One is that we say: Since it is proved that there must be an Imam in every age, and it is not possible that the people, being fallible, at any given time be without a chief, and that the chief must be ascertained to be infallible, and that such a chief is either manifest and known or hidden and unknown, and likewise it is clear that all those for whom a manifest Imamate is claimed, their infallibility is not ascertained, on the contrary the outward appearance of their actions contradicts infallibility, it is inferred that the infallible Imam, who must exist in every age, is (at present) hidden and invisible. Likewise, taking into consideration that all those for whom infallibility is claimed, and are said to be invisible and hidden, such as the supposed hidden leaders of Kaisaniyya, Nawusiyya, Fatihiyya, Waqifiyya and others sects, their claims are invalid, thus the Imamate of the son of Imam Hasan Askari and his occultation and mastership (Wilayah) is proved, no other dispute is there in the Ummah. Hence, there is no need to take the burden of proving his birth and to explain the reasons of his occultation as the word of truth and true belief is present in the Ummah and not outside it.

The second mode of our argument is thus: The inquiry of occultation of the son of Imam Hasan Askari is secondary to proving his Imamate. Our adversary either submits to us in the question of his Imamate and inquires about the reason of his occultation, obliging us to answer him or he does not submit to us, in which case, to inquire about the reason of occultation of someone, whose Imamate is not proved, will be meaningless. If disputed about his Imamate, we prove it as follows: The necessity of Imamate in every condition and age as long as Divine obligations and duties fall on the shoulders of the fallible human beings is proved through strong proofs. It is likewise proved that one of the conditions of the Imam is to be certain of his infallibility. At the same time, it is clear that truth is exclusive to this Ummah. With these premises proved, we find that the Ummah is divided into sects that follow different beliefs. One group says that there is no Imam. The premise asserting the necessity of Imam in every age and condition invalidates this statement.

Another group claims the Imamate of one whose infallibility is not certain is an assertion invalidated by our proofs with regard to the necessity of certainty about infallibility of the Imam. Observation testifies contrary to the contention of others, who maintain the infallibility of their supposed Imams; because their actions are apparent and their conditions violate infallibility, hence there is no need to disprove a belief, the contrary of which is so very evident and clear. Persons for whom infallibility was claimed and certain groups followed them, such as the Kaisaniyya, who believe in the Imamate of Muhammad Ibne Hanafiyyah, the Nawusiyya, who believe in the Imamate of Ja’far Ibne Muhammad and also believe that he is not dead, and the Waqifa, who believe that Musa Ibne Ja’far is not dead – all these beliefs are invalid for reasons we will shortly mention.

Thus, both paths depend on invalidation of beliefs of these groups in order that purpose is established. Likewise, the three principles – necessity of an Imam, necessity of certainty of his infallibility, and that truth is with this Ummah – as we mentioned, must be established for this argument to stand. We will elaborate on each of these premises briefly, since their details exist in our book on Imamate to an extent that can hardly be expanded further, whereas the purpose of this book is only to explain the topic of occultation and no more. Allah is the One from Whom we seek success for this purpose.