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 
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 ﷺ 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 ? 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 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 ﷺ 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 ?
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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ.
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 
.
Commentary #8
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
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 ﷺ 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.
? 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 
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 ﷺ and divine texts, in that case he does not need to show a miracle.
?
.
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
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
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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ 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 ﷺ.
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