Kamāl al-Dīn wa Tamām al-Niʿma

وقد تكلم علينا أبو الحسن علي بن أحمد بن بشار في الغيبة وأجابه أبو جعفر محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن قبة الرازي وكان من كلام علي بن أحمد بن بشار علينا في ذلك أن قال في كتابه أقول: إن كل المبطلين أغنياء عن تثبيت إنية من يدعون له، وبه يتمسكون، وعليه يعكفون، ويعطفون لوجود أعيانهم وثبات إنياتهم وهؤلاء (يعني أصحابنا) فقراء إلى ما قد غني عنه كل مبطل سلف من تثبيت إنية من يدعون له وجوب الطاعة، فقد افتقروا إلى ما قد غني عنه سائر المبطلين واختلفوا بخاصة ازدادوا بها بطلانا وانحطوا بها عن سائر المبطلين، لان الزيادة من الباطل تحط والزيادة من الخير تعلو، والحمد لله رب العالمين. ثم قال: وأقول قولا تعلم فيه الزيادة على الانصاف منا وإن كان ذلك غير واجب علينا. أقول: إنه معلوم أنه ليس كل مدع ومدعى له بمحق، وإن كل سائل لمدع تصحيح دعواه بمنصف وهؤلاء القوم ادعوا أن لهم من قد صح عندهم أمره ووجب له على الناس الانقياد والتسليم وقد قدمنا أنه ليس كل مدع ومدعى له بواجب له التسليم، ونحن نسلم لهؤلاء القوم الدعوى ونقر على أنفسنا بالابطال - وإن كان ذلك في غاية المحال - بعد أن يوجدونا إنية المدعى له ولا نسألهم تثبيت الدعوى، فإن كان معلوما أن في هذا أكثر من الانصاف فقد وفينا بما قلنا، فان قدروا عليه فقد أبطلوا، و إن عجزوا عنه فقد وضح ما قلناه من زيادة عجزهم عن تثبيت ما يدعون على عجز كل مبطل عن تثبيت دعواه. وأنهم مختصون من كل نوع من الباطل بخاصة يزدادون بها انحطاطا عن المبطلين أجمعين لقدرة كل مبطل سلف على تثبيت دعواه إنية من يدعون له وعجز هؤلاء عما قدر عليه كل مبطل إلا ما يرجعون إليه من قولهم " إنه لابد ممن تجب به حجة الله عز وجل وأجل لابد من وجوده فضلا عن كونه، فأوجدونا الآنية من دون إيجاد الدعوى. ولقد خبرت عن أبي جعفر بن أبي غانم أنه قال لبعض من سأله فقال: بم تحاج الذين كنت تقول ويقولون: إنه لابد من شخص قائم من أهل هذا البيت؟ قال له: أقول لهم: هذا جعفر.   فيا عجبا أيخصم الناس بمن ليس هو بمخصو وقد كان شيخ في هذه الناحية - رحمه الله - يقول: قد وسمت هؤلاء باللابدية أي أنه لا مرجع لهم ولا معتمد إلا إلى أنه لابد من أن يكون هذا الذي (ليس) في الكاينات، فوسمهم من أجل ذلك، و نحن نسميهم بها أي أنهم دون كل من له بد يعكف عليه إذ كان أهل الأصنام التي أحدها البد قد عكفوا على موجود وإن كان باطلا، وهم قد تعلقوا بعدم ليس وباطل محض وهم اللابدية حقا، أي لابد لهم يعكفون عليه إذ كان كل مطاع معبود، وقد وضح ما قلنا من اختصاصهم من كل نوع الباطل بخاصة يزدادون بها انحطاطا و الحمد لله. ثم قال: نختم الان هذا الكتاب بأن نقول: إنما نناظر ونخاطب من قد سبق منه الاجماع على أنه لابد من إمام قائم من أهل هذا البيت تجب به حجة الله ويسد به فقر الخلق وفاقتهم ومن لم يجتمع معنا على ذلك فقد خرج من النظر في كتابنا فضلا عن مطالبتنا به ونقول لكل من اجتمع معنا على هذا الأصل من الذي قدمنا في هذا الموضع: كنا وإياكم قد أجمعنا على أنه لا يخلو أحد من بيوت هذه الدار من سراج زاهر، فدخلنا الدار فلم نجد فيها إلا بيتا واحدا فقد وجب وصح أن في ذلك البيت سراجا. والحمد لله رب العالمين.

Abul Hasan bin Ahmad bin Bishar has issued statements against Occultation and Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Abdur Rahman ibn Qibba al-Razi has refuted them. Among Ali bin Ahmad bin Bishar’s statements regarding our belief in Occultation, is that he writes in his book: I say: That which all the people of falsehood claim, and they remain attached to it and are firm upon it, there are needless of proving his existence because he is himself present and his presence is proved. And these people, that is our companions (Shias) are in need of the fact that the people of falsehood are needless of; for whom I am compelled to prove the obligation of obedience. Thus they are needful of that from which all the people of falsehood are needless and they have differed in another particular matter due to which they moved closer to falsehood. And in this way they became more debased in comparison to other people of falsehood because excess of falsehood brings decadence and more truthfulness bestows exaltation and all praise is for Allah the Lord of the worlds.  Then he said: And I will make such a statement in which you will find more justice from my side though it is not obligatory upon us. I say: It is absolutely clear and it is known that it is not necessary for every plaintiff and defendant to be on the right and all those who demand from the claimant to prove the veracity of his claim, are equitable. And this group has claimed that they are having a personality whose Imamate is proved to them clearly and people are obliged to submit to him and obey him. And we accept the claim of this group and agree that we are wrong. Although it is very much impossible. But on the condition that they show to us the existence and person of the one whose Imamate they claim. In that case we would not even insist on them to prove their claim. Thus if in our statement there is something more than justice, we have fulfilled our promise. Thus if they are able to fulfill our demand they would have disproved our statement and if they failed to do so, it would clearly prove what we have stated about it; that they are more helpless to prove their claim than all others who fail to prove their claims. And these people are distinguished among all kinds of false ones due to which they become the lowliest among the people of falsehood, because previously all the claimants of falsehood had the right to show the existence of that which they were claiming. While these people are helpless even in the matter in which the people of falsehood are competent. Except that we turn to what they say: The point is that through anything the Proof (Hujjat) of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime becomes obligatory, its existence is obligatory. Yes, its presence is more necessary than its mere existence. So in addition to making claim about it, you must also show us his existence.  And I was informed regarding Abu Ja’far bin Abu Ghanim who said in reply to the question: Now would you prove your claim that the existence of a person from this family is necessary? He said to him (Abu Ja’far): I told them: It is Ja’far. What a strange thing! This person is trying to refute people through something from which he himself is not absolved. An elderly man lived in that area. He used to say: I call them ‘La badiya’. He means to imply that they do not have any refuge or a firm base, except that they may be forced to say that the existence of him is necessary although he does not exist at all. Thus he has named them as such. And we also called them same. These people are different from all groups who bow down before someone due to helplessness. Among the idol worshippers there is a group called Buddhist, they also bowed before something that had existence even though they were people of falsehood. While these people became related to a non-entity which is absolutely non-existent and is completely false; and they really deserve to be called La badiya. That is they are helpless to bow before it, because anyone that is obeyed is in fact a deity. In this way our stand becomes clear that these people are peculiar with a particular type of falsehood from all the types. Due to which they are baser. Praise be to Allah.  Then he says: We end the book on the statement that: Our debate is with one who before this was in agreement with us that it is necessary that there should be an Imam from this family (Ahlul Bayt) through whom the Proof of Allah becomes obligatory on us and through whom the poverty and hunger of the people ends and those who are not in agreement with us in this matter are absolved from seeing our book even though we may demand him. And we say to all those who are in agreement with us regarding this matter and who before us are inclined to reach an agreement on the point that not a room of any house is without it in which there is light. Then we entered that house and except for one room we did not find any other. On the basis of this, it became necessary and it was proved that there was a lamp in that house. And praise be to Allah the Lord of the worlds.

