فإنا نقول: إنه لم يفعل في هذا الفصل أكثر من تعقيد القول على طريقة المنطقيين من قلب المقدمات ورد بعضها على بعض، ولا شك أنه قصد بذلك المتويه والمغالطة، وإلا فالامر أوضح من أن يخفى. ومتى قالت الامامية: إن انبساط يد الامام لا يجب في حال الغيبة حتى يقول:دليلكم لا يدل على وجوب إمام غير منبسط اليد، لان هذه حال الغيبة، بل الذي صرحنا به دفعة بعد أخرى أن انبساط يده واجب في الحالين (في) حال ظهوره وحال غيبته، غير أن حال ظهوره مكن منه فانبسطت يده وحال الغيبة لم يمكن فانقبضت يده، لا أن انبساط يده خرج من باب الوجوب. وبينا أن الحجة بذلك قائمة على المكلفين من حيث منعوه ولم يمكنوه فأتوا من قبل نفوسهم، وشبهنا ذلك بالمعرفة دفعة بعد أخرى.
We reply that the opponent has only complicated his argument, as logicians say, by turning around premises and referring them to one another. Obviously, he has intended to disguise lunacy beneath lucidity and fallacy beneath logic. Otherwise, the subject is clearer than to be ambiguous. When has the Imamiyah said that the administration of affairs by the Imam is not necessary during occultation, so it could be said your proof does not prove the necessity of existence of an Imam who is not administering the society, because this is the time of occultation? On the contrary, what we have stated time and again is that his administration of society is necessary in all conditions – his occultation as well as his appearance. However, during his appearance he is able to administer the society and he does that, and during occultation he is unable to perform that and does not do it, because it does not remain obligatory anymore. We explained that the duty-bound are to be blamed for this, as they prohibited him; they did not empower him, and took on the task themselves. We compared this to the subject of faith in God time and again.
