“He who was dead and whom We raised to life, and We set a light for him to walk among men – is he like the one steeped in darkness out of which he does not come out? Thus have their own doings been made to seem fair to the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 6:122)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message (l-balaghu) clearly(l-mubina). (Quran 64:12)
“But if you they turn away [Prophet], remember that your only conveying this message clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)
﷽
“The Day when no relation (mawlan) will avail a relation (mawlan) at all, nor will they be helped .” (Qur’an 44:41)
“You see, then the Imamate goes from the Imam to his first cousin, and when the first cousin dies, then the Imamate goes to his first cousin and so on. Because that is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).” Huh?🤨🧐
First and foremost, let us be clear.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) did not organize some event known as Ghadir Khum. The way that Shi’i and Pro-Alids portray the event, they make it sound as if the Blessed Prophet (saw) organized some event and gathered everyone together.
Those who say this are either ignorant or extremely deceptive. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is responding to an incident that we later know to be the incident at Ghadir Khum. This, in of itself, is a major cause for reflection.
Why a cause for major reflection? Because if there was no complaint about Ali, then there would be no occasion for the Blessed Prophet (saw) to say and do what he (saw) did.
To make a major declaration is a proactive measure, not a response to an incident. If the Blessed Prophet (saw) had intended to appoint a successor, he would have done so proactively and publicly, not as a reaction to grumblings.
Second major point. The issue of the textual variants.
There is no such thing as ‘The’ hadith of Ghadir Khum. We had to correct a Zaydi Shi’i at this point. We informed him there was no such hadith. As if it is an ahad narration with only one type of matn (textual tradition). That is simply not true. What is true, however, is that there is ‘The’ incident of Ghadir Khum, and then we have many narrations of that incident with many textual variations.
Thus, the first point of difference is upon which of these chains are established and which of them contain weaknesses. The process of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Which brings us to the second point. These hadith are not Mutawātir.
In fact, the next time someone claims they are Mutawātir, ask them if it is Mutawātir Lafẓī or Mutawātir Maʿnawī. Dear readers and those searching for truth. Do not let us (Ibadi) or the Shi’i or the Sunni tell you something is Mutawātir unless and until they clarify between these two! It is a huge difference.
Mutawātir Lafẓī (متواتر لفظي): This refers to a hadith whose exact wording has been transmitted by so many different chains of narration at every level that it is impossible for them all to have agreed upon a lie.
Mutawātir Maʿnawī (متواتر معنوي): This refers to a hadith whose core meaning or concept is mutawātir, even if the exact wording varies from one narration to another.Which brings us to the third point of difference.
Sorting out the transmission and textual variants. What actually was said?
Why would certain sects in Islam prefer textual variants over others?
For example. Does it sauce up what the Blessed Prophet (saw) is alleged to have said?
Let us give an example of this.
“Oh Allah! Love those who love him (‘Ali) and antagonize those who antagonize him; and help those who help him and forsake those who forsake him” has been one of those additions meant to sauce up the original statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Source: (Among those who have said so, is Al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal as quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Al-Bidaya Wa Al-Nihaya 7, p. 348. Ibn Taymiyya in his Minhaju Al-Sunnah Vol. 4, p. 86, this is so in accordance with the quotation of him by Al-Sayyid Al-Saqqaf in his Al-Salafiyya Al-Wahabiyya p. 65. Also, Ibn Hazm, as quoted by Al-Sayyid Al-Saqqaf op. ct., has classified the tradition as an inauthentic one.)
“The first addition commonly cited, “Allahummu wali man walahu wa ‘adi man ‘adahu (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him).”
“This additional wording of the hadith, “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him,” is an uncorroborated addition by the narrator, Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi, who is weak of memory.[15] As such it will be treated as an irregular addition which means that these additional words are not considered to be the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam words. However, some scholars have accepted only this addition to be part of the Hadith.”
What is the motivation? The motivation is obvious. It is to try and prove that Ali was in Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (real guardianship of Allah), whereas he (Ali) only has the Wilāyatal-Dhahir.
However, let us assume that the statement is correct. What would this mean in the wider scope of the Sharī’ah?
