Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Supplement 2

This is foul because we explained that though the Prophet (a.s) had delivered all that mankind’s welfare depended on at that time, his leadership and his orders and prohibitions were needed without any dispute amongst scholars. However, despite that, it was permissible for him to go into hiding. Likewise is the Imam. Besides, Allah’s order to the Prophet (a.s) to hide in the Mountain at one time and in the cave the other, is a sort of protection, because it is not full protection in which He would literally defend him against his enemies through making his enemies weak or strengthening him through angels.

Because it is possible to conceive harm to the religion stemming from strengthening him through such measures. Therefore, it is not right for God to do that. And if it should be devoid of any aspect of wrong, and God knows that expediency requires so, He would strengthen him through angels and defend him against his enemies.

And when He does not do that, and it is proved that He is All-Wise and that it is incumbent upon Him to disallow any legitimate excuse on part of the mukallafi-n not to obey the religious codes, we discern that His taking such measures would evoke no benefit but rather it would be inexpedient. What we say is that in general it is incumbent upon Allah to strengthen the hand of the Imam to facilitate his uprise and his administration of the society and to perform that through angels and men.

However, when He does not do that through angels, we discern it is because it involves inexpediency. Therefore, this must be rendered through men. And should they not perform that, it is something of their own misdoing not that of the Lord’s. Thus, this explication invalidates all criticisms of this sort expressed at this juncture.

If it is permissible for the Prophet (a.s) to undergo hiding, inasmuch as he was needed, due to the fear of harm, and the blame in this regard faces the individuals who threatened him and forced him to go into hiding, likewise, the occultation of the Imam is on the same grounds. To make a distinction in this regard in terms of the length and shortness of the occultation, is not correct, because there is no difference between short and brief occultation and lengthy and protracted occultation, since when the blame of hiding does not rest on the person who is undergone hiding, bur rather on the ones who have forced him to going into doing so, the cause that has prompted the hiding can have a long duration as it can a short one.

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

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

لأنا قد بينا أن النبي (ص) مع أنه أدى المصلحة التي تعلقت بتلك الحال، لم يستغن عن أمره ونهيه وتدبيره، بلا خلاف بين المحصلين، ومع هذا جاز له الاستتار، فكذلك الامام. على أن أمر الله تعالى له بالاستتار في الشعب تارة، وفي الغار اخرى فضرب من المنع منه لانه ليس كل المنع أن يحول بينهم وبينه بالعجز أو بتقويته بالملائكة لأنه لا يمتنع أن يفرض في تقويته بذلك مفسدة في الدين فلا يحسن من الله فعله ولو كان خاليا من وجوه الفساد وعلم الله أنه يقتضيه المصلحة لقواه بالملائكة، وحال بينهم وبينه، فلما لم يفعل ذلك مع ثبوت حكمته، ووجوب إزاحة علة المكلفين علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة بل مفسدة. وكذلك نقول في الامام أن الله فعل من قتله بأمره بالاستتار والغيبة، ولو علم أن المصلحة يتعلق بتقويته بالملائكة لفعل، فلما لم يفعل مع ثبوت حكمته، ووجوب إزاحة علة المكلفين في التكليف، علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة، بل ربما كان فيه مفسدة. بل الذي نقول أن في الجملة يجب على الله تعالى تقوية يد الامام، بما يتمكن معه من القيام وينبسط يده، ويمكن ذلك بالملائكة وبالبشر، فإذا لم يفعله بالملائكة علمنا أنه لاجل أنه تعلق به مفسدة، فوجب أن يكون متعلقا بالبشر فإذا لم يفعلوه اتوا من قبل نفوسهم لا من قبله تعالى، فيبطل بهذا التحرير جميع ما يورد من هذا الجنس وإذا جاز في النبي (ص) أن يستتر مع الحاجة إليه لخوف الضرر، وكانت التبعة في ذلك لازمة لمخيفيه ومحوجيه إلى الغيبة، فكذلك غيبة الامام سواء. فأما التفرقة بطول الغيبة وقصرها فغير صحيحة لانه لافرق في ذلك بين القصير المنقطع والطويل الممتد لانه إذا لم يكن في الاستتار لائمة على المستتر إذا احوج إليه بل اللائمة على من أحوجه إليها جاز أن يتطاول سبب الاستتار كما جاز أن يقصر زمانه. فان قيل: إذا كان الخوف أحوجه إلى الاستتار، فقد كان آباؤه عندكم على تقية وخوف من أعدائهم، فكيف لم يستتروا؟ قلنا ما كان على آبائه (ع) خوف من أعدائه مع لزوم التقية، والعدول عن التظاهر بالإمامة، ونفيها عن نفوسهم، وإمام الزمان كل الخوف عليه لانه يظهر بالسيف، ويدعو إلى نفسه، ويجاهد من خالفه عليه، فأي تشبه بين خوفه من الاعداء وخوف آبائه (ع) لولا قلة التأمل

