Their analogy—comparing knowledge of him to knowledge of Allah in the matter of providential assistance and claiming that assistance through him is obtained only by one who knows him—is invalid. For knowing that Allah exists, is living and omnipotent, commands obedience and rewards it, and forbids disobedience and punishes it, is among the greatest causes of hope in Him and fear of Him. This knowledge therefore inspires hope for His reward by carrying out what He commands and refraining from what He prohibits, as well as fear of His punishment in the event of disobedience, because the servant knows that He is all-knowing and omnipotent, and that His established way is to reward the obedient and punish the disobedient.

As for someone whom people know that he (1) has been missing for more than four hundred years, that he has never punished anyone or rewarded anyone, but instead fears for his own life if he appears—let alone commands or forbids—how could knowledge of him (2) motivate anyone to do what he has commanded and refrain from what he has forbidden (3)? Rather, knowledge of his impotence and fear emboldens people to commit reprehensible acts, especially as one period follows another over so long a span, while he has neither punished nor rewarded anyone.

Indeed, even supposing that he appeared once [every](4) hundred years and administered punishment, the providential assistance thereby secured would not equal that secured through a single ruler. Even if it were said, “He appears every ten years”—or even if he appeared once a year—his benefit would [not] be(5) comparable to that of rulers who are present among the people at all times. Rather, these rulers—despite