The topic of Specific ʾImāmah revolves around the arguments for the exclusive ʾImāmah of the individuals claimed by the Shīʿah as the rightful ʾimāms who are obligatory to obey after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, in contrast to General ʾImāmah, which is about the nature and conditions of the status of ʾImāmah. As has been mentioned, according to the Twelvers, the ʾimāms must be appointed by either the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم or a previous ʾimām, whose ʾImāmah obviously must already be established. A question arises: what is the nature of this appointment (naṣṣ)?  

Al-Mufīd said in ʾAwāʾil al-Maqālāt:¹ “So as for the mark of the doctrine of ʾImāmah [of the ʾImāmiyyah] and the description of a group of Shīʿah as the ʾImāmiyyah then it is a sign for whoever held as his religion the obligation of ʾImāmah and its existence at all times, and required explicit designation [naṣṣ jalī] and infallibility and perfection [in conditions] for every ʾimām.” 

We also find the same thing mentioned in the Rasāʾil of ash-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā.² 

What this indicates is that, according to the Twelvers, naṣṣ jalī is necessary for every single imām in order to establish their ʾImāmah. This brings up two more questions; what is the definition of naṣṣ jalī, and where can it be found? Fortunately, the scholars of the ʾImāmiyyah have detailed the answers to these questions. 

In ash-Shāfī, ash-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā said:³ “And as for the naṣṣ that is specific to statements and not actions then it is divided into two categories: 

One of which is: that which those who heard it from the Messenger [صلى الله عليه وسلم] knew what was intended by it by necessity, even if we now only know its establishment and what was intended through reasoning, and it is the naṣṣ that has Khilāfah and ʾImāmah explicitly in its apparent and in its wording, and it is what our companions call naṣṣ jalī, such as his [صلى الله عليه وسلم] statements (سلموا على علي بإمرة المؤمنين) and (هذا خليفتي فيكم من بعدي فاسمعوا له واطيعوا)
And the other category: that which we are not certain that those who heard it knew by necessity that it was designation for ʾImāmah, and it is not impossible according to us that they knew through reasoning from the perspective of considering the indication of the wording, and what is more eloquent for the intended meaning to be and what is not eloquent. And as for us we do not know its establishment or what is intended by it except through reasoning such as (Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr) and (Ḥadīth al-Manzilah) and this type of naṣṣ is what our companions call naṣṣ khafī.

Then naṣṣ by statements is divided into two types:
So one of the types is only narrated by the ʾImāmī Shīʿah exclusively, even if some of those who were not aware of what is in it from ʾAhl al-Ḥadīth have narrated something of it, and it is the naṣṣ referred to as jalī. And the other type is narrated by both the Shīʿī and the Nāṣibī and the entire ʾUmmah has taken it with acceptance despite their differences, and none of them who is given any weight rejected it even if they disagreed on its interpretation and differed in the belief of what was intended by it and it is the second type of naṣṣ we referred to as khafī.”

Ash-Shaykh aṭ-Ṭūsī agreed with all of this in Talkhīṣ ash-Shāfī,⁴ and aṭ-Ṭabrisī said the same in ʾIʿlām al-Warā bi-ʾAʿlām al-Hudā, adding the ʾāyah 5:55 as an example of naṣṣ khafī.⁵ Al-Murtaḍā also says in his Rasāʾil that naṣṣ khafī “is that which does not have explicit appointment of ʾImāmah in its wording, and rather has it in the meaning that is understood,” and that “those who heard these [cases of] naṣṣ are in two groups: one who knew his صلى الله عليه وسلم intended meaning, and one who were ignorant of it.” In al-Iḥtijāj, aṭ-Ṭabrisī further says that Allāh established the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه “implicitly and not explicitly” through Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr and Ḥadīth al-Manzilah.⁵ 

These statements lead to the realization that the majority of what Shīʿī polemicists use as proof for the ʾImāmah of their ʾimāms does not suffice for establishing it according to the Twelvers’ own conditions, and the proofs that do suffice are not accepted as authentic or mutawātir by the opposition. Granted, it is still possible for a proof to be qaṭʿī while being khafī, and it could be argued that the presence of qaṭʿī naṣṣ khafī necessitates the presence of naṣṣ jalī, but without first establishing the Twelver doctrine on General ʾImāmah, this line of reasoning cannot be upheld. Indeed, without first establishing their beliefs on General ʾImāmah, the weight of the Twelver claims on ʾImāmah as a whole is greatly weakened. One of the main arguments used by their scholars for the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and against the ʾImāmah of the first three Khulafāʾ is that all other possible candidates were fallible by ijmāʿ, leaving ʿAlī رضي الله عنه as the only option. This argument is obviously invalidated by the invalidity of their arguments for their doctrine on General ʾImāmah. 