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

Likewise is their criticism, which asks what is the difference between his existence in a way that no one can reach him and his existence in the heaven. Because we shall say that if he exists in the heaven in a way that the condition of the dwellers of the earth does not remain hidden from him, the heaven is like the earth in such a case, and if it does remain hidden, such an existence equates to his nonexistence.

Then the argument is turned around against them about the Prophet (a.s) by asking, “What is the difference between the prophetic existence in hiding and his nonexistence and his being in the heaven?” Whatever answer they will give with respect to this question is our very answer to them with respect to their question, as we elaborated earlier.

They cannot make a distinction between the two cases, saying that the Prophet (a.s) did not hide from everyone and merely hid from his enemies and the Imam of the Age is hiding from everyone; because first, we are not certain that he is hiding from all of his devotees, and such incertitude is sufficient in this argument. Furthermore, when the Prophet (a.s) hid in the cave, he was hiding from his devotees and his enemies and there was no one with him except only Abu Bakr, and it was possible that he had gone into hiding without anyone, friend or foe, had prudence demanded that.

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

Answer: Rightful punishments remain in the account of the people who deserve them. If the deservers are still alive when the Imam appears, he will enforce these punishments against them on the basis of either testimonials or their own confessions. And if this is not done because the deservers have died, then the sin of suspension of the punishments rests on the people who threatened the Imam and forced him into occultation. This does not constitute the abrogation (naskh) of penal codes, however;

because, a penal code has to be upheld only when there is the power and capacity for upholding it and when there is no encumbrance on the way. Its enforcement is not binding if there is encumbrance. Abrogation (naskh) is involved when a code is not to be enforced even when there is the power and capacity to enforce it and there is no encumbrance.

Such people are asked, “What do you say about the state in which ‘the wise and the senior’ (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd) are not able to select an Imam? What is the case of the penalties?” If you say they are not binding, this is abrogation (naskh) on the same merits you accused us of abrogation. And if you say penalties remain enforceable with respect to their deservers, this is our very answer as well.