The one that hates ‘Ali without any lawful reason for which it is incumbent upon a Muslim to hate another, has, by so-doing, committed a sin.
This point of view is basically founded on the fact that Islam has one general and equal outlook on all Muslims, which means that Allah antagonizes anyone that hates a Muslim without having a valid, sound reason based upon Islam is in error.
It is for this reason that Allah, in one of the Ahadith Qudsiyya (Divine hadiths), says: “Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/qudsi40:25)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Allah said, ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/91)
The irony of the above text is that Ali allegedly antagonizes Aisha (ra), who is in Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (real guardianship of Allah), whereas he (Ali) only has the Wilāyatal-Dhahir (apparent guardianship) If the hadith reports are to be believed where Ali antagononizes Aisha (ra) in the story of ‘ifk.
The verses that Allah (swt) mentions below is the is are in regard to different types of Wilāyat.
Example: (Wilāyatal-Dhahir apparent guardianship), which all believers based upon their dhahir (apparent) share with each other.
“The believing men and believing women are friends (awliyau) of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and his Messenger. Those-Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 9:71)
Example: (Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah real guardianship of Allah)
“Lo, verily, the friends (awliyaa) of Allah are those on whom fear comes not, nor do they grieve. Those who believe and keep their duty to Allah.” (Qur’an 10:62-63)
“Then those who We chose of Our servants inherited the Book. But of them are some who wrong themselves and of them are some who are intermediate, and of them are some who outstrip others through their good deeds, by Allah’s leave.” (Qur’an 35:32)
So all those who believe and keep their duty they are in wilayat with Allah (swt). He knows best who they are. Thus, to hate a believer without a valid reason constitutes a sin.
The strongest tie of Islam is to love and hate for the sake of Allah.
Narrated Abu Umamah: The Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone loves for Allah’s sake, hates for Allah’s sake, gives for Allah’s sake and withholds for Allah’s sake, he will have perfect faith.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4681)
This is regardless of one’s familiar ties, clan ties, or social economic status. After all, was this not true from the time of the early companions? They fought those who were their family, their tribe, clan or even of the same social or economic status. This is because we love and hate for Allah’s sake!
The one that hates Ali without any lawful reason for which it is incumbent upon a Muslim to hate another, has, by so-doing, committed a sin.
Whereas the one who hates Ali for a lawful reason and dissociates from him for a sin he may have committed is a dutiful servant of Allah.
So those Shi’i or Pro-Alids who are telling you there is such a hadith known as ‘Ghadir Khum’ are either ignorant or being extremely deceptive. As we mentioned, there are variations of the incident.
The third point of difference and perhaps the real point of contention is what the incident really means and what it entails.
To us, this incident concerning Ghadir Khum is really quite simple to address.
The concept of Muslims being ruled by Imams in the lineage of the Blessed Prophet (saw) is not a clear teaching in the Qur’an, and it is a huge reason why Shi’i (Imami & Zaydi) are quick to deflect any conversation about it from the Qur’an and quickly rush to the secondary sources of Islam. Fair enough.
One of the most important aspects of Islam is the five daily prayers. Every Muslim knows how to perform the five daily prayers one would need to turn to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). However, the actions mentioned in the Qur’an: Prayer, Zakat, etc. are doings which are explained via the Sunnah.
Whereas the belief in Imams is a belief and does not relate to actions and doings, thus, it remains a huge point of constant embarrassment for the Shi’i. Why isn’t such a major belief not simply spelled out in the Qur’an? Thus, the hadith is the hill they must live or die upon.
So a few questions are in order.
- Why wasn’t this occasion a proactive measure and public proclamation rather than a response to a complaint? Strongly suggesting that without the complaint no statement would have been made.
- Why didn’t the blessed Messenger (saw) reveal such a belief while in Mecca when more people would have heard this?
- If this hadith is the time in which the Blessed Prophet (saw) is expounding upon the truth of Ali and his future role, is that a tacit admission that the Qur’an is silent about following Imams?
- If the answer is Yes to question 2, then let that stand on the record.
- If the answer is no, which ayat of the Qur’an is this hadith elaborating upon?
