This question presents important issues that require an explanation, since this is one of the most important fallacies that the enemies of the Ahlulbait present.
We would like to draw your attention to important issues in order to clarify the truth:
Firstly: Doubting the Imamate of the Ahlulbait just because it is not mentioned in the Holy Book is in reality doubting the truthfulness of the Messenger of Allah and belittling his position in being an essential source of religious laws and a speaker of the truth and correctness, which in turn raises a big question on the credibility of Islam as a religion and the Holy book as a divine text that “Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or from behind it,†as the Quran states clearly. But rather, the Quran itself presents the Messenger of Allah and his conduct as the truth that is not associated with any falsehood, misguidance and forgetfulness. When Almighty Allah stated that, “Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,†(Quran 53:3-4) and also, “And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it. And whatsoever he forbids, abstain (from it),†(Quran 7:59). And also “But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.â€(Quran 65:4)
Based on this, a Muslim should research about Imamate as well as the position of the Sunnah in its regards, just as he looks for the position of the Sunnah with respect to the religious obligations like the prayers, the fast, pilgrimage and the like, as these essential obligations are not mentioned in the Holy Book with detail, but the Sunnah explained the ways to perform them.
It is sufficient to prove the Imamate by referring to the trusted books of narrations of the Sunnis, like the book of Bukhari and the book of Muslim and all the authenticated books in which they included narrations of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that state in a clear way referring to the leadership of the Ahlulbait after the Prophet, like when he said: “Whosoever’s master I am, Ali is his master.†Also: “Ali is your wali (leader) after me.†And also when he said to Ali (peace be upon him): “You are to me like Aaron was to Moses, but there is no prophet after me,†and the like in innumerable narrations. There are other narrations that relate to the religious authority of the Ahlulbait (peace be upon them) in general, like: “I am leaving among you two weighty things: the Book of Allah and my household; as long as you are attached to them both, you shall never be misguided.â€
Secondly: there are verses of the Holy Quran which, as the narrations indicate, were revealed in respect of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). They are narrated by Muslims. They also indicate in a clear way the Imamate of Imam Ali (peace be upon them) like when Almighty Allah said “Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the alms, and bow down (in prayer).†(Quran 55:5) And even the verse “Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority.†(Quran 59:4) They indicate in a clear way that those in authority whose obedience is necessary are infallibles since – based on the verse – one should obey them as one obeys Almighty Allah and likewise the Messenger of Allah, and nobody fulfills this condition except the Imams of the Ahlulbait, whom Almighty Allah purified them in a thorough purification as per the verse 33:33. Furthermore, Muslims have unanimously agreed on the righteousness of the Imams of the Ahlulbait, their highness, the strength in their faith, the knowledge in the affairs of religion, as this clearly appears to the individual who looks at their history and biography. Could any Muslim accept that Almighty Allah would order Muslims to obey those in authority by applying this title on everyone that assumes power, whether he does this by force or through inheritance, even if he committed crimes like Yazeed bin Moawiyah and similar despots? Are the aforementioned verses not sufficient in proving the imamate of the Ahlulbait from the Quran for the fair-minded searcher for the truth?
Thirdly: what you have mentioned, that if the Holy Quran had named Imam Ali (peace be upon him) clearly as the successor to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) there would be no conflict between Muslims, is not correct. There are a number of verses that clearly describe certain rulings, and, despite that, Muslims did not agree on them; an example of such a case is the verse of ablution in which the way of performing ablution has been clearly explained, and there is no doubt that the verse is clear in its meaning when it was revealed, and the Messenger of Allah used to perform it repeatedly in the presence of Muslims. Despite all this, there was a difference in opinion in understanding it. Another example is the verses of divorce which indicate that if the divorce is pronounced three times in one place and time it is not considered as three divorces by which a man cannot return to the wife, but some Muslim jurists regard this type of divorce as valid and a man cannot return to his wife thereafter, while this is invalid according to the verses of divorce. There are many other such examples in jurisprudential issues, although all Muslims base their conclusions on the Holy Book. Furthermore, if one looks in the biography of the Prophet, he could clearly conclude that some of his companions were not obeying him or even respecting him properly. They used to dare to disobey him and not care about his orders; it is sufficient to mention some incidents from the trusted books of narrations of the Sunnis:
(1) Most of the Muslims fled from a number of battles that were led by the Messenger of Allah, like Uhud, Hunain and Khaiber, whereas the Holy Book states clearly the prohibition to do so and that whoever does so will be punished in Hell for eternity. Almighty Allah said: “Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless manoeuvring for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journeys end.â€(Quran 16:8)
(2) What took place during the “tragedy of Thursdayâ€: Abdullah bin Abbas – as it is narrated in the Sunni books of narrations like the Musnad of Ahmad – said, weeping: “The day of Thursday! And what day was Thursday!! The Messenger of Allah said to us: “Bring to me a broad bone [to be used to write on] and ink, so I may write for you something that you shall not be misguided after it is written.†Umar said: “The Messenger of Allah is babbling.†In some of the narrations, they were arguing; some of them were in favor of Umar and some others were saying, “Bring for the Messenger of Allah what he asked for.†The Messenger of Allah said then: “Leave me!! There should not be a fight in my presence.â€
From the said incident one can conclude that the refusal of the Prophet to write what he wanted to write was to preserve the dignity of Prophethood, since it is not appropriate for the Prophet to order for something in a clear and direct way and Muslim differ in their opinions whether to obey him or not, since there should be no dispute after the order has been issued.
From this, one can conclude the reason why the name of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) was not mentioned in the Holy Book, Almighty Allah knew that there were some people who wanted to rule and were ready to disobey Allah and His Messenger in an open way, and they had their supporters who were willing to help and encourage them. If the Holy Quran was to mention Imam Ali’s name then they would doubt the Holy Book in the same way as they have doubted the Messenger of Allah. This would result in the rejection of the Holy Book, which would then not be Allah’s continuous proof.