على أن آباءه (ع) متى قتلوا أو ماتوا كان هناك من يقوم مقامهم، ويسد مسدهم يصلح للإمامة من أولاده وصاحب الأمر بالعكس من ذلك لأن المعلوم أنه لا يقوم أحد مقامه ولا يسد مسده، فبان الفرق بين الامرين. وقد بينا فيما تقدم الفرق بين وجوده غائبا لا يصل إليه أحد أو أكثر، وبين عدمه حتى إذا كان المعلوم التمكن بالامر يوجده. وكذلك قولهم: ما الفرق بين وجوده بحيث لا يصل إليه أحد وبين وجوده في السماء بأن قلنا إذا كان موجوداً في السماء بحيث لا يخفى عليه أخبار أهل الأرض فالسماء كالأرض وإن كان يخفى عليه أمرهم فذلك يجري مجرى عدمه، ثم يقلب عليهم في النبي (ص) بأن يقال: أي فرق بين وجوده مستتراً وبين عدمه وكونه في السماء فأي شئ قالوه قلنا مثله على ما مضى القول فيه. وليس لهم أن يفرقوا بين الامرين بأن النبي (ص) ما استتر من كل أحد وإنما استتر من أعدائه وإمام الزمان مستتر عن الجميع لانا أولا لانقطع على أنه مستتر عن جميع أوليائه والتجويز في هذا الباب كاف على أن النبي (ص) لما استتر في الغار كان مستتراً من أوليائه وأعدائه، ولم يكن معه إلا أبو بكر وحده وقد كان يجوز أن يستتر بحيث لا يكون معه أحد من ولي ولا عدو إذا اقتضت المصلحة ذلك. فان قيل: فالحدود في حال الغيبة ما حكمها؟ فان سقطت عن الجاني على ما يوجبها الشرع فهذا نسخ الشريعة، وإن كانت باقية فمن يقيمها؟ قلنا الحدود المستحقة باقية في جنوب مستحقيها فان ظهر الامام ومستحقوها باقون أقامها عليهم بالبينة أو الاقرار وإن كان فات ذلك بموته كان الاثم في تفويتها على من أخاف الامام وألجأه إلى الغيبة. وليس هذا نسخاً لإقامة الحدود لأن الحد إنما يجب إقامته مع التمكن وزوال المنع، ويسقط مع الحيلولة، وإنما يكون ذلك نسخاً لو سقط إقامتها مع الامكان، وزوال الموانع، ويقال لهم ما تقولون في الحال التي لا يتمكن أهل الحل والعقد من اختيار الامام، ماحكم الحدود؟ فان قلتم سقطت، فهذا نسخ على ما ألزمتمونا وإن قلتم هي باقية في جنوب مستحقيها فهو جوابنا بعينه

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

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

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

Answer: True propositions are of two sorts: One kind is supported by rational arguments and the other kind is based on proofs that are narrated. Propositions based on intellectual premises are established and discerned through their proofs, and propositions based on narrations are substantiated through their proofs, which comprise the sayings of the Prophet (a.s) and the Imams, who have explained the subjects and elaborated them and have left nothing unexplained.

However the case is as we assert, we have proved the need to the Imam, because the reason of this need, which is continuous in every time and age, is that he is lutf for us, as discussed earlier, and no one can take his place. The need to narration is also clear, because though narrations are from the Prophet (a.s) and the forefathers of the Imam, peace be with them, it is possible that the narrators turn away from them, either intentionally or by mistake, and the narration may remain disconnected or through someone who is not reliable. We have discussed fully in Talkhi-s al-Sha-fi and will not prolong the inquiry by bringing it here.