The incident of Ghadir Khum as narrated by Imam Al-Bukhari in his Sahih, and the commentary of Fath Al-Bari.
Explanation of Sahih Al Bukari by Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
This is the summary:
Khalid bin Al-Walid and Buraidah Al-Aslami were in Yemen to fight in the way of Allah and to call people to Islam, so the Messenger of Allah (saw), sent Ali to them to “seize the spoils.” Ali came and took the spoils, and his eyes fell on a Yemeni girl whom he liked, so he took her into the tent, after he fufilled what he did with her, and went out to the companions, his head dripping with water.
Khalid bin Al-Walid said to Buraidah: Don’t you see what this man is doing??? Buraydah became angry and decided to file a complaint against him to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
It maybe that he filed a complaint for the following reasons:
The first possible reason. Having intercourse with female slaves is subject to conditions and laws.
The most important of which is: Waiting for the woman to be purified. She may already be married, so in order for lineages not to be mixed, the waiting period or waiting period must end. Some scholars patched up Ali’s case and said: The Yemeni woman might be a child who does not menstruate!! That is why Ali saw it permissible to have intercourse with her without waiting for her period to be completed!
Then we respond with the question: Is it permissible to have intercourse with young girls who have not even menstruated? Based upon what?
Then think about these people who think they are defending Ali. That out of all the war booty he only found this young girl? How is that a defense?
The second possible reason. How could Ali divide and choose for himself?
The blessed Prophet (saw) sent him “to collect the fifth only,” and Buraidah saw that the division should be divided only by the Imam, who is the Prophet, (saw) When the Blessed Prophet (saw) had seen the anger in Buraidah, he said to him: “O Buraidah, do you hate Ali?” Buraidah said: (Yes).
Here the Blessed Prophet (saw), wanted not to increase the gap of hostility and to mend the rift and reconcile and bring the Companions together. So the Blessed Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Do not hate him, for he has more than that in the fifth.” Meaning: Ali originally had a right to the spoils, so do not hate him for this.
The story ends at this point, and the details of what happened after that have not reached us.
Source: (https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/52/7846/) You can translate Arabic into English (or your preferred language). Kindly do not forget to scroll down to see the full text.
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet (saw) 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 (saw), I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, Do you hate him? Because he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4350)
“O Buraidah, do you hate Ali? Buraidah said: “Yes.”
Note: The Blessed Messenger (saw) did not say: “You have left Islam, O Buraydah, O Nasibi! Do you not know that hating Ali is disbelief and hypocrisy?” “You must repent, O Buraydah, from your disbelief and enter Islam once again.” None of this happened!
All that the Blessed Prophet (saw) said: Ali has a right to the spoils, so do not hate him because of this matter.
So we ask the Sunni Muslims (not the Shi’i) if the “hatred of Ali bin Abi Talib” is hypocrisy and unbelief then did the companion Buraidah Al-Aslami fall into hypocrisy and apostasy?
You have two bitter options:
If you say no, he did not commit hypocrisy nor unbelief, because hating Ali is not one of the things that leads to hypocrisy nor disbelief. Especially if love and hate is done for the sake of Allah (swt). Then let that stand on the record.
If you say yes, then he (Buraidah), a companion of the Blessed Prophet (saw) by your admission, has committed hypocrisy and worse yet, disbelief!
After hearing that Buraidah hated Ali, the response of the Blessed Prophet (saw) was very mild. He simply told him that the hate was misplaced.
Shi’i are often involved in some major gas lighting when it comes to Ghadir Khum.
They gaslight by saying: “Did the Prophet really bring all these people together simply to say Ali is my buddy?”
This is just gas lighting by them, and they should know better. Everyone knows that the event was not orchestrated by the Blessed Prophet (saw). That is just beyond absurd. Rather, the Blessed Prophet (saw) is reacting to an event that happened. Nothing he orchestrated, so the gas lighting done by the Shi’i is exactly that: gas lighting.
