Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saracen21stC

Hadith Of Ghadir Khumm And Shi'ism

Recommended Posts

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]


                                
                
                    


bismillahirahman1.JPG

Introduction

It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the
Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in
which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said.

For example, the Quranic verse “slay them wherever you find them” is
often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam
advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time.
Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it
was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the
Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling
to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific
situation.

Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the
context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely
criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم),
who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the
Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background
context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally
different (and misleading) picture.

The Prophet’s intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the
background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding
of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our
Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir
Khumm was said.

The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia

The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) divinely appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss
the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define
the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should “set the
stakes”:

(1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Shia creed is correct.

(2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was never appointed at all by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid.

The reason we need to make this very clear from the outset is that
the Shia propagandists have this uncanny ability to move the goalposts
whenever they lose a debate. They will jump from one topic to another;
if they lose the debate over Ghadir Khumm, then they will bring up the
Incident of the Door, or Saqifah, or Fadak, or who knows what else.

The entire foundation of Shi’ism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) supposedly nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) never appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the Shia must abandon all of their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) usurped the God-appointed Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).

Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia
paradigm–and so important to the Shia theology–that the Shia masses have
a yearly celebration known as “Eid-e-Ghadir”.

Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
was the first of the divinely appointed Imams. The Shia website,
Al-Islam.org, refers to Ghadir Khumm as a “momentous event” and the
basis for the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).

 

Amaana.org says
“Eid-e Gadhir is celebrated with great
rejoicing by Shia Muslims where they remember Prophet Muhammad’s last
instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important
days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day
our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Ali’s vicegerency
at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage…

The reason it is neccessary to strongly emphasize the importance of
Ghadir Khumm to the Shia is that we will show how the supposedly
strongest ‘weapon’ in the arsenal of the Shia propaganda is actually
very weak. If this is the very basis of Shi’ism, then indeed Shi’ism is
a very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm but simple logic dictates otherwise.

What the Shia Claim Happened

 


 

Al-Islam.org says
“After completing his last pilgrimage
(Hajjatul-Wada’), Prophet was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where
he and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is
close to today’s al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from
different provinces used to greet each other before taking different
routes for their homes.

In this place, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord;
and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and
Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)

The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet
was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but
Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from
people.

Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali
as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet held up the hand of
‘Ali and said:

“For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).”

Immediately after the Prophet finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour
upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)

The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up
matter of leadership after Prophet was not complete, and completion
of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate
successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Why It Just Doesn’t Make Sense


The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) completed his last Hajj, said his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Mecca, and then afterwards appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
at Ghadir Khumm. Let us analyze this claim: Ghadir Khumm is located
between Mecca and Medinah, near the city of Al-Juhfah, as mentioned by
the Al-Islam.org website. It is a watering hole in the middle of the
desert. The coup de grâce to the Shia argument is the fact
that Ghadir Khumm is located approximately 250 km away from Mecca. This
simple fact is enough to shatter the entire premise of Shi’ism.


As we all know, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
delivered his Farewell Sermon in Mecca during his last Hajj. This was
in front of the great majority of the Muslims, who had come from all of
the various cities to do Hajj. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable explanation why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
did not do this during his Farewell Sermon to all of the Muslims. The
entire Muslim Ummah was gathered there to hear his parting words, so
surely this would be the most appropriate time and opportunity to
appoint a successor.


The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the
Muslims completed their Hajj after which everyone went back to their
respective home cities. The people of Medinah went back to Medinah, the
people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Yemen went back to
Yemen, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Syria went
back to Syria, and the people of Mecca stayed put in Mecca.


It was only the group that lived in cities in the North of
the Arabian Peninsula that passed by Ghadir Khumm. This would consist
of only those who were heading towards Medinah and the minority of
Muslims that lived in places such as Syria. Therefore, when the Prophet
(صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great number of the Muslims were not present
including those living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. After the Hajj, the
Meccans stayed behind in Mecca, the people of Taif went back to Taif,
the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Yemen went back to
Yemen, etc. Only the group going to Medinah (or passing through/near
it) accompanied the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to Ghadir Khumm.


Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
in front of all the Muslims, but rather what happened at Ghadir Khumm
happened in front of just the handful of Muslims who were heading back
to Medinah (or passing through/near it). Let us look at what one Shia
website claims:


 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“ On the 18th of Dhul-Hajjah, after

completing his “farewell pilgrimage” (Hajjatul- Wida’a), the Messenger

of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) had departed Makkah en

route to Madinah. He and the entire Muslim caravan, numbering over

100,000, were stopped at Ghadeer Khumm, a deserted-yet-strategically

situated area that lies between Makkah and Madinah (near today’s

Juhfah). In those days, Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure,

where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage from

neighbouring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back

home.



The Shia website claims that “Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of
departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the
pilgramage from neighboring lands would disperse and embark upon their
own routes back home.” A simple look at any map would show how utterly
absurd this is. The following map comes from Al-Islam.org:




Source of map: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-Islam.org/ghadir/route.jpg


Is there any rationale as to why the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen,
etc. would travel towards Ghadir Khumm on the way back to their home
cities in the completely opposite direction? We hope that the reader
can understand how truly absurd this proposition is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give an analogy, let us assume that the President of ISNA (Islamic
Society of North America) lives in San Francisco and that he wishes to
nominate his replacement in front of all the ISNA members. Each year,
ISNA holds its largest conference in Chicago, in which thousands of ISNA
members from ever city in America congregate. They come from San
Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., etc. Their
flight to Chicago would look like this:


USA2.JPG


Now that all the ISNA members are present at the yearly conference in
Chicago, would it not seem fairly self-evident that this would be the
most fitting place for the ISNA president to nominate his successor?
After the conference, everyone heads back to their respective home
cities, so the ISNA president heads back towards San Francisco with a
stop-over in Cheyenne. Would it make any logical sense that the other
ISNA members pass through Cheyenne on the way back to their home cities
in the opposite direction? This truly would make no sense. It would
look something like this:


USAwrongway.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rational mind could accept such a thing. It would make little
sense for the ISNA president to nominate his successor in Cheyenne as
opposed to Chicago during the yearly conference. A person who lives in
Washington D.C. would not travel West to go to Cheyenne, but rather he
would travel in the opposite direction towards his home. A person who
lives in Chicago certainly wouldn’t accompany the ISNA president to
Cheyenne after the conference, but rather he would stay behind in
Chicago where he lives. Indeed, the more sensical return paths of the
ISNA members would look something like this:


USAreturntrip.JPG


In this analogy above, San Francisco is Medinah, Chicago is Mecca,
and Cheyenne is Ghadir Khumm. It is clear that the only people passing
through Cheyenne are those that are headed towards San Francisco or the
West Coast. Therefore, it would not be wise for the ISNA president to
deliver his nomination speech in Cheyenne because the Muslims from all
the other cities would not be present. It would instead make much more
sense that he deliver such a speech in Chicago, where the conference is
held. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
would have appointed his successor in Mecca during his Farewell Sermon,
not in the middle of nowhere on the way back to Medinah.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Muslims embarked on the Hajj, let us assume that these were the routes they took:



Now that the Muslims from all the cities have assembled in Mecca,
would this not be the most appropriate time to declare the Prophet’s
successor? The Shia propagandist would have us believe that the Muslims
going to Taif and Yemen would travel an extra 500 km (round trip) to
the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm and then head back in the opposite
direction.

 

 

As stated by the Shia themselves, Ghadir Khumm was a watering hole
and a resting point for those travelling…the only thing they fail to
mention is that it is a resting point for those passing through it, not
those heading in the opposite direction altogether! The Shia would have
us believe that the return trip of the Muslims would look like this:

 


This is nothing short of nonsense. After the Hajj, everyone heads
back to their home cities and the Meccans would stay put since they
lived in Mecca. Why would they have head out towards a watering hole in
the middle of nowhere? Considering the fact that the Muslims were on
foot in the desert, this journey back and forth of 250 km to Ghadir
Khumm and back would have added a few extra weeks in transit time.

Does this not flout logic and rational thinking? Indeed, the more sensical image would be the following:

 

 

 

Therefore, the conclusion we reach is that the Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
did not address this point in his Farewell Sermon at all. As for the
incident of Ghadir Khumm, we have seen how unlikely it is that this
would be the place that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the next Caliph; indeed, the mainstream Muslim version of Ghadir Khumm just makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Really Happened at Ghadir Khumm


Nobody denies the incident of Ghadir Khumm; however, what we deny
are the exaggerations of the Shia with regards to said event. First
off, the Shia exaggerate as to how many people were present at Ghadir
Khumm, often giving numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As we have
shown above, only the Muslims heading towards Medinah were present at
Ghadir Khumm, which means that the Meccans were not present, nor were
any of the people of Taif, Yemen, etc. In fact, the Shia often quote
that 100,000 people were present at Ghadir Khumm but this is likely an
over-exaggeration, and rather this is the number of people present in
Mecca for the Hajj from all of the cities, not only those who were
returning to Medinah (which was only a fraction of that number).
Whatever the case, no matter what number the Shia use, this can
only be a fraction of the Muslims because it would not include the
Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.


The context of Ghadir Khumm must be taken into consideration. What happened at Ghadir Khumm was that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was responding to certain individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه). The background behind this was that a few months earlier, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had dispatched Ali (رضّى الله عنه) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the Shia website, www.najaf.org: “Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen.” (http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm)


The army led by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was very
successful in Yemen and they captured a lot of war booty. It was over
this war booty that a dispute began between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on the one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathir’s “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah”:


Amongst the state’s fifth of the spoils there was enough

linen to clothe the whole army, but Ali had decided that it must be

handed over to the Prophet untouched.


After the victory in Yemen, Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
placed his deputy commander in charge of the troops stationed in Yemen,
while he himself head out towards Mecca to meet the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) for the Hajj. We read:


In his (Ali’s) absence, however, the man he left in

charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the

linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for

nearly three months.


The troops stationed in Yemen then set out to Mecca to complete the Hajj with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم):


When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from

entering the city (of Mecca), Ali rode out to meet them and was amazed

to see the transformation that had taken place (in regards to their

clothing).


“I gave them the garments,” said the deputy commander, “that their

appearance might be more seemly when they entered in among the people.”

The men all knew that everyone in Mecca would now be wearing their

finest clothes in honor of the Feast, and they were anxious to look

their best. But Ali felt he could not countenance such a liberty and he

ordered them to put on their old clothes again and return the new ones

to the spoils. Great resentment was felt throughout the army on this

account, and when the Prophet heard of it, he (the Prophet) said: “O

people, blame not Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of Allah to

be blamed.” But these words were not sufficient, or it may be that they

were only heard by a few, and the resentment continued.