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

فان قيل: قد قال أبو علي إن في الحال التي لا يتمكن أهل الحل والعقد من نصب الامام يفعل الله ما يقوم مقام إقامة الحدود وينـزاح علة المكلف وقال أبو هاشم إن إقامة الحدود دنياوية لاتعلق لها بالدين. قلنا: أما ما قاله أبو علي فلو قلنا مثله ما ضرنا لان إقامة الحدود ليس هو الذي لاجله أوجبنا الامام حتى إذا فات إقامته انتقص دلالة الإمامة بل ذلك تابع للشرع، وقد قلنا إنه لا يمتنع أن يسقط فرض إقامتها في حال انقباض يد الامام أو تكون باقية في جنوب أصحابها وكما جاز ذلك جاز أيضا أن يكون هناك ما يقوم مقامها فإذا صرنا إلى ما قاله لم ينتقض علينا أصل. وأما ما قاله أبو هاشم من أن ذلك لمصالح الدنيا فبعيد لأن ذلك عبادة واجبة ولو كان لمصلحة دنياوية لما وجبت. على أن إقامة الحدود عنده على وجه الجزاء والنكال جزء من العقاب وإنما قدم في دار الدنيا بعضه، لما فيه من المصلحة، فكيف يقول مع ذلك أنه لمصالح دنياوية فبطل ما قالوه. فان قيل: كيف الطريق إلى إصابة الحق مع غيبة الامام فان قلتم: لا سبيل إليها جعلتم الخلق في حيرة وضلالة، وشك في جميع امورهم، وإن قلتم يصاب الحق بأدلته، قيل لكم: هذا تصريح بالاستغناء عن الامام بهذه الادلة. قلنا: الحق على ضربين عقلي وسمعي فالعقلي يصاب بأدلته والسمعي عليه أدلة منصوبة من أقوال النبي (ص) ونصوصه وأقوال الائمة من ولده وقد بينوا ذلك وأوضحوه، ولم يتركوا منه شيئا لا دليل عليه، غير أن هذا وإن كان على ما قلناه، فالحاجة إلى الامام قد بينا ثبوتها لان جهة الحاجة المستمرة في كل حال وزمان كونه لطفا لنا على ما تقدم القول فيه، ولا يقوم غيره مقامه، والحاجة المتعلقة بالسمع أيضا ظاهرة لان النقل وإن كان واردا عن الرسول (ص) وعن آباء الامام (ع) بجميع ما يحتاج إليه في الشريعة فجائز على الناقلين العدول عنه إما تعمدا وإما لشبهة فيقطع النقل أو يبقى فيمن لا حجة في نقله وقد استوفينا هذه الطريقة في تلخيص الشافي فلا نطول بذكره. فان قيل: لو فرضنا أن الناقلين كتموا بعض منهم الشريعة واحتيج إلى بيان الامام ولم يعلم الحق إلا من جهته، وكان خوف القتل من أعدائه مستمراً كيف يكون الحال؟

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

Answer: We have answered this question in Talkhi-s al-Sha-fi in detail. In brief, if Allah knows that some of the narrations pertinent to the biding religious laws have not reached the people in a situation of Imam’s taqiyya and fear from his enemies, He will annul their imperativeness from the people who do not have access them. However, if consensus (ijma-’) proves that religious duties are continuously binding over all of the Ummah until the Day of Judgment, it can be inferred that if such an interruption in transmission of narrations occurs, it will be only in a situation when the Imam is able to appear and make declarations and clarifications.

Al-Syed al-Murtadha- (a.s) was lately saying that it is possible that there may be many things that have not reached us and are entrusted with the Imam and the narrators have concealed them and have not narrated them.

However, it does not follow that people are not bound by these religious duties, because if the reason of occultation is his fear for his life from the people who have threatened him, the people who have forced him into hiding are ultimately responsible for the missed teachings of the Imam and his leadership, as they forced him into occultation. And if should these people end threatening him, he will appear and the lutf of his leadership will materialize and the teachings he has to offer will manifest.

Therefore, he has not caused this concealment of the religious teachings. However, if the enemies do not end the fear and it continues, they are responsible for both cases. This argument is strong and supported by principles.

Amongst our scholars there is a view that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is his fear they will spread his news and discuss their gatherings with him out of happiness, which will lead to fear from the enemies. This is criticized because the wise 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 congregation 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 lutf for them.

