ذكر الأدلة التى ذكرها شيخ الطائفة S على اثبات الغيبة {style="direction...

والطريق الثاني أن نقول: الكلام في غيبة ابن الحسن فرع على ثبوت إمامته والمخالف لنا إما أن يسلم لنا إمامته ويسأل عن سبب غيبته فنكلف جوابه أو (لا) يسلم لنا إمامته فلا معنى لسؤاله عن غيبة من لم يثبت إمامته ومتى نوزعنا في ثبوت إمامته دللنا عليها بأن نقول قد ثبت وجوب الإمامة مع بقاء التكليف على من ليس بمعصوم في جميع الأحوال والأعصار بالأدلة القاهرة. It is likewise proved that one of the conditions of the Imam is to be certain of his infallibility.

On the same token, it is clear that the truth is exclusive to this Ummah. With these premises proven and clear, we find the Ummah divided into a number of beliefs. One congregation says that there is no Imam. The premise averring the necessity of Imam in every age and condition invalidates this assertion.

Another group claims the Imamate of someone whose infallibility is not certain, an assertion invalidated on the grounds of our proofs with regard to the necessity of certainty about the infallibility of the Imam. Observation testifies to the contrary of the contention of others who maintain the infallibility of their professed imams.

Because the actions of these imams are apparent and their conditions violate infallibility, hence no need to take the burden of disproving a belief the contrary of which is so very evident.

Entities for whom infallibility has been claimed and certain congregations have followed them, such as the Kisāniyya who maintain the imamate of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya, the Nāwūsiyya who profess the imamate of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad and that he has not died, and the Wāqifa who believe that Musā Ibn Ja‘far has not died—these beliefs are invalid for the reasons we will shortly state.

Thus, both pathways depend on the invalidation of the beliefs of these denominations in order for our purpose to be established.