They have also said: It is possible to question this assertion by saying that though enemies have prevented him from appearing to exert leadership and administration, they have not, however, barred him from meeting the specific devotees of his he would wish to meet, who believe in obedience to him and adherence to his orders. If there is no benefit in this sort of meeting that is restricted and specific, because he is ordained for all, this suggests that the Imamiyah Shia have not availed any benefit from the demise of Amirul Momineen until the days of Hasan Ibn Ali Askari and until the Qaim. It also suggests that the devotees of Amirul Momineen and his Shia did not enjoy any benefit from seeing him prior to his assumption of administration and rule. The asserter of these words has reached where no sensible man would. Besides, even if it is accepted that the Imam can only benefit when he is apparent to all of the subjects and his orders are executed over them, their view loses its tenability from another aspect, namely, it follows that the religious rules for the sake of which the Imam is the grace, will lose their imperativeness. Because if the Imam does not appear to them, probably it is not because of them and nor it is in their capacity to remove the cause of his occultation. Therefore, the religious rules must not be binding for them. Because if one nation can prevent the grace of another nation of duty bound, and the duties for which that grace was a grace, remain binding for them, on the same token, it is possible that one duty-bound may prevent another through imprisonment or other similar means, which he cannot remove, and on virtue of which he cannot walk, but the duty of walking shall continue to bind him. They cannot differentiate between such imprisonment and grace, as the former renders the duty impossible and its occurrence is not imaginable, whereas the absence of grace is not like that.