On the way back to Medina one of the troops bitterly complained of

Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed color. “Am I not nearer to the

believers than their own selves?” he said; and when the man assented,

he added: “Whomsoever’s beloved friend I am, Ali is (also) his beloved

friend.” Later on in the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir

al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking Ali by the

hand he repeated these words [i.e. whomsoever’s beloved I am, this Ali

is (also) his beloved friend”], to which he added the prayer: “O Allah,

be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his

foe”; and the murmurings against Ali were silenced.


The soldiers under Ali’s charge were not only perturbed over the
change of clothes but also over the distribution of the spoils of war in
general. The Muslims, thanks to the great leadership of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), had conquered many camels, but Ali (رضّى الله عنه) forbade them from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) prevented them from riding the camels of the war spoils that they had acquired. But when Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
had left for Mecca, his deputy commander had succumbed to the pleas of
the people and allowed them to ride these camels. When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) saw that, he became angry and he blamed the deputy commander. Abu Saeed (رضّى الله عنه)
said: “When we were on the way back to Medinah, we mentioned to the
Prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali; the Prophet said:
‘Stop…By Allah, I have known that he (Ali) has done good for the sake of
Allah.’”


A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah Rasool-Allah; we read:


When Ali came (back) from the Yemen to meet the Apostle

in Mecca, he hurried to him and left in charge of his army one of his

companions who went and covered every man in the force with clothes from

the linen Ali had. When the army approached, he (Ali) went out to meet

them and found them dressed in the clothes. When he asked what on

earth had happened, the man (his deputee) said that he had dressed the

men so that they might appear seemly when they mingle with the people.

He (Ali) told him to take off the clothes before they came to the

Apostle and they did so and put them back among the spoil(s). The army

showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali, the

Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the

Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things

of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.”


(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)


Ibn Katheer narrates that the people in the army (i.e. the contingent sent to Yemen) started to criticize Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new
clothes that they had acquired. It was these men that accompanied the
Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to Medinah via Ghadir Khumm, and it is they who were being addressed in the famous Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.


In fact, in “Tareekh al-Islam”, the event of Ghadir Khumm falls under the heading “The Consolation of Ali”. We read:


The Consolation of Ali


During the Hajj, some of the followers of Ali who had been with him

to Yemen complained to the Prophet about Ali. Some of the

misunderstandings of the people of Yemen had given rise to misgivings.

Addressing the Companions at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet of Allah said

admiring Ali: “The one who is my friend is the friend of Ali…”

Following the address, Umar congratulated Ali saying: “From this day on

you are a very special friend of mine.” The Prophet then came back to

Al-Medinah and his son Ibrahim passed away.


(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.241)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm


To summarize the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: The soldiers in Ali’s army were very upset with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for denying them linen and camels from the spoils, and they were not pleased with the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself was accorded a special share of the Khums (i.e. the fifth of war booty). Of course, Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
cannot be blamed for this privilege of taking an extra share of the
Khums, which is a right accorded to the Prophet’s family in the Quran.
Nonetheless, the people had anger in their eyes, so they took special
offense when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took a slave girl for himself from the Khums; the soldiers wrongfully accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
of being a hypocrite for denying the clothes and camels to the men but
for himself taking a slave girl. It was for this wrongful criticism of
Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) defended Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.


 

ShiaChat Member
says

“You sick Saudi perverts can believe

whatever filth you want about anyone at your own personal leisure but

don’t dare bring this up here…

That accusation [that Imam Ali slept with a slave girl] is blatantly ummayyad propaganda to make our Mawla (A.S.) look bad…



First of all, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm as recorded in Sahih Bukhari was not intended to make Ali (رضّى الله عنه) look evil at all. In fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) defended Ali’s actions. It should be noted that even the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
himself took a slave girl and this has been narrated in both Sunni and
Shia Hadith. Slavery was the cultural norm back then and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) urged the Muslims to treat their slave girls as their wives. On other occassions, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
would encourage emancipating slaves and marrying them. In any case,
there are many lengthy articles that defend the Islamic position on this
matter, and the reader is free to search the internet for them.


Secondly, it should also be noted that Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was not criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because he thought having a slave girl was immoral. Instead, Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was only criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking part of the Khums while denying it to his men; to Buraida (رضّى الله عنه), it would have been immaterial what Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took from the Khums whether it be a slave girl, linen, or camels.


Thirdly, the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took a slave girl is narrated in the Shia Hadith,
so why should the Shia react so violently when a similar narration is
in the Sunni Hadith? Is this not hypocrisy? Indeed, just as Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking a slave girl in the Sunni Hadith, similarly was Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking a slave girl in the Shia
Hadith. This Shia Hadith was narrated by one of the fore-fathers of
Shia theology, namely Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, and it is available on
YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website:


 

YaZahra.org
says

Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147


عن أبي ذر رحمة الله عليه قال : كنت أنا وجعفر بن أبي طالب مهاجرين إلى

بلاد الحبشة ( 1 ) فاهديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها أربعة آلاف درهم ، فلما قدمنا

المدينة أهداها لعلي عليه السلام تخدمه ، فجعلها علي في منزل فاطمة .


فدخلت فاطمة عليها السلام يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السلام في حجر

الجارية فقالت : يا أبا الحسن فعلتها ، فقال : لا والله يا بنت محمد ما

فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين ؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل أبي رسول

الله صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : قد أذنت لك .


فتجللت بجلالها ، وتبرقعت ببرقعها




[Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu

Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl

worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to

Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her

in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in

the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said:

“O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you

want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said:

“I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.

(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also

narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali

was”)]



Fourthly–and this ends the debate altogether–is the fact that this
incident is mentioned in Shia sources as well. Shaykh Mufid, the
classical Shia scholar, writes:


(Earlier) the Commander of the Faithful had chosen a

slave-girl from among the prisoners. Now Khalid sent Buraida to the

Prophet. He said: “Get to (the Prophet) before the army does. Tell

him what Ali has done in choosing a slave-girl for himself from the

Khums and bring him dishonor…”


Buraida went to the Prophet. He (Buraida) had with him the letter

from Khalid with which he had been sent. He began to read it. The face

of the Prophet began to change.


“Apostle of Allah,” said Buraida, “if you permitted the people (to act) like this, their booty would disappear.”


“Woe upon you, Buraida,” the Prophet told him. “You have committed

an act of hypocrisy. Ali ibn Abi Talib is allowed to have what is

allowed to me from their booty…Buraida, I warn you that if you hate Ali,

Allah will hate you.”


Buraida reported: “I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I

could be swallowed into it. Then I said: “I seek refuge in Allah from

the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of

Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of

him.”


The Prophet forgave him.


(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.111-112)


The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (volume 5, Book 59 Number 637):


Narrated Buraida:


The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus

(of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual

act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you

see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet, I mentioned that to

him. He (the Prophet) said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.”

He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the

Khumlus.”


This is the version of Ghadir Khumm narrated in the Sahihayn (i.e.
Bukhari and Muslim), with no mention at all of the word “Mawla.” Shaikh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for his saying ‘If I am someone’s
mawla then Ali is his mawla too’, this is not in the books of Sahih
(Bukhari and Muslim), but it is one of the reports which were narrated
by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed.”


Therefore, we see that the Shia have created much ado about nothing.
The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a far cry from a nomination to Caliphate.
The Shia scholar, SHM Jafri, writes:


The Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated

the Prophet’s exhortation [at Ghadir Khumm] in that some people were

murmuring against Ali due to his harsh and indifferent treatment in the

distribution of the spoils of the expedition of Al-Yaman, which had just

taken place under Ali’s leadership, and from where he, along with his

those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join

the Prophet at the Hajj. To dispel these ill-feelings against his

son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner.


(The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context


The Sunnis say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was forced to make his declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
and his soldiers in Yemen. The Shia approach this in one of two ways.
The first response is to deny the event in Yemen altogether, claiming
that it was merely “Umayyad propaganda” that Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
would ever take a slave girl like that. Of course, this response is
quickly refuted by pointing out that these narrations are available in
Shia sources as well, including Shaykh Mufid’s book Kitab Al-Irshad.
Therefore, the Shia propagandist must fall back on another explanation,
as offered by “Taair-al-Quds” below, which is to admit that the event in
Yemen did take place but that it has nothing to do with Ghadir Khumm.


 

Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt
says

“The Hadiths mentioning this incident [of

Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him]…have nothing to do with the

incident of Ghadeer Khumm.

The entire episode [of Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him] took

place in Madinah in the Masjid around the Hujrah of the Prophet (s) and

finished there and thus has nothing to do with the incident of Ghadir

Khumm! The prophet (s) had already clarified this matter/issue which the

Wahabi / Nawaasib aim to present as the context in the incident of

Ghadir, which took place at a latter time in history.


…The incident of Ghadeer took place on 18th DhilHajj while the

incident of Yemen took place in Rabbi ul Aakhir (Thaani) or Jamaadi ul

Ulaa according to historians. There is no compatibility or possibility

of mixing both these incidents as one of them took place on return from

Meccah after Hajj while the other took place in Yemen earlier on and got

resolved earlier as well in Masjid e Nabavi, Medinah, before the

Prophet (s) even left for Hajj!



In fact, both events (what happened in Yemen and Ghadir Khumm)
occurred in the final year of the Prophet’s life. According to the
classical Shia scholar, Shaykh Mufid, the expedition in Yemen was coming
to an end in the last five days of Dhu al-Qa’dah (the 11th Islamic
month) and the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred right thereafter in Dhu
al-Hijjah (the 12th Islamic month). What “Taair-al-Quds” has
deceptively done is claim that the expedition of Yemen took place in
Rabi’ al-Thani (the 4th Islamic month) or Jumada al-Awwal (the 5th
Islamic month), whereas Ghadir Khumm took place in the 12th month; this
is a horrible half-truth. The Yemen campaign lasted many months and
into the 11th month! So whereas the Yemen expedition may have started a
few months back, it definitely did not end before the last five days of
the 11th month, after which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in Mecca to do Hajj.


As for “Taair-al-Quds” claims that the incident of Yemen was resolved
in Medinah, then this is a horrible blunder on his part. After what
happened in Yemen (i.e. the dispute over Khums), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) rode out to meet the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in Mecca, not Medinah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his men performed Hajj with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali (رضّى الله عنه), which led to the pronouncement at Ghadir Khumm.


“Taair-al-Quds” refers to it as “Wahabi / Nawaasib” propaganda to
claim that the dispute between Ali and his soldiers happened right
before Ghadir Khumm. We would like to ask “Taair-al-Quds” if he
considers Shaykh Mufid to be one of the “Nawaasib”? Shaykh Mufid, in
his epic book “Kitab al-Irshad” mentions the dispute in Yemen (between
Ali and his soldiers) in the same heading as the section entitled “The
Prophet’s Farewell Pilgramage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm”! We
read:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm.

