فإن قيل كيف تعولون على هذه الأخبار وتدعون العلم بموته والواقفة تروي أخبارا كثيرة تتضمن أنه لم يمت وأنه القائم المشار إليه موجودة في كتبهم وكتب أصحابكم فكيف تجمعون بينها وكيف تدعون العلم بموته مع ذلك. قلنا: لم نذكر هذه الأخبار إلا على جهة الاستظهار والتبرع لا لأنا احتجنا إليها في العلم بموته لأن العلم بموته حاصل لا يشك فيه كالعلم بموت آبائه عليه السلام والمشكك في موته كالمشكك في موتهم وموت كل من علمنا بموته. وإنما استظهرنا بإيراد هذه الأخبار تأكيدا لهذا العلم كما نروي أخبارا كثيرة فيما نعلم بالعقل والشرع وظاهر القرآن والإجماع وغير ذلك فنذكر في ذلك أخبارا على وجه التأكيد. فأما ما ترويه الواقفة فكلها أخبار آحاد لا يعضدها حجة ولا يمكن ادعاء العلم بصحتها ومع هذا فالرواة لها مطعون عليهم لا يوثق بقولهم ورواياتهم وبعد هذا كله فهي متأولة. ونحن نذكر جملا مما رووه ونبين القول فيها فمن ذلك أخبار ذكرها أبو محمد علي بن أحمد العلوي الموسوي في كتابه في نصرة الواقفة.
If it is said: On what criterion have you justified these reports and claim that Imam Kadhim  is dead, whereas the Waqifiya have also narrated a large number of reports, which mention his being alive and that His Eminence is the Qaim is hinted at. These traditional reports are present in their books and even in books of your scholars. So, how can you reconcile these two types of traditional reports? And with attention to these traditional reports, how can you claim that he is dead? We would reply: We mentioned these traditional reports by way of information and announcement and not to prove his death from them. It is so, because there exists knowledge of his martyrdom (it is a definite matter) and there is no doubt in it. Like the knowledge of martyrdom of his respected ancestors and one who has doubt in the martyrdom of Imam Musa Kadhim , he can also doubt the martyrdom of his respected ancestors and it is possible to doubt the death of anyone whose information of death we have. We have mentioned these traditional reports only to emphasize the information, because a large number of reports create this knowledge for us through evidence, Shariah, apparent aspect of Quran, consensus and other reasonings. Thus, I mentioned them in this chapter only for emphasis. As for that, which the Waqifiya have narrated: (Firstly) All of them are solitary reports and no evidence and reasoning strengthens them; and it is impossible to claim that they are authentic. (Secondly) In addition, their narrators have also been targets of ridicule and they were unreliable and it is not possible to trust their statements and reports. (Thirdly) With all these explanations all their reports can be interpreted and justified in other ways. We will quote some of them from Fee Nusratul Waqifa of Abu Muhammad Ali Ahmad Alawi Musawi and explain his discussions.