By using our website, you hereby consent to our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms.
وذلك أنه ليس الأمر على ما قالوه، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إنما استتر في الشعب والغار بمكة قبل الهجرة وما كان أدى جميع الشريعة، فإن أكثر الأحكام ومعظم القرآن نزل بالمدينة فكيف أوجبتم أنه كان بعد الأداء؟ ولو كان الأمر على ما قالوه من تكامل الأداء قبل الاستتار لما كان ذلك رافعا للحاجة إلى تدبيره وسياسته وأمره ونهيه،فإن أحدا لا يقول إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بعد أداء الشرع غير محتاج إليه ولا مفتقر إلى تدبيره ولا يقول ذلك معاند. وهو الجواب عن قول من قال إن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ما يتعلق من مصلحتنا قد أداه وما يؤدي في المستقبل لم يكن في الحال مصلحة للخلق فجاز لذلك الاستتار وليس كذلك الإمام عندكم، لأن تصرفه في كل حال لطف للخلق فلا يجوز له الاستتار على وجه ووجب تقويته والمنع منه ليظهر ويزاح علة المكلف، لأنا قد بينا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم مع أنه أدى المصلحة التي تعلقت بتلك الحال فلم يستغن عن أمره ونهيه وتدبيره بلا خلاف بين المحصلين، ومع هذا جاز له الاستتار فكذلك الإمام. على أن أمر الله تعالى له بالاستتار بالشعب تارة وفي الغار أخرى ضرب من المنع منه لأنه ليس كل المنع أن يحول بينهم وبينه بالعجز أو بتقويته بالملائكة، لأنه لا يمتنع أن يفرض في تقويته بذلك مفسدة في الدين، فلا يحسن من الله تعالى فعله، ولو كان خاليا من وجوه الفساد،وعلم الله تعالى أنه تقتضيه المصلحة لقواه بالملائكة وحال بينهم وبينه فلما لم يفعل ذلك مع ثبوت حكمته ووجوب إزاحة علة المكلفين علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة بل مفسدة. وكذلك نقول في الإمام عليه السلام إن الله تعالى منع من قتله بأمره بالاستتار والغيبة، ولو علم أن المصلحة تتعلق بتقويته بالملائكة لفعل،فلما لم يفعل مع ثبوت حكمته ووجوه إزاحة علة المكلفين في التكليف علمنا أنه لم يتعلق به مصلحة بل ربما كان فيه مفسدة. بل الذي نقول إن في الجملة يجب على الله تعالى تقوية يد الإمام بما يتمكن معه من القيام ويبسط يده ويمكن ذلك بالملائكة وبالبشر، فإذا لم يفعله بالملائكة علمنا أنه لأجل أنه تعلق به مفسدة فوجب أن يكون متعلقا بالبشر،فإذا لم يفعلوه أتوا من قبل نفوسهم لا من قبله تعالى. فيبطل بهذا التحرير جميع ما يورد من هذا الجنس. وإذا جاز في النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أن يستتر مع الحاجة إليه لخوف الضرر وكانت التبعة في ذلك لازمة لمخيفية ومحوجية إلى الغيبة فكذلك غيبة الإمام عليه السلام سواء. فأما التفرقة بطول الغيبة وقصرها فغير صحيحة لأنه لا فرق في ذلك بين القصير المنقطع والطويل الممتد لأنه إذا لم يكن في الاستتار لائمة على المستتر إذا أحوج إليه بل اللائمة على من أحوجه إليها جاز أن يتطاول سبب الاستتار كما جاز أن يقصر زمانه.
This suggestion is foul, because the reality is not as hinted as the Prophet (s) went into hiding in Sheb Abu Talib and in the cave in Mecca before migration, a time when he had not delivered the entirety of religious laws. Most religious rules and a considerable portion of the Quran descended in Medina. So how did you claim that it was after the delivery? If the matter was as hinted that the delivery was complete before the prophetic occultation, the completion of delivery does not fulfill the need of his administration and leadership, his orders and prohibitions, for no one can say that after delivery of religious laws, no one needs the Prophet’s leadership. The opponent does not believe in such a view. This is a reply to a person, who says that the Prophet (s) had delivered all that our welfare depended on, and what he was going to deliver in the future was not expedient to be delivered presently; and therefore, his occultation was reasonable, whereas, the Imam is not like that according to you, as his active leadership in every instant is a grace to creation, therefore, in no circumstance his occultation is warranted and his aid and protection is necessary, so he may appear and the legitimate reason of not following religious laws by the duty-bound (Mukallaf) be removed. This is invalid, because we explained that though the Prophet (s) had delivered all that mankind’s welfare depended on at that time, his leadership, orders and prohibitions were needed without any dispute amongst scholars. However, despite that, it was permissible for him to go into hiding. Likewise is the Imam. Besides, Allah’s order to the Prophet (s) to hide in the mountains at one time and in the cave the other, is a sort of protection, because it is not full protection, in which He would literally defend him against his enemies through making his enemies weak or strengthening him through angels, because it is possible to conceive harm to the religion stemming from strengthening him through such measures. Therefore, it is not right for God to do that. And if it should be devoid of any aspect of wrong, and God knows that expediency requires so, He would strengthen him through angels and defend him against his enemies. And when He does not do that, and it is proved that He is All-Wise and that it is incumbent upon Him to disallow any legitimate excuse on part of the duty-bound(Mukallafin) not to obey the religious laws, we discern that His taking such measures would evoke no benefit, but rather it would be inexpedient. What we say is that in general it is incumbent on Allah to strengthen the hand of the Imam to facilitate his uprising and his administration of society and to perform that through angels and men. However, when He does not do that through angels, we discern it is because it involves inexpediency. Therefore, this must be rendered through men; and should they not perform that, it is something of their own misdoing not that of the Lord’s. Thus, this explication invalidates all criticisms of this sort expressed at this juncture. If it is permissible for the Prophet (s) to undergo hiding, inasmuch as he was needed, due to the fear of harm, and the blame in this regard is on individuals, who threatened him and forced him to go into hiding, likewise is the occultation of the Imam. To make a distinction in this regard in terms of the length and shortness of occultation, is not correct, because there is no difference between short and brief occultation and lengthy and protracted occultation, since when the blame of hiding does not rest on the person who undergoes hiding, bur rather on the ones who have forced him to it, the cause that has prompted the hiding can have a long duration as it can a short one.
