The Quran has spoken of Ibrahim and that his mother gave birth to him in secrecy and how she hid him in a cave until he grew up and then his story unraveled. It mentions the story of Musa that his mother left him in the river fearing for his life from Firon. This famous, and the Quran has mentioned it. The story of the Master of the Age is similar to these. So how can it be said that it is against the ordinary? Some people have children from concubines that they hide from their wives, until they are at their deathbed and then they confess.

Some people hide their progeny due to their family, fearing that they will kill them in greed for inheritance. These events are not uncommon and they happen often. Therefore, one must not evince wonder in the like of it in the Master of the Age. We have witnessed many events like this and have heard much about them, therefore, we will not prolong the discourse with more examples, because it is clear in the practices of the society. There are many people we have found whose lineage was clarified a long time after their fathers’ death. No one knew such a person’s lineage until two Muslims testify that his father had confided in them in secrecy due to his fear from his wife and his family; so they testify afterwards that they can be related to a particular man or woman.

As for the acts of Ja’far Ibn Ali, the uncle of the Master of the Age, his rejection of the testimony of the Imamiyah that his brother, Hasan Ibn Ali had a son born in his lifetime, his rejection of his existence after his brother, his usurpation of his brother’s inheritance, his behest to the rulers of the time to imprison the concubines of Hasan in order to force them to negate pregnancy to underscore his rejection that his brother had a son, and his declaration that any Shia, who claimed that Hasan left behind a successor was worthy to be killed, these cannot confuse a learned man, because everyone agrees that Ja’far was not infallible like prophets, that had he been so, it would have been impossible for him to reject the truth and uphold the wrong. Rather, he was fallible and able to make mistakes.

The Quran has spoken of the wrongs of the sons of Yaqub to their brother Yusuf and how they threw him into the well and sold him at a very insignificant price. And they were sons of the prophet, and some believe they were prophets. If they can perpetrate such a grave error against their brother, how Ja’far Ibn Ali cannot utter denials about his nephew in greed of worldly pleasures? Who can consider this impossible, but an obdurate opponent?

If it is said: How Hasan Ibn Ali had a son while during his terminal illness, he addressed his final will regarding his trusts and monies to his mother, named Haditha and with patronymic of Umme Hasan, and entrusted his affairs to her? If he had a son, he would have mentioned him in his final will.

We will say: He did that in order to advance the purpose he had in hiding his birth and concealing him from the rulers of the time. Had he mentioned his son and addressed his final will to him, he would have breached his sole purpose. He needed the government officials, yeomen of the king and witnesses of the judges to refer to her in order to safeguard his trusts and monies and also to maintain secrecy of existence of his son and to protect his life by not mentioning him. Anyone who thinks that this is the proof of the falsity of the Imamiyah belief, he is not familiar with practices in the world. Imam Sadiq Ja’far Ibn Muhammad did the same when he addressed his final will to five people, the first of whom was the ruler of that time, Mansur. He did not exclusively address his son Musa in order to protect him. He addressed Rabi, the judge of the time, and his concubine Hamida Barbariyya, and he mentioned his son Musa Ibn Ja’far last in order to hide his position and protect his life. He did not mention along with his son Musa any other of his sons. Perhaps it was to exclude the possibility of someone claiming the position of Imamate after him on the basis of his inclusion among addressees of the final will. And had not been Musa prominent and well known amongst his sons, and his position and relationship to him famous, and his scholarship and erudition well established, and had he been unknown, Imam Sadiq would not have mentioned him in his final will and would have sufficed on the others, as did Hasan Ibn Ali, the father of the Master of the Age.

If it is said: Your assertion that since the birth of the Master of the Age until this day, which is a long period of time, no one knows his location and residence, nor does anyone reliable brings any news about him. This is extraordinary, because everyone else who underwent hiding from an oppressor due to fear of his life or other reasons, he does not go into a very lengthy hiding and it does not take more than twenty years. Likewise, he does not hide from everyone the place of his hiding and some of his trusted followers and his family does know his location and brings news of his meeting. Your belief is very different from that.

We will say: The case is not as suggested. A number of the companions of Abu Muhammad Hasan Ibn Ali saw him during the lifetime of his father and they were his companions and close devotees after his father’s demise. They were middlemen between him and his Shia and were well known, as we have narrated, and carried religious guidance to the Shia and brought his answers to their questions and received their religious dues from them for him. They were persons, who were declared righteous by Hasan Ibn Ali in his lifetime and he had appointed them his trustees and had designated them with overseeing his properties and his affairs, mentioning them by their names and names of their fathers such as Abu Amr Uthman Ibn Saeed Samman, his son Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Uthman Ibn Saeed, and others that we will mention in detail soon. They were wise, trustworthy, extremely reliable and intelligent and men of great, noble character. They were respected by the rulers of the time for their nobility and majesty, and honored for their trustworthiness and famed lofty characters. They were so trustworthy that they would return even their enemies’ trusts. This invalidates the assertion that no one has seen our master.

