The commentary of the word of Allah, the High:

إِخْوَانًا عَلَى سُرُرٍ مُْتَقَابِلِينَ

“…(they shall be) as brethren, on raised couches, face to face.[1]”

The author of Ghaayah al-Maraam records on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Ahmed Ibn Hanbal through his chain that terminates Zaid Ibn Abi Aufaa, who recounts, “I went to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) in his mosque and he mentioned the incident of brotherhood of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) amongst his companions. ‘….Then Ali (a.s.) said to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), ‘Indeed, my soul departed and my back broke when I saw you do with your companions but left me out. If it’s because you’re angry (with me), then you have the right of satisfaction and honour.’ To this, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) responded, ‘I swear by the One Who raised me as a Prophet with truth! I did not leave you out except for myself because you are unto me as Haroon (a.s.) was to Moosa (a.s.) except that there is no prophet after me. You are my brother and my heir.’ Ali (a.s.) asked, ‘And what will I inherit from you, O Messenger of Allah?’ He (s.a.w.a.) replied, ‘Whatever the Prophets before me inherited.’ He (a.s.) asked, ‘And what did the Prophets before you inherit?’ The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) responded, ‘The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of their Prophet. You will be with me in my palace in Paradise with my daughter Fatemah. You are my brother and my friend.’ Thereafter, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) recited, “… (they shall be) as brethren, on raised couches, face to face”, those who love each other for the sake of Allah will see each other.[2]

I say: The aforementioned tradition includes three excellences and virtues for our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) viz. position, brotherhood and inheritance.

As for the first two (i.e. position and brotherhood), traditions from both the sects are consecutive. In Ghaayah al-Maraam[3], the author has mentioned traditions explaining the first two excellences from Sunni sources that exceed a hundred sources. As for the third (i.e. inheritance), again traditions from both the sects are aplenty. Nay, even these reach to the level of consecutiveness[4].

Briefly, there is no doubt about the three excellences included in this tradition. There is no harm in mentioning two traditions, each one of these two being narrated on the authority of the second caliph and Moaviyah.

A) As mentioned in Ghaayah al-Maraam:

Tradition Thirty-Five: Ibn al-Maghaazeli al-Shaafe’i chronicles that Abu al-Qaasem Abd al-Waahed Ibn Ali Ibn al-Abbas al-Bazzaaz informed us directly through Ismaaeel Ibn Abi Khaaled from Qais that a person posed a query to Moaviyah. He replied, ‘Seek its answer from Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) because he is the most knowledgeable.’ That man insisted, ‘O Ameerul Momineen (here referring to Moaviyah)! Your view concerning this question is dearer to me than the view of Ali.’ On hearing this, Moaviyah retorted sharply, “How wrong have you said and what evil have you brought! Indeed, you dislike a man whom the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) has honoured with knowledge. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) told him, ‘You are unto me as Haroon was to Moosa except that there is no prophet after me.’ Verily, Umar Ibn Khattaab used to ask him and learn from him. I saw Umar that whenever he was in doubt about a thing, he asked, ‘Where is Ali?’ May Allah not make your legs firm!” And (Moaviyah) erased his name from the register.’[5]

A virtue is that which the enemy witnesses of its excellence

And excellence is that which the opponents testify

He has also narrated it from the Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.[6]

B) Again, it is mentioned in Ghaayah al-Maraam:

Tradition Ninety-Two: Ali Ibn Ahmad al-Maaleki, a celebrated Sunni scholar, has recorded in his book, ‘al-Fosul al-Mohimmah’ narrating from the book of al-Khasaaes from al-Abbas Ibn Abd al-Muttalib, who said, “I heard Umar Ibn Khattaab say, ‘Don’t speak anything about Ali Ibn Abi Taalib except good. For surely, I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) speak three qualities of Ali and I wish that if I had even one of them, it would be better for me than all the things of the world. The tradition goes like this: Abu Bakr, Abu Obaidah al-Jarraah and I along with another companion of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) were present when he (s.a.w.a.) patted the shoulder of Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) and said, ‘O Ali! You are the first amongst the Muslims to accept Islam; you are the first amongst the believers to bring faith; you are unto me as Haroon was to Moosa; whoever thinks that he loves but hates you has lied; O Ali! Whoever has loved you has indeed loved me and whoever has loved me has loved Allah — the High — and He will cause him to enter Paradise. And whoever hates you has hated me and whoever has hated me has hated Allah — the High — and He will throw him in Hell.”[7]

