فإذا ثبت بطلان هذه الأقاويل كلها لم يبق إلا القول بإمامة ابن الحسن عليه السلام، وإلا لأدى إلى خروج الحق عن الأمة وذلك باطل. وإذا ثبتت إمامته بهذه السياقة ثم وجدناه غائبا عن الأبصار علمنا أنه لم يغب مع عصمته وتعين فرض الإمامة فيه وعليه إلا لسبب سوغه ذلك وضرورة ألجأته إليه وإن لم يعلم على وجه التفصيل.

Having established the invalidity of all these beliefs, the only creed that remains is that of Imamate of Ibn Hasan (a.s) 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 Quran.

وجرى ذلك مجرى الكلام في إيلام الأطفال والبهائم وخلق المؤذيات والصور المشينات ومتشابه القرآن إذا سألنا عن وجهها بأن نقول: إذا علمنا أن الله تعالى حكيم لا يجوز أن يفعل ما ليس بحكمه ولا صواب علمنا أن هذه الأشياء لها وجه حكمة وإن لم نعلمه معينا. وكذلك نقول في صاحب الزمان عليه السلام، فإنا نعلم أنه لم يستتر إلا لأمر حكمي يسوغه ذلك وإن لم نعلمه مفصلا.

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.

فإن قيل: نحن نعترض قولكم في إمامته بغيبته بأن نقول إذا لم يمكنكم بيان وجه حسنها دل ذلك على بطلان القول بإمامته، لأنه لو صح لأمكنكم بيان وجه الحسن فيه.

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.

قلنا: إن لزمنا ذلك لزم جميع أهل العدل قول الملحدة إذا قالوا إنا نتوصل بهذه الأفعال التي ليست بظاهرة الحكمة إلى أن فاعلها ليس بحكيم،لأنه لو كان حكيما لأمكنكم بيان وجه الحكمة فيها وإلا فما الفصل.

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?

فإذا قلتم: نتكلم أولا في إثبات حكمته فإذا ثبت بدليل منفصل ثم وجدنا هذه الأفعال المشتبهة الظاهر حملناها على ما يطابق ذلك فلا يؤدي إلى نقض ما علمنا ومتى لم يسلموا لنا حكمته انتقلت المسألة إلى الكلام في حكمته.

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.”

قلنا: مثل ذلك هاهنا من أن الكلام في غيبته فرع على إمامته، فإذا علمنا إمامته بدليل وعلمنا عصمته بدليل آخر وعلمناه غاب،حملنا غيبته على وجه يطابق عصمته فلا فرق بين الموضعين.

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.

ثم يقال للمخالف في الغيبة: أتجوز أن يكون للغيبة سبب صحيح اقتضاها ووجه من الحكمة أوجبها أم لا تجوز ذلك؟فإن قال: يجوز ذلك.قيل له: فإذا كان ذلك جائزا فكيف جعلت وجود الغيبة دليلا على فقد الإمام في الزمان مع تجويزك لها سببا لا ينافي وجود الإمام؟ وهل يجري ذلك إلا مجرى من توصل بإيلام الأطفال إلى نفي حكمة الصانع تعالى وهو معترف بأنه يجوز أن يكون في إيلامهم وجه صحيح لا ينافي الحكمة؟ أو من توصل بظاهر الآيات المتشابهات إلى أنه تعالى مشبه للأجسام وخالق لأفعال العباد مع تجويزه أن يكون لها وجوه صحيحة توافق الحكمة والعدل والتوحيد ونفي التشبيه؟

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 this 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’ 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.”

وإن قال: لا أجوز 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 تطابق أدلة العقل ولا بد أن تكون على ظواهرها؟

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?

ومتى قيل: نحن متمكنون من ذكر وجوه الآيات المتشابهات وأنتم لا تتمكنون من ذكر سبب صحيح للغيبة،قلنا: كلامنا على من يقول لا أحتاج إلى العلم بوجوه الآيات المتشابهات مفصلا بل يكفيني علم الجملة، ومتى تعاطيت ذلك كان تبرعا،وإن اقتنعتم لنفسكم 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.

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 Kitabul Imamah.

ثم يقال: كيف يجوز أن يجتمع صحة إمامة ابن الحسن عليه السلام بما بيناه من سياقة الأصول 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 الأصول؟

They are further asked, “How can the Imamate of Ibn Hasan (a.s) 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 a 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?”

