leadership, 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 (S) to hide in the mountains 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 duty- bound (Mukallafin) not to obey the religious laws, 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 on Allah to strengthen the hand of the Imam to facilitate his uprising and his administration of 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 (S) to undergo hiding, inasmuch as he was needed, due to the fear of harm, and the blame in this regard is on individuals, who threatened him and forced him to go into hiding, likewise is the occultation of the Imam, To make a distinction in this regard in terms of the length and shortness of 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 undergoes hiding, but rather on the ones who have forced him to it, the cause that has prompted the hiding can have a long duration as it can a short one.

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

We would reply: Fear from their enemies did not threaten his holy forefathers (‘a), as they adhered to dissimulation (Taqiyyah) 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 raise the call for his leadership and fight his adversaries. Where is similarity between his fear from his enemies and the fear of his forefathers, if there is no scarcity of reflection? Moreover, when anyone of his forefathers (‘a) 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 Master of the Age is diametrically opposite to this, since it is well-known that no one is to succeed him and take his position. Therefore, the difference between the two instances is clear.

What Is The Difference Between A Hidden Imam And An Imam Who Does Not Exist Or One That Exists In The Heavens?

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 objection that what is the difference between his existence in a way that no one can reach him and his existence in the heavens, because we shall say that if he exists in the heavens in a way that the conditions of dwellers of the earth do not remain concealed from him, the heaven is like the earth in such a case, and if they do remain concealed, such an existence equals his nonexistence.

Then the argument is turned around against them about the Prophet (S) by asking: “What is the difference between the prophetic existence in hiding and his non-existence and his being in the heaven?” Whatever answer they will give to this question is our very answer to them to their question, as we elaborated earlier. They cannot make a distinction between the two cases, saying that the Prophet (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 his devotees, and such incertitude is sufficient in this argument. Furthermore, when the Prophet (S) hid in the cave, he was hiding from his devotees and his enemies and there was no one with him, except Abu Bakr.

And it was possible that he had gone into hiding without anyone, friend or foe, had prudence demanded that.

Application Of Divine Penalties During The Occultation Of Imam Al-Mahdi (‘A)

If it is said: What is the case with the penal codes during occultation? If they are not enforced against criminals, as the Shari’ah has demanded, then it is an abrogation of the Shari’ah; and if they are still in effect, who is going to implement them?

We will say: Rightful punishments remain in the account of 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 testimonials or their own confessions; and if this is not done, because the deservers have died, then the sin of suspension of punishments rests on the people who threatened the Imam and forced him into occultation.

This does not constitute abrogation 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 is involved when a code is not enforced even when there is power and capacity to enforce it and there is no encumbrance.3

Such people are asked, “What do you say about the state in which ‘those having a say” (ahl hal wa 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 on the same merits you accused us of; and if you say penalties remain enforceable with respect to their deservers; this is our very answer as well.

Objections Of Two Senior Sunni Scholars Regarding Application Of Islamic Penalties

If it is said: Abu ‘Ali4 has argued that in the conditions in which “those having a say” are not able to select an Imam, Allah performs acts that stand in place of enforcing the penalties and take away the excuse of duty-bound; and Abu Hashim5 has said that enforcing penalties is a worldly matter and has no relationship with religion.

We say: 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 a religio-legal matter, and we said that it is possible that the obligation of its enforcement loses its imperativeness when the Imam lacks power, or that it may remain pending in the accounts of the criminals. It is also possible that Allah performs acts that replace enforcement of penal codes. If we should accept Abu ‘Ali’s assertion, it will not harm our stance at all.

As for Abu Hashim’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 punishment, 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 is invalid.

Discerning Truth During Occultation Of The Imam

If it is said: What is the way of finding the truth during occultation of the Imam? If you say that there is no way, you have led people to confusion, 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 of the Imam through these proofs.