He has also narrated it from Muwaffaq Ibn Ahmad through another chain of narrators terminating at Ibn Abbas from Umar Ibn Khattaab but he has dropped the part, ‘…whoever thinks…has lied — till the end of the tradition.’[8]

Then, know that the inheritance of the Book and the Sunnah implies the knowledge of both of them because the Prophets (a.s.) did leave behind dirhams and dinars (in inheritance). They only left behind knowledge and whoever has taken from it has indeed acquired a major fortune[9]. There is no scope for probability of other than knowledge in the inheritance of the Book and the Sunnah.

Whatever has been narrated from the Sunni sources that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said, “We Prophets (a.s.) don’t leave anything in inheritance and whatever we have left is charity!” is a fabrication from the aspect of the tradition’s distortion. The last part of the tradition has been done away with and replaced with ‘whatever we have left is charity!’

Amazing! How was the tradition concealed from the heir of the Book and the Sunnah while being known to others!!

If it’s clear for you whatever we have explained then know that each one of the three aforementioned excellences proves the distinction of Imamate and caliphate for our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and the non-eligibility of anyone other than him (a.s.) from the Ummah in his (a.s.) presence.

As for the Position: His (s.a.w.a.) saying, “You are unto me as Haroon (a.s.) was unto Moosa (a.s.) except that there is no prophet after me”[10] establishes the presence of all the positions that Haroon (a.s.) enjoyed vis-à-vis Moosa (a.s.) in our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) vis-à-vis the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) except Prophethood, which he (s.a.w.a.) has excepted. From among the positions of Haroon (a.s.) vis-à-vis Moosa (a.s.), rather the most manifest and marked of these, was his being the caliph and vizier of Moosa (a.s.) as Allah — the High — has narrated in His Majestic Book[11].

Objection: That the Haith-e-Manzelah is a proof for caliphate is acceptable but to claim that it is particular to Ali (a.s.) and those who preceded him (a.s.) were not eligible for this position is debatable.


A)    From among the positions of Haroon (a.s.) vis-à-vis Moosa (a.s.) is the immediate caliphate (without any gap). Thus, it proves that the same applied for Ali (a.s.) and those who preceded him (a.s.) were not eligible for this esteemed position.

B)     This noble tradition proves the appointment by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) of our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) just as Moosa (a.s.) appointed Haroon (a.s.). Thus, his (a.s.) caliphate is proved through documents and no other document (i.e. saying of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)) has refuted it, lest it be permitted to turn away from this tradition and refer to the contradicting tradition. There is no document from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the caliphate of the first three caliphs. The caliphate of the first caliph was established through allegiance, the second caliph’s through appointment by the first caliph and that of the third caliph through the Council formed by the second caliph. Allegiance by no means overrules divine document and appointment. Allah the Almighty makes it absolutely clear when He says,

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلاَ مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ† يَعْصِ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَْ ضَلاَلًا مُْبِينًا

“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.[12]”

How could they choose a caliph after the clear document and appointment by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of his successor?!! Moreover, caliphate was not among their affairs and states. Rather, it was among those affairs for which people have to refer to Allah — the High — and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.). When they did not have a choice in their own affairs — after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) decree — how can they have the right to exercise authority in the affair of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) after he (s.a.w.a.) has clearly decreed about it?

As for the his Brotherhood for the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), then it proves that he (a.s.) is the closest of people in honour and position to him (s.a.w.a.). When he (a.s.) enjoys such a position, how it is permissible for anyone other than him (a.s.) to precede him (a.s.) in the caliphate of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)?

