Reason of occultation of the Imam from his followers

reason of his hiding from his devotees is due to his enemies; because the subjects, both devotees and enemies, can benefit from the Imam when his reign prevails and he runs the affairs and he is apparent and is exerting leadership without any encumbrance or challenge, whereas, the enemies have obviously barred and prevented him from this.

They have said that there is no purpose in his clandestine appearance to some of his devotees, because the expected benefit of leading the Ummah cannot be fulfilled, but through his appearance and exertion of leadership for all. Therefore, the reason for the Imam’s hiding in the way in which it is grace and prudent for all is the same.

Imamiyah Shia have not availed any benefit from the demise of Amirul Momineen (a.s) until the days of Hasan Ibn Ali Askari and until the Qaim. It also suggests that the devotees of Amirul Momineen (a.s) and his Shia did not enjoy any benefit from seeing him prior to his assumption of administration and rule. The asserter of these words has reached where no sensible man would. Besides, even if it is accepted that the Imam can only benefit when he is apparent to all of the subjects and his orders are executed over them, their view loses its tenability from another aspect, namely, it follows that the religious rules for the sake of which the Imam is the grace, will lose their imperativeness. Because if the Imam does not appear to them, probably it is not because of them and nor it is in their capacity to remove the cause of his occultation. Therefore, the religious rules must not be binding for them. Because if one nation can prevent the grace of another nation of duty bound, and the duties for which that grace was a grace, remain binding for them, on the same token, it is possible that one duty-bound may prevent another through imprisonment or other similar means, which he cannot remove, and on virtue of which he cannot walk, but the duty of walking shall continue to bind him. They cannot differentiate between such imprisonment and grace, as the former renders the duty impossible and its occurrence is not imaginable, whereas the absence of grace is not like that.

Because most followers of justice believe that absence of grace is like absence of power and means, and that a duty with respect to someone, who is devoid of required grace is like a duty without power and means of accomplishment and presence of encumbrances, and that a person who deserves a grace and does not receive it, has legitimate excuse not to comply with Divine rulings, just as someone who is imprisoned and restricted has a legitimate excuse not to perform a task that cannot be performed while being incarcerated.

The appropriate answer to this question, which we mentioned on behalf of the opponent, is to say that first, we don’t believe in his occultation from all his devotees. Rather, it is possible that he appears to most of them. Everyone can only know his own condition. If the Imam appears to him, his excuse not to comply with religious duties ends; and if he does not appear to him, he discerns that the non-appearance is because of himself – though he may not know specifically why; otherwise, binding him with religious duties would be wrong.

When he knows that he is obliged with religious duties and that his Imam is in occultation from him, he discerns that it is because of himself. This is similar to the view of our scholars that someone who has not contemplated the means of cognition of Allah, the Exalted, and thus, has not reached certitude about Him, he must be certain that this is due to a shortcoming of himself or else religious duties must not be required from him.

Based on this, the strongest reason that can be given is that if the Imam appears and his person is not recognized and identified, it is necessary that he works a miracle to indicate his truthfulness; and it requires reflection to know whether something is a miracle, which can be subject to doubts. Therefore, it is not possible that it be evident from the condition of a person to whom the Imam has not appeared that if he appears to him and shows him a miracle, he may not reflect well and have doubts and believe that he is a liar and spread this information and cause the harm mentioned earlier.

If it is said: What is the fault of the devotee to whom the Imam has not appeared? Because such prediction can be made about him, and how can he reflect on the miracle that will come with the Imam and what can he do to compensate for the cause of occultation?

We will say: The reason for hiding from the devotee is nothing, but the known fact of his shortcoming and his capacity for its recompense, because it is possible that it should be known from the condition of the devotee that when the Imam appears to him, he will not mull over the miracle that will be with the Imam, which will be a misdoing of his own, leading to lack of discrimination between miracles and ordinary events and a proof and a doubt.

If the devotee was in a better position, he would not have failed the miracle of the Imam. Therefore, he must make up for this shortcoming. No one can say that this is a duty beyond his capacity and reliance on an unknown event in the future, because this devotee does not know his specific shortcoming in contemplation and reasoning, so he could make up for it and prepare himself for it; we believe you are binding him to something that does not legitimately bind him. That can be the case with regard to a religious duty that is sometimes clear and sometimes confusing with some other duty; and if the capacity with respect to both duties exists, then when the devotee introspects and sees that the Imam does not appear to him and he does not consider the aforementioned wrong reasons of the occultation valid, he realizes that the reason of the occultation is indebted to himself; and when he realizes that the strongest proof is what we mentioned, he discerns that the shortcoming is his own with respect to the miraculous signs and their conditions. Therefore, he must reflect on it and get rid of doubts and anything causing confusion. Whoever toils in this regard and reflects well, will definitely discover the difference between right and wrong. Man is knowledgeable of himself on occasions as this. It is not possible to do anything beyond, to go to extremes in investigation and research and to find and submit to truth. We mentioned that this case is similar to what we say to our opponents when they see our proofs and do not attain satisfaction.