فأجابه أبو جعفر محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن قبة الرازي بأن قال: إنا نقول: - وبالله التوفيق: - ليس الاسراف في الادعاء والتقول على الخصوم مما يثبت بهما حجة، ولو كان ذلك كذلك لارتفع الحجاج بين المختلفين واعتمد كل واحد على إضافة ما يخطر بباله من سوء القول إلى مخالفه وعلى ضد هذا بني الحجاج ووضع النظر والانصاف أولى ما يعامل به أهل الدين وليس قول أبي الحسن ليس لنا ملجأ نرجع إليه ولا قيما نعطف عليه ولا سندا نتمسك بقوله حجة لان دعواه هذا مجرد من البرهان، والدعوى إذا انفردت عن البرهان كانت غير مقبول عند ذوي العقول والألباب   ولسنا نعجز عن أن نقول: بلى لنا - والحمد لله - من نرجع إليه ونقف عند أمره ومن كان ثبتت حجته وظهرت أدلته، فان قلت: فأين ذلك؟ دلونا عليه قلنا: كيف تحبون أن ندلكم عليه أتسألوننا أن نأمره أن يركب ويصير إليكم ويعرض نفسه عليكم أو تسألونا أن نبني له دارا ونحوله إليها ونعلم بذلك أهل الشرق والغرب فان رمتم ذلك فلسنا نقدر عليه ولا ذلك بواجب عليه، فان قلتم: من أي وجه تلزمنا حجته وتجب علينا طاعته؟     قلنا: إنا نقر أنه لا بد من رجل من ولد أبي الحسن علي بن محمد العسكري عليهما السلام تجب به حجة الله دللناكم على ذلك حتى نضطركم إليه إن أنصفتم من أنفسكم، وأول ما يجب علينا وعليكم أن لا نتجاوز ما قد رضي به أهل النظر واستعملوه ورأوا أن من حاد عن ذلك فقد ترك سبيل العلماء، وهو أنا لا نتكلم في فرع لم يثبت أصله وهذا الرجل الذي تجحدون وجوده فإنما يثبت له الحق بعد أبيه وأنتم قوم لا تخالفونا في وجود أبيه فلا معنى لترك النظر في حق أبيه والاشتغال بالنظر معكم في وجوده فإنه إذا ثبت الحق لأبيه، فهذا ثابت ضرورة عند ذلك باقراركم، وإن بطل أن يكون الحق لأبيه فقد آل الامر إلى ما تقولون وقد أبطلنا، وهيهات لن يزداد الحق إلا قوة ولا الباطل إلا وهنا، وإن زخرفه المبطلون،  والدليل على صحته أمر أبيه أنا وإياكم مجمعون على أنه لا بد من رجل من ولد أبي الحسن تثبت به حجة الله وينقطع به عذر الخلق وإن ذلك الرجل تلزم حجته من نأى عنه من أهل الاسلام كما تلزم من شاهده وعاينه ونحن وأكثر الخلق ممن قد لزمتنا الحجة من غير مشاهدة فننظر في الوجه الذي لزمتنا منه الحجة ما هي، ثم ننظر من أولى من الرجلين اللذين لا عقب لأبي - الحسن غيرهما فأيهما كان أولى فهو الحجة والامام ولا حاجة بنا إلى التطويل، ثم نظرنا من أي وجه تلزم الحجة من نأى عن الرسل والأئمة عليهم السلام فإذا ذلك بالاخبار التي توجب الحجة وتزول عن ناقليها تهمة التواطؤ عليها والاجماع على تخرصها ووضعها ثم فحصنا عن الحال فوجدنا فريقين   ناقلين يزعم أحدهما أن الماضي نص على الحسن عليه السلام وأشار إليه ويروون مع الوصية وما له من خاصة الكبر أدلة يذكرونها وعلما يثبتونه، ووجدنا الفريق الاخر يروون مثل ذلك لجعفر لا يقول غير هذا فإنه أولى بنا نظرنا فإذا الناقل لاخبار جعفر جماعة يسيرة والجماعة اليسيرة يجوز عليها التواطؤ والتلاقي والتراسل فوقع نقلهم موقع شبهة لا موقع حجة وحجج الله لا تثبت بالشبهات ونظرنا في نقل الفريق الاخر فوجدناهم جماعات متباعدي الديار والأقطار، مختلفي الهمم والآراء متغايرين، فالكذب لا يجوز عليهم لنأي بعضهم عن بعض ولا التواطؤ ولا التراسل والاجتماع على تخرص خبر ووضعه، فعلمنا أن النقل الصحيح هو نقلهم وأن المحق هؤلاء، ولأنه إن بطل ما قد نقله هؤلاء على ما وصفنا من شأنهم لم يصح خبر في الأرض وبطلت الاخبار كلها فتأمل - وفقك الله - في الفريقين فإنك تجدهم كما وصفت، وفي بطلان الاخبار هدم الاسلام وفي تصحيحها تصحيح خبرنا، وفي ذلك دليل على صحة أمرنا، والحمد لله رب العالمين.   ثم رأيت الجعفرية تختلف في إمامة جعفر من أي وجه تجب؟ فقال قوم: بعد أخيه محمد، وقال قوم: بعد أخيه الحسن، وقال قوم: بعد أبيه. ورأيناهم لا يتجاوزون ذلك ورأينا أسلافهم وأسلافنا قد رووا قبل الحادث ما يدل على إمامة الحسن وهو ما روي عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: " إذا توالت ثلاثة أسماء: محمد وعلي والحسن فالرابع القائم " وغير ذلك من الروايات وهذه وحدها توجب الإمامة للحسن، وليس إلا الحسن وجعفر. فإذا لم تثبت لجعفر حجة على من شاهده في أيام الحسن والامام ثابت الحجة على من رآه ومن لم يره فهو الحسن اضطرارا، وإذا ثبت الحسن عليه السلام وجعفر عندكم مبرء تبرأ منه والامام لا يتبرأ من الامام والحسن قد مضى ولا بد عندنا وعندكم من   رجل من ولد الحسن عليه السلام تثبت به حجة الله، فقد وجب بالاضطرار للحسن ولد قائم عليه السلام.   ثم رأيت الجعفرية [يعني جعفر الكذاب] تختلف في إمامة جعفر من أي وجه تجب فقال قوم بعد أخيه محمد و قال قوم بعد أخيه الحسن و قال قوم بعد أبيه و رأيناهم لا يتجاوزون ذلك و رأينا أسلافهم و أسلافنا قد رووا قبل الحادث ما يدل على إمامة الحسن و هو ما رُوِيَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عليه السلام قَالَ: إِذَا تَوَالَتْ ثَلَاثَةُ أَسْمَاءٍ مُحَمَّدٌ وَ عَلِيٌّ وَ الْحَسَنُ فَالرَّابِعُ الْقَائِمُ. وغير ذلك من الروايات و هذه وحدها توجب الإمامة للحسن و ليس إلا الحسن و جعفر فإذا لم تثبت لجعفر حجة على من شاهده في أيام الحسن و الإمام ثابت الحجة على من رآه و من لم يره فهو الحسن اضطرارا وإذا ثبت الحسن عليه السلام و جعفر عندكم مبرأ تبرأ منه و الإمام لا يتبرأ من الإمام و الحسن قد مضى و لا بد عندنا و عندكم من‌ رجل من ولد الحسن عليه السلام تثبت به حجة الله فقد وجب بالاضطرار للحسن ولد قائم ع.

Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Qibba al-Razi has replied to this. He has said (and the tawfiq is from Allah): To practice excess in claim and to make allegation against the opponent is not among those things that prove a mater and if it had been like this, it would have ended the conflict between the warring sides and each party would have remained content by relying on one's own opinion about one's opponent. While the fact is that conflict and difference of opinion among the people became the basis of debates and discussions and observing justice is that the best characteristic that the people of religion adopt and the statement of Abul Hasan is neither our refuge to which we refer nor is it a valid statement towards which we may be inclined nor is it a document of evidence and pillar due to which we may accept his statement to be a proof and take resort to it, because this claim of his is devoid of proof and evidence. And when a claim is lacking proof and evidence it is not acceptable to intelligent and sensible people.  And we do not find ourselves incapable to say that: Yes, by the Grace of Allah we have that personality to whom we refer to and whose directions we follow, whose being the Divine Proof has been proved and arguments supporting this have become clear. If they say: Tell us where he is? We will reply: How do you want us to show him to you? Do you want us to order him to ride a horse and come to you and present himself to you? Or you are demanding that we construct a house for him to move there; and then inform all the people of the east and the west about it? If you want this, we are not capable of it neither is it obligatory for him to do this. And if you say: Then how do you consider his proof necessary on us and declare his Imamate to be obligatory on us?   We shall say: We admit that it is necessary that there should be a man from the children of Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Askari (as) through whom the Proof of Allah may become obligatory on us. We have guided you towards him so that if you are inclined to justice and the very first thing that is obligatory on us is that we should not go beyond that which is agreed upon by thinking people and that which they have put into practice and it is their belief that whosoever opposes it, has abandoned the attitude of the scholars (Ulama). And also we are not talking about a branch and secondary matter whose root is not firm and the personality whose existence you deny is proved after his father and you are the group who has no dispute with us regarding his father. Thus it is meaningless that you leave off contemplation about the right of Imamate of his father. Therefore if the right is proved for his father, in that case according to your own admission it would have been proved and if no right is proved for his father, the matter turns to your statement. And we would be on falsehood. And it is certain that there is an increase in the strength of truth and falsehood goes on weakening even though the people of falsehood may present it in a nice way.   The proof for the validity of the matter of his father that we have consensus that it is necessary that there must be a son of Abul Hasan (as) through which the Divine proof may be established and no excuse remains for the people and this man will necessarily be the Divine Proof on every Muslim even though he may be far away from them just as it is necessary for one who has seen him and met him. And we and most of the people are such that the Proof has become obvious for us without meeting him. So we shall have to ponder what is the cause and proof due to which the Proof has become incumbent on us? And then we shall have to see that apart from those two sons of Abul Hasan (Imam al-Hadi), except whom there is no successor, who else is eligible for it. Thus whichever of them will be superior will be the Proof and the Imam and there is no need to prolong the matter. Then we shall think upon it on the basis of which evidence and cause does the proof become necessary on those who are away from the Prophet and the Imams. Hence its necessity is proved from the established traditional reports that prove the necessity of Divine Proof and the number and condition of those reports that those who have related it are absolved from connivance on falsehood. And it exonerates them from the allegation that they have fabricated it. When we do further research we find that the narrator's themselves are two groups.   One of them was under the impression that the previous Imam had mentioned Nass for Hasan al-Askari (as). He pointed him out, made a request about him and also mentioned some arguments due to the fact that he was the elder son. He also mentioned some signs. And we saw that the other group is saying the same things about Ja’far. Now when we see we find that those who relate traditions about Ja’far are very few in number. And it is possible to say regarding a small group and few numbers that they have connived to fabricate traditions. They reached consensus about it and informed each other through correspondence. So the traditions related to them fell in the circle of doubt and did not reach that level of evidence. And the Divine Proofs are not proved through suspicions. When we glanced at the traditions of the other faction we found that there were many groups who were separate from each other in different places. Their aims are different, their views and opinions are diverse and it is not possible for them to fabricate lies because they are far away from each other and neither they have consensus of opinion nor do they keep in touch with each other through correspondence, nor do they gather at one place to fabricate traditions. Thus it shows that traditions related by them are correct and it is these people who are on the right because if we reject traditions narrated by them along with their qualities mentioned above, no report narrated on the earth can be correct. So think upon it. May Allah bestow you with good sense. So, you see from these two groups the one you shall find to be on the right is the one that we have indicated. And the tendency of rejecting traditions is harmful for Islam while considering narrations to be correct will prove that our report is correct. And the evidence of the correctness of our statement is present in this. And praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.   You yourselves have seen that the Ja’fariyyah themselves have a dispute on what basis the Imamate of Ja’far [al-Kadhab] becomes obligatory. One of their groups say that he is the Imam after his brother, Muhammad, and the other group says that he is the Imam after his brother, Hasan al-Askari. And we witnessed that each of those groups is resolute on its stand, whereas we have seen their predecessors and our elders narrating a tradition even before the occurrence of this event that prove the Imamate of Hasan al-Askari and it is the one quoted from Imam Abu Abdillah (Imam Sadiq) that he said: When three names, that is Muhammad, Ali and Hasan come after one another, the fourth shall be the Qaim and this is among the traditional reports that prove the Imamate of Imam Hasan al-Askari (as). And except for Imam Hasan al-Askari and Ja’far there is no third person. Thus, during the lifetime of Imam Hasan al-Askari (as) the proof is not established for Ja’far on those who have seen him, while the Imam is one for whom the proof is established on those who have seen him and on those who have not seen him. So it is learnt that Imamate is proved for Hasan al-Askari. Thus when Imamate has been proved for Hasan al-Askari (as) and in your view Ja’far is one against whom aloofness is expressed and the Imam never expresses aloofness and immunity from another Imam. Now Hasan al-Askari (as) has passed away, so on the basis of this it is agreed between you and us that it is necessary that there should be a man from the children of Hasan al-Askari (as), through whom the Divine Proof may be established. Thus on the basis of this it is proved that there is a son of Hasan al-Askari (as), who is the Qaim.