فان قلتم يظهر وإن خاف القتل، فيجب أن يكون خوف القتل غير مبيح له الاستتار، ويلزم ظهوره، وإن قلتم لا يظهر وسقط التكليف في ذلك الشئ المكتوم عن الأمة خرجتم من الاجماع لانه منعقد على أن كل شئ شرعه النبي (ص) وأوضحه فهو لازم للامة إلى أن يقوم الساعة فان قلتم إن التكليف لا يسقط صرحتم بتكليف مالا يطاق، وإيجاب العمل بما لا طريق إليه. قلنا: قد أجبنا عن هذا السؤال في التلخيص مستوفى وجملته أن الله تعالى لو علم أن النقل ببعض الشرع المفروض ينقطع في حال تكون تقية الامام فيها مستمرة، وخوفه من الاعداء باقيا، لاسقط ذلك عمن لا طريق له إليه، فإذا علمنا بالاجماع أن تكليف الشرع مستمر ثابت على جميع الأمة إلى قيام الساعة علمنا عند ذلك أنه لو اتفق انقطاع النقل لشئ من الشرع لما كان ذلك إلا في حال يتمكن فيها الامام من الظهور والبروز والاعلام والانذار. وكان المرتضى يقول أخيراً: لا يمتنع أن يكون هاهنا امور كثيرة غير واصلة إلينا هي مودعة عند الامام، وإن كان قد كتمها الناقلون ولم ينقلوها، ولم يلزم مع ذلك سقوط التكليف عن الخلق لانه إذا كان سبب الغيبة خوفه على نفسه من الذين أخافوه، فمن أحوجه إلى الاستتار اتي من قبل نفسه في فوت ما يفوته من الشرع، كما أنه اتي من قبل نفسه فيما يفوته من تأديب الامام وتصرفه من حيث أحوجه إلى الاستتار، ولو أزال خوفه لظهر، فيحصل له اللطف بتصرفه وتبين له ما عنده فما انكتم عنه، فإذا لم يفعل وبقي مستترا اتي من قبل نفسه في الأمرين وهذا قوي يقتضيه الأصول. وفي أصحابنا من قال: إن علة استتاره عن أوليائه خوفه من أن يشيعوا خبره، ويتحدثوا باجتماعهم معه سروراً، فيؤدي ذلك إلى الخوف من الاعداء وإن كان غير مقصود. وهذا الجواب يضعف لان عقلاء شيعته لا يجوز أن يخفى عليهم ما في إظهار اجتماعهم معه من الضرر عليه وعليهم فكيف يخبرون بذلك مع علمهم بما عليهم فيه من المضرة العامة، وإن جاز على الواحد والاثنين لا يجوز على جماعة شيعته الذين لا يظهر لهم. على أن هذا يلزم عليه أن يكون شيعته قد عدموا الانتفاع به على وجه لا يتمكنون من تلافيه وإزالته لانه إذا علق الاستتار بما يعلم من حالهم أنهم يفعلونه، فليس في مقدورهم الآن ما يقتضي ظهور الامام وهذا يقتضي سقوط التكليف الذي الامام لطف فيه عنهم There is another view that the reason of his hiding from his devotees is because of his enemies; because the subjects, both devotees and enemies, can benefit from the Imam when his reign prevails and he runs the affairs and he is apparent and is exerting leadership without any encumbrance or challenge. Whereas, the enemies have obviously barred and prevented him from this. They have said that there is no purpose in his clandestine appearance to some of his devotees, because the expected benefit of leading the Ummah cannot be fulfilled but through his appearance and exertion of leadership for all. Therefore, the reason for the Imam’s hiding in the way in which it is lutf and prudent for all is the same.

It is possible to question this assertion by saying that though the enemies have prevented him from appearing to exert leadership and administration, they have not, however, barred him from meeting the specific devotees of his he would wish to meet, who believe in obedience to him and adherence to his orders. If there is no benefit in this sort of meeting that is restricted and specific, because he is ordained for all, this suggests that the Ima-miyya Shi-‘a are not availed to any benefit from the demise of the Prince of the Believers until the days of al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari and until the Qa-'im.

It also suggests that the devotees of the Prince of the Believers (a.s) and his Shi-‘a did not enjoy any benefit from seeing him prior to his assumption of the administration and the scepter. The asserter of these words has reached where no sensible man would reach. Besides, even if it is accepted that the Imam can only benefit when he is apparent to all of the subjects and his orders are executed over them, their view loses its tenability from another aspect, namely, it follows that the religious rules for the sake of which the Imam is the lutf, will lose their imperativeness. Because if the Imam does not appear to them, probably it is not because of them and nor it is in their capacity to remove the cause of his occultation.