Explanation: Brotherhood in religion is established between all the brothers through the verse of the Holy Quran

إِنَْمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ

“The believers are but brethren…[13]”

As for the covenant of brotherhood, which the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) made between pairs of his (s.a.w.a.) companions – as we have already mentioned – it was between them for religion and belief, as is apparent. But his (s.a.w.a.) taking Ali (a.s.) as his brother exclusively proves that he (a.s.) was the closest to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in religion, belief in Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.), the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and acting upon both of them.

Enjoying such a position, he (a.s.) deserved caliphate and to complete of what Allah — the High — sent for him (a.s.) concerning the guidance of the servants and the conveyance of His laws. Thus, nobody had the right to precede him (a.s.).

It is for you to judge that can a distant relation claim to be the heir and successor of a person in the presence of extremely close relative? No, never! This is a natural judgement; whoever violates it has in reality violated his nature and the basic principle of intellect.

As for him (a.s.) being the Heir of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), then its proof upon the caliphate and Imamate being particular to him (a.s.) is clearest and most evident.

Explanation: Inheritance implies the heir taking the place of his predecessor in whatever the latter has left behind. From the aspect of his (s.a.w.a.) Prophethood and Messengership, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) left behind the Book and Sunnah and not any worldly wealth. And this is the meaning of ‘We Prophets don’t leave behind any dirham or dinar; we only leave behind knowledge and Imamate.’[14]

His (s.a.w.a.) successorship implies the caliph and Imam assuming his (s.a.w.a.) position that were related to his (s.a.w.a.) Prophethood and Messengership and not in his (s.a.w.a.) leaving behind the wealth, as is obvious. Therefore, his (a.s.) obedience becomes obligatory on the Ummah just as the obedience of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was compulsory.

After his (s.a.w.a.) saying, “You are my brother and my heir”[15], the explanation that this inheritance is not that of wealth, rather, it was the inheritance of the affairs of his (s.a.w.a.) Prophethood and Messengership, is his (s.a.w.a.) saying “what the Prophets (a.s.) before me left behind in inheritance” and the additional declaration that “the Prophets (a.s.) left behind only the Book and the Sunnah” does not leave any scope for caliphate to go to anybody except Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). For, there is no reality for caliphate and Imamate except this inheritance that has been established for our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and he (s.a.w.a.) has made it exclusively for him (a.s.). Thus, to appoint a caliph other than him (a.s.) is in clear violation of his (s.a.w.a.) saying, “You are my brother and my heir” and is tantamount to appointing a stranger as an heir and depriving the rightful heir of his rights and inheritance.

Objection: Imamate being a caliphate of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) from the aspect of his (s.a.w.a.) Prophethood is a known thing and hence, obedience of an Imam is obligatory on the Ummah just as the obedience of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is compulsory for them. But the affairs of Prophethood are aplenty, of which some are as follows: Knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, obligatory obedience, infallibility and purity, descent of revelation, and so on and so forth. Admittedly, the noble tradition under discussion proves the first affair (i.e. knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah) for our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). But what is the impediment in allowing someone else to take over the other affair, like obligatory obedience?

Answer: Compulsory obedience is an inevitable consequence of the first affair (i.e. knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah) because obligatory obedience is highly impermissible for an ignoramus even for his own self. For, due to his lack of guidance, he will throw himself in a state of confusion, perplexity and deviation.

But even more should one guard against giving preference to his obedience to that of a knowledgeable person. As Allah the Almighty questions,

أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِْ أَحَقُْ أَن يُتَْبَعَ أَمَْن لاَْ يَهِدِْيَ إِلاَْ أَن يُهْدَى فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

“Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?”[16]

But the worst thing to do is to make the obedience of the ignoramus obligatory instead of the knowledgeable person and the order to make the allegiance of an ignoramus compulsory and binding.

