Why are the Imāms (as) not named in the Qurʾān?

This is a question that is often asked, with the assumption that had the Imāms (as) been named, it would have prevented disagreement, let alone violence amongst Muslims for centuries. Rather, since for Shīʿas Imāmate is a key aspect of correct faith, why has the Qurʾān not made it crystal clear who the Imāms (as) were by naming them?

Recently, I came across a short work authored by Shaykh Ahmad al-Māḥūzī called al-Bayān al-qawīm li-wajh ʿadam dhikr asmāʾ Ahl al-Bayt (as) ṣarāḥah fī al-Qurʾān al-karīm in which he attempts to answer this very question with the following arguments which I will summarise below:

1) Imāmate is generally explained in the Qurʾān. Verses like 4:59 where the Muslims are told to unequivocally obey the ulū al-amr from amongst themselves in the same way as they obey the Prophet (saw). Complete obedience in itself shows that the ulū al-amr must be infallible as otherwise we would be ordered to follow misguidance. This complete obedience is different from the clear stipulation not to obey parents if they associate anything with Allah.

Or verse 5:55 which is perhaps even more emphatic, as those mentioned in this verse are the only ones that command obedience. Or the verse speaking about a khilāfah on the earth (2:30), as while all humans may have the potential to be vicegerents they do not all reach that potential. The referent of who the vicegerent is in each time is not mentioned, even though we know that there is one chosen by Allah. There are also reports specifically interpreting referents like the traditions concerning verse 7 of sūrah al-Raʿd where Allah says:

“…You are only a warner, and for every people is a guide.”

Traditions which are authentic both for both sects specify that the guide was Imām ʿAli (as).

2) The question itself stems from a misunderstanding of the Qurʾān’s method in explaining theological and jurisprudential issues. The Qurʾān addresses issues in a general sense and then the Muslims need to refer to the Prophet (saw) for the particulars.

This is not only the case for jurisprudential issues such as salāt, zakāt, ḥajj and fasting all of the boundaries of which are explained by the Prophet (saw), but also for theological issues, such as predestination and free will, the relation of the Attributes to the Essence and so on.

None of these issues are explained clearly in the Qurʾān in such a way that the Muslims did not differ on them and a whole plethora of other issues.

This is due to a wisdom in the style of Qurʾānic revelation such that it is not independent of an interpreter.

So there is a difference between the universal understanding of concepts which the Qurʾān addresses and the particulars of the referents, boundaries and conditions which are the responsibility of the Prophet (saw) to make clear.

The position that the Qurʾān explains all itself and is sufficient without the explanation of the prophet (saw) is therefore untenable, and indeed not held by its proponents who still need the Prophet’s explanation for daily practices such as the number of rakʿāts for each prayer. To stipulate that such issues should be clear in the Qurʾān is a misunderstanding of the very method of the Qurʾān.

3) This question is not new. Indeed, we have a report where the question is asked to Imām al-Ṣādiq (as) in relation to verse 4:59, where the Imām makes clear the point above as well as provides instances where the Prophet (saw) clarified the positions of Imām ʿAlī, Imām al-Ḥasan and Imām al-Ḥusayn (as) such as the event of the cloak.

4) Rather, the Qurʾān itself clarifies its method in referring to the Prophet (saw) for its explanation. See verses 16:44 and 16:64. The clarification is the duty of the Infallible (as) in each time. This clearly brings into focus the purport of the ḥadīth of thaqalayn which is a mutawātir ḥadīth.

5) So this question therefore has minimalised the role of an Infallible (as) in interpreting the Qurʾān and has underestimated the depth of the Qurʾān and what it really takes to understand its interpretation on all possible levels of the outward and the inward. Rather, not relying on an Infallible (as) will lead to undesirable consequences.

6) The Infallible (as) is entrusted with the interpretation so that no other person need be referred to. In this way, the opinions of the hypocrites or others with negative intent do not find prominence and the Qurʾān cannot be used as a political tool as people’s intentions cannot be judged by their outward appearances. Rather, obedience to the Prophet (saw) is of prime importance (see 4:65)

7) The Qurʾānic strategy protected it from being altered in any way or for people with the same names to claim to be the referent of the names in the verses. At the same time, it protected the Infallibles (as) from those who would seek to harm them for worldly gain. There was clear enmity, oppression and dissatisfaction shown towards Imām ʿAlī (as) despite his excellence which was made abundantly clear by the Prophet (saw). Protecting the Qurʾān from being altered is not in a miraculous way, but through divine Wisdom.

8. Finally, even the utmost clarity may not prevent disagreement, as was the experience of previous revelations (see 26:14)

May Allah make us all successful in following the path of truth