و قل يا أبا جعفر أسعدك الله لأبي الحسن أعزه الله‌ يقول محمد بن عبد الرحمن قد أوجدناك إنية المدعى له فأين المهرب هل تقر على نفسك بالإبطال كما ضمنت أو يمنعك الهوى من ذلك فتكون كما قال الله تعالى‌ وَ إِنَّ كَثِيراً لَيُضِلُّونَ بِأَهْوائِهِمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ‌    فأما ما وسم به أهل الحق من اللابدية لقولهم لا بد ممن تجب به حجة الله فيا عجبا فلا يقول أبو الحسن لا بد ممن تجب به حجة الله و كيف لا يقول و قد قال عند حكايته عنا و تعييره إيانا أجل لا بد من وجوده فضلا عن كونه فإن كان يقول ذلك فهو و أصحابه من اللابدية و إنما وسم نفسه و عاب إخوانه و إن كان لا يقول ذلك فقد كفينا مئونة تنظيره و مثله بالبيت و السراج و كذا يكون حال من عاند أولياء الله يعيب نفسه من حيث يرى أنه يعيب خصمه و الحمد لله المؤيد للحق بأدلته و نحن نسمي هؤلاء بالبدية إذ كانوا عبدة البد قد عكفوا على ما لا يسمع و لا يبصر و لا يغني عنهم شيئا و هكذا هؤلاء و نقول يا أبا الحسن هداك الله هذا حجة الله على الجن و الإنس و من لا تثبت حجته على الخلق إلا بعد الدعاء و البيان محمد ص قد أخفى شخصه في الغار حتى لم يعلم بمكانه ممن احتج الله عليهم به إلا خمسة نفر.   فإن قلت إن تلك غيبة بعد ظهوره و بعد أن قام على فراشه من يقوم مقامه قلت لك لسنا نحتج عليك في حال ظهوره و لا استخلافه لمن يقوم مقامه من هذا في قبيل و لا دبير و إنما نقول لك أ ليس تثبت حجته في نفسه في حال غيبته على من لم يعلم بمكانه لعلة من العلل فلا بد من أن تقول نعم قلنا و نثبت حجة الإمام و إن كان غائبا لعلة أخرى و إلا فما الفرق ثم نقول و هذا أيضا لم يغب حتى ملأ آباؤه عليه السلام آذان شيعتهم بأن غيبته تكون و عرَّفوهم كيف يعملون عند غيبته فإن قلت في ولادته فهذا موسى عليه السلام مع شدة طلب فرعون إياه و ما فعل بالنساء و الأولاد لمكانه حتى أذن الله في ظهوره‌.   قَدْ قَالَ الرِّضَا عليه السلام فِي وَصْفِهِ‌ بِأَبِي وَ أُمِّي شَبِيهِي وَ سَمِيُّ جَدِّي وَ شَبِيهُ مُوسَى بْنِ عِمْرَانَ.

I say: O Aba Ja’far, may Allah make you successful, Abul Hasan Aghrallah says that Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman says that one whom we have raised the claim of, we have presented his existence to you. So where will you run? Do you admit being on the wrong as you have promised us or your selfish desire is preventing you from this? In that case you will be the implication of this statement of the Almighty Allah: «And most surely many would lead (people) astray by their low desires out of ignorance» (6:119)   It is very odd to name righteous people to be ‘La badiya’ on the basis of their statement that it is ‘La badiya’ or necessary that there should be someone through whom the Divine Proof may become necessary. Does Abul Hasan not himself say that his existence is necessary and ‘La badiya’ through whom the Divine Proof may become necessary? And why should he not have said it while he has mentioned it narrating through us: Yes, his presence is ‘La badiya’ and necessary; what to say about his existence? Thus if he admits this, he and his companions are also from ‘La badiya’ and in that case, he has given himself this title and revealed the deficiency of his co-religionists and if he does not admit this, no need remains to reply to the example he has given about the light in the room of a house. And this same bad condition afflicts all those who harbor enmity with the divine saints. They end up making statements against themselves while they are under the impression that they are speaking against their opponents. And all the praise is for Allah Who supports truth through His proofs and signs and we call these people ‘Badiya’ because they are the slaves of ‘bad’ and they are bowing in front of one who neither hears nor sees anything and he does not make them needless of anything. And the same is the condition of these people. And we say, O Abul Hasan, may Allah guide you. This one (Imam Zaman) is the proof of Allah on men and Jinns and whose being the proof of Allah on the creatures will not be proved except through the statements of the Messenger of Allah (sw). He had concealed himself in the cave in such a way that except for five persons all those may not come to know about it on whom the Almighty Allah established His proof through him.   If you raise the objection that this occultation is after an advent and it is after that there is a successor for him on his bed. We shall reply that we are not proving the veracity of our claim through the fact of his advent or his appointing a successor for one who does not know what he is saying. Rather we say that does his being the proof not gets established during the time he is in occultation on the one who, due to some reason does not know his whereabouts? Here you will have to reply in proofs. So we shall say that we also prove that the Imam is the proof of Allah even though he may be in occultation due to some reason. But what is the difference between the two? And this Imam also did not go into occultation till his father and forefathers did not repeatedly emphasize on their followers that occultation was imminent and they told their supporters how they should conduct themselves during his occultation, and what type of deeds they must perform. Thus if you speak about his birth we shall ask you to take into consideration the birth of Prophet Musa (as). In spite of the severe steps Firon had taken to search for him and what all he did with the women and children, he survived till the Almighty Allah permitted him to reveal himself.   Imam al-Ridha (as) said in his description: May my parents be sacrificed to him; he resembles me and has the name as that of my venerable grandfather and he is also similar to Prophet Musa (as).

