Philosophie et sagesse de l'occultation

If it is said: On the basis of his occultation, we question your belief in his Imamate. We say: If you cannot describe the wisdom of his disappearance, it indicates invalidity of your belief in his Imamate, because if it were valid, you should be able to describe the wisdom of his occultation.

We would reply: If it is fair to infer this conclusion from our position, the atheist view must proceed from the position of all the followers of justice that Divine acts, which are seemingly devoid of aspect of wisdom, lead to the conclusion that their doer is not wise, because the atheist says, “If He were wise, you would have been able to explain the aspect of wisdom in His actions.” Otherwise, what is the difference between our assertion and the assertion of followers of justice?

If you say: “We first inquire into Divine wisdom and once it is proved through independent proofs, we interpret the acts that are hard to explain on the basis of His wisdom, which has already been proved. Therefore, it does not lead to any contradiction of what we already know. And if the atheists do not accept His wisdom, the discussion will transfer to proving Divine wisdom that has already been proved through independent arguments.”

We will say the same here that his occultation is secondary to his Imamate. Knowing his Imamate through independent proofs and realizing his infallibility through other sets of proofs, we interpret his occultation and disappearance on grounds compatible to his infallibility. Therefore, there is no difference between the two areas.

Then the opponent of occultation is asked, “Is it possible that the occultation may have a valid reason that has caused it and a wise explanation that has prompted it or it is not possible?” If he should say, “It is possible,” he will be told, “Then why does occultation lead you to conclude the non-existence of the Imam in this time despite considering it possible that it may have a reason not incompatible with the existence of Imam? Is it not like the argument of a person, who negates the wisdom of the Creator on the basis of pains and diseases of children, notwithstanding his acknowledgement that their pains and diseases may have a valid explanation that does not violate divine wisdom? Or the argument of a person who argues on the basis of the superficialities of ‘ambiguous verses’ that the Almighty is similar to physical bodies and creates the actions of people, despite his profession that these verses may have valid interpretations that do not violate the principles of wisdom, Divine justice, monotheism and negation of His physicality.”

If he should say, “I don’t consider this possible.” He will be told, “This is utter obstinacy in a subject, which your knowledge does not encompass, and you cannot be certain in a question as such. How do you say it is not possible? How is this statement different from the assertion of someone, who says that ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have valid interpretations that conform to reason and they must be interpreted literally?

If it is said: “We are able to explain ‘ambiguous verses’ in detail, and rather, the knowledge of a portion thereof is sufficient for and if more than that is offered, it is merely complimentary.” If you can satisfy yourselves with an assertion such as that, likewise, we are capable of providing reasons for validity of occultation and the wise purpose therein that is not incompatible with his infallibility, which we will mention hereafter and we have elaborated upon it sufficiently in Kitabul Imamah.

They are further asked, “How can the Imamate of Ibn Hasan (a.s) be proved and substantiated by succession of rational principles we established, yet it can be said that occultation cannot have a valid reason? Is it not but a contradiction? Is it not but parallel to professing monotheism and Divine Justice and at the same time averring that ‘ambiguous verses’ cannot have an interpretation that conforms to these principles?”

If they say, “We don’t accept the Imamate of Ibn Hasan,” then our discourse with them is with respect to proving Imamate, not the wisdom of occultation, and the proofs of his Imamate (a.s) have been fully discussed and there is no reason to repeat them. We say this, because the argument of the wisdom of occultation of the Imam is secondary to his Imamate. However, before his Imamate is proved, there is no justification to discuss the reason of his occultation, as there is no justification to interpret ‘ambiguous verses’, pains of children and necessity of following religious duties before believing in One God and His justice.

If it is said: Does the inquisitor not have the choice to inquire about the Imamate of Ibn Hasan, in order to know its validity, or to inquire about the reason of occultation?”

We would reply: There is no such choice, because a person who doubts the Imamate of Ibn Hasan, the discourse with him must be about the explicit narrations of his Imamate and one must provide him proofs of his Imamate. It is not rational to discuss with him the reason of his occultation while he doubts his very Imamate, because the inquiry of the offshoots is not sensible, but after the authentication of fundamentals. We gave preference to inquiry of his Imamate over the inquiry of his occultation and its wisdom, because his Imamate is based on intellectual matters that are beyond skepticism, whereas, the wisdom of occultation may seem obscure and confusing.

Therefore, to discuss the clear and the manifest is worthier than to discuss the perplexing and the complicated. This is parallel to our dialogue with the opponents of religion, where we give preference to the discussion of the prophethood of our Messenger over discussing their claim that their religion has come for eternity. Because the former is clear and manifest and the latter is complex. This criterion is identically present here. If they should argue back that there is a certain evil aspect involved in occultation, this has already been answered that aspects of evil are conceivable, such as that occultation is an act of oppression, lie, vanity, ignorance, or that it leads to mischief. And none of these are involved in the occultation of the Imam. Therefore, it should not be claimed that there is an evil aspect involved in it.

If it is said: Why does not Allah bar the people from reaching the Imam and why does not He protect him in a way so he may establish his rule and our grace is materialized for us? Just as we say about the Prophet when Allah sent him, He protected him until he had delivered the Shariah, it would be necessary that the Imam’s case be the same.

We would reply: Protection is of two kinds. One is not incompatible with conferment of religious duties as it does not compel the subject to forsake the wrong. The other kind of protection leads to such compulsion. And Allah has provided the first protection, as He has protected the Imam from oppression by forbidding it and by encouraging obedience to him and compliance to his orders and prohibitions and that he may not be disobeyed in any of his orders and that he should be helped in all matters that strengthen his rule and power. All such measures are compatible with conferment of obligations. If someone disobeys with this regard and does not take necessary measures for this objective to materialize, he has done that on his own, and it is not the act of his Creator. The other kind of protection is that He literally protects him from his enemies by force and compulsion and by rendering them incapable of oppressing and disobeying him. Therefore, this is not compatible with religious duties, which require free choice in order to have meaning, and thus, religious obligations must be annulled.