…The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, had sent him

(Ali), peace be upon him, to Yemen to collect the fifth share (
khums
)

of their gold and silder and collect the breastplates and other

things…Then the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family,

decided to go on the pilgrimage and to carry out the duties which God,

the Exalted, had decreed…

He, may God bless him and his family, set out with them with five

days remaining in (the month of) Dhu al-Qa’da. He had written to the

Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, about going on the

pilgrimage from Yemen…

Meanwhile, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, set out

with the soldiers who had accompanied him to Yemen. He had with him the

breastplates which he had collected from the people of Najran. When

the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was nearing Mecca

on the road from Medina, the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be

upon him, was nearing it on the road from Yemen. He (Ali) went ahead of

the army to meet the Prophet, may God bless him and his family, and he

left one of their number in charge of them. He came up to the Prophet

as the latter was looking down over Mecca. He (Ali) greeted him (the

Prophet) and informed him (the Prophet) of what he (Ali) had done and

what he (Ali) had collected [in
Khums
] and that he had hurried

ahead of the army to meet him. The Apostle of God, may God bless him

and his family, was pleased at that and delighted to meet him…

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, said farewell to

him (the Prophet) and returned to his army. He (Ali) met them nearby

and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with

them. He (Ali) denounced them for that.

“Shame on you!” he (Ali) said to the man whom he had appointed as his

deputy over them. “Whatever made you give them breastplates before we

hand them over to the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family?

I did not give you permission to do that.”

“They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the

state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to

me,” he replied.

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them off the

people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him

because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the

Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The

Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop

your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him.

He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not

one who deceives in His religion…”

When the Apostle of God carried out his rituals of the pilgrimage, he

made Ali his partner in the sacrifice of animals. Then he began his

journey back to Medina. (Ali) and the Muslims went with him. He came

to a place known as Ghadir Khumm…

(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.119-123)

titlepage1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p119.jpg


p120.jpg


p121.jpg


p122.jpg


p123.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Was Angry With Ali (رضّى الله عنه)?


The Shia propagandists then claim that it was only Khalid (رضّى الله عنه) and Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) who were upset with Ali (رضّى الله عنه).


 

Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt
says

“None of the hadiths mention any third

individual besides Khalid bin Walid and Burayda (or Bara as in Tirmidhi)

to be the complainers or the ones who initiated this BUGHZ (hatred)

campaign towards Imam Ali (a.s) as reported through this incident.



This is another blatant lie by “Taair-al-Quds”. In fact, it was all
(or at least most) of Ali’s soldiers who were upset with him, not just
one or two soldiers. Shaykh Mufid writes:


The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took

them (the breastplates) off the people and put them back in the sacks.

They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to

Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be

upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be

given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn

Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests

of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion…”


(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.121-122)


The complaints against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were “numerous” and it was the “people” who were discontented (not one or two individuals), and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) ordered the call to the people in general.
It is clear that the vast majority of Ali’s soldiers were discontented
with him because he refused to allow them to wear the breastplates from
the Khums. Therefore, it is improper to pinpoint the blame on one or
two individuals; instead, the truth of the matter is that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had angered all of his soldiers, and we seek Allah’s refuge from laying the blame on anybody, especially since the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself forgave Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) and the others. The bottom line point, however, is that many people were angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and this is was the reason why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm, to exonerate Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–not to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor.


Fabricated Additions


The common Shia tactic to fool the Sunni layperson is to first state
that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is in Bukhari and the most trusted books
of the Sunnis (oftentimes impressing Sunnis with long references), and
then they go about quoting the variant versions from obscure and
unreliable sources that depict Ghadir Khumm in a very different manner
than is actually stated in the authentic books. This tactic of fooling
people is called “acceptance by association.”


In fact, there are only two additions to the Hadith which are
considered authentic and that too only by some scholars. For the
purpose of debate, however, we shall accept them as authentic. Again,
these two additions are not in the Sahihayn but rather they are in the
variant narrations in other books. As the student of Hadith knows,
Hadith have various gradings; as for the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, what
is most authentic is that which is in Sahih Bukhari as reproduced above.
However, there are other variant versions which have two additions:


1) The first addition is: “Man Kuntu Mawla fa `Ali Mawla.” (Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.)


2) The second addition is: “Allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man
`adaah.” (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of
whosoever is hostile to him.)


The first addition is generally accepted, and the second one is
weaker but some scholars do consider it authentic. As far as any other
additions are concerned, these are not contained in the authentic books
and are “mawdoo” or fabricated. Generally, the Shia are content in
basing their arguments upon these first two additions, but no doubt
after they are refuted, they will oftentimes then resort to using
obscure sources to produce further additions such as the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saying Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam, etc. These are all fabrications, and
historically the Shia have been manufacturers of fabricated Hadith. The
Shia are able to produce lengthy lists of obscure references about
Ghadir Khumm because they themselves have been responsible for the
multitude of forgeries in regards to Ghadir Khumm.


We have already seen the version of Ghadir Khumm in Sahih Bukhari and
how it does not contain the addition of “Mawla”. However, this
addition of “Mawla” can be found in this variant of the Hadith:


Buraida narrated: “I invaded Yemen

with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; so when I came (back) to the

Messenger of Allah and mentioned Ali and criticized him, I saw the face

of the Messenger of Allah change and he said: ‘O Buraida, am I not

closer to the believers than they are to themselves?’ I said: ‘Yes, O

Messenger of Allah.’ He (then) said: ‘Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali

is also his Mawla.’”


(Musnad Ahmad [v5 / p347 / #22995] with a Sahih chain of transmission

and all trustworthy [thiqa] narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari and

Muslim; al-Nisa’i in Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in

al-Mustadrak [v3 / p119 / #4578]; Abu Nu`aym; Ibn Jarir and others)


In a slightly different version:


Buraida narrated: “The Prophet sent me

to Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; when I returned and

complained about him to the Messenger of Allah, he (the Messenger of

Allah) raised his head towards (him) and said: ‘O Buraida! Whomsoever’s

Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”


(Sunan al-Kubra, v5, p130, #8466; a similar report can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba [v6, p.374])


In other narrations, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said: “allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah”, which translates to: “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.” Some scholars have doubted the authenticity of this statement, but we shall hereby accept this second addition as authentic.


These are the only two additions to the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm that
can be considered authentic, and therefore these are the only two we
will deal with. The Shia propagandists will often add various
narrations from weak and obscure sources, but this is not a valid
methodology of debating. Oftentimes, these references are impossible to
verify and many times they do not exist at all or are dramatically
taken out of context. What is odd and a bit amusing is that the Sunnis
oftentimes quote from Al-Kafi, the most authentic book of Shia Hadith,
and yet the Shia will outright reject these Hadith as a basis for
argumentation. If this is the attitude of the Shia towards their most
authentic book of Hadith, then why do the Shia expect us to accept
narrations from obscure and unreliable sources? In any case, in order
to be fair, the only two additions we will discuss will be: (1) …This
Ali is also his Mawla…, and (2) …befriend whosoever befriends him…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Definition of the Word “Mawla”


The Shia claim that the word “Mawla” here means “master.” It is
based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the
Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
as his successor. In fact, the word “Mawla”–like many other Arabic
words–has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be
shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word
“mawla” is actually “servant” and not “master.” A former slave who
becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a
Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah.


One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various
definitions of the word “Mawla.” Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word
“Mawla” can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord,
owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant,
brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc.


Now let us examine the Hadith again:


“Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O

Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is

hostile to him.”


The word “Mawla” here cannot refer to “master”, but rather the best
translation of the word “Mawla” is “a beloved friend”. It is clear that
“Mawla” here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and
Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This
definition of the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context,
because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”


The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means “beloved friend” but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way
when we take into account that the very second addition is about
befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It
is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph
and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that.


Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah:


“The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith,

and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to

an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a

supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a

cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to

a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these

meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in

the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is

mentioned.”


Imam Shafi’i said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm:


“What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam.”


Allah says in the Quran:


“So today no ransom shall be accepted

from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is

your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is.” (Quran, 57:15)


No translator on earth–not even the staunchest Shia–has ever
translated this to mean “Imam” or “Caliph”, as that would make the verse
meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the
disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this
definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir
Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers).
Indeed, the word “Mawla” comes from “Wilayah” and not “Walayah”.
Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be
confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership.


Allah says in the Quran:


“That is because Allah is the Mawla

(i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because

the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them.” (Quran, 47:11)


This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is
referring to a close protecting friend. Otherwise, the verse would make
no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the second part of this
verse in which Allah says: “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for
them”. Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of
course the disbelievers have a leader, such as today the American
disbelievers have George Bush as their leader. This fact is mentioned
in the Quran itself:


“Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr.” (Quran, 9:12)


“And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire.” (Quran, 28:41)


And so when Allah says “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for
them”, this refers to a protector of extreme closeness, not that they
don’t have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla to mean Imam or
Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend.


The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was advising the people to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and be close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was so beloved to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was
the mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali (رضّى الله عنه). In other words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to stop criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and to love him.


Allah says in the Quran:


“Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends)

are Allah and His Messenger and the believers–those who establish

regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly. As to

those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the

believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be

triumphant.” (Quran, 5:55-56)


In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as
being Mawla. How then can the Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to
Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are suddenly Caliphs or
Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this
verse refers to Ali alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers
in the plural. No doubt, Ali–like many other righteous believers–was
included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and exclusively to him
since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word “Mawla” here
refers to love, extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a
single instance in the Quran in which the word “Mawla” is used to refer
to Imamah or Caliphate.


In another verse of the Quran, Allah says:


“No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment.”


Does this mean that “no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of
Judgment”? Surely this makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of
the Quran that Allah refers to two people and calls both to be Mawla;
if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the leader
of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could
be Mawla of each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer
to both of them as Mawla as Allah does in the Quran.


The word “Mawla” is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let
us examine Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715). The
Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) says:


“The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar,

Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja’ are my beloved helpers

(Mawali), and they have no protector except Allah and His Apostle.”


Does the word “Mawla” here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph or Imam over the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Of course not. It makes more logical sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla).


It is also important to point out that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
did not say “after me” in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said
“whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla” without giving any
time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
had meant “whomsoever’s leader I am, this Ali is also his leader”,
which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a
very big problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs
in the same land at the same time, and there are many Hadith in which
the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) warns against
having two Caliphs. Without the words “after me”, it would become a
very confusing sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of
course, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not
mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On
the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla
(beloved friend) at the same time. One can love the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and be close to him, and at the same time love and be close to Ali (رضّى الله عنه).


If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) meant to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه),
then why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying
something vague such as “whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his
Mawla”, why didn’t the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
say something clearer such as “I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I
die” or “Ali is my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after
me.” Surely, this would have cleared up the matter. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
was commanded to be clear in delivering the Message, and none of the
Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm to mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was nominated as Caliph.