Therefore, the religious rules must not be binding for them. Because if one nation can prevent the lutf of another nation of mukallafs, and the duties for which that lutf was a lutf, remain binding for them, on the same token, it is possible that one mukallaf may prevent another mukallaf through imprisonment or other similar means, which he cannot remove, and on virtue of which he cannot walk, but the duty of walking shall continue to bind him. They cannot differentiate between such imprisonment and lutf, as the former renders the duty impossible and its occurrence is not imaginable whereas the absence of lutf is not like that. Because majority of the ‘adliyya believe that the absence of lutf is like the absence of power and means, and that a duty with respect to someone who is devoid of the required lutf is like a duty without the power and means of accomplishment and presence of encumbrances, and that a person who deserves a lutf and does not receive it has legitimate excuse not to comply with the Divine rulings, just as someone who is imprisoned and restricted has a legitimate excuse not to perform a task that cannot be performed while incarcerated.

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

وفي أصحابنا من قال: علة استتاره عن الاولياء ما يرجع إلى الاعداء، لان انتفاع جميع الرعية من ولي وعدو بالامام إنما يكون بأن ينفذ أمره ببسط يده فيكون ظاهرا متصرفا بلا دافع ولا منازع، وهذا مما المعلوم أن الاعداء قد حالوا دونه ومنعوا منه. قالوا: ولا فائدة في ظهوره سرا لبعض أوليائه لان النفع المبتغى من تدبير الأمة لا يتم إلا بظهوره للكل ونفوذ الأمر، فقد صارت العلة في استتار الامام على الوجه الذي هو لطف ومصلحة للجميع واحدة. ويمكن أن يعترض هذا الجواب بأن يقال: إن الاعداء وإن حالوا بينه وبين الظهور على وجه التصرف والتدبير، فلم يحولوا بينه وبين لقاء من شاء من أوليائه على سبيل الاختصاص، وهو يعتقد طاعته ويوجب اتباع أوامره، فان كان لا نفع في هذا اللقاء لاجل الاختصاص لانه نافذ الأمر للكل فهذا تصريح بأنه لا انتفاع للشيعة الامامية بلقاء أئمتها من لدن وفاة أمير المؤمنين إلى أيام الحسن بن علي إلى القائم (ع) لهذه العلة. ويوجب أيضا أن يكون أولياء أمير المؤمنين (ع) وشيعته لم يكن لهم بلقائه انتفاع قبل انتقال الأمر إلى تدبيره وحصوله في يده وهذا بلوغ من قائله إلى حد لا يبلغه متأمل، على أنه لو سلم أن الانتفاع بالامام لا يكون إلا مع الظهور لجميع الرعية ونفوذ أمره فيهم لبطل قولهم من وجه آخر وهو أنه يؤدي إلى سقوط التكليف الذي الامام لطف فيه عن شيعته لانه إذا لم يظهر لهم العلة لا يرجع إليهم ولا كان في قدرتهم وإمكانهم إزالته فلابد من سقوط التكليف عنهم لانه لو جاز أن يمنع قوم من المكلفين غيرهم لطفهم، ويكون التكليف الذي ذلك اللطف لطف فيه مستمرا عليهم، لجاز أن يمنع بعض المكلفين غيره بقيد وما أشبهه من المشي على وجه لا يمكن من إزالته، ويكون تكليف المشي مع ذلك مستمرا على الحقيقة. وليس لهم أن يفرقوا بين القيد وبين اللطف من حيث كان القيد يتعذر معه الفعل ولا يتوهم وقوعه وليس كذلك فقد اللطف لان أكثر أهل العدل على أن فقد اللطف كفقد القدرة والآلة وأن التكليف مع فقد اللطف فيمن له لطف معلوم كالتكليف مع فقد القدرة والآلة ووجود الموانع، وأن من لم يفعل له اللطف ممن له لطف معلوم غير مزاح العلة في التكليف كما أن الممنوع غير مزاح العلة. والذي ينبغي أن يجاب عن السؤال الذي ذكرناه عن المخالف أن نقول: إنا أولا لا نقطع على استتاره عن جميع أوليائه

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

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

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

Answer: The reason for hiding from the devotees is nothing but the known fact of his shortcoming and his capacity for its recompense, because it is possible that it should be known from the condition of the devotee that when the Imam appears to him, he will not mull the miracle that will be with the Imam, which will be a misdoing of his own, leading to lack of discrimination between miracles and ordinary events and a proof and a doubt. If the devotee were in a better position, he would not have failed the miracle of the Imam.

