والثالث: أن يقال: إن الفائدة بالامامة هي كونه مبعدا من القبيح على قولكم، وذلك لا يحصل مع وجوده غائبا فلم ينفصل وجوده من عدمه، وإذا لم يختص وجوده غائبا بوجه الوجوب الذي ذكروه لم يقتض دليلكم وجوب وجوده مع الغيبة، فدليلكم مع أنه منتقض حيث وجد مع انبساط اليد، ولم يجب انبساط اليد مع الغيبة، فهو غير متعلق بوجود إمام غير منبسط اليد ولا هو حاصل في هذه الحال.
Third objection: It is to say that according to you, the benefit of Imamate is that it leads people away from wrong. However, this cannot be achieved with him being in hiding and therefore, his existence and non-existence have no difference. As his hidden existence does not correspond to his necessary existence you have argued for, your argument does not lead to the necessity of his existence during occultation. Therefore, though your argument indicates your point when he exists in the condition of administering the society, it does not prove an Imam, who is not running the affairs of the society, and in occultation the control of Imam on the society is also not proved.