To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows:


 

ShiaChat Member
says

“The prophet (SAW) did in fact say clearly

that IMAM ALI (A.S.) was his successor and the next Caliph and many

other clearer things but these hadeeth were not transmitted by the

sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny the imamate of IMAM

ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla hadeeth

because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI

(A.S.).

Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording

otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more

direct and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would

think that it is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would

then take it out. In fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW)

did in fact say it clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the

next Caliph but the Sunnis reject those.



This argument is actually conceding the entire debate. Here, the Shia is saying:


1) The clear sayings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were removed by the Sunnis.

2) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) being Mawla was not removed because it was not as direct and clear about the matter of Imamah or Caliphate.


Well then, isn’t the entire debate over? Was it not the Shia who was
arguing this entire time that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a clear and
definite proof for the Imamah and Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)?
Indeed, this argument is admitting the fact that the Hadith about
Ghadir Khumm does not talk clearly about Imamah/Caliphate; the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saying that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is Mawla of the believers does not in any way prove that Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
was to be Caliph. In fact, had it been clear, then the Sahabah would
not have transmitted it, correct? Therefore, we see–based on this line
of thinking–that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm could not have been clear
about the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), otherwise it
wouldn’t have been narrated by the same Sahabah who sought to usurp his
Caliphate. Indeed, this Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was never interpreted to
mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph and instead it was simply in reference to the virtues of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
praises somebody, this does not automatically make this person the
Caliph of the Ummah. As for the Shia Hadith on the matter, those are
irrelevant to us because the Shia are known to be liars and mass
fabricators when it comes to Hadith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion


Contrary to the Shia claims, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with Caliphate or Imamah. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was merely refuting a group of people under the command of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who were criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with very harsh words. Based on this, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) urged people that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the Mawla (beloved friend) of all the Muslims, just like the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was. Had the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the Caliph, then he (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Mecca instead of on his
journey back to Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from
Mecca and the rest of the Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing Games with the Quran


 

Al-Islam.org
says

“In this place (of Ghadir Khumm), the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your

Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at

all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)


The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet

was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but

Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from

people.



This is an oft-repeated claim of the Shia, namely that this verse
(5:67) was revealed in regards to Ali’s nomination to Caliph; in other
words, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) should not worry about the awful reaction of the Sahabah to the declaration of Ali’s Imamah and Caliphate.


As is usually the case, the Shia propagandists have no qualms with
playing legoes with the Quran and using the Quran as their own personal
jigsaw puzzle. In fact, verse 5:67 could not possibly have been
revealed in regards to Ali’s nomination, namely because it was directed
towards the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). The Shia
take the verse out of context, without considering the verse that comes
right before it and the verse that comes right after it. Let us take a
look:


[5:66] And if they (the Jews and the

Christians) had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was

revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from

above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who

are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.


[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down

to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled

and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who

mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.


[5:68] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. the

Jews and Christians)! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and

the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely

that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of

them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the

disbelieving people.


So we see that the verse before and after is talking about the People
of the Book, and it is in this context that the verse 5:67 was
revealed, reassuring the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that he should not fear the Jews or the Christians and that he (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) should clearly deliver the Message of Islam which will be made supreme over Judaism and Christianity. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
is told in verse 5:67 that he should not fear these men who mean
mischief, and in the very next verse (5:68) Allah says that the Message
of Islam will only “increase them in inordinacy and disbelief.” It is
exceedingly clear that we are talking about the same group of people,
namely the disbelievers from amongst the People of the Book who mean to
make mischief and who become obstinate in inordinacy and disbelief.


In fact, that entire section of the Quran is referring to the People
of the Book, starting from verse 5:59 and going all the way to 5:86.
Let us reproduce the verses below:


[5.59] Say: O People of the Book (i.e.

Jews and Christians)! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that

we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was

revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?


[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in

retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought

His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served

the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight

path.


[5.61] And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they

come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows

best what they concealed.


[5.62] And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten

in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully

acquired; certainly evil is that which they do.


[5.63] Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them

from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is

unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.


[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall

be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His

hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been

revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase

in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among

them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war

Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and

Allah does not love the mischief-makers.


[5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded

(against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We

would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss


[5:66] And if they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that

which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have

eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are

people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.


[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent

down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have

fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these

men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.


[5:68] Say: O People of the Book! You follow no good till you observe

the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your

Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord

shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not

therefore for the disbelieving people.


[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians

and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does

good– they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.


[5.70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of israel and We

sent to them apostles; whenever there came to them an apostle with what

that their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and

some they slew.


[5.71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they

became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of

them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.


[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the

Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of israel!

serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others)

with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is

the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.


[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third

(person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they

desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those

among them who disbelieve.


[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him

have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both

used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them,

then behold, how they are turned away.


[5.76] Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for

you any harm, or any profit? And Allah– He is the Hearing, the Knowing.


[5.77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your

religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray

before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.


[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of israel were

cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because

they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.


[5.79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.


[5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve;

certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that

Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.


[5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was

revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of

them are transgressors.


[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for

those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and

you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe

(to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are

priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.


[5.83] And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will

see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they

recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the

witnesses (of truth).


[5.84] And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and

in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our

Lord should cause us to enter with the good people?


[5.85] Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with

gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of

those who do good (to others).


[5.86] And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.


It is very clear that all of these verses are about the Jews
and the Christians, and it is absurd that the Shia could just cut and
paste the Quran as they wish. This is manipulating the Word of Allah
and a very big sin that leads to the path of the Kufr. And yet, you
will find that the Shia universally make the claim that this verse was
revealed with regards to the Ghadir Khumm address and the nomination of
Ali (رضّى الله عنه). So this is the length that the
Shia propagandist will go to in order to twist Quran and Hadith in order
to create the imaginary tale that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph.


 

Al-Islam.org
says

“In this place, the following verse was revealed:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and


if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and


Allah will protect you from the people …” (Quran 5:67).


Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse


of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum:


(1)
Tafsir al-Kabir
, by Fakhr
al-Razi
, under commentary of verse 5:67,


v12, pp 49-50, narrated on the authorities of Ibn Abbas, al-Bara Ibn


Azib, and Muhammad Ibn Ali.


(2) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, p50, narrated on the authorities of


Atiyyah and Abu Sa’id al Khudri.


(3) Nuzul al-Quran, by al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym narrated on the authorities


Abu Sa’id Khudri and Abu Rafi.


(4) al-Fusool al Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki al-Makki, p24


(5) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, under commentary of verse 5:67


(6) Fathul Qadir, by al-Shawkani, under commentary of verse 5:67


(7) Fathul Bayan, by Hasan Khan, under commentary of verse 5:67


(8) Shaykh Muhi al-Din al-Nawawi, under commentary of verse 5:67


(9) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p301


(10) Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by al-Ayni


(11) Tafsir al-Nisaboori, v6, p194


(12) and many more such as Ibn Mardawayh, etc…

 

 

The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to
describe them. They have become notorious for their half-quotes. Here
the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them one by one. The first
one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool
the Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse
5:67 was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact
opposite in his book!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to
describe them. They have become notorious for their half-quotes. Here
the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them one by one. The first
one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool
the Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse
5:67 was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact
opposite in his book!


Imam Razi mentions that various people have claimed that the verse
was revealed on different occassions. He lists ten possibilities of
when the verse could have been revealed. It is wellknown that the style
of the scholars was to list the most important view first and the least
important view last. It should interest the deceitful Shia to know
that Imam Razi did mention Ghadir Khumm but as the absolute last one,
meaning in his eyes it was the weakest possible view.


We will now provide the commentary of Imam Razi word for word:


Scholars of Tafseer have mentioned many causes of revelation:


(1) The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of

stoning and retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the

Jews.


(2) The second cause is that it has been revealed because of the

Jews’ criticism and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet had

remained silent about them, thus this verse was revealed.


(3) Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is “O

Prophet! say to thy wives:” (i.e 33:28), the Prophet did not deliver

this verse to them out of fear that they may choose this world, and thus

it (i.e 5:67) was revealed.


(4) Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint

Jahsh. Aisha said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah concealed

part of what was revealed to him, then he has committed a great lie

against Allah, for Allah has said: “O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the

Message)” and was the Messenger of Allah to conceal part of what was

revealed to him he would have concealed His saying: “And you hide in

your mind that which Allah was to bring to light” [33:37]


(5) Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites

hated it, so he used to withhold from urging them for Jihad.


(6) Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: “Revile not ye

those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile

Allah in their ignorance.” [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling

their gods, so this verse was revealed, and He said: “Proclaim” i.e the

faults/criticism about their gods and do not hide it, and Allah will

protect you against them.


(7) Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims,

because in the Last Pilgrimage after he had declared the rulings and

rituals of Hajj, he said: Have I not declared (it to you)? They said:

Yes. He said: O Allah be my witness.


(8) Eighth: It has been narrated that he rested under a tree in one

of his journeys and hung his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he

was sleeping and snatched the sword saying: “O Muhammad, who will

protect you against me?” He said: “Allah”, so the hand of the Bedouin

trembled, the sword fell from his hand, and he banged his head against

the tree until his brains burst, so Allah revealed this verse and

explained that He will protect him against people.


(9) Ninth: He used to fear Quraysh, the Jews and the Christians, so Allah removed this fear from his heart with this verse.


(10) Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress Ali’s excellence,

and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet caught hold of Ali’s hand

and said: “One who has me as his mawla has Ali as his mawla. O Allah, Be

his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy.”

(Soon) after this, Umar met him (Ali) and said: “O Ibn Abi Talib! I

congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the mawla of every male and

female believer.” This is the saying narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas,

Baraa ibn Aazib and Muhammad bin Ali.


You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is

more fit to explain the verse as Allah assuring him (the Prophet) of

protection against the cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and

ordered him to announce the proclamation without having fear of them.

This is because the context before this verse and after this verse is

addressing the Jews and Christians; it would not be possible to throw a

verse in the middle (of other verses) making it foreign to what is

before it and after it.


(source: Tafseer al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of the verse 5:67, volume 12, pp.49-50)


In other words, Imam Razi did mention ten possibilities but he stated
that the only strong opinion was that the verse was revealed about the
Jews and Christians and this is why he mentioned this possibility first.


Is it any wonder that the deceitful Shia Encyclopedia did not mention
that Imam Razi mentioned ten possibilities and stated that the only
reasonable one was the first? Instead the Shia rely on half-quotes;
indeed, they are a people who love Taqiyyah and deception. We warn the
Sunni laypersons not to be impressed by their lengthy lists of
references; whenever the Shia give a list of references but no exact
quote, it is a good sign that they are twisting the text just like they
twist the Quran and play legoes with it.


As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows:


My father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn

Zakariya told us: Ali Ibn Abis told us: from Al-Amash from Atiya

Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.


