Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective

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”.

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…

source: http://www.amaana.org/gadhir/gadhir1.htm ”

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).

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 [s] 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 [s] 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 [s] held up the hand of ‘Ali and said:

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

Immediately after the Prophet [s] 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 [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm”

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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)

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”)]

source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html”

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)

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 Mosque 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:

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)

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…

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

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.

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.

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 [s] 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.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm”

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 ays

“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…

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm”

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.

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 [s] 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 [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm”

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.

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.

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.”

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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]

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.”

source: http://www.salamiran.org/Religion/Imam1/index.html ”

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).

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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?

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.”

source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm”

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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.

source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf”

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 [s] 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 [s], and there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.”

source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm”

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.

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 Prohet (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.