Then the author of the book said: They are asked, “Why is your Imam concealed from his seekers?” If they say, “Out of fear for his life,” it is said to them: The seeker too may justifiably practice taqiyya from those who pursue him, especially if he fears and hopes and does not know what will happen before it occurs—so he is in a state of taqiyya. And if taqiyya is allowed for the Imam, then it is even more appropriate for the follower. But why would the Imam practice taqiyya when it comes to guiding them, while not being in taqiyya when it comes to taking their money? Allah says: «Follow those who do not ask you for a reward» (36:21) and He also says: «Indeed, many of the rabbis and monks consume the wealth of people unjustly and hinder them from the way of Allah» (9:43). This shows that people of falsehood seek worldly gain, while those who follow the Book do not ask for compensation and are rightly guided. Then he says: “If they say this, then that,”—this is the sort of speech that only an ignorant and deficient person would utter.
As for the answer to what was asked: the Imam did not hide himself from those seeking guidance, but rather out of fear for his life from the oppressors. As for the statement, “If taqiyya is permissible for the Imam, then it is even more permissible for the follower,” we say: If what you mean is that the follower may protect himself and flee from harm just as the Imam does, then that is indeed permissible. But if you mean that the follower may, out of taqiyya, deny the Imamate of the Imam, then that is not permissible—once sound reports have reached his ears and removed his excuse. Sound reports stand in the place of direct witnessing, and there is no taqiyya upon hearts; only Allah knows what they contain.
As for the claim: “Why is the Imam in taqiyya from guiding them but not from taking their money?” and the citation of the verse: “Follow those who do not ask you for a reward”—we say in response: The Imam is not in taqiyya when it comes to guiding those who seek it. How can he be in taqiyya when he has already clarified the truth for them, encouraged them to follow it, invited them to it, and taught them ḥalāl and ḥarām such that they became publicly known and recognized for it? He does not seize their wealth; he merely asks for the khums, which Allah has obligated to be distributed as He commanded. The one who legislated khums is the Prophet himself, and the Qurʾān clearly affirms it: “Know that whatever you gain of anything, a fifth of it is for Allah,” and also: “Take from their wealth a charity…” If there is any fault or criticism in the taking of money, then it lies with the one who first established the obligation. And Allah is the One sought for help.
It is also said to the author: Inform us—if your Imam were to reappear and prevail, would he take khums? Would he collect taxes? Would he claim rightful shares from war spoils, natural resources, and similar assets? If he says no, then he has opposed the rulings of Islam. If he says yes, then we ask: What if someone like you objected to him by citing: “Follow those who do not ask you for a reward,” and: “Indeed, many of the rabbis and monks…”—what would you answer him with, except what the Imamiyyah answer you with? This—may Allah guide you—is the very same objection atheists once used to cast doubt upon the Muslims, and I do not know who passed it on to these people. Know—may Allah grant you success and make you among His people—that action must be based on the Qurʾān and Sunnah and not contradict them. If our opponents can show that the Imam violated either in what he took, then indeed the proof is on their side. But if they cannot, then let them know there is no shame in acting upon what conforms with the Book and the Sunnah. This is clear. Then the author says: They are told, “We do not permit Imamate for one who is unknown. So can you show us a way to recognize your claimed Imam so we may validate his Imamate just as we do for other known descendants of the Prophet? Otherwise, there is no basis to permit Imamate for the unknown, and anyone who is not present is absent—and thus the Imamate of the one you claim is invalidated.”
Commentary #16
ثم قال صاحب الكتاب: ويقال لهم لم استتر إمامكم عن مسترشده؟ فإن قالوا: تقية على نفسه، قيل لهم: فالمسترشد أيضا يجوز له أن يكون في تقية من طلبه، لا سيما إذا كان المسترشد يخاف ويرجو ولا يعلم ما يكون قبل كونه، فهو في تقية. وإذا جازت التقية للإمام فهي للمأموم أجوز، وما بال الإمام في تقية من إرشادهم، وليس هو في تقية من تناول أموالهم، والله يقول: "اتبعوا من لا يسألكم أجرا" وقال: "إن كثيرا من الأحبار والرهبان ليأكلون أموال الناس بالباطل ويصدون عن سبيل الله". فهذا مما يدل على أن أهل الباطل عرض الدنيا يطلبون، والذين يتمسكون بالكتاب لا يسألون الناس أجرا وهم مهتدون. ثم قال: وإن قالوا كذا قيل كذا، فشيء لا يقوله إلا جاهل منقوص.
والجواب عما سأل: أن الإمام لم يستتر عن مسترشده، إنما استتر خوفا على نفسه من الظالمين. فأما قوله: "فإذا جازت التقية للإمام فهي للمأموم أجوز"، فيقال له: إن كنت تريد أن المأموم يجوز له أن يتقي من الظالم ويهرب عنه متى خاف على نفسه كما جاز للإمام، فهذا لعمري جائز. وإن كنت تريد أن المأموم يجوز له أن لا يعتقد إمامة الإمام للتقية، فذلك لا يجوز إذا قرعت الأخبار سمعه وقطعت عذره، لأن الخبر الصحيح يقوم مقام العيان، وليس على القلوب تقية، ولا يعلم ما فيها إلا الله.