Therefore, he must make up for this shortcoming of his. No one can say that this is a duty that is beyond his capacity and reliance on an unknown event in the future, because this devotee does not know his specific shortcoming in contemplation and reasoning, so he could make up for it and prepare himself for it; we believe you are binding him to something that does not legitimately bind him. That can be the case with regard to a religious duty that is sometimes clear and sometimes confusing with some other duty;

and if the capacity with respect to both duties exists, then when the devotee introspects and sees that the Imam does not appear to him and he does not consider the aforementioned wrong reasons of the occultation valid, he realizes that the reason of the occultation is indebted to himself. And when he realizes that the strongest of the proofs is what we mentioned, he discerns that the shortcoming is his own with respect to the miraculous signs and their conditions.

بل يجوز أن يظهر لاكثرهم ولا يعلم كل إنسان إلا حال نفسه، فان كان ظاهرا له فعلته مزاحة وإن لم يكن ظاهرا له علم أنه إنما لم يظهر له لامر يرجع إليه وإن لم يعلمه مفصلا لتقصير من جهته وإلا لم يحسن تكليفه. فإذا علم بقاء تكليفه عليه واستتار الامام عنه، علم أنه لامر يرجع إليه، كما يقول جماعتنا فيمن لم ينظر في طريق معرفة الله تعالى فلم يحصل له العلم وجب أن يقطع على أنه إنما لم يحصل لتقصير يرجع إليه وإلا وجب إسقاط تكليفه، وإن لم يعلم ما الذي وقع تقصيره فيه. فعلى هذا التقدير أقوى ما يعلل به ذلك أن الامام إذا ظهر ولا يعلم شخصه وعينه من حيث المشاهدة، فلابد من أن يظهر عليه علم معجز يدل على صدقه والعلم بكون الشئ معجزا يحتاج إلى نظر يجوز أن يعترض فيه شبهة، فلا يمنع أن يكون المعلوم من حال من لم يظهر له أنه متى ظهر وأظهر المعجز لم ينعم النظر فيدخل فيه شبهة، ويعتقد أنه كذاب ويشيع خبره فيؤدي إلى ما تقدم القول فيه. فان قيل: أي تقصير وقع من الولي الذي لم يظهر له إلامام لاجل هذا المعلوم من حاله، وأي قدرة له على النظر فيما يظهر له الامام معه وإلى أي شئ يرجع في تلافي ما يوجب غيبته. قلنا: ما أحلنا في سبب الغيبة عن الاولياء إلا على معلوم يظهر موضع التقصير فيه وإمكان تلافيه، لانه غير ممتنع أن يكون من المعلوم من حاله أنه متى ظهر له الامام قصر في النظر في معجزه، فانما اتي في ذلك لتقصيره الحاصل في العلم بالفرق بين المعجز والممكن، والدليل من ذلك والشبهة، ولو كان من ذلك على قاعدة صحيحة لم يجز أن يشتبه عليه معجز الامام عند ظهوره له، فيجب عليه تلافي هذا التقصير واستدراكه. وليس لأحد أن يقول: هذا تكليف لما لا يطاق وحوالة على غيب، لان هذا الولي ليس يعرف ما قصر فيه بعينه من النظر والاستدلال فيستدركه حتى يتمهد في نفسه ويتقرر، ونراكم تلزمونه مالا يلزمه، وذلك إنما يلزم في التكليف قد يتميز تارة ويشتبه اخرى بغيره، وإن كان التمكن من الامرين ثابتا حاصلا، فالولي على هذا إذا حاسب نفسه ورأى أن الامام لا يظهر له وأفسد أن يكون السبب في الغيبة ما ذكرناه من الوجوه الباطلة وأجناسها علم أنه لابد من سبب يرجع إليه. وإذا علم أن أقوى العلل ما ذكرناه علم أن التقصير واقع من جهته في صفات المعجز وشروطه