Therefore, from the tradition, we understand that:

The best thing that the best inheritance of the Prophets (a.s.) is the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah from the aspect that their inheritance is confined only to this (i.e. knowledge) and this only is the fact. For, the aims of sending the Prophets (a.s.) are to direct the people, to guide them to the right path, to bring them out from the darkness of confusion and deviation to the light of knowledge and certainty and to perfect them in knowledge and action. These objectives cannot be achieved except through complete knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, all the affairs are subsequent to this knowledge and the presence of a follower in the absence of his leader is unwise and imprudent.

Amazingly, those who grabbed the reins of caliphate did not repay his (s.a.w.a.) debts nor did they fulfil his (s.a.w.a.) promises. They left the responsibilities of repayment of debts and fulfilment of promises for our master Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) to take care of. He (a.s.) did execute these two tasks (may my soul be sacrificed for him (a.s.))! Thus, they only grabbed the bounties of inheritance and left its damages!!

[1] Surah Hijr (15): Verse 47

[2] Ghaayah al-Maraam, p. 399

[3] Ghaayah al-Maraam, pp. 109-126 and 478-491

[4] Ghaayah al-Maraam, pp. 612-615

[5] Ghaayah al-Maraam, p. 112; Manaaqeb of Ibn Maghaazeli, p. 34

[6] Ghaayah al-Maraam, p. 114 narrating from Musnad of Ahmad.

[7] Ghaayah al-Maraam, p. 124 narrating from al-Fosool al-Mohimmah, p. 126

[8] Ghaayah al-Maraam, p. 114 narrating from Manaaqeb of al-Khaarazmi

[9] Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, p. 32

[10] Note: There is no harm in mentioning the doubts of Qooshaji at this juncture and the explanation of his defence, as a completion of whatever we have explained. Under the statement of the great research scholar Khaaja Naseer Toosi (a.r.) that “the Hadith-e-Manzelah is consecutive”, he explains, “The noun ‘manzelah’ is generic noun, with knowledge added to it as it has been made definite through the alphabet لام  with the proof of the validity of the exception. When the position of Prophethood has been excepted, all other positions should be found in him (a.s.), from which is the position of Caliphate, the authority in managing his affairs, the power to work for public welfare, the chief whose obedience is compulsory — even if he lives after him. For, the loss of this elevated position established during the lifetime of Moosa (a.s.) does not befit the position of Prophethood simply on account of his death. Once the position of Prophethood has been negated, there is no way to continue this position except through Imamate.

I (Qooshaji) reply that this tradition (i.e. Hadith-e-Manzelah) is not consecutive. It is narration from a single source (خبر واحد) and contrary to the consensus of the Muslims.

Denying the generality of the positions, he is of the view that the attribution of the singular nouns towards knowledge is not for generality but for absoluteness. In fact, mostly, the presence of a definite article does not indicate the presence of plurality like ‘the slave of Zaid’. The aforementioned exception does not except some of the units of the position with another position, like your saying, ‘except Prophethood’; in fact, the exception is not from the category of the excepted one. Thus, it does not prove generality. When the aforementioned generality is absent, the relationship and brotherhood between Moosa (a.s.) and Haroon (a.s.), how can it be proved for Ali (a.s.) but that it is said that this is the position of exception while its not being so is quite apparent.

Even if we accept the aforementioned generality in the tradition, we don’t find amongst the positions of Haroon (a.s.) caliphate and the authority gained through representation and Imamate because Haroon (a.s.) is a partner to Moosa (a.s.) in Prophethood. When Moosa (a.s.) said, ‘make him my successor’ it did not imply the appointment to the position of Caliphate; rather, it implied exaggeration and an emphasis to look after the affairs of the society. And even if we accept the above, there is no proof that these rights continued to be vested with him even after his death and the negation of authority is not on account of the person seeking appointment to caliphate. In fact, more strength and perfection is created in it because through Prophethood, a Caliph gains independence and he is appointed to convey the message from Allah’s side. Hence, had Haroon (a.s.) survived Moosa (a.s.), he would have acquired all these rights on account of Prophethood and because the Prophethood of Ali (a.s.) has been negated in the tradition, all those rights that depended on Prophethood, he (a.s.) will be automatically deprived of them.

From all these discussions, it becomes clear that there is no proof for the refutation of the caliphate of the three caliphs who preceded Ali (a.s.).”

I say:  Anybody who is aware of the Tradition of Manzelat, has no other option but to acknowledge its consecutiveness. Whoever denies it is either a liar or is ignorant of the abundance of the narrators. Similarly, a person who is informed about the event of Saqifah Bani Saaedah, whatever transpired between the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) over there and the mode of extracting allegiance, he will realize that there was no consensus amongst the Muslims on the caliphate of Abu Bakr that would clash with clear divine evidence. And even if this consensus was correct, it would have been valid only in the absence of clear divine evidence. But when clear divine evidence is present, such consensus is completely inconsequential and meaningless, forget about it being contradictory to the clear divine evidence and then being preferred to the latter.

After making Prophethood an exception in the position, which clearly denotes generality, yet if somebody denies this generality and regards it as a specified covenant, is nothing but absurdity. But even if we assume it just for the sake of argument, yet between Moosa (a.s.) and Haroon (a.s.), the covenant is naught but the positions of Caliphate and Ministership.

Qooshji’s view that since the exception is not from the category of the excepted one which does not denote generality is sheer conjecture. For, firstly, the exception is from the same category as that of the excepted one, not from a different category. Secondly, surely there is never total detachment in the exception and hence, the exception is from the same category, which establishes the generality of the exception, even if the subject does not possess generality. The non-generality of the subject does not affect the generality of the judgment, as has been clearly proved by the scholars of principles of jurisprudence. Possibly, someone may opine that over here, the subject gives generality to the exception as a necessity like the exception of the slaves and the animals from the people. For example, it is said to us, ‘A people came except their slaves and their animals’. The exception will be correct only if habitually, the people come along with their slaves and animals. But, if they don’t do it on a regular basis, then there is no scope for exception.

Qooshji’s opinion that vis-à-vis genealogy the lack of proof for brotherhood is also contradictory to generality is also evidently null and void. For, the generality of position is applicable in all possible aspects and one of these positions ‘genealogical brotherhood’, a fact on which the scholars of both the sects are unanimous.

Even if accept all the aforementioned assumptions, yet to refute the position of Caliphate amongst all the positions of Haroon (a.s.) is the strangest of all claims because the partnership of Haroon (a.s.) with Moosa (a.s.) is in general Prophethood and not in the special Prophethood which includes being the bringer of a divine testament and law and the one who has abrogated the Shariat and law of the previous Prophet and presented a new religion for his people. Moosa (a.s.) is amongst the five great Prophets (a.s.) while Haroon (a.s.) was just another Prophet, like all other Prophets of Bani Israeel (a.s.) who came between Moosa (a.s.) and Eesa (a.s.), and was merely a follower of Moosa (a.s.) and his Shariat. Therefore, there is no contradiction in his Prophethood and his being the successor of Moosa (a.s.) — which is an extension and peculiarity of Imamate.  The statement of Moosa (a.s.) ‘succeed me in my people’ is proof enough that if Haroon (a.s.) was a partner of Moosa (a.s.) in his Shariat and religion too, Moosa (a.s.) would have said, ‘succeed me in my people and your people’.

Qooshji’s view that even if we accept everything, nevertheless, after the death of Moosa (a.s.), there is no evidence for the subsistence of authority, is clearly null and void.

To prove our point and to uproot the doubt requires a few premises that form the gist of the doubt and then repel them:

a)        We assume caliphate to be like representation which essentially does not subsist. That is, just as representation becomes null and void after the death of the represented, similarly, after the death of the one who is succeeded, caliphate becomes null and void.

b)       We assume that after the death of Moosa (a.s.), there is contradiction in the independent Prophethood and Caliphate of Haroon (a.s.) because after the presence of the original mastership, the establishment of consequential mastership is irrational.

c)        After the death of Moosa (a.s.), Imamate itself is Caliphate and it is not permissible that in the life of the succeeded one, Caliphate becomes Imamate. Otherwise, again in one era, two Imams will be present whose obedience is obligatory. Therefore, this Caliphate is from the category of representation, not Imamate, and therefore, after the death of the succeeded one, it does not subsist, as suggested by some.

d)       Haroon’s (a.s.) Caliphate of Moosa was not absolute, which would survive even after his death. Rather, it was only dependent and conditional to the occultation of Moosa (a.s.). Hence, it should not be regarded as absolute caliphate that continues to subsist even after one’s death.

e)        Even if we assume the Caliphate to be absolute, yet none believes in it after the death of Moosa (a.s.) till there is not enough support for it.

Now, let us proceed to reply the aforementioned premises.

a)        Undoubtedly, with the death of the represented one, representation becomes null and void. This is on account of the authority to use the wealth because after the death of the represented one, wealth is transferred to the heirs. Therefore, there is no point in continuing with this position and responsibility. For, the reality of representation lies in the authority and permission to use the wealth. But Prophethood is not transferred to a non-Prophet with the death of a Prophet for it to be contradictory to Caliphate because if after the death of a Prophet, we consider Caliphate as irrelevant non-promulgative, then despite the explanation of survival from the side of the Prophet and his assistance, the position of Caliphate will become unreliable, the nullity of which is obvious. Hence, the first objection is replied.

b)       The second doubt is repelled by our previous statement that the Prophethood of Haroon (a.s.) and Moosa (a.s.) was not against each other that after the death of the latter, the former would gain independence and then, there would be no scope for Caliphate. The view that after the death of the predecessor, Caliphate comes to an end is  not based on removal and shortcoming; rather, it is rooted in that perfection which is gained by him through the independence of Prophethood. For, Prophethood demands independence like the Prophethood of Moosa (a.s.) which also included Imamate. Therefore, had Haroon (a.s.) survived Moosa (a.s.), the power of the former would have been due to his Caliphate and not on account of his own Prophethood.

c)        There is no vice, either legally or intellectually, in the fact that the bearer of the position of Imamate has an independent authority in the absence or occultation of the actual Imam. Thus, to think that Imamate itself is Caliphate after the death of the predecessor is absurd and baseless.

d)       The saying of Allah — the High — “Succeed me in my people” (Surah al-A’raaf (7): Verse 142) bears absoluteness, which does not have the restriction of the period of occultation and to go for a journey, the intention of absolute caliphate does not limit it or make it conditional for journey or occultation, until and unless, it is not restricted by the statement ‘till I am in occultation’. Thus, the Caliphate of Haroon (a.s.) would have subsisted even after Moosa (a.s.) had he remained alive. The idea that Caliphate implies the power to exercise authority by one person instead of another or to perform those tasks that the represented one is unable to perform, is void. For, the word ‘Caliph’ holds true for a deputy while the represented one has essentially the power over his affairs. Moreover, even if the represented one is unable to exercise his powers, to say that the Caliph cannot perform the tasks only in the absence of the represented one is wrong because Caliphate has been actualized for any of the two affairs: either the absence of the represented one or his death. And this is absolutely clear that on account of occultation, the represented one cannot carry out his tasks and the same holds true for his death. So, how far is it true to keep it conditional and restricted with either of the two?

e)        The nullity and falsity of this premise is very clear because by absoluteness, even after death, the issue of Caliphate survives. Its proof is that the necessity is present and the hindrances are absent. After this, there is no need to bring any further assistance.

Qooshji’s claim that through all these arguments it becomes clear that there is no refutation for the Imamate of the three caliphs is dispelled with our aforementioned discussions in the text.

[11] Surah A’raaf (7): Verse 142 and Surah Taha (20): Verse 21

[12] Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 36

[13] Surah Hujuraat (49): Verse 10

[14] Refer Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, p. 32

[15] Ghaayah al-Maraam, pp. 612-614

[16] Surah Yunus (10): Verse 35