وأما قوله: "وما بال الإمام في تقية من إرشادهم وليس في تقية من تناول أموالهم، والله يقول: اتبعوا من لا يسألكم أجرا"، فالجواب عن ذلك إلى آخر الفصل: يقال له: إن الإمام ليس في تقية من إرشاد من يريد الإرشاد، وكيف يكون في تقية وقد بيّن لهم الحق وحثهم عليه ودعاهم إليه وعلمهم الحلال والحرام حتى شُهروا بذلك وعُرفوا به؟ وليس يتناول أموالهم، وإنما يسألهم الخمس الذي فرضه الله عز وجل ليضعه حيث أمر أن يضعه. والذي جاء بالخمس هو الرسول، وقد نطق القرآن بذلك، قال الله عز وجل: "واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فأن لله خمسه"، وقال: "خذ من أموالهم صدقة". فإن كان في أخذ المال عيب أو طعن، فهو على من ابتدأ به. والله المستعان.
ويقال لصاحب الكتاب: أخبرنا عن الإمام منكم إذا خرج وغلب، هل يأخذ الخمس؟ وهل يجبى الخراج؟ وهل يأخذ الحق من الفيء والمغنم والمعادن وما أشبه ذلك؟ فإن قال: لا، فقد خالف حكم الإسلام. وإن قال: نعم، قيل له: فإن احتج عليه رجل مثلك بقول الله عز وجل: "اتبعوا من لا يسألكم أجرا"، وبقوله: "إن كثيرا من الأحبار والرهبان…"، بأي شيء تجيبه حتى تجيبك الإمامية بمثله؟ وهذا، وفقكم الله، شيء كان الملحدون يطعنون به على المسلمين، وما أدري من دلّسه لهؤلاء. واعلم، علمك الله الخير وجعلك من أهله، إنما يُعمل بالكتاب والسنة ولا يُخالفهما. فإن أمكن خصومنا أن يدلونا على أنه خالف في أخذ ما أخذ الكتاب والسنة، فلعمري أن الحجة واضحة لهم. وإن لم يمكنهم ذلك، فليعلموا أنه ليس في العمل بما يوافق الكتاب والسنة عيب. وهذا بيّن. ثم قال صاحب الكتاب: ويقال لهم: نحن لا نجيز الإمامة لمن لا يُعرف، فهل توجدونا سبيلا إلى معرفة صاحبكم الذي تدّعون حتى نجيز له الإمامة كما نجيز للموجودين من سائر العترة؟ وإلا فلا سبيل إلى تجويز الإمامة للمعدومين، وكل من لم يكن موجودا فهو معدوم، وقد بطل تجويز الإمامة لمن تدّعون.
Then the author of the book said: They are asked, “Why is your Imam concealed from his seekers?” If they say, “Out of fear for his life,” it is said to them: The seeker too may justifiably practice taqiyya from those who pursue him, especially if he fears and hopes and does not know what will happen before it occurs—so he is in a state of taqiyya. And if taqiyya is allowed for the Imam, then it is even more appropriate for the follower. But why would the Imam practice taqiyya when it comes to guiding them, while not being in taqiyya when it comes to taking their money? Allah says: «Follow those who do not ask you for a reward» (36:21) and He also says: «Indeed, many of the rabbis and monks consume the wealth of people unjustly and hinder them from the way of Allah» (9:43). This shows that people of falsehood seek worldly gain, while those who follow the Book do not ask for compensation and are rightly guided. Then he says: “If they say this, then that,”—this is the sort of speech that only an ignorant and deficient person would utter.
As for the answer to what was asked: the Imam did not hide himself from those seeking guidance, but rather out of fear for his life from the oppressors. As for the statement, “If taqiyya is permissible for the Imam, then it is even more permissible for the follower,” we say: If what you mean is that the follower may protect himself and flee from harm just as the Imam does, then that is indeed permissible. But if you mean that the follower may, out of taqiyya, deny the Imamate of the Imam, then that is not permissible—once sound reports have reached his ears and removed his excuse. Sound reports stand in the place of direct witnessing, and there is no taqiyya upon hearts; only Allah knows what they contain.
As for the claim: “Why is the Imam in taqiyya from guiding them but not from taking their money?” and the citation of the verse: “Follow those who do not ask you for a reward”—we say in response: The Imam is not in taqiyya when it comes to guiding those who seek it. How can he be in taqiyya when he has already clarified the truth for them, encouraged them to follow it, invited them to it, and taught them ḥalāl and ḥarām such that they became publicly known and recognized for it? He does not seize their wealth; he merely asks for the khums, which Allah has obligated to be distributed as He commanded. The one who legislated khums is the Prophet himself, and the Qurʾān clearly affirms it: “Know that whatever you gain of anything, a fifth of it is for Allah,” and also: “Take from their wealth a charity…” If there is any fault or criticism in the taking of money, then it lies with the one who first established the obligation. And Allah is the One sought for help.
It is also said to the author: Inform us—if your Imam were to reappear and prevail, would he take khums? Would he collect taxes? Would he claim rightful shares from war spoils, natural resources, and similar assets? If he says no, then he has opposed the rulings of Islam. If he says yes, then we ask: What if someone like you objected to him by citing: “Follow those who do not ask you for a reward,” and: “Indeed, many of the rabbis and monks…”—what would you answer him with, except what the Imamiyyah answer you with? This—may Allah guide you—is the very same objection atheists once used to cast doubt upon the Muslims, and I do not know who passed it on to these people. Know—may Allah grant you success and make you among His people—that action must be based on the Qurʾān and Sunnah and not contradict them. If our opponents can show that the Imam violated either in what he took, then indeed the proof is on their side. But if they cannot, then let them know there is no shame in acting upon what conforms with the Book and the Sunnah. This is clear. Then the author says: They are told, “We do not permit Imamate for one who is unknown. So can you show us a way to recognize your claimed Imam so we may validate his Imamate just as we do for other known descendants of the Prophet? Otherwise, there is no basis to permit Imamate for the unknown, and anyone who is not present is absent—and thus the Imamate of the one you claim is invalidated.”