و حجة أخرى نقول لك يا أبا الحسن أ تقر أن الشيعة قد روت في الغيبة أخبارا فإن قال لا أوجدناه الأخبار و إن قال نعم قلنا له فكيف تكون حالة الناس إذا غاب إمامهم فكيف تلزمهم الحجة في وقت غيبته فإن قال يقيم من يقوم مقامه فليس يقوم عندنا و عندكم مقام الإمام إلا الإمام- و إذا كان إماما قائما.     فلا غيبة و إن احتج بشي‌ء آخر في تلك الغيبة فهو بعينه حجتنا في وقتنا لا فرق فيه و لا فصل و من الدليل على فساد أمر جعفر موالاته و تزكيته فارس بن حاتم لعنه الله‌ و قد برئ منه أبوه و شاع ذلك في الأمصار حتى وقف عليه الأعداء فضلا عن الأولياء. و من الدليل على فساد أمره استعانته بمن استعان في طلب الميراث من أم الحسن عليه السلام و قد أجمعت الشيعة أن آباءه عليه السلام أجمعوا أن الأخ لا يرث مع الأم.    و من الدليل على فساد أمره قوله إني إمام بعد أخي محمد فليت شعري متى تثبت إمامة أخيه و قد مات قبل أبيه حتى تثبت إمامة خليفته و يا عجبا إذا كان محمد يستخلف و يقيم إماما بعده و أبوه حي قائم و هو الحجة و الإمام فما يصنع أبوه و متى جرت هذه السنة في الأئمة و أولادهم حتى نقبلها منكم فدلونا على ما يوجب إمامة محمد حتى إذا ثبتت قبلنا إمامة خليفته و الحمد لله الذي جعل الحق مؤيدا و الباطل مهتوكا ضعيفا زاهقا.

We present another argument. O Abul Hasan, do you admit that Shias have narrated traditions about occultation? If he says: ‘No’, we shall present those traditions to him. If he says: ‘Yes’, we shall ask him: What would be the condition of the people when their Imam is in occultation? And how proof will be established on them during the occultation? If he says: ‘In that case he (the Imam) will appoint someone as his representative,’ we will say that it is agreed between us that only an Imam can be the representative of the Imam. Thus when the representative is also an Imam, occultation is meaningless.  And apart from this, if he presents some argument for this occultation it would be just like our proof and argument and there would be no difference in it. An argument which exposes the defect of Ja'far’s matter is his cooperation with Faris bin Hatim, may Allah curse him, and considering him as pure whereas his own father had renounced him. This information spread in the town and even his opponents became aware of this matter, what to say of the friends? Among the arguments against him is his seeking help from some people to obtain inheritance from the mother of Imam Hasan al-Askari (as), whereas there is consensus among the Shias that his forefathers had unanimity on the point that when the mother is alive, the brother has no right to get inheritance.   And among the arguments that expose the shortcoming of this matter is his claim that he was an Imam after his brother, Muhammad. If only we could know how Imamate of his brother is proved, when he had died during the lifetime of his venerable father? So how can be proved the Imamate of the Caliph of this person? And how odd that Muhammad should appoint his successor and Imam after him, while his father is yet alive and established! And if he himself is the proof of Allah and the Imam what is the role of his father? And since when such types of narrative reports have gained currency among the Imams and their descendants; that we should be obliged to accept your claim? So please tell us on what basis is the Imamate of Muhammad proved so that the Imamate of his successor may also be proved for us. And the praise is for the Almighty Allah Who made the truth strong and falsehood weak.

فأما ما حكي عن ابن أبي غانم رحمه الله فلم يرد الرجل بقوله عندنا يثبت إمامة جعفر و إنما أراد أن يعلم السائل أن أهل هذه البيت لم يفنوا حتى لا يوجد منهم أحدا. وأما قوله و كل مطاع معبود فهو خطأ عظيم لأنا لا نعرف معبودا إلا الله و نحن نطيع رسول الله ص و لا نعبده. وأما قوله نختم الآن هذا الكتاب بأن نقول إنما نناظر و نخاطب من قد سبق منه الإجماع بأنه لا بد من إمام قائم من أهل هذه البيت تجب به حجة الله إلى قوله و صح أن في ذلك البيت سراجا و لا حاجة بنا إلى دخوله- فنحن وفقك الله لا نخالفه و أنه لا بد من إمام قائم من أهل هذا البيت تجب به حجة الله وإنما نخالفه في كيفية قيامه و ظهوره و غيبته.   و أما ما مثل به من البيت و السراج فهو منى و قد قيل إن المنى رأس أموال المفاليس و لكنا نضرب مثلا على الحقيقة لا نميل فيه على خصم و لا نحيف فيه على ضد بل نقصد فيه الصواب فنقول كنا و من خالفنا قد أجمعنا على أن فلانا مضى و له ولدان و له دار و أن الدار يستحقها منهما من قدر على أن يحمل بإحدى يديه ألف رطل و أن الدار لا تزال في يدي عقب الحامل‌ إلى يوم القيامة و نعلم أن أحدهما يحمل و الآخر يعجز ثم احتجنا أن نعلم من الحامل منهما فقصدنا مكانهما لمعرفة ذلك فعاق عنهما عائق منع عن مشاهدتهما غير أنا رأينا جماعات كثيرة في بلدان نائية متباعدة بعضها عن بعض يشهدون أنهم رأوا أن الأكبر منهما قد حمل ذلك و وجدنا جماعة يسيرة في موضع واحد يشهدون أن الأصغر منهما فعل ذلك و لم نجد لهذه الجماعة خاصة يأتوا بها فلم يجز في حكم النظر و حفيظة الإنصاف و ما جرت به العادة وصحت به التجربة رد شهادة تلك الجماعات و قبول شهادة هذه الجماعة و التهمة تلحق هؤلاء و تبعد عن أولئك.

As for what was reported from Ibn Abi Ghanim, may Allah have mercy on him, the man did not affirm the imamate of Ja’far by saying “with us,” but rather intended to inform the questioner that the people of this household have not perished so that none remain among them. Regarding his statement, “and every obeyed one is worshiped,” this is a grave error, for we know no one worshiped except Allah, and we obey the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) without worshiping him. As for his saying, “We conclude this book by saying that we argue and address one upon whom consensus has already been established—that there must be a standing Imam from this household by whom God’s proof is established,” up to his statement, “And it is true that there is a lamp in that household, and there is no need for us to enter into it,” we, may Allah guide you, do not disagree with him on the necessity of a standing Imam from this household by whom God’s proof is established. However, we differ with him regarding the manner of his rising, appearance, and occultation. As for the analogy he used of the household and the lamp, it is like a debt, and it has been said that debt is the principal asset of the bankrupt. We, however, present a truthful analogy without bias against an opponent or unfairness toward an adversary. We mean to express the truth by saying: We and those who oppose us agree that so-and-so has passed away and he has two sons and a house, and that the house should belong to one of them who can carry a thousand pounds with one hand. The house remains in the possession of the one who can carry until the Day of Resurrection. We know one son can carry it and the other cannot. We then sought to identify which of the two sons could carry it and approached their location to learn this, but an obstacle prevented us from seeing them. Instead, we encountered many groups in distant and scattered places who testified that the elder son carried it, while a small group in one place testified that the younger son did so. There was no valid reason in terms of reason, fairness, or common practice to reject the testimony of those groups and accept the testimony of this smaller group, nor was there any accusation to discredit those many groups and exclude them in favor of the few.

