Kitāb al-Ghayba

والثالث: أن يقال: إن الفائدة بالامامة هي كونه مبعدا من القبيح على قولكم، وذلك لا يحصل مع وجوده غائبا فلم ينفصل وجوده من عدمه، وإذا لم يختص وجوده غائبا بوجه الوجوب الذي ذكروه لم يقتض دليلكم وجوب وجوده مع الغيبة، فدليلكم مع أنه منتقض حيث وجد مع انبساط اليد، ولم يجب انبساط اليد مع الغيبة، فهو غير متعلق بوجود إمام غير منبسط اليد ولا هو حاصل في هذه الحال.

Third objection: It is to say that according to you, the benefit of Imamate is that it leads people away from wrong. However, this cannot be achieved with him being in hiding and therefore, his existence and non-existence have no difference. As his hidden existence does not correspond to his necessary existence you have argued for, your argument does not lead to the necessity of his existence during occultation. Therefore, though your argument indicates your point when he exists in the condition of administering the society, it does not prove an Imam, who is not running the affairs of the society, and in occultation the control of Imam on the society is also not proved.

الكلام عليه أن نقول:أما الفصل الأول من قوله: "إنا نلزم الامامية أن يكون في الغيبة وجه قبح" وعيد منه محض لا يقترن به حجة، فكان ينبغي أن يتبين وجه القبح الذي أراد إلزامه إياهم لننظر فيه ولم يفعل، فلا يتوجه وعيده. وإن قال ذلك سائلا على وجه: "ما أنكرتم أن يكون فيها وجه قبح". فإنا نقول: وجوه القبح معقولة من كون الشيء ظلما وعبثا وكذبا ومفسدة وجهلا وليس شيء من ذلك موجودا ها هنا، فعلمنا بذلك انتفاء وجود القبح. فإن قيل: وجه القبح أنه لم يزح علة المكلف على قولكم، لأن انبساط يده الذي هو لطف في الحقيقة والخوف من تأديبه لم يحصل، فصار ذلك إخلالا بلطف المكلف فقبح لأجله.

Reply: The first segment of his argument that, “We prove to the Imamiyah that occultation involves an evil aspect,” is a mere promise that he makes. He should have explained “the evil aspect”, which he wanted to prove to the Imamiyah, so it would have been possible for us to consider it and reply to it. He has not done that and therefore his argument is inconclusive. If he asks, “Do you reject that occultation involves a wrong aspect?” Our response would be that wrong aspects are conceivable in the context of oppression, vanity, lie, debauchery and ignorance, and none of these are involved here. This leads us to reject the instance of any wrong aspect.

قلنا: (قد)بينا في باب وجوب الامامة بحيث أشرنا إليه أن انبساط يده عليه السلام والخوف من تأديبه إنما فات المكلفين لما يرجع إليهم، لانهم أحوجوه إلى الاستتار بأن أخافوه ولم يمكنوه فأتوا من قبل نفوسهم. وجرى ذلك مجرى أن يقول قائل: "من لم يحصل له معرفة الله تعالى في تكليفه وجه قبح"لانه لم يحصل ما هو لطف له من المعرفة، فينبغي أن يقبح تكليفه.

Evil of belief in occultation of the Imam can be proved by stating that it removes hardships and hurdles from the duty-bound (Mukallaf), because by keeping away assistance of the Imam, which in fact is a divine favor, and in the same way, fear of people of being reprimanded by the Imam [if they commit disobedience] is not achieved. Thus it is a breach of divine grace on the duty-bound (Mukallaf) and that is why belief in occultation is evil.

قلنا: (قد)بينا في باب وجوب الامامة بحيث أشرنا إليه أن انبساط يده عليه السلام والخوف من تأديبه إنما فات المكلفين لما يرجع إليهم، لأنهم أحوجوه إلى الاستتار بأن أخافوه ولم يمكنوه فأتوا من قبل نفوسهم. وجرى ذلك مجرى أن يقول قائل: "من لم يحصل له معرفة الله تعالى في تكليفه وجه قبح" لأنه لم يحصل ما هو لطف له من المعرفة، فينبغي أن يقبح تكليفه.

