قلنا نفي ولادة الأولاد من الباب الذي لا يصح أن يعلم صدوره في موضع من المواضع ولا يمكن أحدا أن يدعي فيمن لم يظهر له ولد أن يعلم أنه لا ولد له وإنما يرجع في ذلك إلى غالب الظن والأمارة بأنه لو كان له ولد لظهر وعرف خبره لأن العقلاء قد تدعوهم الدواعي إلى كتمان أولادهم لأغراض مختلفة. فمن الملوك من يخفيه خوفا عليه وإشفاقا وقد وجد من ذلك كثير في عادة الأكاسرة والملوك الأول وأخبارهم معروفة. وفي الناس من يولد له ولد من بعض سراياه أو ممن تزوج بها سرا فيرمى به ويجحده خوفا من وقوع الخصومة مع زوجته وأولاده الباقين وذلك أيضا يوجد كثيرا في العادة. وفي الناس من يتزوج بامرأة دنية في المنزلة والشرف وهو من ذوي الأقدار والمنازل فيولد له فيأنف من إلحاقه به فيجحده أصلا.وفيهم من يتحرج فيعطيه شيئا من ماله. وفي الناس من يكون من أدونهم نسبا فيتزوج بامرأة ذات شرف ومنزلة لهوى منها فيه بغير علم من أهلها أما بأن يزوجه نفسها بغير ولي على مذهب كثير من الفقهاء أو تولى أمرها الحاكم فيزوجها على ظاهر الحال، فيولد له فيكون الولد صحيحا وتنتفي منه أنفه وخوفا من أوليائها وأهلها،وغير ذلك من الأسباب التي لا نطول بذكرها الكتاب. فلا يمكن ادعاء نفي الولادة جملة وإنما نعلم ما نعلمه إذا كانت الأحوال سليمة ونعلم أنه لا مانع من ذلك فحينئذ نعلم انتفاءه. فأما علمنا بأنه لم يكن للنبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ابن عاش بعده فإنما علمناه لما علمنا عصمته ونبوته ولو كان له ولد لأظهره لأنه لا مخافة عليه في إظهاره،وعلمنا أيضا بإجماع الأمة على أنه لم يكن له ابن عاش بعده. ومثل ذلك لا يمكن أن يدعى العلم به في ابن الحسن عليه السلام لأن الحسن عليه السلام كان كالمحجور عليه وفي حكم المحبوس وكان الولد يخاف عليه لما علم وانتشر من مذهبهم أن الثاني عشر هو القائم بالأمر المؤمل لإزالة الدول،فهو مطلوب لا محالة وخاف أيضا من أهله كجعفر أخيه الذي طمع في الميراث والأموال فلذلك أخفاه ووقعت الشبهة في ولادته. ومثل ذلك لا يمكن ادعاء العلم به في موت من علم موته لأن الميت مشاهد معلوم يعرف بشاهد الحال موته وبالأمارات الدالة عليه يضطر من رآه إلى ذلك فإذا أخبر من لم يشاهده علمه واضطر إليه وجرى الفرق بين الموضعين.مثل ما يقول الفقهاء في الأحكام الشرعية من أن البينة إنما يمكن أن تقوم على إثبات الحقوق لا على نفيها لأن النفي لا يقوم عليه بينة إلا إذا كان تحته إثبات فبان الفرق بين الموضعين لذلك.
Reply: To prove the negation of the birth of an offspring is impossible in any situation. It is not possible to claim that someone, who is not known to have an offspring, does not have an offspring. Such claims are made through likelihoods and conjectures and circumstances indicating that if he had an offspring, it would have been known and its news would have spread. However, many times, prudence dictates that men of wisdom and letters hide their offspring for various considerations. Many kings hide their offspring for fear and for compassion for their progeny. This is observed often in the practice of Persian emperors and kings of antiquity and their stories are famous. People sire sons from their concubines or from their wives they have married secretly, so they reject and ignore their progeny, fearing enmity with their other wives and children. It is also not uncommon amongst people. Some people marry a woman of low social prominence and class, while being from upper echelons and when they father a son from her, they consider it a challenge to their distinction to attribute it to himself; so they deny their relationship altogether, and some of them pity and offer that child some of their wealth. Sometimes a man of a low rank marries a woman of a noble family, because of her infatuation and without the knowledge of her family, either because her guardian does not exist, as many jurists allow; or the ruler has taken over her affairs and marries her to him. When a son is born from him, though the boy is healthy, she disowns him, because of her pride or because of fear of her guardians or elders. Many other reasons are conceivable, which we will not mention to avoid lengthening the discourse. Therefore, it is not possible to negate fatherhood altogether. We can know that only when all the aspects are immaculate and it is known that there is no encumbrance from declaring fatherhood - only then the negation of fatherhood can be known. Our knowledge that the Messenger of Allah (s) did not have a son, who outlived him is due to our knowledge of his infallibility and his Prophethood, and that if he had a son, he would have made it known, because there was no fear in making it public. Moreover, we know through consensus of Ummah that he did not have a son, who lived after him. The same cannot be claimed with respect to the offspring of Hasan 
, because Hasan was interdicted and was practically a prisoner. There was much worry, concern and fear for the offspring, as it had been a known and famed article of Shia faith that the Twelfth Imam was going to establish the Order for termination of regimes; therefore, it was necessary to keep his birth confidential. So Imam Hasan Askari concealed him even from his family members, like Ja’far Kazzab, his brother, who was eyeing his inheritance and wealth with greed. Thus, he hid his son and doubts with respect to his birth were caused. It is not warranted to analogize the negation of having a son to the subject of knowing the death of a person, because when someone dies, the deceased is seen and known, and his death is known through the circumstances and other evidences that compel anyone who sees them into conviction and when he informs someone who has not seen the deceased personally, he would be compelled to conviction as well. The parallel analogy of the two situations is like the edict of the jurists that witnesses can only testify to prove rights, not to negate them, because negation is not subject to observation, unless it is based on an affirmation. Therefore, the difference of the two situations is clear.