As for the Prophet (s), we say that God must protect him so he may deliver religious laws, because it is not possible to discern religious laws, except through him. However, the Imam is not like him, because as far as the delivery of religious laws is concerned, the public does not have any excuse and all rules they need are indicated by their proofs and it is possible for them to learn them without needing Imam’s words. If we suppose that religious duties cannot be known, except through the words of the Imam, then it will be necessary that God Almighty should protect him and manifest him in such a way that no harm can reach him, as in the case of the Messenger (a.s). The like of the case of the Imam is that once a prophet has delivered the message and then his security is threatened, it is not necessary for God to protect him, because the excuse of the public has been removed through his delivery and they have a path to discern the grace imposed upon them. However, it is possible that there might be another message that must be delivered in the future, which may require God to protect him as He protected him in the beginning. Thus we equated the matter between the Prophet and the Imam.

If it is said: Explain it to us anyway - though you are not bound to - the reason for the occultation, in a way that it may be clearer in reasoning and more convincing in demonstration.

We would reply: What one can be certain of to be the reason of the occultation of the Imam is his fear for his life by murder through the threats of the oppressors to him and their disallowance of him to administer the affairs he is responsible to direct and administer. As he fears for his life; it becomes necessary that he goes into occultation and hiding, just like the Messenger (s), who once hid in the mountains and another time in the cave and he had no reason, but the threat of harm against him. It cannot be suggested that the Prophet (s) went into hiding from his people after he had delivered what he was required to deliver and they did not have any need of him anymore – whereas the discourse with respect to the Imam is contrary – and furthermore, the hiding of the Prophet was not prolonged, whereas ages have passed since the beginning of the occultation of the Imam.

This suggestion is foul, because the reality is not as hinted as the Prophet (s) went into hiding in Sheb Abu Talib and in the cave in Mecca before migration, a time when he had not delivered the entirety of religious laws. Most religious rules and a considerable portion of the Quran descended in Medina. So how did you claim that it was after the delivery? If the matter was as hinted that the delivery was complete before the prophetic occultation, the completion of delivery does not fulfill the need of his administration and leadership, his orders and prohibitions, for no one can say that after delivery of religious laws, no one needs the Prophet’s leadership. The opponent does not believe in such a view. This is a reply to a person, who says that the Prophet (s) had delivered all that our welfare depended on, and what he was going to deliver in the future was not expedient to be delivered presently; and therefore, his occultation was reasonable, whereas, the Imam is not like that according to you, as his active leadership in every instant is a grace to creation, therefore, in no circumstance his occultation is warranted and his aid and protection is necessary, so he may appear and the legitimate reason of not following religious laws by the duty-bound (Mukallaf) be removed. This is invalid, because we explained that though the Prophet (s) had delivered all that mankind’s welfare depended on at that time, his leadership, orders and prohibitions were needed without any dispute amongst scholars. However, despite that, it was permissible for him to go into hiding. Likewise is the Imam. Besides, Allah’s order to the Prophet (s) to hide in the mountains at one time and in the cave the other, is a sort of protection, because it is not full protection, in which He would literally defend him against his enemies through making his enemies weak or strengthening him through angels, because it is possible to conceive harm to the religion stemming from strengthening him through such measures. Therefore, it is not right for God to do that. And if it should be devoid of any aspect of wrong, and God knows that expediency requires so, He would strengthen him through angels and defend him against his enemies. And when He does not do that, and it is proved that He is All-Wise and that it is incumbent upon Him to disallow any legitimate excuse on part of the duty-bound(Mukallafin) not to obey the religious laws, we discern that His taking such measures would evoke no benefit, but rather it would be inexpedient. What we say is that in general it is incumbent on Allah to strengthen the hand of the Imam to facilitate his uprising and his administration of society and to perform that through angels and men. However, when He does not do that through angels, we discern it is because it involves inexpediency. Therefore, this must be rendered through men; and should they not perform that, it is something of their own misdoing not that of the Lord’s. Thus, this explication invalidates all criticisms of this sort expressed at this juncture. If it is permissible for the Prophet (s) to undergo hiding, inasmuch as he was needed, due to the fear of harm, and the blame in this regard is on individuals, who threatened him and forced him to go into hiding, likewise is the occultation of the Imam. To make a distinction in this regard in terms of the length and shortness of occultation, is not correct, because there is no difference between short and brief occultation and lengthy and protracted occultation, since when the blame of hiding does not rest on the person who undergoes hiding, bur rather on the ones who have forced him to it, the cause that has prompted the hiding can have a long duration as it can a short one.

If it is said: If it is fear that has forced him to go into hiding, verily his forefathers, according to you, were living under dissimulation (Taqayyah) and fear from their enemies. Why did they not go into hiding also?

We would reply: Fear from their enemies did not threaten his holy forefathers (a.s), as they adhered to dissimulation (Taqayyah) and ostensibly retracted from the claim of Imamate and denied it from themselves, whereas, the Imam of the Age faces every fear, because he is the one to rise with the sword and raise the call for his leadership and fight his adversaries. Where is the similarity between his fear from his enemies and the fear of his forefathers, if there is no scarcity of reflection? Moreover, when anyone of his forefathers (a.s) was murdered or died, there was someone qualified for Imamate from their progeny to replace him and fill his position, whereas the case of the Master of the Age is diametrically opposite to this, since it is well-known that no one is to succeed him and take his position. Therefore, the difference between the two instances is clear.