We will say: True propositions are of two types: One is supported by rational arguments and the other is based on narrated proofs. 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 (S) and the Imams, who have explained the subjects and elaborated them and left nothing unexplained.

However, the case is as we assert: we proved the need of the Imam, because the reason of this need, which is continuous in every time and age, is that he is a grace for us, as discussed earlier, and no one can take his place.

The need of narration is also clear, because though narrations are from the Prophet (S) and forefathers of the Imam (‘a), 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 this fully in Talkhis al-Shafi and will not prolong the inquiry by bringing it here.

If the opponents say: We suppose that some narrators concealed the Shari’ah 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?

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 consensus (Ijma), which says that everything the Prophet (S) has introduced in his Shari’ah and has explained it, is imperative and binding on the Ummah until Judgment Day.

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.

We will say: We have answered this question in Talkhis al-Shafi in detail. In brief, if Allah knows that some narrations pertinent to the binding religious laws have not reached people in a situation of Imam’s dissimulation (Taqiyyah) and fear from his enemies, He will annul their imperativeness from the people, who do not have access to them.

However, if consensus proves that religious duties are continuously binding over all people of the Ummah until Judgment Day, 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 issue warnings.

Statement Of Sayyid Murtadha (‘A)

Sayyid Murtadha (‘a) lately said 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. 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 those who have threatened him, the ones 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 should these people stop threatening him, he will appear, and the grace of his leadership will materialize and the teachings he has to offer will manifest. Therefore, he has not caused this occultation of 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.

Reason Of Occultation Of The Imam From His Followers

A view prevalent among our scholars is that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is his fear that they will spread information about him and discuss their gatherings with him out of happiness, leading to danger from the enemies. This is criticized, because the wise Shi’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 community of his Shi’a to whom he is not appearing. Besides, it follows that his Shi’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 grace for them.

There is another view that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is due to 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 grace and prudent for all is the same.

They have also said: It is possible to question this assertion by saying that though 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 Imamiyyah Shi’a have not availed any benefit from the demise of Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) until the days of Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-’Askari and until the Qa’im. It also suggests that the devotees of Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) and his Shi’a did not enjoy any benefit from seeing him prior to his assumption of administration and rule.

The asserter of these words has reached where no sensible man would. 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 grace, 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 grace of another nation of duty-bound, and the duties for which that grace was a grace, remain binding for them, on the same token, it is possible that one duty-bound may prevent another 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 grace, as the former renders the duty impossible and its occurrence is not imaginable, whereas the absence of grace is not like that.

Because most followers of justice believe that absence of grace is like absence of power and means, and that a duty with respect to someone, who is devoid of required grace is like a duty without power and means of accomplishment and presence of encumbrances, and that a person who deserves a grace and does not receive it, has legitimate excuse not to comply with Divine rulings, just as someone who is imprisoned and restricted has a legitimate excuse not to perform a task that cannot be performed while being incarcerated.

The appropriate answer to this question, which we mentioned on behalf of the opponent, is to say that first, we don't believe in his occultation from all his devotees. Rather, it is possible that he appears to most 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 non-appearance is because of himself - though he may not know specifically why; otherwise, binding him with religious duties would be wrong.6

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 reached 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 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 information and cause the harm mentioned earlier.

If it is said: 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 occultation?

We will say: The reason for hiding from the devotee 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 over 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 was in a better position, he would not have failed the miracle of the Imam. Therefore, he must make up for this shortcoming. No one can say that this is a duty 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 proof is what we mentioned, he discerns that the shortcoming is his own with respect to the miraculous signs and their conditions.

Therefore, he must reflect on it and get rid of doubts and anything causing confusion. Whoever toils in this regard and reflects well, will definitely discover the difference between right and wrong. Man is knowledgeable of himself on occasions as this. It is not possible to do anything beyond, to go to extremes in investigation and research and to find and submit to truth. We mentioned that this case is similar to what we say to our opponents when they see our proofs and do not attain satisfaction.

