[1] “That it” is how I have translated « أنّه », which may in this context also be translated as “that he”—referring back to the occulted Divine authority. The point, either way, is that the circumstances of the Imam’s occultation do not refute Allāh’s proofs and clear signs (and the believers are aware of that).

[2] This is how Shaykh al-Mufīd قدس الله سره explains this issue in missive 7 of his al-Fuṣūl al-ʿAshara fī'l-Ghayba (“Ten Missives Concerning the Occultation”), on page 107: إذا غاب الإِمام للخوف على نفسه من القوم الظالمين، فضاعت لذلك الحدود وانهملت به الأحكام ووقع به في الأرض الفساد، فكان السبب لذلك فعل الظالمين دون الله عز آسمه، وكانوا المأخوذين بذلك المطالبين به دونه. فلو أماته الله تعالى وأعدم ذاته، فوقع لذلك الفساد وارتفع بذلك الصلاح، كان سببه فعل الله دون العباد، ولن يجوز من الله تعالى سبب الفساد ولا رفع ما يرفع الصلاح. فوضح بذلك الفرق بين [موت] الإِمام وغيبته واستتاره وثبوته، وسقط ما اعترض المستضعفون فيه من الشبهات، والمنّة لله. When the Imam has occulted because of fear for himself from the oppressive people, and thus the legal penalties have been lost and the rulings neglected, and corruption has spread across the land, the reason for that is the doing of the oppressors and not Allāh, majestic be His Name. They are the ones taken to account to that and held responsible for it, not Him. However, if Allāh تعالى were to cause him to die or annihilate his being entirely, corruption would spread and rectitude would vanish on account of that, and its reason would be Allāh’s doing, and not (that of) people, and it is unallowable for Allāh تعالى to be the cause of corruption, or to not forestall that which prevents (the establishment of) rectitude. Due to that, the difference between the Imam’s death, his occultation, his concealment and the proof of his being is clarified, and the objections that spiritually weak people put forward forsaken. And providence belongs to Allāh.