فإن قال خصومنا فما تقولون في شهادة سلمان وأبي ذر وعمار و المقداد لأمير المؤمنين وشهادة تلك الجماعات وأولئك الخلق لغيره أيهما كان أصوب قلنا لهم لأمير المؤمنين وأصحابه أمور خص بها و خصوا بها دون من بإزائهم فإن أوجدتمونا مثل ذلك أو ما يقاربه لكم فأنتم المحقون أولها أن أعداءه كانوا يقرون بفضله وطهارته و علمه وَ قَدْ رُوِّينَا وَرَوَوْا لَهُ مَعَنَا أَنَّهُ ص خَبَّرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يُوَالِي مَنْ يُوَالِيهِ وَ يُعَادِي مَنْ يُعَادِيهِ فوجب لهذا أن يتبع دون غيره و الثاني أن أعداءه لم يقولوا له نحن نشهد أن النبي ص أشار إلى فلان بالإمامة و نصبه حجة للخلق و إنما نصبوه لهم على جهة الاختيار كما قد بلغك و الثالث أن أعداءه كانوا يشهدون على أحد أصحاب أمير المؤمنين أنه لا يكذب‌ لِقَوْلِهِ مَا أَظَلَّتِ الْخَضْرَاءُ وَ لَا أَقَلَّتِ الْغَبْرَاءُ عَلَى ذِي لَهْجَةٍ أَصْدَقَ مِنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ فكانت شهادته وحده أفضل من شهادتهم و الرابع أن أعداءه قد نقلوا ما نقله أولياؤه مما تجب به الحجة و ذهبوا عنه بفساد التأويل و الخامس أن أعداءه‌ رَوَوْا فِي الْحَسَنِ وَ الْحُسَيْنِ أَنَّهُمَا سَيِّدَا شَبَابِ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ. وَرَوَوْا أَيْضاً أَنَّهُ ص قَالَ: مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيَّ مُتَعَمِّداً فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ . فلما شهدا لأبيهما بذلك و صح أنهما من أهل الجنة بشهادة الرسول وجب تصديقهما لأنهما لو كذبا في هذا لم يكونا من أهل الجنة و كانا من أهل النار و حاشا لهما الزكيين الطيبين الصادقين فليوجدنا أصحاب جعفر خاصة هي لهم دون خصومهم حتى يقبل ذلك و إلا فلا معنى لترك خبر متواتر لا تهمة في نقله و لا على ناقليه و قبول خبر لا يؤمن على ناقليه تهمة التواطؤ عليه و لا خاصة معهم يثبتون بها و لن يفعل ذلك إلا تائه حيران فتأمل أسعدك الله في النظر فيما كتبت به إليك مما ينظر به الناظر لدينه المفكر في معاده المتأمل بعين الخيفة و الحذار إلى عواقب الكفر و الجحود موفقا إن شاء الله تعالى أطال الله بقاءك و أعزك و أيدك و ثبتك و جعلك من أهل الحق و هداك له و أعاذك من أن تكون من‌ الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَياةِ الدُّنْيا وَ هُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعاً و من الذين يستزلهم الشيطان بخدعه وغروره و إملائه و تسويله و أجرى لك أجمل ما عودك.

If our opponents ask our opinion regarding the testimony of Salman, Abu Tharr, Ammar and Miqdad in favor of Amirul Momineen (as) on one hand and the testimony of a large number of people in favor of another person. Which of the two were true? We shall say that Amirul Momineen (as) and his companions in comparison to their opponents were possessing some special characteristics and those merits were peculiar to them only. If you can prove that you also have those characteristics we would admit that you are true to your claim. The first point is that even his enemies admitted his superiority, purity and knowledge.  It is mentioned in the traditions of the Prophet that he said: The Almighty Allah loves those who love him (Ali) and He is inimical to those who are inimical to him. On the basis of this, he is not allowed to follow anyone except him. And the second specialty is that his enemies did not claim that the Holy Prophet (sw) had specified the other person to be Imam or made his proof on the people. Instead, as you also know, those people selected him for themselves on the justification that they were empowered to do so. The third specialty is that his enemies used to testify regarding a companion of Amirul Momineen (as) that he never lied because the Prophet had himself said: There is no one between the sky and the earth more truthful than Abu Tharr.  On the basis of this, the testimony of Abu Tharr alone is weightier than all of those people put together. The fourth specialty is that his enemies have narrated the same traditions that their friends have and through which the proof is established. But they have turned away from it due to wrong interpretation. The fifth specialty is that his enemies have narrated the tradition that Hasan and Hussain (as) are the chiefs of the youths of Paradise and also quoted that he said: One who knowingly fabricates my sayings, makes Hellfire his abode. Thus when these two testified in favor of their venerable father, and it is also true that according to the testimony of the Holy Prophet (sw) they are folks of Paradise, to consider them truthful became obligatory, because if they are untruthful in this they shall not be among the folks of Paradise, and instead shall be folks of Hell and those two personalities are purified from this. They are pure, chaste and truthful.  Now the followers of Ja’far al-Kazzab should mention some of his specialties that are not present in their opponents so that their claim may be accepted. Without this it is meaningless to reject a widely narrated tradition (mutawatir), which is free of any defect in both, the text and reporters. Neither is it worth accepting a tradition whose narrators are not free from the accusation of having connived on falsehood. Whereas they do not even have any such specialty through which their claim could be proved. And such an action is committed only by a confused and deviated person. So please think about it! May Allah give you righteousness. Whatever I have written about you and regarding which an intelligent person ponders about his religion, and he thinks upon the Judgment Day fearing the consequences of infidelity and denial. Be suitable, Insha’Allah, may the Almighty Allah give you a long life and bestow you strength and support and may He make you steadfast make you righteous. And may He guide you towards Himself. May He not make you of those whose efforts in the world are wasted, while they were under the impression that it was good. And may He also not make you of those, whom Satan deviates through deceit and fraud.