If it is said: 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 prophethood and the veracity of the Prophet, which further takes him outside the bounds of not only faith (Iman), but also Islam.

We will say: 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 to some miracles, they do with respect to all of them.

Therefore, it is possible that the miracle indicating Prophethood should not be subject to doubt and thus he attains certitude that it is a miracle and realizes the Prophethood of the Prophet (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 Prophethood.

This is as we say. If someone who believes in the prophethood of Musa (‘a) due to his miracles, which prove his Divine mission, does not properly view the miracles shown by Isa (‘a) and our Messenger (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 that these are miracles and their indication of their purpose has been unclear to him.

If it should be said: 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 disbelief (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: It is not necessary that the said shortcoming be disbelief (Kufr) or a great sin. He did not believe that the Imam is not his Imam, nor did he threaten his life. He merely failed to understand certain things. Like a cause that this doubt in Imamate will occur from him in future and has not occurred so far. 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 does 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 one of us believes that he is an independent cause with respect to other objects, it will be ignorance and mistake, but not disbelief (Kufr).

It may be possible to predict about such a person that if a prophet comes to him and shows a miracle and Allah puts an object into his hand, 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 disbelief (Kufr).

If it is said: 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 disbelief (Kufr). If this is the case, how do you explain the reason of the hiding of the Imam from the Shi’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 disbelief (Kufr). This is not compatible with the principles of your religion.

We will say: 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 is this specific person or not. And such a doubt is not disbelief (Kufr). If such doubt were disbelief (Kufr), it would be disbelief (Kufr) even if he does not manifest a miracle, because before the miracle is shown, 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.

View Of Sayyid Murtadha

Sayyid Murtadha says: The question of the opponent from us that why the Imam does not appear to his devotees is irrelevant, because if he means that the grace of the devotee does not exist and therefore, his religious duties are not binding, it is not correct.

Because his grace 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.