The Zaydīs, on the other hand, say that the only naṣṣ that occurred was naṣṣ khafī. It may be worth restating that being naṣṣ khafī does not inherently require that the statements not be qaṭʿī ad-dilālah (definitive in indication for the conclusion), but rather indicates that the meanings of the statements are known through istidlāl (use of reasoning) rather than being immediately clearly known from the text. We will soon provide the statements of Zaydī scholars clarifying their view. 

One might also ask why it would even matter whether the sufficient proof for the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and against the ʾImāmah of the first three Khulafāʾ comes from naṣṣ khafī or from naṣṣ jalī; indeed, in either case, it is hypothetically possible to provide certain proof of that conclusion. Besides the trivial fact that this is an issue where Zaydīs and Twelvers disagree, the question of whether the naṣṣ appointing ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is khafī or jalī, assuming it really exists, has important consequences. As will soon be seen in the statements of the Zaydī scholars, if the naṣṣ appointing ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is naṣṣ khafī, then it leaves the possibility open that those who heard it and did not support ʿAlī’s رضي الله عنه right might have had an excuse preventing them from being disbelievers or major sinners, whereas naṣṣ jalī does not leave such a possibility open. Furthermore, as will be seen later on, the status of certain statements as being khafī or jalī will have notable effects on some arguments surrounding them. 

Al-ʾImām al-Manṣūr Billāh ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥamzah said in al-ʿAqd ath-Thamīn:⁶ “As for the disagreement regarding the naṣṣ: our doctrine is that the naṣṣ upon him (ʿAlī) عليه السلام from the Book and the Sunnah is naṣṣ such that the intended meaning is not known by necessity from the apparent, and it is necessary to use istidlāl (reasoning), and to establish that what we hold is more correct than the rest of the views, while we have consensus that the naṣṣ itself [the attribution/establishment of the narrations] is known by necessity from Allāh سبحانه وتعالى and from the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم; rather the disagreement is about what is meant by it, and its intended purpose, and the Ghulāh [extreme Shīʿah who deified ʾAhl al-Bayt] and the ʾImāmiyyah disagreed with us on this.”

Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā Ḥābis aṣ-Ṣaʿdī said in al-ʾĪḍāḥ Sharḥ al-Miṣbāḥ:⁷ “[The Shīʿah agreed] ((That the ʾimām after the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is without any doubt: ʾAmīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib كرم الله وجهه في الجنة)) And that the way of [affirming] his ʾImāmah is through naṣṣ. Then they differed between themselves regarding the naṣṣ: so the Zaydiyyah said that the naṣṣ for the ʾImāmah of ʿAlī عليه السلام is naṣṣ khafī, and according to the ʾImāmiyyah it is naṣṣ jalī, such that they do takfīr and tafsīq of the rejector of it; and for that reason they judged the Mashāʾikh [first 3 khulafāʾ] and others with fisq [major sin].”

1.  أوائل المقالات للشيخ المفيد – ص38 
   ↩︎
2.  رسائل المرتضى – ج2 ص264 
   ↩︎
3.  الشافي للشريف المرتضى – ج2 ص67-68 
   ↩︎
4.  تلخيص الشافي للشيخ الطوسي – ج2 ص45-46 
   ↩︎
5.  إعلام الورى بأعلام الهدى للشيخ الطبرسي – ج1 ص321-326 
   ↩︎
6.  الاحتجاج للشيخ الطبرسي – ج1 ص380 
   ↩︎
7.  العقد الثمين للإمام المنصور بالله عبد الله بن حمزة – ص45 
   ↩︎
8.  الإيضاح شرح المصباح لأحمد بن يحيى حابس الصعدي – ص302 
   ↩︎