وكتب بعض الإمامية إلى أبي جعفر بن قبة كتابا يسأله فيه عن مسائل فورد في جوابها أما قولك أيدك الله حاكيا عن المعتزلة أنها زعمت أن الإمامية تزعم أن النص على الإمام واجب في العقل فهذا يحتمل أمرين إن كانوا يريدون أنه واجب في العقل قبل مجي‌ء الرسل عليه السلام و شرع الشرائع فهذا خطأ و إن أرادوا أن العقول دلت على أنه لا بد من إمام بعد الأنبياء عليه السلام فقد علموا ذلك بالأدلة القطعية و علموه أيضا بالخبر الذي ينقلونه عمن يقولون بإمامته. و أما قول المعتزلة إنا قد علمنا يقينا أن الحسن بن علي عليه السلام مضى و لم ينص فقد ادعوا دعوى يخالفون فيها و هم محتاجون إلى أن يدلوا على صحتها و بأي شي‌ء ينفصلون ممن زعم من مخالفيهم أنهم قد علموا من ذلك ضد ما ادعوا أنهم علموه. و من الدليل على أن الحسن بن علي عليه السلام قد نص على ثبات إمامته و صحة النص من النبي ص و فساد الاختيار و نقل الشيع عمن قد أوجبوا بالأدلة تصديقه أن الإمام لا يمضي أو ينص على إمام كما فعل رسول الله ص إذ كان الناس محتاجين في كل عصر إلى من يكون خبره لا يختلف و لا يتكاذب كما اختلفت أخبار الأمة عند مخالفينا هؤلاء و تكاذبت و أن يكون إذا أمر ائتمر بطاعته و لا يد فوق يده و لا يسهو و لا يغلط و أن يكون عالما ليعلم الناس ما جهلوا و عادلا ليحكم بالحق و من هذا حكمه فلا بد من أن ينص عليه علام الغيوب على لسان من يؤدى ذلك عنه إذ كان ليس في ظاهر خلقته ما يدل على عصمته. فإن قالت المعتزلة هذه دعاوي تحتاجون إلى أن تدلوا على صحتها قلنا أجل لا بد من الدلائل على صحة ما ادعيناه من ذلك و أنتم فإنما سألتم عن فرع و الفرع لا يدل عليه دون أن يدل على صحة أصله و دلائلنا في كتبنا موجودة على صحة هذه الأصول و نظير ذلك أن سائلا لو سألنا الدليل على صحة الشرائع لاحتجنا أن ندل على صحة الخبر و على صحة نبوة النبي ص و على أنه أمر بها و قبل ذلك أن الله عز و جل واحد حكيم و ذلك بعد فراغنا من الدليل على أن العالم محدث و هذا نظير ما سألونا عنه و قد تأملت في هذه المسألة فوجدت غرضها ركيكا و هو أنهم قالوا لو كان الحسن بن علي قد نص على من تدعون إمامته لسقطت الغيبة و الجواب في ذلك أن الغيبة ليست هي العدم فقد يغيب الإنسان إلى بلد يكون معروفا فيه و مشاهدا لأهله و يكون غائبا عن بلد آخر وكذلك قد يكون الإنسان غائبا عن قوم دون قوم و عن أعدائه لا عن أوليائه فيقال إنه غائب

And some Imamites have written a letter to Abu Ja’far Ibn Qibba in which they ask him a few questions. He replied as follows: But your statement, may Allah support you, which you are narrating from the Mu'tazila that they think that the Imamites are under the impression that Nass about an Imam is necessary from the logical point of view, there are two possibilities in this. If they take it to be logically obligatory before the arrival of the prophets and religious codes of law, it is wrong. But if they take that human intellects guides to the fact that after the arrival of the prophets there is necessity of Imam, they came to know through faith and logical arguments that and they have understood through this tradition narrated from this personality in whose Imamate they believe. And the statement of the Mu'tazila that: We came to know with certainty that Hasan bin Ali (as) passed away without stating the Nass of Imamate in favor of any person. So their statement is a claim that shall be opposed and they shall be needful that they must prove the veracity of their claim. What is that point which gives them precedence in their claim from their opponents that they have certainty in something which is exactly opposed to their claim? And among the arguments is one which is about the Nass on the proof of the Imamate of Hasan bin Ali (as) and among the traditions of Shias quoted from those truthful personalities is that an Imam does not die without having clearly indicated the Imamate of another person after himself. As the Holy Prophet (sw) has said that since people in every age are needful of only one personality whose statements and reports are not contradicting and refuting each other. Like the traditions that our opponents possess are contradictory and refuting each other. And an Imam should be such that if he orders something it should be complied with and there should be none superior to them. He should neither forget nor commit mistakes, and he should possess knowledge that he can teach people about which they are ignorant. He should be equitable and judge with truth and justice. And if one is having such traits, the Almighty Allah would issue Nass about him by the tongue of one through whom He completes His argument while in his apparent creation there is nothing that proves his infallibility. If Mu'tazila objects that these are your claims that you shall have to prove through evidences, we shall say that indeed arguments are necessary to prove the veracity of our statements. You have asked us about a secondary matter and no indication is found on the correctness of the secondary matter except that its root should be proved correct. The arguments in favor of the rightfulness of our principles are present in our books and by way of example we can ask that if a person demands proofs for the correctness of the Shariah, do we need to first prove the correctness of divine revelation, rightfulness of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (sw) and the correctness of his legislations on the basis of this Shariat? Before that we would have to prove that Allah, the Mighty and Sublime is one and He is the Knower of exigencies and after that we would have to prove the incidentally of the universe. He has asked us exactly the same question. And when I contemplated on the aim of that question, I realized that their aim is absolutely foolish, and they say that if Hasan bin Ali (as) has issued Nass about the one in whom you believe, the matter of occultation would be proved invalid. The reply is that occultation certainly does not mean inexistence. Sometimes a man goes to a land where is well-known and people observe him; at the same time he has disappeared from other places. In this way sometimes a person disappears from the view of some people but he is not unseen by others. And sometimes he is concealed from his enemies and not from his friends. So it is said that he has disappeared.

