This is so very obvious and any man of common sense would...

This is so very obvious and any man of common sense would agree to it­ rendering anyone who disputes it unworthy of conversation. We have fully responded to any imaginable query with this regard in Talkhis Shafi and Sharh Jamal , and will not lengthen the inquiry by mentioning them here.

Objections of an Ahle Sunnat scholar I found one of the recent-day writers criticizing the work of Sayyid Murtadha on the question of occultation, wishfully assuming that he has discovered a line of reasoning and adorning his falsity as righteousness for someone who lacks talent and intellectuality. I would like to discuss his arguments.

He says: The discourse about occultation and criticism thereof consists of three stages: First: We prove to the Imamiyah that occultation involves an evil aspect ( qubh ), or that conferring obligations during occultation involves an evil aspect.

They will be required to prove that occultation does not involve any evil aspect, because if evil is involved, occultation becomes evil, through it may carry a good aspect, just as we say in conferring a duty that is beyond one’s capacity, that it involves an evil aspect, though it may involve a good aspect by being a Lutf (grace) for others. Second: Occultation violates the argument of the necessity of Imamate in every age.

Because, if the fact that the presence of a venerable and awe-inspiring leader in charge of the affairs, who leads the public away from evil, makes his presence a necessary Lutf in every age and conferring of obligations without him wrong, this principle cannot stand violated in the time of occultation, since we would be away from evil in the time of occultation if we were with a leader who has these qualities. This is the proof of the necessity of such Divinely ordained leadership.

However, the existence of a leader as such is not proved in the time of the occultation, nor has been proven that it is unjust to have religious obligations when he is not present. Thus, the proof stands violated. Third is to say that according to you, the benefit of Imamate is that it leads the society away from wrong. However, this cannot be achieved with him being hiding and therefore, his existence and nonexistence 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.