The Isnad is weak. If we analyze the narrators, we find:


(1) Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi


Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: “He is weak.”


Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: “He is not strong.”


(2) Ali Ibn Abis


Yahya Ibn Maeen said: “He is nothing.” And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai, and Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi.


Ibn Hibban said: “His mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted.”


(3) Al-Amash


He is Mudalis.


(4) Atiya Al-Awfi:


Ahmad said: “He is weak.”


Al-Nasai said: “He is weak.”


Ibn Hiban said:”He heard from Abu Saeed hadiths and when he died he
used to sit with Al-Kalbi, so if Al-Kalbi said: “The Messenger of Allah
said such-and-such,” he would memorize it and he gave him the kunya of
Abu Saeed and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: “Who narrated
this to you?” He would say: “Abu Saeed narrated this to me.” So they
(i.e those who inquired) would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri,
when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi.


He further stated: “It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about them.”


And then he related from Khalid Al-Ahmar that he said: “Al-Kalbi told
me: Atiya told me: I have given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say:
Abu Saeed narrated to us.”


Accordingly, Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the Prophet, i.e. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.


(5) Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Sae’b Al-Kalbi


Al-Suyuti said in Al-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas: “And
the weakest of its chains is the way of Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn
Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn Marwan Al-Sadi, the young,
is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi and
Al-Wahidi narrate through it.”


Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mu’jam Al-Udaba of Tafseer at-Tabari: “And he
(Tabari) did not make reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did
not include in his book anything from the book of Muhammad Ibn Al-Sa’eb
Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi for
they create suspicion (athina’) in his view, and Allah knows best.”


Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tareekh Al-Kabeer: “Muhammad Ibn Al Sae’b
Abu Al- Nadhir Al-Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed.” Ibn Mahdi
and Ali told told us: “Yahya Ibn Saeed told us: from Sufyan: Al-Kalbi
told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies.”


Al-Nasai said: “He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written.”


Ahmad Ibn Haroon said: “I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer
Al-Kalbi.” He said: “Lies.” I said: “Is it permissible for me to look
into it?” He said: “No.”


CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other books cited by the Shia contain this same chain, such as Asbab Al Nuzul by Imam Wahidi al Naysaburi:


أخبرنا أبو سعيد محمد بن علي الصفار قال: أخبرنا الحسن بن أحمد المخلدي
قال: أخبرنا محمد بن حمدون بن خالد قال: حدثنا محمد بن إبراهيم الخلوتي
قال: حدثنا الحسن بن حماد سجادة قال: حدثنا علي بن عابس عن الأعمش وأبي
حجاب عن عطية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: نزلت هذه الآية (يا أَيُّها الرَسولُ
بَلِّغ ما أُنزِلَ إِلَيكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ) يوم غدير خم في علي بن أبي طالب
رضي الله عنه


In the Tafseer Dar al-Manthur of Imam Suyuti, we find that the same chain is cited:


#6609حدثنا ابى ثنا عثمان بن حرزاد، ثنا اسماعيل بن زكريا، ثنا
علي بن عابس عن الاعمش ابني الحجاب، عن عطية العوفي عن ابى سعيد الخدري
قال: نزلت هذه الاية يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك في علي بن ابى
طالب




And the same is the case with Imam al-Shawkani in Fath Al Qadir.


The point is that none of the sources actually prove the Shia
argument. If they did, then you would have seen the Shia providing
complete quotes, but they cannot do that because that would expose the
weakness in their arguments! To conclude the matter, no reliable Sunni
source says that the verse was revealed at Ghadir Khumm.


As is well known, the incident of Ghadir Khumm occurred near the
Prophet’s death when all of Arabia had already been subdued by the
Muslims under the guidance of the Prophet; this included the Christians
in Najran and the Jews in Yemen. What is there for the Prophet to fear
from proclamation when his followers have increased a hundred-fold? It
would not make sense for this verse to have been revealed at the time of
the Prophet’s peak of power. Rather, this verse was revealed at a much
earlier stage of the Prophetic era when Islam was still struggling for
its survival, surrounded by many enemies.


 

Al-Islam.org
says

“Revelation of Qur’anic Verse 5:3

Immediately after the Prophet
finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:


“Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour

upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)


The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up

matter of leadership after Prophet
was not complete, and completion

of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate

successor.



This is another Shia fabrication: the Quranic verse 5:3 (“this day I
have perfected your religion…”) was revealed at the end of the Farewell
Sermon on top of Mount Arafat. This fact is reported in Hadith
narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Sunan, and others:


“It (i.e. the verse ‘This day I have perfected your religion…’) was revealed on a Friday, the Day of Arafat…”


It was, after all, the Farewell Sermon of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
and it is therefore natural to assume that this was the appropriate
place for the religion to be sealed. In fact, it is for this very
reason that we deny that Ghadir Khumm could possibly be in relation to
the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). The verse “This day
I have pefected your religion…” had already been revealed and nothing
else could be added to the faith after this. If the Shia insist that
something as major as the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was added after this, then where are these verses in the Quran about such a thing?


Why is the Quran completely silent in regards to the nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)?
Surely, Allah would have mentioned this in the Quran if it was a
divinely ordained matter? Why is it that Allah supposedly revealed
verse 5:67 and 5:3 all about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and
his Imamah, but Allah did not choose to simply include Ali’s name in
those verses and make it clear to the Muslims that Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
was the next divinely appointed leader of the Muslims? To add more
confusion to the matter, neither of these verses talks about Imamah or
Caliphate at all. It is truly amazing how the Shia always say this and
this Quranic verse refers to the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and yet Allah never just says so Himself.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuttals


 

ShiaChat Member
says

“Ghadir Khumm was a central location, a

source of water that represented the last place where the people from

different locations were together before splitting up on their separate

ways to go home. It was the last moment during the hajj when indeed

EVERYONE was present.



Ghadir Khumm was a central location only for those Muslims heading
north, either to Medinah or those passing through Medinah to places such
as Syria. As we have discussed earlier, Ghadir Khumm is located midway
between Mecca and Medinah; Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from
Mecca. It may indeed be a common pit-stop for that fraction of the
Muslims heading to the North, but it is not, however, a central location
for the Muslims heading in the other directions, such as those heading
South of Mecca to Taif or Yemen.


Does it make logical sense that the people of Mecca would find any
need to pass through Ghadir Khumm on their “return trip” to Mecca after
Hajj? Are they not already in Mecca, their home city? The Meccan
Muslims would have ended their Hajj in Mecca, and the Muslims of Medinah
would have left for their home city, stopping at Ghadir Khumm without
the company of the Meccan Muslims whom they had left behind in Mecca.
The same can be said of the People of Yemen, of Taif, etc. Indeed, all
of these major Muslim cities were not included in the speech at Ghadir
Khumm, and this is very odd: had the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph, then surely he would have done this in front of all the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.


In fact, the Shia polemicists have been accutely aware of this fact
and it is for this reason that they insist to the masses that Ghadir
Khumm was the place where all the Muslims went before parting for home
and that therefore the Ghadir Khumm address was to all the Muslims.
This “fact” is only believable to the ignorant masses who do not care to
take out a map and really find out where Ghadir Khumm is. Once a
person takes out a map, it becomes quite clear how bugus the Shia claims
are; in fact, only a fraction of the Muslims were present at Ghadir
Khumm (i.e. those heading towards Medinah).


It is based on the distance from Mecca to Ghadir Khumm that we ascertain that it is much more believable that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
was correcting a specific group of Muslims (i.e. the soldiers from
Medinah who had been dispatched to Yemen) rather than addressing the
general masses of the Muslims. The speech of Ghadir Khumm was addressed
primarily to the group that had been criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and it was for this reason that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not include this in his Farewell Sermon of the Last Hajj in front of the Muslim masses.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“An Appeal to Common Sense:

 

Allah, the All-Knowing, describes the sublime character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) as follows:

“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves;

grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous

respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate… ” [9:128]

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was an extremely

kind-hearted and compassionate. He always took every effort to ensure

the well-being and comfort of his followers, and was never known to

impose any extra burden or hardship upon others. He was even known to

shorten his prayers upon hearing the voice of a baby crying. It is

impossible to infer that the Prophet, who was sent as “a mercy unto the

worlds” had ordered his followers to sit in the burning heat of the

Arabian desert, without any shade, for several hours, only to announce

to them that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was his “friend.”

 

ShiaChat Member
says

“why do you think Muhammad stopped 60 000

people in the middle of the desert months before he knew he was going to

die? To say, “ya know, Ali is my buddy?!”

 

In fact, the Shia here have brought up a point which works against

them, not for them. We would like to ask the exact same question: why

indeed would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)

senselessly force the Meccans to march out 250 km to the watering hole

of Ghadir Khumm which is located in the middle of the desert? Why

indeed would the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)

force the People of Taif to travel in the exact opposite direction

(North as opposed to South)? The Shia living in Taif today travel to

Mecca, complete Hajj, and then they return to Taif. They do not find it

necessary to travel 250 km to Ghadir Khumm and then turn around to

travel another 250 km back to Mecca and then to Taif in the South, a

detour that would have added a few weeks in extra travel time!

Instead, what is more probable is that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)

and the Muslims heading towards Medinah stopped at the watering hole of

Ghadir Khumm in order to refresh themselves. It was over there that

the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) heard people again criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) despite what the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had earlier warned them about. Therefore, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) addressed them all at Ghadir Khumm, urging them to take Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

as a beloved friend. It should be noted that the Muslims heading

towards Medinah would generally stop at Ghadir Khumm as it was a

watering hole; it was a pit-stop on the way to Medinah, where the

Muslims would rest for awhile and it was during that rest that the

Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) addressed them after a group of Muslims had criticized Ali (رضّى الله عنه).

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“Laudation from the Muslims

After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali (
عليه السلام
)

and congratulate him. Among the first Muslims to congratulate ‘Ali were

‘Umar and Abu Bakr, who said: “Well done, O son of Abu Talib! Today you

have become the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women.”

[Found in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhrudeen al-Razi, Kitabul Wilayah by at-Tabari, and many others]

This is typical and classical Shia propaganda; they will say things

like “it’s in your own books” and then off-handedly quote our books but

meanwhile injecting their own meanings into them. What is found in the

texts is only that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) congratulated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on becoming Mawla (a beloved friend) to all the Muslims, not that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) pledged his allegiance to Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was being severely criticized by his men and it was in this atmosphere that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) defended Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and informed the Muslims that they shouldn’t hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but rather love him.