وإنه مستتر و إنما قيل غائب لغيبته عن أعدائه و عمن لا يوثق بكتمانه من أوليائه وأنه ليس مثل آبائه ظاهرا للخاصة  والعامة  وأولياؤه مع هذا ينقلون وجوده و أمره و نهيه و هم عندنا ممن تجب بنقلهم الحجة إذا كانوا يقطعون العذر لكثرتهم واختلافهم في هممهم و وقوع الاضطرار مع خبرهم و نقلوا ذلك كما نقلوا إمامة آبائه عليه السلام وإن خالفهم مخالفوهم فيها وكما تجب بنقل المسلمين صحة آيات النبي ص سوى القرآن وإن خالفهم‌. أعداؤهم من أهل الكتاب و المجوس والزنادقة والدهرية في كونها وليست هذه مسألة تشتبه على مثلك مع ما أعرفه من حسن تأملك. و أما قولهم‌ إذا ظهر فكيف يعلم أنه محمد بن الحسن بن علي عليه السلام فالجواب في ذلك أنه قد يجوز بنقل من تجب بنقله الحجة من أوليائه كما صحت إمامته عندنا بنقلهم. و جواب آخر و هو أنه قد يجوز أن يظهر معجزا يدل على ذلك و هذا الجواب الثاني هو الذي نعتمد عليه و نجيب الخصوم به و إن كان الأول صحيحا. و أما قول المعتزلة فكيف لم يحتج عليهم علي بن أبي طالب بإقامة المعجز يوم الشورى فإنا نقول إن الأنبياء و الحجج عليه السلام إنما يظهرون من الدلالات و البراهين حسب ما يأمرهم الله عز و جل به مما يعلم الله أنه صالح للخلق فإذا ثبتت الحجة عليهم بقول النبي ص فيه و نصه عليه فقد استغنى بذلك عن إقامة المعجزات اللهم إلا أن يقول قائل إن إقامة المعجزات كانت أصلح في ذلك الوقت فنقول له و ما الدليل على صحة ذلك و ما ينكر الخصم من أن تكون إقامته لها ليس بأصلح و أن يكون الله عز و جل لو أظهر معجزا على يديه في ذلك الوقت لكفروا أكثر من كفرهم ذلك الوقت و لادعوا عليه السحر و المخرقة و إذا كان هذا جائزا لم يعلم أن إقامة المعجز كانت أصلح. فإن قالت المعتزلة فبأي شي‌ء تعلمون أن إقامة من تدعون إمامته المعجز على أنه ابن الحسن بن علي عليه السلام أصلح قلنا لهم لسنا نعلم أنه لا بد من إقامة المعجز في تلك الحال و إنما نجوز ذلك اللهم إلا أن يكون لا دلالة غير المعجز فيكون لا بد منه لإثبات الحجة و إذا كان لا بد منه كان واجبا و ما كان واجبا كان صلاحا لا فسادا و قد علمنا أن الأنبياء عليه السلام قد أقاموا المعجزات في وقت دون وقت و لم يقيموها في كل يوم و وقت و لحظة و طرفة و عند كل محتج عليهم ممن أراد الإسلام بل في‌ وقت دون وقت على حسب ما يعلم الله عز و جل من الصلاح و قد حكى الله عز و جل عن المشركين أنهم سألوا نبيه ص أن يرقى في السماء و أن يسقط السماء عليهم كسفا أو ينزل عليهم كتابا يقرءونه و غير ذلك مما في الآية فما فعل ذلك بهم و سألوه أن يحيي لهم قصي بن كلاب و أن ينقل عنهم جبال تهامة فما أجابهم إليه و إن كان عليه السلام قد أقام لهم غير ذلك من المعجزات و كذا حكم ما سألت المعتزلة عنه و يقال لهم كما قالوا لنا لم نترك أوضح الحجج و أبين الأدلة من تكرر المعجزات و الاستظهار بكثرة الدلالات. و أما قول المعتزلة أنه احتج بما يحتمل التأويل فيقال فما احتج عندنا على أهل الشورى إلا بما عرفوا من نص النبي ص لأن أولئك الرؤساء لم يكونوا جهالا بالأمر و ليس حكمهم حكم غيرهم من الأتباع و نقلب هذا الكلام على المعتزلة فيقال لهم لم لم يبعث الله عز و جل بأضعاف من بعث من الأنبياء و لم لم يبعث في كل قرية نبيا و في كل عصر و دهر نبيا أو أنبياء إلى أن تقوم الساعة و لم لم يبين معاني القرآن حتى لا يشك فيه شاك و لم تركه محتملا للتأويل و هذه المسائل تضطرهم إلى جوابنا إلى هاهنا كلام أبي جعفر بن قبة رحمه الله.

With regard to Imam Mahdi (as) being hidden, it implies that he is (only) hidden from his enemies and those of his friends who are not capable of keeping his secret; and also that like his purified ancestors, he is not apparent to the people and his friends. Inspite of that they narrate his presence and his dos and don’ts and in our view they are such that their narration establishes the proof. While their abundant numbers, the variation of their aims and the necessity of accepting their reports removes every excuse. Such people have narrated about him the same things as they have narrated about the Imamate of his purified ancestors, even though their opponents have opposed them in this matter in the same way as the statements of Muslims regarding the Holy Prophet (sw) prove the signs of his prophethood except Quran, even though the enemies, People of the Book, Magians, heretics and atheists may oppose them and deny his signs. And this matter is not such that it should be difficult for you to understand and I am aware of your intelligence. As for their question that when he would reappear how would it be known that he is the same Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ali (as)? The reply is that this matter shall be possible through the statements of his friends by whose statements the proof is established in the same way as his Imamate is proved to us through their statements. Another reply is that it is also possible that he may display a miracle which proves that he is the same person and it is this second reply on which we depend and present it as a rebuttal to our opponents even though the first reply is also correct. As for the question of Mu'tazila that why Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) did not show a miracle and established his claim on the day of Shura? In reply we say that prophets and divine proofs only display those miracles that are in compliance to the command of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime and that which the Almighty Allah considers to be to the interest of the people. Thus if his proof can be established through the sayings of the Holy Prophet (sw) and divine texts, in that case he does not need to show a miracle. Though if someone says that indeed in those circumstances it would have been better to have shown a miracle, we shall ask what is the argument of the correctness of your position? It is also possible that the opponent may reject that also and it is also possible that after seeing a miracle at his hand they might have gone deeper into disbelief, and would have alleged that he is a magician. And when this is possible, it is not proved that it would have been better if he had shown a miracle at that time. If Mu'tazila say that on what basis do you think it is better for the one, who is Imam to show a miracle to prove that he is Hasan ibn Ali (as)? We shall tell them that we are nor certain that it is necessary to show a miracle under such circumstances, we only think that it may probably be as such. Except that apart from miracle no other evidence is available, in that case it is inevitable to establish the proof. And when it is inevitable, it is learnt that it is obligatory and when it is learnt that it is obligatory, it is learnt that it is due to divine exigency and not due to deficiency. And we know that sometimes prophets showed miracles and sometimes they did not. They did not show a miracle on any day any time to anyone so that he may accept Islam. They showed it sometimes and sometimes they did not for the reason known best to Allah, the Mighty and Sublime. And Allah, the Mighty and Sublime has mentioned about the polytheists that they asked the Messenger of Allah (sw) to fly up to the sky and break up the sky into pieces throwing it upon them, or that he reveal a book to them that they may read etc. as mentioned in the verses. But the Holy Prophet (sw) did not do such things. They told him to bring back to life Qusayy bin Kilab and to take away the Tahama Mountains from their city. But the Messenger of Allah (sw) did not oblige them. Though he showed other miracles to the people. It is just as Mu'tazila have asked. So they shall be told that as they have said to us that we have presented the clearest arguments and proofs regarding which help is taken from repetition of miracles and excess of arguments. As for the statement of Mu'tazila that in this argument help is taken in which there is possibility of interpretation. It will be said that in our view, the argument which is established for the people of Shura is only on the basis of the Nass received from the Holy Prophet (sw). Because these leaders were not such that they were unaware of the facts and we cannot put them with others (like Tabiin) in a single row. Now we turn the same query to Mu'tazila that why Allah, the Mighty and Sublime did not send more prophets than the ones He sent? And why did not He send one or more than one prophet to each village till the time Qiyamat occurs. And why did not He clarify the meaning of Quran so that no doubter doubt it and they say that He left it in such a way that scope remained of interpretation in it. And these are such matters that they are obliged to explain. End of the discourse of ibn Ja’far ibn Qibbah (rah).