وسبب الغيبة ربما غمض واشتبه فصار الكلام في الواضح الجلي أولى من الكلام في المشتبه الغامض كما فعلناه مع المخالفين للملة فرجحنا الكلام في نبوة نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على الكلام على ادعائهم تأبيد شرعهم لظهور ذلك وغموض هذا وهذا بعينه موجود هاهنا ومتى عادوا إلى أن يقولوا الغيبة فيها وجه من وجوه القبح فقد مضى الكلام عليه على أن وجوه القبح معقولة وهي كونه ظلما أو كذبا أو عبثا أو جهلا أو استفسادا وكل ذلك ليس بحاصل هاهنا فيجب أن لا يدعى فيه وجه القبح.
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.