The second mode of our argument is thus: The inquiry of occultation of the son of Imam Hasan Askari is secondary to proving his Imamate. Our adversary either submits to us in the question of his Imamate and inquires about the reason of his occultation, obliging us to answer him or he does not submit to us, in which case, to inquire about the reason of occultation of someone, whose Imamate is not proved, will be meaningless. If disputed about his Imamate, we prove it as follows: The necessity of Imamate in every condition and age as long as Divine obligations and duties fall on the shoulders of the fallible human beings is proved through strong proofs. It is likewise proved that one of the conditions of the Imam is to be certain of his infallibility. At the same time, it is clear that truth is exclusive to this Ummah. With these premises proved, we find that the Ummah is divided into sects that follow different beliefs. One group says that there is no Imam. The premise asserting the necessity of Imam in every age and condition invalidates this statement.