After the companions of his father, communication was intact with him through the emissaries between him and his Shia, whose words were trusted and whose piety and trustworthiness made them reliable. We may bring some of their narratives in this regard in the future.

Narrations from his holy forefathers had preceded him that the Qaim will have two occultations, one of which is longer than the other; and that in the first, communication with him will be established and in the second, it will not be. The events unfolded as predicted by these narrations, enhancing the strength of our arguments. We will explain this reasoning in the future, God willing. This is not an event so out of the ordinary, as they have suggested. Even if it were so, it is reasonable that Allah may violate the ordinary in the case of hiding a specific person and to conceal him, because it is expedient and wise.

Khizr is alive since before our time, since the time of Musa according to the majority of the Ummah until our time. It is a matter of consensus amongst historians that no one knows his place of residence and no one knows if he has any companions, except his story with Musa in the Quran and the various narratives that some people think they have seen him as a pious man and after separating from him realized that he was Khizr.

There is the story of the hiding of Musa, the son of Imran from his homeland and his flight from Firon and his people, as mentioned by Quran. No one found him for a long time, neither did they recognize him, until God sent him as an apostle and he made the call to follow him and then the friend and the foe recognized him.

There is the story of Yusuf, the son of Yaqub, to which a Surah of the Quran is dedicated and it recounts how he was hidden from his father, an apostle who received revelations day and night, yet the news of his son was hidden from him and his sons, who would meet him and transact with him, but do not recognize him. Years passed like that before Allah revealed his story and united him with his father and brothers. Such an event is extraordinary and we have not heard the like of it.

There is the story of Yunus, the son of Mata, the messenger of God, with his people and his flight from them when they disputed him for long and violating him did not concern them much. So he went into occultation from them and from everyone; so much so that no one knew where he was. God hid him in the abdomen of a fish and saved his life for expediency until that period passed and God returned him to his people and united them. This is also extraordinary and far from the ordinary events we hear, narrated by the Quran and agreed upon by all.

Likewise is the story of the “people of the cave” narrated by the Quran how their story unfolded and how they hid from their people and fled to save their religion. If the Quran had not spoken about it, our opponents would have rejected this in order to facilitate their denial of the occultation of the Master of the Age. However, Allah informed us that they remained three hundred years like that in hiding, in fear, and then Allah brought them back to life and they returned to their people. Their story is well known.

There is the story of the “owner of the donkey,” whose story is narrated by the Quran and People of the Book believe that he was a prophet. God made him dead and then brought him back to life. His food and drink did not decay. That was very extraordinary.

If all these events are well known, how can they reject the occultation of the Master of the Age? Except that the opponent may be an atheist, nihilist, negating all these as impossibilities, in which case we will not discuss with him the subject of occultation, but rather our discourse with him will change to the very existence of God and that this is within the bounds of God’s infinite power. Our discourse with regard to occultation is with someone who is a Muslim and confesses that this is within the realm of power of God and we are showing similar examples to him. Similar examples of this, narrated by historians and biographers are many such as in the stories of Persian kings and their hiding from their people for a period in which they do not know their whereabouts and they return to show their purpose from the enterprise. Though the Quran has not spoken of this, it is chronicled in history. Likewise, a number of rulers of Rome and India had hidings and extraordinary events, which we will not mention, because the opponents may reject them as is their habit in order to reject the traditions.

If it is said: Your claim of the long life of your Patron [Imam Mahdi ] is extraordinary, as according to you, he remains a man of complete intelligence, strength and youthful looks, because he is, according to you, at this time in 447 A.H., a hundred and ninety-seven years old, as his birth was in 256 A.H.

Ordinarily, no man lives this long. How ordinary norms stand violated about him, whereas they are not violated, except in cases of prophets?

We will say: There are two answers for this: First reason: One is that we don’t accept that it is a violation of all ordinary norms. Rather, similar long lives, and lives longer than his, have been recorded, and we mentioned some of them such as the story of Khizr and the narrative of “the people of the cave” and others. Allah has reported that Nuh lived fifty short of one thousand years amongst his people. Historians say that he lived longer, and the said period was the duration of his propagation of faith after he was sixty years old.