The answer to this would be that, which we have explained in the context of necessity of Imamate; that his administration of affairs and fear of his reprimand are not availed by the duty-bound due to their own stance, because they forced him to go into hiding by threatening him and did not empower him to run the society. Therefore, this is an evil that they have caused themselves. This is similar to a case where someone says, “Religious obligations with respect to a person who does not have knowledge of the existence of Allah, the Exalted, is wrong, since he has not availed the knowledge that is a grace for him. Therefore, committing him to religious obligations is wrong.” In the same way our adversary would answer a question as such – that the infidel did that on his own, because Allah assigned ways to His cognition and gave him the capacity to attain belief, and if he did not respect that and did not attain faith, he did that on his own and this does not render his subjection to religious duties wrong.

فما يقولونه ها هنا من أن الكافر أتي من قبل نفسه، لان الله قد نصب له الدلالة على معرفة ومكنه من الوصول إليها، فإذا لم ينظر ولم يعرف أتي في ذلك من قبل نفسه ولم يقبح ذلك تكليفه، فكذلك نقول:إنبساط يد الامام وإن فات المكلف فإنما أتي من قبل نفسه، ولو مكنه لظهر وانبسطت يده فحصل لطفه فلم يقبح تكليفه، لان الحجة عليه لا له. وقد استوفينا نظائر ذلك في الموضع الذي أشرنا إليه، وسنذكر فيما بعد إذا عرض ما يحتاج إلى ذكره.

We reply that though administration of affairs by the Imam is not a blessing that the duty-bound enjoy during occultation, but that is something they caused themselves; and should they provide the Imam with power to run the affairs, he will appear and administer the society and his grace will materialize. Therefore, religious duties are not wrong during his occultation, for the guilt rests on the duty-bound, and not the Imam. We have explained similar cases in the books we referred to, and we will mention them should the need arise in future.

وأما الكلام في الفصل الثاني:فهو مبني على المغالطة ولا نقول:إنه لم يفهم ما أورده، لان الرجل كان فوق ذلك لكن أراد التلبيس والتمويه(في قوله): إن دليل وجوب الرئاسة ينتقض بحال الغيبة، لان كون الناس مع رئيس مهيب متصرف أبعد من القبيح لو اقتضى كونه لطفا واجبا على كل حال وقبح التكليف مع فقده لا نتقض بزمان الغيبة(لانا في زمان الغيبة)فلم يقبح التكليف مع فقده، فقد وجد الدليل ولا مدلول وهذا نقض.

As for the second part of his argument: It is based on his own words. We do not say that he did not understand what he said, for he is better than that; however, he desired to misguide and disguise lunacy in lucidity, by saying, “The argument for necessity of leadership stands violated by occultation, since if the fact that an awe-inspiring Imam, who is in charge of affairs keeps people away from wrong, renders his presence a necessary grace in all ages and religious obligations without him unjust, this would be violated during occultation and conferment of obligation would not be wrong in his absence. Therefore, the argument leads to a conclusion that does not exist. And this is a contradiction.”

وإنما قلنا: إنه تمويه لانه ظن أنا نقول: إن في حال الغيبة دليل وجوب الامامة قائم ولا إمام فكان نقضا، ولا نقول ذلك، بل دليلنا في حال وجود الامام بعينه هو دليل حال غيبته، في أن في الحالين الامام لطف فلا نقول:إن زمان الغيبة خلا من وجوب رئيس، بل عندنا أن الرئيس حاصل، وإنما ارتفع انبساط يده لما يرجع إلى المكلفين على ما بيناه، لا لان انبساط يده خرج من كونه لطفا بل وجه اللطف به قائم، وإنما لم يحصل لما يرجع إلى غير الله. فجرى مجرى أن يقول قائل:كيف يكون معرفة الله تعالى لطفا مع أن الكافر لا يعرف الله، فلما كان التكليف على الكافر قائما والمعرفة مرتفعة دل على أن المعرفة ليست لطفا على كل حال لانها لو كانت كذلك لكان ذلك نقضا.

We said this is disguising lunacy in lucidity, because he presupposes that we say that proof for existence of the Imam stands during occultation while there is no Imam, which is a contradiction. However, we do not say that. Rather, our proof during the presence of the Imam is the very same proof during his occultation, for the Imam is grace in both conditions. We don’t say that the leader does not exist during occultation; rather, we maintain that the leader exists, however, due to the behavior of the duty-bound, he does not administer the affairs of society, not that his administration of society is not a grace anymore. Rather, it is grace as ever. And it has not materialized due to reasons not endorsed by Allah. This is similar to the following argument: “How can the knowledge of the existence of God be grace, while the infidel does not know about God’s existence? Since the infidel is obliged with duties and he is not blessed with faith, it proves that the knowledge of God’s existence and faith is not always grace, because if it were, it would be self-contradictory.”