ومتى قالوا: نحن لا نسلم إمامة ابن الحسن عليه السلام،كان الكلام معهم في ثبوت الإمامة دون الكلام في سبب الغيبة. وقد تقدمت الدلالة على إمامته عليه السلام بما لا يحتاج إلى إعادته. وإنما قلنا ذلك لأن الكلام في سبب غيبة الإمام عليه السلام فرع على ثبوت إمـامته، فأمـا قبل ثبوتها فلا وجه للكلام في سبب غيبته كما لا وجه للكلام في وجوه الآيات المتشابهات وإيلام الأطفال وحسن التعبد بالشرائع قبل ثبوت التوحيد والعدل.

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

فإن قيل: إلا كان السائل بالخيار بين الكلام في إمامة ابن الحسن عليه السلام ليعرف صحتها من فسادها وبين أن يتكلم في سبب الغيبة؟

If it is said: Does the inquisitor not have the choice to inquire about the Imamate of Ibn Hasan, in order to know its validity, or to inquire about the reason of occultation?”

قلنا: لا خيار في ذلك، لأن من شك في إمامة ابن الحسن عليه السلام يجب أن يكون الكلام معه في نص إمامته والتشاغل بالدلالة عليها، ولا يجوز مع الشك فيها أن نتكلم في سبب الغيبة لأن الكلام في الفروع لا يسوغ إلا بعد إحكام الأصول لها كما لا يجوز أن يتكلم في سبب إيلام الأطفال قبل ثبوت حكمة القديم تعالى وأنه لا يفعل القبيح، وإنما رجحنا الكلام في إمامته عليه السلام على الكلام في غيبته وسببها لأن الكلام في إمامته مبني على أمور عقلية لا يدخلها الاحتمال.

We would reply: There is no such choice, because a person who doubts the Imamate of Ibn 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.

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 صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على الكلام على ادعائهم تأبيد شرعهم لظهور ذلك وغموض هذا وهذا بعينه موجود هاهنا 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 هاهنا فيجب أن لا يدعى فيه وجه القبح.

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.

فإن قيل: إلا منع الله الخلق من الوصول إليه وحال بينهم وبينه ليقوم بالأمر ويحصل ما هو لطف لنا كما نقول في النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إذ بعثه الله تعالى فإن الله تعالى يمنع منه ما لم يؤد فكان يجب أن يكون حكم الإمام مثله.

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 as we say about the Prophet when Allah sent him, He protected him until he had delivered the Shariah, it would be necessary that the Imam’s case be the same.

قلنا: المنع على ضربين: أحدهما لا ينافي التكليف بأن لا يلجأ إلى ترك القبيح، والآخر يؤدي إلى ذلك.فالأول قد فعله الله تعالى من حيث منع من ظلمه بالنهي عنه والحث على وجوب طاعته والانقياد لأمره ونهيه وأن لا يعصى في شي‏ء من أوامره وأن يساعد على جميع ما يقوي أمـره ويشيد سلطانه فإن جميـع ذلك لا ينافي التكليـف فـإذا عصى من عصى في ذلك ولـم يفعل ما يتم معه الغرض المطلوب يكون قد أتى 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 ساقطا.

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.

فأما النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فإنما نقول: يجب أن يمنع الله منه حتى يؤدي الشرع لأنه لا يمكن أن يعلم ذلك إلا من جهته فلذلك وجب المنع منه. وليس كذلك الإمام، لأن علة المكلفين مزاحة فيما يتعلق بالشرع والأدلة منصوبة على ما يحتاجون إليه ولهم طريق إلى معرفتها من دون قوله، ولو فرضنا أنه ينتهي الحال إلى حد لا يعرف الحق من الشرعيات إلا بقوله لوجب أن يمنع الله تعالى منه ويظهره بحيث لا يوصل إليه مثل النبي صلى الله عليه وآله. ونظير مسألة الإمام أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إذا أدى ثم عرض فيما بعد ما يوجب خوفه لا يحب على الله تعالى المنع منه لأن علة المكلفين قد انزاحت بما أداه إليهم فلهم طريق إلى معرفة لطفهم.اللهم إلا أن يتعلق به أداء آخر في المستقبل فإنه يجب المنع منه كما يجب في الابتداء فقد سوينا بين النبي والإمام.

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 excuse 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 (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 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.

فإن 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.

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

قلنا: مما يقطع على أنه سبب لغيبة الإمام هو خوفه على نفسه بالقتل بإخافة 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 صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم تارة في الشعب وأخرى في الغار،ولا وجه لذلك إلا الخوف من المضار الواصلة إليه. وليس لأحد أن يقول إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ما استتر عن قومه إلا بعد أدائه إليهم ما وجب عليه أداؤه ولم يتعلق بهم إليه حاجة وقولكم في الإمام بخلاف ذلك، وأيضا فإن استتار النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ما طال ولا تمادى،واستتار الإمام قد مضت عليه الدهور وانقرضت عليه العصور.