• 1. Surah Aali Imran, 3:7, says that some verses are ambiguous, that is, they have more than one meaning. And to understand their true meaning it is necessary to refer to the source of Ahl al-Bayt (‘a) like the following:
  - Surah al-Anfal: “...and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote...” (8:17).
  - Surah Nur: “Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth..." (24:35).
  - Surah Fath: ...the hand of Allah is above their hands," (48:10).
  Refer to Talkhis al-Tamhid, Ayatullah Marifat, Vol. 1, Pg. 261 onwards and Kitab Burhan Qur’an, Shahid Mihrab Ayatullah Ashrafi Isfahani, Pg. 285 onwards.
• 2. It means the command, which had come to them previously through the Holy Prophet (S) has removed all excuses from them. On the basis of this they cannot say, that since the Imam was not present, we did not act on the commands of religion and their excuse was also accepted.
• 3. That which the respected Shaykh has mentioned in these statements is preface to the debate, which is perfectly appropriate and proper, but it is not the full reply. On the basis of this it is necessary to mention that application of divine laws during the occultation of Imam is left to the jurists having necessary qualifications, who are the general deputies of the Imam and it is obligatory to obey their commands like it is obligatory to obey the Imams; and according to traditional reports, when access to the Imam is not possible, the affairs of religion are entrusted to the great jurists. They are present in our traditional books, like the epistle of the Imam that: "As for the new problems you face, refer to the narrators of our traditions..."
  Or the traditions like the necessity of referring to verdicts of the jurists and Shi’a narrators of traditions and they are mentioned in Wasa’il ash-Shi’a, Vol. 27. On the basis of this during the period of occultation, the establishment of laws is the responsibility of Shi’a jurists. And the way of general deputyship and guardianship of the jurist is the way to reply to these objections, but it is only there when it is possible for the jurist to apply the laws of religion and the rulership of the country is in hands of respected jurists, like in case of Iran at present; and there is no obstacle in it. Allah knows best.
• 4. Abu ‘Ali is same Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab Ibn Salam Ibn Humran Ibn Laban Jabai, who was a senior Mutazali scholars; he was the leader of scholastic theologians of his time. He was born in 235 A.H. and died in 303 A.H.
• 5. It is Abu Hashim Abdus Salam Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab Jabai. He was also a senior Mutazila scholar. He was born in 277 A.H. and died in 321 A.H.
• 6. The Late Allamah Majlisi after mention of this text in Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 51, Pg. 214, Chapter 12; from Ghaybah an-Numani, says; Whatever the late Shaykh has mentioned in reply to the objection of the opponents that during occultation one whose Imam is hidden from him is deficient and sinner. In this regard we say;
  This statement necessitates that no sect is imbued with the attribute of justice during the period of occultation like the Shi’a sect; it is so because the sin, which occurs during the time of the reappearance of the Imam was from their side also; or it was a greater sin or it was a lesser sin, which was persisted on, which was opposed to justice in any case; therefore in such circumstances how is it possible that the reporters of traditional reports and Imams of the congregation should be declared to be honest and their testimony should be acceptable? In spite of that we definitely know that in every period there existed a group, which at no time denied obedience and confession to the Imamate of the Imam.
  In the same way, without any doubt, it can be said that in the past there passed many prophets and successors who through the rulers of the time lived in imprisonment and arrests and were denied access to the people; thus, the circumstances of believers and proximate ones of that time are clear and known to all that in fact they were not deficient in this regard.
  On the contrary, we reply that when the Messenger of Allah (S) was concealed in the cave, he was known to Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) and it was a divine grace for Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a); therefore, it is not possible and appropriate that Amir al-Mu’minin (‘a) should be considered deficient with regard to the occultation of the Messenger of Allah (S), God forbid. The fact is that in reply to the objection maker it should be said that divine grace is not based on corrupted grace till that time there is condition on duty and we know well that if the Almighty Allah reveals to the sinners sign of debasement at the time of committing sins, it would make them near to obedience and away from disobedience, but this matter is having many ills (since through this act a person is exposed), therefore he does not commit such an act.
  In the same way, it is possible that the reappearance of Imam az-Zaman (aj) may be disadvantageous for those who confess to his Imamate and Wilayat and it could become the cause for His Eminence to fall into hardships and difficulties; therefore, in such circumstances his reappearance is not a grace for the believers.
  The conclusion is that reason commands that grace is necessary on Almighty Allah and the blessed being of Imam (‘a). According to the consensus of all scholars and intellectuals the exigency of the existence of Imam (‘a) is that he should invite people to good and reform and restrain them from evil and the existence of Imam (‘a) is the best exigency for the people. Since it is near to obedience of Allah and it is necessary for them to be infallible. And infallibility should be known only from the Almighty Allah and there should be consensus of all on the infallibility of His Eminence among all others. In this way the blessed existence of Imam az-Zaman (aj) is being proved, but due to the fear of enemies, his occultation is also clear and obvious; that it is because of the deficiency and shortcoming of the people.
  But as for the remaining concealed of His Eminence from those who confess to his Wilayat; it is possible that some of them might be deficient and some others are not deficient, but are deprived from some benefits of the reappearance of His Eminence or that the exigency, which is there in occultation for them, they are deprived of benefits because of it. For example, along with the occultation of His Eminence from them, because of some doubts, they have to bear excessive trial and have faith in His Eminence and it is a great reward and recompense for them.
  Apart from this, to get benefits and blessings through the existence of His Eminence depends on the existence of the Imam in a way that he should be recognized for his reappearance. Therefore, it is possible that many graces of the Imam reach to the Shi’a and they may not be recognizing the Imam as is narrated from the Imam himself that: His being away from people is same as the sun goes behind the cloud. In addition to this there is divine exigency in all these matters like the occultation of Prophet Musa (‘a) and in this kind of occultation also. Otherwise, it is not possible from the Almighty Allah.