والثاني: أن الغيبة تنقض طريق وجوب الامامة في كل زمان، لان كون الناس مع رئيس مهيب متصرف أبعد من القبيح لو اقتضى كونه لطفا واجبا في كل حال، وقبح التكليف مع فقده لانتقض بزمان الغيبة، لانا في زمان الغيبة نكون مع رئيس هذه صفته أبعد من القبيح، وهو دليل وجوب هذه الرئاسة، ولم يجب وجود رئيس هذه صفته في زمان الغيبة ولا قبح التكليف مع فقده، فقد وجد الدليل ولا مدلول وهذا نقض الدليل.
Second objection: Occultation violates the reasoning of necessity of Imamate in every age, because, if the fact that the presence of a venerable and awe-inspiring leader in charge of the affairs, who leads people away from evil, makes his presence a necessary grace in every age and imposing of obligations without him wrong. This principle cannot be violated during occultation, since we would be away from evil during it if we were with a leader, who has these qualities. This is the proof of the necessity of such divinely-ordained leadership. However, the existence of a leader as such is not proved during occultation, nor is it proved that it is unjust to have religious obligations when he is not present. Thus it invalidates the proof.