In fact, the Shia argument makes no sense. If Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and the rest of the Muslims pledged Baya’ah to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and said “today you have become the leader…”, then what about the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? The key words here are “today” and “you have become”, meaning that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is currently Mawla. If we take the definition of Mawla to be Imam or Caliph, then this means that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is the leader of the Muslims now and not Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Surely, the Muslims cannot have two rulers at the same time, and this

is stated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Indeed, if Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were really congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

for his nomination as the next Caliph, then he would have said

something like this: “Well done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You will soon

become the Caliph of all the Muslims.” Or maybe: “Well done, Ali ibn

Abi Talib! You were nominated to one day become (future tense) the

Caliph of all the Muslims.” But he certainly would not have said:

“Congratulations…today you have become the leader.”

The proper understanding of this congratulations given by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) is that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

on becoming the beloved friend of all the Muslims. The atmosphere was

such that the people had been criticizing and hurting Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so the noble Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) went to comfort him and say kind words to him. The perceptive reader would note that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was very kind in his praise of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and this is diametrically opposed to the Shia paradigm which paints a portrait of conflict between Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه), casting Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as an oppressor of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Do these kind words seem to be said by someone who hates Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the Shia claim?

If we translate the word “Mawla” here to mean “leader”, then why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) pledge his Baya’ah so lovingly by congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

“O Messenger! Proclaim the Message

which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you

would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect

you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who

reject Faith.” (Quran, 5:67)

The Shia say that “these men (who mean mischief)” refer to the Sahabah especially Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه). If this verse was truly revealed about Umar (رضّى الله عنه)–and if Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was truly seeking to usurp the Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–then why does Umar (رضّى الله عنه) congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

on his nomination? At most, we would expect such a person to

grudgingly give the Baya’ah, if at all. But here, we see that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) is the first to congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with regards to being Mawla. The bottom line point is that if the word “Mawla” meant leader, then Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would not have congratulated him on it. This praise said by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was transmitted widely to the people, so why should Umar (رضّى الله عنه) do that favor to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) if he was truly against him or if “Mawla” really meant “leader”? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) interpreted “Mawla” to be “beloved friend” and not “leader”–and this is the meaning understood by the people back then.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“The Meaning of Mawla

The schools of thought differ on the interpretation of the word

“Mawla.” In Arabic, the world “Mawla” has many meanings. It can mean

master, friend, slave, or even client. If a word has more than one

meaning, the best way to ascertain its true connotation is to look at

the association (qarinah) and the context. There are scores of

“associations” in this hadith which clearly show that the only meaning

fitting the occasion can be “master”. Some of them are as follows.

We definitely agree with this Shia author that there are many

different meanings for the word “Mawla” and we are glad that they at

least admit this much. It is our hope that the Shia lay-persons at

least acknowledge this fact in debate, instead of being obstinate and

pig-headed with regards to the idea that Mawla can only mean “master.”

Although we quoted the above from a Shia propaganda article, we no doubt

agree with this introduction, namely that:

1) Mawla has many different meanings.

 

2) We must look at the context in which the word was said to ascertain the meaning.

However, we disagree with this article which states that Mawla here

is to be translated as “master.” Let us refute this article point by

point, Insha-Allah:

 

SalamIran.org
says

“In addition, there is also what (the

Prophet), peace be on him and his family, said on the day of Ghadir

Khumm. The community had gathered to listen to the sermon (in which he

asked):

“Am I not more appropriate for authority (awla) over you than yourselves?”

“Yes”,

they answered.

Then he spoke to them in an ordered manner without any interruption in his speech:

“Whomsoever I am the authority over (mawla), Ali is also the authority over.”

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“First: The question which the Holy Prophet

asked just before this declaration: “Do I not have more authority

(awla) upon you than you have yourselves?” When they said: “Yes,

surely,” then the Prophet proceeded to declare that: “Whoever whose

mawla I am. ‘Ali is his mawla.” Without doubt, the word “mawla” in this

declaration has the same meaning as “awla” (having more authority upon

you).

 

Without a doubt, no. Awla and Mawla are two different words! Describing himself, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) says:

“Am I not more appropriate for an Awla (authority) over you than yourselves?”

And describing Ali (رضّى الله عنه), suddenly the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) switches to:

“Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.”

If anything, this sudden switch in wording completely negates the Shia claims! The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) should simply have said that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Awla over the people, but instead he was very keen to say Mawla instead. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)

first states that Allah has authority over the people, then he says

that he himself has authority over the people, but then suddenly he

switches and uses the word “Mawla” for Ali (رضّى الله عنه), even though he had used the word “Awla” for Allah and himself.

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) mentioned that he had authority over the believers so that they would listen to him and befriend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as was his wish. The Muslims under Ali’s command hated him, so the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was using his influence to cause them to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

and take him as a beloved friend. An analogy to this is if a mafioso

was about to hurt a baker, but that baker turned out to be a good friend

of the mafia don. So the mafia don asks the mafioso: “Are you loyal

to me and do you obey my commands?” The mafioso replies in the

affirmative. So the mafia don says: “If you obey my command, then be

nice to this baker. This baker is my good friend, and if you are my

good friend, then you should also be friends with this baker.”

It seems that the Shia are grasping at straws trying to inject the

meaning of Imamah or Caliphate into the word “Mawla”. In order to build

their claim, they will borrow Quranic verses that are on totally

unrelated topics; whatever sounds good can work for the Shia, no matter

how true it is. Here, the Shia want us to just believe that Awla is

the same as Mawla. The Shia are just one step away from claiming that

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) must be Wali since the words “Ali” and “Wali” are so similar.

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“Second: The following prayer which the

Holy Prophet uttered just after this declaration: “O Allah! Love him who

loves ‘Ali, and be the enemy of the enemy of ‘Ali; help him who helps

‘Ali, and forsake him who forsakes ‘Ali.”

This prayer shows that ‘Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a

responsibility which, by its very nature, would make some people his

enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and

supporters. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a friendship?

 

Al-Islam.org
says

“Glitters of Ahadith Relevant to the Ghadir Incident

“To whomsoever I have been a master, this `Ali is [henceforth] his

master; O Lord! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to

whoever antagonizes him.”

The Shia author of the article has clearly stated that in order to

find out what “Mawla” means, we need to use context clues. And he shows

us the very next sentence in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) says: “O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.”

This is a great Hujjah (proof) against the Shia claims! The

word used is “befriend” or “love” which means that Mawla here is being

used to refer to a “beloved friend”. It is clear from this that “Mawla”

here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah.

Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of

the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the

Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”

How can it be translated in any other way when we take into account

that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being

ruled by him or anything like that? It is in fact unbelievable that the

Shia can translate it to mean Caliphate and Imamah when the context has

nothing to do with that. And it is even more unbelievable that the Shia

can bring forth “proof” that is in fact the proof against their own

arguments!

As for this part:

 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“This prayer shows that ‘Ali, on that day,

was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would

make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he

would need helpers and supporters.

 

This is merely Shia guesswork and conjecture; the Shia imagination

knows no bounds and he (the Shia) can read into the text amazing things.

It is almost as if the Shia has some sort of special power or perhaps

super goggles with which only he can read what is in between the lines

that normal human beings cannot read, and it is this pair of goggles he

uses when reading into both Quranic verses and Hadith. Perhaps aliens

from Mars were about to attack and they would hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so this is why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said this! And look, the word “aliens” even has the word “Ali” in it!

There is no need for this Shia guesswork and conjecture when we already know why Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had many enemies. There have been multiple narrations about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had angered his soldiers by taking back their spoils of war and these people were complaining about Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It was in this atmosphere of unrest that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and urged these men to be friends with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should be loved by the entire Muslim Ummah, as indeed all of the Ahlus Sunnah loves Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to this day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the absurd idea that friends are not helpers, we wonder
what kind of friends that Shia author has? A very key part of
friendship revolves around helping, lending support, etc. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said in numerous Hadith that Muslims should help out their brothers, friends, neighbors, etc.


 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“Third: The declaration of the Holy Prophet

that: “It seems imminent that I will be called away (by Allah) and I

will answer that call.” This clearly shows that he was making

arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death.



How is it clear? It is not clear at all. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) meant that, then why didn’t he (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) just say that? Why does the Shia have to become the spokesperson for the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) always telling us that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) meant such-and-such even though he just said such-and-such? Surely, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
could have said “I am about to die and therefore I am worried about who
will be my successor and this is why nominate Ali to be the Caliph
after me.” Instead, we have to guess and trust the Shia that this is
what the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) really meant to say, and we all know how creative the Shia imagination is.


The complete negation of this Shia claim is the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said something similar in his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat, starting his speech by saying:


“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again.” (Bayhaqi)


And yet, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not mention the leadership of the Muslims at all in this speech. So we see that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
was prefacing everything he said with the fact that he was about to
die, and this does not mean that he was talking about leadership. In
fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was
worried about his family after his death; this is a normal human
emotion and worry. Each and everyone of us would be worried about what
would happen to our children, wife, or near relatives after we die.
This is a common worry when people are on their deathbed. And this
worry in the case of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was increased because there were certain Muslims who were criticizing and (emotionally) hurting his cousin.


 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“Fourth: The congratulations of the

Companions and their expressions of joy do not leave room for doubt

concerning the meaning of this declaration.



We have already addressed this point earlier. The Shia had earlier
claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) without fear of the reprisal from the people:


“O Messenger! Proclaim the Message

which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you

would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect

you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who

reject Faith.” (Quran, 5:67)


And the Shia say that the Sahabah were the ones foremost against the nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
And yet now, the article is claiming that the Sahabah had “expressions
of joy”. Is this not a contradiction? If the people and the Sahabah
were against Ali’s nomination so much so that Allah had to reveal a
verse in the Quran about this, then why would they congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
and have “expressions of joy”? This is indeed a very big
contradiction, but no doubt it is the inevitable result of furthering
any argument–no matter how spurious–in order to bolster one’s argument.
What happens is that the Shia propagandist does this so frequently that
he forgets his earlier arguments and accidentally furthers two
contradictory claims.


The people were congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
because he had just been declared the beloved friend of all the Muslims.
If some child’s parents told him to be friends with so-and-so person,
what is the first thing this child would do after his parents said that?
No doubt the child would go and introduce himself to that person and
say kind words to him. This is the case at Ghadir Khumm: there had
been people who were criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) declared that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the beloved friend of the Muslims, and so the people went to Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
to say kind words to him and congratulate him on this honor. Again, it
has nothing to do with leadership, Imamah, or Caliphate. If that were
the case, then–at least according to the Shia paradigm–wouldn’t the
Sahabah have been sullen and depressed, instead of joyful and elated?


It is strange how the Shia try to downplay the greatness of being
declared a “beloved friend”: we will often see Shia who say things like
“surely it couldn’t mean ‘just a friend’”. We do not understand what
they mean by “just a” friend. First of all, it is not any old friend,
but rather it is a beloved friend, indicating deep affection and love. Prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام)
was referred to as “Khaleel-Allah” which means “friend of Allah” and
this title is bestowed to him by Allah. This is a great title, and
nobody would say “just a friend” here. To be declared the friend of
Allah is no small thing, and neither is it any small matter being
referred to as the “beloved of the Ummah”.