If it is said: If the case is as you are saying, it would be necessary that he does not know any of the miracles in this condition and this leads to not knowing prophethood and the veracity of the Prophet, which further takes him outside the bounds of not only faith (Iman), but also Islam.

We will say: That does not follow, because it is not impossible to be subject to doubts in certain miracles and not all of them. It is not necessary that if doubts arise with respect to some miracles, they do with respect to all of them. Therefore, it is possible that the miracle indicating Prophethood should not be subject to doubt and thus he attains certitude that it is a miracle and realizes the Prophethood of the Prophet (s) and the miracle that appears on the hands of the Imam be another matter, in which he could have doubts, and thus, he finds doubts in his Imamate, even if he is a believer in Prophethood.

This is as we say. If someone who believes in the prophethood of Musa (a.s) due to his miracles, which prove his Divine mission, does not properly view the miracles shown by Isa (a.s) and our Messenger (s), it is not necessary to believe that he did not view these miracles, because it is possible that he may be aware of them and how they indicate their purpose, though he may not know that these are miracles and their indication of their purpose has been unclear to him.

If it should be said: According to this, everyone to whom the Imam has not appeared should be certain that he is committing a major sin, which is an extension of disbelief (Kufr), because he is guilty, according to what you have presumed him to be, with respect to the occultation of the Imam and his loss of what is beneficial for him; this makes the devotee of the Imam his enemy.

We will say: It is not necessary that the said shortcoming be disbelief (Kufr) or a great sin. He did not believe that the Imam is not his Imam, nor did he threaten his life. He merely failed to understand certain things. Like a cause that this doubt in Imamate will occur from him in future and has not occurred so far. Thus, he is not necessarily a disbeliever, or like a person who considers the Imam a liar or doubts his truthfulness. It is a sin and a mistake that does not negate belief and merits for rewards. The devotee of the Imam does not go into the same category as his enemy in this case, because the enemy holds an opinion about the Imam, which amounts to disbelief and a major sin, and the devotee is opposite to that. We said that what is “like a cause” for disbelief is not necessarily disbelief at this stage, because if one of us believes that he is an independent cause with respect to other objects, it will be ignorance and mistake, but not disbelief (Kufr).

It may be possible to predict about such a person that if a prophet comes to him and shows a miracle and Allah puts an object into his hand, he will not accept that. Definitely, if he knew it were a miracle, he would have accepted it and his belief about the power of the person would be like a cause for this and this is not disbelief (Kufr).

If it is said: This answer too does not conform to your principles, because your denomination believes that someone who has faith in God, His attributes, the Prophet and Imamate, he cannot commit an act of disbelief (Kufr). If this is the case, how do you explain the reason of the hiding of the Imam from the Shia if the Imam appears and manifests miracles, the devotee will doubt in the miracle and will not recognize it and doubts with regard to that is disbelief (Kufr). This is not compatible with the principles of your religion.

We will say: The premise you have mentioned is wrong, because to doubt the miracle that will appear on the hands of the Imam is not inconsistent with belief in the person of the Imam in general. It is inconsistent with the fact that what is generally known and believed in is: he is this specific person or not. And such a doubt is not disbelief (Kufr). If such doubt were disbelief (Kufr), it would be disbelief (Kufr) even if he does not manifest a miracle, because before the miracle is shown, he doubted whether this person was the Imam or someone else. It would be consistent with his belief in the Imamate of the Imam in general, if he doubts his Imamate in general, and that is impossible.

Sayyid Murtadha says: The question of the opponent from us that why the Imam does not appear to his devotees is irrelevant, because if he means that the grace of the devotee does not exist and therefore, his religious duties are not binding, it is not correct. Because his grace exists, since he knows that he has an Imam, who is in occultation and he expects him to rise any hour and rule over the world. Therefore, he must fear that the Imam may appear and punish him and thus, must abstain from wrong acts and perform his obligations. Thus, the occultation for him is as if the Imam is in a nearby land. Many a time, the condition of occultation is more so effective in this regard, because in such a case, the Imam can be with him in his land and in his neighborhood and watching him without his knowledge.