Supplement 1
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 Musa- 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 Ghula-th 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 Shari-’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-Redha- (a.s); and the Fathiyya, who believed in the Imamate of ‘Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad al-Sa-diq (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.
‘Alla-mah 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 Qa-'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 Qa-'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 Shi-‘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’a-n. 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 Kita-b al-Ima-ma. 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’a-n 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
![The Book of Occultation: Kitab al-Ghaibah [Majlisi] (Bilingual Edition) [English = Arabic]](http://alhassanain.org/templates/Capusan/images/wait.gif)
0%
![The Book of Occultation: Kitab al-Ghaibah [Majlisi] (Bilingual Edition) [English = Arabic]](books/0263_the_book_of_occultation/images/cover.jpg "The Book of Occultation: Kitab al-Ghaibah [Majlisi] (Bilingual Edition) [English = Arabic]")
Author: Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi
