قلنا: مثل ذلك هاهنا من أن الكلام في غيبته فرع على إمامته، فإذا علمنا إمامته بدليل وعلمنا عصمته بدليل آخر وعلمناه غاب،حملنا غيبته على وجه يطابق عصمته فلا فرق بين الموضعين.
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.