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.

وذلك أنه ليس الأمر على ما قالوه، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إنما استتر في الشعب والغار بمكة قبل الهجرة وما كان أدى جميع الشريعة، فإن أكثر الأحكام ومعظم القرآن نزل بالمدينة فكيف أوجبتم أنه كان بعد الأداء؟ ولو كان الأمر على ما قالوه من تكامل الأداء قبل الاستتار لما كان ذلك رافعا للحاجة إلى تدبيره وسياسته وأمره ونهيه،فإن أحدا لا يقول إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بعد أداء الشرع غير محتاج إليه ولا مفتقر إلى تدبيره ولا يقول ذلك معاند. وهو الجواب عن قول من قال إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ما يتعلق من مصلحتنا قد أداه وما يؤدي في المستقبل لم يكن في الحال مصلحة للخلق فجاز لذلك الاستتار وليس كذلك الإمام عندكم، لأن تصرفه في كل حال لطف للخلق فلا يجوز له الاستتار على وجه ووجب تقويته والمنع منه ليظهر ويزاح علة المكلف، لأنا قد بينا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم مع أنه أدى المصلحة التي تعلقت بتلك الحال فلم يستغن عن أمره ونهيه وتدبيره بلا خلاف بين المحصلين، ومع هذا جاز له الاستتار فكذلك الإمام. على أن أمر الله تعالى له بالاستتار بالشعب تارة وفي الغار أخرى ضرب من المنع منه لأنه 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 تعالى فعله، ولو كان خاليا من وجوه الفساد،وعلم الله تعالى أنه تقتضيه 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 الإمام عليه السلام إن الله تعالى منع من قتله بأمره بالاستتار والغيبة، ولو علم أن المصلحة تتعلق بتقويته بالملائكة لفعل،فلما لم يفعل مع ثبوت حكمته ووجوه إزاحة علة المكلفين في التكليف علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة بل ربما كان فيه مفسدة. بل الذي نقول إن في الجملة يجب على الله تعالى تقوية يد الإمام بما يتمكن معه من القيام ويبسط يده ويمكن ذلك بالملائكة وبالبشر، فإذا لم يفعله بالملائكة علمنا أنه لأجل أنه تعلق به مفسدة فوجب أن يكون متعلقا بالبشر،فإذا لم يفعلوه أتوا من قبل نفوسهم لا من قبله تعالى. فيبطل بهذا التحرير جميع ما يورد من هذا الجنس. وإذا جاز في النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أن يستتر مع الحاجة إليه لخوف الضرر وكانت التبعة في ذلك لازمة لمخيفية ومحوجية إلى الغيبة فكذلك غيبة الإمام عليه السلام سواء. فأما التفرقة بطول الغيبة وقصرها فغير صحيحة لأنه لا فرق في ذلك بين القصير المنقطع والطويل الممتد لأنه إذا لم يكن في الاستتار لائمة على المستتر إذا أحوج إليه بل اللائمة على من أحوجه إليها جاز أن يتطاول سبب الاستتار كما جاز أن يقصر زمانه.

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 Quran 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, bur 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.

فإن قيل: إذا كان الخوف أحوجه إلى الاستتار فقد كان آباؤه عليه السلام عندكم على تقية وخوف من أعدائهم فكيف لم يستتروا؟

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 (Taqayyah) and fear from their enemies. Why did they not go into hiding also?

قلنا: ما كان على آبائه عليهم السلام خوف من أعدائهم مع لزوم التقية والعدول عن التظاهر بالإمامة ونفيها عن نفوسهم، وإمام الزمان عليه السلام كل الخوف عليه لأنه يظهر بالسيف ويدعو إلى نفسه ويجاهد من خالفه عليه فأي نسبة بين خوفه من الأعداء وخوف آبائه عليهم السلام لو لا قلة التأمل. على أن آباءه عليهم السلام متى قتلوا أو ماتوا كان هناك من يقوم مقامهم ويسد مسدهم يصلح للإمامة من أولاده وصاحب الأمر عليه السلام بالعكس من ذلك،لأن من المعلوم أنه لا يقوم أحد مقامه ولا يسد مسده فبان الفرق بين الأمرين.

We would reply: Fear from their enemies did not threaten his holy forefathers (a.s), as they adhered to dissimulation (Taqayyah) 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 the 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.s) 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.