 

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association
says

“…only to announce to them that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was his “friend.”

Such a claim is yet more absurd when one considers the fact that ‘Ali

already had an exalted status in comparison with the other Muslims.



Yes, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) already had an exalted status, but this is silly nonsense to say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) can only praise a person once or twice. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) exalted the status of Umar (رضّى الله عنه)
on numerous occasions, yet we will never find any of the Sunnis who
doubt the authenticity of something only because he has already been
praised before. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) continually heaped praise upon those worthy of praise, and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was one such individual. And although the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had exalted Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in numerous ways in the past, it was here that he gave him the honor of being the beloved of the Ummah.


Furthermore, this event must be viewed in the appropriate context. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was responding to a certain group of people who hated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and who were becoming his enemies. In response to this time specific event, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) urged the Muslims to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
Therefore, what was said at Ghadir Khumm must be taken into context:
had it been another Sahabi who was being insulted and hated upon, then
it is likely that the Prophet’s speech would have been in regards to
that other Sahabi instead. This can hardly be construed as a proof for
Imamah or Caliphate.


 

Al-Islam.org
says

“Number of Companions in Ghadir Khumm

Allah ordered His Prophet
to inform the people of this

designation at a time of crowded populous so that all could become the

narrators of the tradition, while they exceeded a hundred thousand.


Narrated by Zayd b. Arqam: Abu al-Tufayl said: “I heard it from

the Messenger of Allah
, and there was no one (there) except that he

saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.”



The Shia often bring up this narration in order to prove somehow that
all the Muslims were present at Ghadir Khumm. However, we urge the
unbiased reader to look at the text which only says: “there was no one
(there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his
ears.” This simply says that everyone present at Ghadir Khumm heard the
Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) say what he said about Ali (رضّى الله عنه). We are already agreed that those at Ghadir Khumm were addressed by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), but the issue is that only a fraction of the Muslims passed through Ghadir Khumm on that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Position of Ali’s Grandson, Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه)


It is narrated in Ibn Saad’s “Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra”:


A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr

and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), “Did not the Messenger of

Allah say to Ali: ‘If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla?’”


He (Al Hasan) replied, “By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and

rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that,

just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the

House. He would have said to you, ‘Oh people! This is your leader after

me.’ The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people

(i.e. clear in meaning).”


(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5)


Similar Praise for Other Sahabah


The fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) referred to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as “Mawla” (beloved friend) cannot be used as a proof for any Prophetic nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
as Caliph. Many other Sahabah were praised in a similar fashion, and
yet nobody understands these texts to mean that these other Sahabah are
divinely appointed Infallible Imams. Let us for, example, take the
example of the Hadith in relation to Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه).


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “The truth, after me, is with Umar wherever he is.” (Narrated ibn Abbas)


And yet, nobody uses this Hadith to say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was nominating Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor; not even Umar (رضّى الله عنه) himself interpreted it in this way, and it was he himself who nominated Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph instead. In yet another Hadith, we read:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “If a prophet were to succeed me, it would have been Umar ibn al-Khattab.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)


Had this been a Hadith in regards to Ali (رضّى الله عنه),
then the Shia would have been quoting it left, right, and center; but a
cool-headed understanding by the Ahlus Sunnah takes into account all of
the various Hadith in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
praised many Sahabah in various ways. These are all proofs for the
exaltation of Sahabah definitely but they do not entail Prophetic
nomination to Caliphate and they definitely do not convey any sense of
divine appointment by Allah. In another Hadith, we read:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “The first one whom the Truth will shake hands with is Umar…” (narrated Ubay ibn Kaab)


And in yet another Hadith, we read:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “There were in the nations before you people who were inspired, and if there is one in my Ummah it is Umar.” (narrated Abu Hurrairah)


Therefore, based on these Hadith and many other similar Hadith said to other Sahabah, we see that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) calling Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
to be “Mawla” (beloved friend) was not a Prophetic nomination for
Caliphate because others were praised in a similar fashion. What the
Shia do is reject all the Hadith in regards to those they dislike and
then accept only those in relation to Ali (رضّى الله عنه);
what is a bit amusing is that the Shia does not care to look at Isnad,
but to the Shia a Hadith is authentic if it praises Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
and it is forged if it praises other Sahabah. This is the Shia
“science” of Hadith; indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say
that the Shia would accept a narration on the authority of Mickey Mouse
if it praised Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and they would reject a Hadith narrated through Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself if it meant praising Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), etc.


Now let us look at the second addition to the Hadith, namely the following:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “Befriend whoever befriends him (i.e. Ali), and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.”


The Shia will then use this Hadith to criticize those Sahabah who argued with Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and yet do they not know that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) also said similar things of other Sahabah? For example, we read the following Hadith:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said: “Whoever is angry with Umar is angry with me. Whoever loves Umar loves me.” (At-Tabarani)


In fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said this not only about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه), but about all of his Sahabah:


The Prophet (
صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم
) said:

“Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them

targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me;

and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears

enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me,

bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to

perish!” (Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi,

by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh,

al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan

in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442).


Parting Words


The Shia have taken the event of Ghadir Khumm way out of context.
The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or
Caliphate, and if it did, then nothing prevented the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
from clearly stating that instead of using the word “Mawla” which is
known by everyone to mean “beloved friend.” Furthermore, and this point
cannot be stressed enough, Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from
Mecca: if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had intended on nominating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
then he would have done that at the larger gathering atop Mount Arafat
during his Farewell Sermon in front of all the Muslims from every city.


The entire Shia paradigm is based on the flimsy and easily refutable
idea that Ghadir Khumm was a central location in which all the Muslims
would gather together in before parting ways and going to their
respective homes. Indeed, only those Muslims heading towards Medinah
would pass through Ghadir Khumm, not the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif,
Yemen, etc. A couple hundred years ago, the Shia masses could easily
have been misled because many of them would not have had the
availability of a map to check where Ghadir Khumm is and they would
merely have accepted the commonly held myth that it was a meeting place
for Muslims before they parted ways. But today, in the age of
information and technology, accurate maps are at our finger-tips and no
reasonable person should be fooled by the Shia myths.


We have shown that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not (and could not have) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
at Ghadir Khumm as the Shia claim. This is the very foundation block
of Shi’ism, without which their faith has no basis whatsoever: if the
Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph, then the Shia can no longer claim that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or the Sunnis usurped the divinely determined designation of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
And with that, the whole of Shi’ism collapses in on itself, all
because of an unaccountable 250 km separating Ghadir Khumm from Mecca
and separating Shi’ism from the truth.


Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com


With special thanks to Brother Fahad and Brother Seif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By mgharaibeh
      It is indeed that Mosul is bleeding and surrounded by Shia militias from Iraq, Iran and  Afghanistan.
      Everyone blamed the killing on Islamic State only as they think Shia militias are god sent angels to protect the people of Mosul who are Sunnis.  
       

       
       
    • By mgharaibeh
      More than 70 Shia died today after Islamic state bombing inside the heart of Sadr City
       
       

    • By mgharaibeh
      What is the difference Sunnis and Shia?
      Why do Shia hate Sunni so much?
    • By Saracen21stC

       

      The Quran Challenge

       
      Crux of the Sunni/Shia Divide


      The center of the debate between
      the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia revolves around the issue of Imamah (i.e. Aimmatal
      Masoomeen). The importance of Imamah is so great that the Shia Ulema consider
      those who reject Imamah to be Kaffir. Likewise, the Sunni Ulema consider those
      who accept (in toto)
      the Shia doctrine of Imamah to be Kaffir.


      Most of the polemical debate between Sunni and
      Shia revolves around peripheral issues such as Mutah, Matam, Saqifah, Ghadeer
      Khumm, Fadak, and other such side issues. However, the fundamental issue of
      debate–namely Imamah–is oftentimes ignored. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih:


      Every other disagreement the Shia have with the
      Sunnis [other than Imamah] has its roots in the Shia insistence on Imamah as a
      principle of Islam, both in belief and practise. From differing views and
      interpretations of history, entirely different systems of Hadith collection and
      authentication, and divergent manners of performing Islamic practises, all
      these dissimilarities can be traced back to Imamah as a doctrine in Shia faith.


      It is therefore only reasonable that the focus of
      any serious quest for truth would begin and end with the principle of Imamah in
      the mind of the truth-seeker. Trying to research about the differences between
      Shia and Sunni without considering the dogma of Imamah as a main sticking point
      will lead to dead ends and fruitless arguments. I have personally witnessed a
      number of [sunni-Shia] discussions that quickly descend into chaos because one
      side or the other wishes to discuss a subject of peripheral importance.


      Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the
      Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.5; Download
      book here


      It is safe to say that if the Shia did not
      believe in the concept of Imamah, then they would not be considered a separate
      sect. The other issues of contention between Sunni and Shia are simply a
      consequence of Imamah. Hence, Imamah and its validity in the Quran is the main
      issue of contention between the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and their Shia brothers.


      Imamah


      Before we proceed, it is important to state what
      exactly is the Shia doctrine of Imamah.


      The Shia doctrine of Imamah: Apart from the
      Prophets, there are another group of God-appointed persons called Imams. These
      are people who possess Ismah (infallibility) and have access to a knowledge
      that is not accessible by ordinary people. The world cannot be empty of an Imam
      otherwise it will be destroyed. In the Islamic context, these individuals are
      twelve people among the descendants of the Holy Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who are appointed by nobody except Allah (عز و جل)
      alone to lead the Muslims. Anyone who chooses a leader other than these twelve
      is misguided and not a complete believer. The twelvth (last) of the Imams is
      the Mehdi and, although he has been in occultation for more than one thousand
      years, he will return when Allah (عز و جل) wishes and then justice will prevail.


      Importance of Imamah


      The above stated doctrine of Imamah is the core
      belief of the Shia. The Shia consider five articles of belief as fundamentals
      of religion. These are:


      1. Tawheed (Oneness of God)


      2. Nabuwwah (Prophethood)


      3. Ma’ad (Day of Judgement)


      4. Adl (Justice of God)


      5. Imamah (the above stated doctrine)


      Imamah is considered by the Shia to be one of the
      Usool-e-Deen [fundamentals of religion].


      In the words of Sidi Abu Salih:


      In Shi’ism, the matters of religion are divided
      into Usool-e-Deen and Furoo-e-Deen. The Usool-e-Deen are the principles of
      belief in the religion, analogous to the Pillars of Faith in Sunnism. The
      Furoo-e-Deen relates to the practises in the religion, such as prayer, fasting,
      pilgrimage, and so on.