وجوابنا في الامامة كجوابهم في المعرفة من أن الكافر لطفه قائم بالمعرفة وإنما فوت نفسه بالتفريط في النظر المؤدي إليها فلم يقبح تكليفه، فكذلك نقول:الرئاسة لطف للمكلف في حال الغيبة، وما يتعلق بالله من إيجاده حاصل، وإنما ارتفع تصرفه وانبساط يده لامر يرجع إلى المكلفين فاستوى الامران، والكلام في هذه المعنى مستوفى أيضا بحيث ذكرناه.

Our response to the query of Imamate is same as their response in the query of faith; belief in God is grace as ever with regard to the infidel, but he has failed to gain it, because of his failure to think, which would have led him to this belief, and therefore, imposing religious duties on him is not wrong. Similarly, we say that Imamate is grace for the duty-bound during occultation; and God has provided all that He must provide in order for this Imamate to materialize. However, his administration of the society is not materialized, because of the duty-bound themselves. Therefore, the responses to both queries are the same, but in this instance we have explained in sufficient detail.

وأما الكلام في الفصل الثالث: من قوله:إن الفائدة بالامامة هي كونه مبعدا من القبيح على قولكم، وذلك لم يحصل مع غيبته، فلم ينفصل وجوده من عدمه، فإذا لم يختص وجوده غائبا بوجه الوجوب الذي ذكروه لم يقتض دليلكم وجوب وجوده مع الغيبـة، دليلكم مع أنه منتقض حيث وجد مع انبساط اليد، ولم يجب انبساط اليد مع الغيبة، فهو غير متعلق بوجود إمام غير منبسط اليد ولا هو حاصل في هذه الحال.

Reply to the third objection: “The benefit of Imamate according to you is that it takes people away from evil acts. However, this cannot be achieved with the Imam in hiding and therefore, his existence and non-existence are not much different. As his hidden existence does not correspond to his necessary existence you have argued for, your argument – despite being contradicted when he is found administering the society, and administering the society is not necessary during occultation – doesn’t lead to the existence of an Imam, who is not running the affairs of society and neither in occultation the control of Imam on the society is proved.

فإنا نقول: إنه لم يفعل في هذا الفصل أكثر من تعقيد القول على طريقة المنطقيين من قلب المقدمات ورد بعضها على بعض، ولا شك أنه قصد بذلك المتويه والمغالطة، وإلا فالامر أوضح من أن يخفى. ومتى قالت الامامية: إن انبساط يد الامام لا يجب في حال الغيبة حتى يقول:دليلكم لا يدل على وجوب إمام غير منبسط اليد، لان هذه حال الغيبة، بل الذي صرحنا به دفعة بعد أخرى أن انبساط يده واجب في الحالين (في) حال ظهوره وحال غيبته، غير أن حال ظهوره مكن منه فانبسطت يده وحال الغيبة لم يمكن فانقبضت يده، لا أن انبساط يده خرج من باب الوجوب. وبينا أن الحجة بذلك قائمة على المكلفين من حيث منعوه ولم يمكنوه فأتوا من قبل نفوسهم، وشبهنا ذلك بالمعرفة دفعة بعد أخرى.

We reply that the opponent has only complicated his argument, as logicians say, by turning around premises and referring them to one another. Obviously, he has intended to disguise lunacy beneath lucidity and fallacy beneath logic. Otherwise, the subject is clearer than to be ambiguous. When has the Imamiyah said that the administration of affairs by the Imam is not necessary during occultation, so it could be said your proof does not prove the necessity of existence of an Imam who is not administering the society, because this is the time of occultation? On the contrary, what we have stated time and again is that his administration of society is necessary in all conditions – his occultation as well as his appearance. However, during his appearance he is able to administer the society and he does that, and during occultation he is unable to perform that and does not do it, because it does not remain obligatory anymore. We explained that the duty-bound are to be blamed for this, as they prohibited him; they did not empower him, and took on the task themselves. We compared this to the subject of faith in God time and again.