      To introduce the reader to what constitutes the
      Usool-e-Deen in Shi’ism, I will quote the following tract from Allamah Muhammad
      Husayn al-Kashiful Ghita’s book “The Origin of Shi’ite Islam and its
      Principles” (Asl ash-Shi’ah wa Usuluha):


      “Those matters which
      concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion)
      and they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl, and Ma’ad.” [“The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles, Part
      II: Fundamentals of the Religion”, Part II: The Fundmentals of the Religion,
      Section The Fundamental Beliefs, p.218]


      In similar
      fashion, the Shia scholar Muhammad Ridha Muzaffar states: “We believe that the Imamah is one of the fundamentals of
      Islam (Usool-e-Deen), and that man’s faith can never be complete without belief
      in it.”


      …The [only] real
      issue of contention [between Sunni and Shia] is with respect to [the belief in]
      Imamah. As [the Shia scholar] Allamah Kashiful Ghita mentions: “It is the question of the Imamah which distinguishes the
      Shia sect from all other sects. Other differences are not fundamental; they are
      furoo’i (i.e. secondary)” [Asl-ul-Shia wa Usuluha, p.221]


      Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the
      Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.7; Download
      book here


      Thus, the importance of Imamah in Shi’ism is more
      than the importance of Salat (prayer); Imamah is considered Usool-e-Deen [i.e.
      fundamental] whereas Salat is Furoo-e-Deen [i.e. secondary]. It would be
      accurate to say that the Furoo-e-Deen are a direct consequence of the
      Usool-e-Deen. Imamah is considered the most important pillar of Islam. And by
      Imamah, we do not mean “leadership” since even the Sunni–as well as any group
      of people–consider leadership to be an important issue. When we refer to
      “Imamah” we are referring to the specific Shia doctrine of God-appointed
      infallible leaders who must be followed.


      Denying Imamah


      The sheer importance that the Shia scholars give
      to Imamah can be seen by their views on those who reject Imamah. Let us see
      what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this:


      Al-Shia.com says


      “:“فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والائمة من بعده عليهم السلام بمنزلة ( 6 ) من جحد نبوة الانبياء عليهم السلام . واعتقادنا ”

      “فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الائمة عليهم السلام أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الانبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وآله “


      Translation:
      Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameer
      al Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like
      the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”


      Further,
      he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer al Mumineen [Ali]
      but rejects a single Imam after him, has the same position like the one who
      believes in all of the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad
      (saws).”


      source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html ”


      Al-Shia.com says


      “Shaikh Mufid declared:


      “اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر
      إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال
      مستحق للخلود في النار”


      Translation:
      “The Imamiyyah [shia] are in agreement (’Ijma) that the one who rejects the
      Imamah of one Imam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah ordered is a
      misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.”


      source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar23/a39.html”


      Therefore, we see that this issue of Imamah is
      not one to be taken lightly. On the one side, the Shia scholars say that those
      who reject Imamah are misguided and deserving of Hell-Fire. On the other hand,
      the Sunni scholars say that those who accept the Shia doctrine of Imamah in
      toto [i.e. in totality] are guilty of believing in false prophethood (i.e.
      Dajjals).


      Where is the Doctrine of Imamah in the
      Quran?


      We ask the reader: where is the doctrine of
      Imamah in the Quran? This is a very sound question. The Quran is the book of
      guidance and we have been told by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that whenever we feel lost, we can consult the Quran and it
      will never betray us. The Shia doctrine of Imamah is not a minor issue, but
      rather it is very important and it is the core belief of the Shia. Its
      importance is to the extent that the Shia Ulema hold that because of disbelief
      in this doctrine, 80% of Muslims are misguided and in fact not true believers.
      If this is the case, then we ask the reader: which verses of the Quran have
      given us this “all-important” doctrine of Imamah?


      If Imamah is central to Islam, and the Quran is the
      central book of Islam, then surely the Quran should have the belief of Imamah
      in it. And yet, for hundreds of years, the Shia scholars have not been able to
      answer the “Quran Challenge.” The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah has repeatedly
      challenged the Shia to produce even one single verse in the Quran that outlines
      the Shia concept of Imamah. Time and time again, anyone who tries to seek proof
      for Imamah from the Quran fails to do so.


      The Quran Challenge


      This is an open challenge for the Shia to give
      Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can the
      Shia produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any
      additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions
      to the translation, without Hadith to “support” their
      interpretation, without Tafseer, and without
      their own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?


      When the Shia is forced to produce the Quranic
      verses without any additions, he will find it impossible to even come close to
      fulfilling the “Quran Challenge.” Not a single verse in the Quran says anything
      even remotely close to “O believers, after the Prophet,
      there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow them.” The
      Shia can never produce a single verse in the Quran that shows
      anything even similar to this. In fact, the Shia will be forced to
      produce long Tafseer and circuitious arguments involving certain verses with
      added meanings to them; but if we ask the Shia to simply read the verse without
      any insertions, then suddenly they cannot produce even a single verse in the
      Quran to justify Imamah. Suffice to say that the Shia becomes polemically
      incapacitated if he is forced to use the Quran and Quran alone.


      The Shia have stated that Imamah is the
      fundamental of faith, and so there should thus be many verses in the Quran on
      this topic. Yet, the “Quran Challenge” only asks for the Shia to produce even a
      couple of verses from the Quran, yet even this is not possible. Not a single
      verse in the Quran mentions the names of their Infallible Imams; not even Ali’s
      name (رضّى الله عنه) is ever mentioned in the Quran. But more
      importantly than this, there is not a single mention of the very concept of
      Imamah. This is peculiar, to say the least; how can Imamah be part of
      Usool-e-Deen (a fundamental pillar of faith) and yet not be mentioned even a
      single time in the Quran? The truth is that the Quran mentions all the
      fundamentals of belief, and if something is not in the Quran, then that “thing”
      cannot possibly be a fundamental of belief.


      Imamah Not Mentioned in Quran


      Every single fundamental of Islam is mentioned in
      the Quran numerous times. Tawheed and the concept of Allah (عز و جل)
      are mentioned over two thousand times. The concept of Messengers and Prophets
      [Risalah and Nabuwwah] is mentioned repeatedly; in fact, the words “Rasool” and
      “Nabi” is used over four hundred times. All of the other Usool-e-Deen
      (fundamental of religion), other than Imamah, are mentioned hundreds of times
      in the Quran. Yet, the Quran remains completely silent on the issue of Imamah.


      The Shia say that Imamah is one of the
      Usool-e-Deen, but we see that even the Furoo-e-Deen (the subsidiary and
      secondary parts of religion) are mentioned much more than Imamah is (which is
      actually never mentioned). Salat (prayer), the second pillar of Islam, is
      mentioned 700 times in the Quran. Zakat (charity), the third pillar of Islam,
      has been mentioned over 150 times. And yet, where is Imamah? The Quran is the
      complete guide for humanity, and yet the Shia are saying that the fundamental
      core belief (i.e. Imamah) is not in it.


      The Quran clearly says that Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is divinely appointed as the the Messenger of Allah (عز و جل)
      and that we should follow him. If there was another divinely appointed person
      we were supposed to follow after him, shouldn’t his name also be mentioned in
      the Quran? Why is it too much to ask that the twelve Imams be named in the
      Quran? Or how about even one of them? Not even Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
      is named in the Quran. For argument sake, we will not even demand names; what
      about even the very concept of divinely appointed Imams that will come after
      the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and that we must follow them? We would
      argue that Allah (عز و جل) should have included the names of such
      people for the book to really be complete, yet we are unable to find even a
      single verse in the Quran which describes even the concept of Imamah. Not a
      single verse can the Shia produce in this regard.


      The Quran is the ultimate guide for humanity. It
      contains all the fundamental beliefs of our faith. If Imamah was really a part
      of our faith, then it would be in the Quran. But Imamah is not in the Quran and
      we reject whatever belief is not justified in the Quran. There are many verses
      in the Quran that say that the believers are those who pray, give alms to the
      poor, do good deeds, and other such things; but why is it that not a single
      verse says the believers are those who follow and obey the Infallible Imam?


      Conclusion


      Both Sunni and Shia, as well as all other
      Islamic-oriented sects, have their own set of Hadith, Tafseer, historical
      accounts, and rituals. However, the Quran should be mutually agreed upon by
      both sides as being an authentic guide to the truth. In the words of Sidi Abu
      Salih, in order for a dialogue between Sunni and Shia to be fruitful,


      …the Lowest Common Denominator should be found, a
      work that will be accepted as fully authentic in terms of its message and its
      integriy by both the Sunni and Shia sides. This book is, of course, the Noble
      Quran. Therefore, the first and most important place to look for resolving big
      differences of doctrine such as those between the Sunni and Shia sects should
      be the Quran.


      Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the
      Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.14; Download
      book here


      Thus, whichever group has basis for its beliefs
      in the Quran, it is this group that we should adhere to. A group whose beliefs
      are not in the Quran cannot be followed as this would be refuting the Word of
      Allah (عز و جل). The Quran is complete in its guidance; Allah Almighty (عز و جل)
      says: “We have left nothing out of the
      Book.” (Quran, 6:38)


      In Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia believe are
      Ali’s sermons and letters, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) says: “The Quran
      is the Hujjat (Proof) of Allah for his servants…it is the basis of Islam…and
      the guidance for anyone who follows it and justification for anyone who takes
      it as his approach and the evidence for anyone who takes it as his supporter in
      his discussions and winner for anyone who uses it for making his arguments.” [Nahjul
      Balagha, Sermon 198]


      Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in Shia
      Hadith: “Anyone who comes to recognize the truth from
      any sources other than the Quran will not be saved from Fitnah.”


      The importance of the Quran is stated clearly by
      the Infallible Imams of the Shia: “If you come across
      two Hadiths narrated from us [imams] then compare them with the Book of Allah;
      what is in accordance then take it and what is in disagreement then reject it.”
      (Al-Istibsar, Volume 1, p.190) And again: “Whatever
      comes to you related from us [imams] then compare it with the Book of Allah;
      whatever is in accordance with it then accept it and whatever contradicts it
      then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, p.158)


      The realization that Imamah does not appear in
      the Quran may come as a shock to our Shia brothers. We encourage them to look
      in the Quran for verses about the twelve Infallible Imams, and surely they will
      not find any. As stated by one brother: “I did not find Shi’ism in the Quran.”


      Article Written By: Owais Muhammad

      Edited By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com


      Special thanks to the author of the following book


      “Imaamah and the Quran: An
      Objective Perspective”

      By: Abu Salih


      Synopsis:
      Imamah is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Shia, and it is the major
      difference between the Shia and mainstream Muslims. The Quran is the central
      book of Islam, and hence, it contains all of the major beliefs of the Muslims.
      In the book “Imaamah and the Quran”, the author analyzes how Imamah, the major
      belief of the Shia, is absent from the Quran. This book was instrumental in the
      creation of this website, and it can be purchased here.


       
×