Shi’i scholar Syed Husain Mohammad Jafri lays out some highlights for us:
You may read his biography here: https://al-islam.org/person/sayyid-husayn-muhammad-jafari
“The bone of contention between the Sunnis and the Shi’a is not, however, and never has been, the authenticity of the event of Ghadir Khum, nor the declaration of the Prophet in favour of ‘Ali, as quoted above: the real disagreement is in the meaning of the word ‘mawla’ used by the Prophet. The Shi’a unequivocally takes the word in the meaning of leader, master, and patron, and therefore the explicitly nominated successor of the Prophet. The Sunnis, on the other hand, interpret the word mawla in the meaning of a friend, or the nearest kin and confidant.” –Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
“No doubt the richness of the meaning of many an Arab word and the resulting ambiguity does render both the interpretations equally valid. The Sunnis, while accepting the tradition, assert that in that sentence the Prophet simply meant to exhort his followers to hold his cousin and the husband of his only surviving daughter in high esteem and affection.”-Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
“Further, the Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated the Prophet’s exhortation 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 those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join the Prophet at the Hajj.”-Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
“To dispel these ill feelings against his son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner. Accept this explanation as such, the fact still remains that this declaration of the Prophet in such an extraordinary manner, equating ‘Ali as an authority and person with himself, does provide a strong basis for the Shi’i claims.”-Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
“Taking for granted the controversial character in interpreting of the Ghadir tradition, the events mentioned above could have been understood by some of the Prophet’s Companions as indicative of his inclination towards ‘Ali, though he did not or could not nominate him explicitly, perhaps because of the old North Arabian custom of leaving the selection of a leader to the people. A commonly suggested obstacle in the way of ‘Ali is said to have been his comparatively young age at the time of Muhammed’s death.” –Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
Source: The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam by Sayyid Husayn Muhammed Ja’fari Chapter 2: The First Manifestations https://al-islam.org/origins-and-early-development-shia-islam-sayyid-husayn-muhammad-jafari
“Some try to explain the circumstances which led the Prophet to his pronouncement. In their view, the problem was that a number of people were grumbling about ‘Ali because of the way he dealt with the distribution of the spoils in the al-Yaman expedition. This expedition had just been successfully executed under ‘Ali’s leadership and he and others who had taken part in it had gone directly to Mecca to join the Prophet in the pilgrimage. The Prophet was, they argue, merely trying to dispel these ill-feelings against ‘Ali.” -Arzina R. Lalani
Source: (Early Shi’i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammed al-Baqir by Arzina R. Lalani page 72)
Ghadir Khum is possibly one of the more weaker arguments advanced.
To us, this has to be the weakest evidence used by the Shi’i for their claim. This also shows weakness in Ali -if we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.
We are not saying that we believe Ali to be weak. However, if we are to believe the narrative of the Shi’i, it certainly shows weakness in Ali.
In fact, we believe it shows weakness on behalf of Ali. We are not saying that we believe that Ali was weak. We are saying the events as they are related to us show weakness.
They also show that those people who complained about Ali and his treatment of the spoils of battle certainly were not aware of any concept of some infallible imam. Or some Imam who is beyond reproach.
So it was after this event that the Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said:
“For whoever, I am his Mawla, then ‘Ali is his Mawla.” –Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3713)
By the way when you click on the link it says Grade: Sahih (Darussalam). Meaning that is the grade the organization gave it. However, Tirmidhi himself has it as Hasan Gharib (Good but strange in this particular chain).
Another major textual variant. “Whoever I am, his mawla, then Ali is his mawla.”
This addition is not found in the following:
It is not in the Muwatta of Imam Malik.
It is not contained in Sahih Bukhari.
It is not contained in Sahih Muslim.
It is not contained in Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabi’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih).
We do not have to grant the textual variant. It is the type of textual variant that would be a red flag in the transmission of the New Testament text. However, Muslims should not give this a pass. However, for the sake of discussion, let us say that the textual variant was contained in the above four collections of hadith. How would we understand it?
So let us quote from the Qur’an.
“The Prophet is a friend (awla) to the believers more than they are to their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood relations have more rights to one another, according to the Book of Allah, than do the believers and Muhajirun. Nevertheless, you may act kindly toward your (awla) friends. All this is inscribed in the Book.” (Qur’an 33:6)
1) The Prophet (saw) is a friend to the believers. He is or should be dearer to us than we are to ourselves.
Say, “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.” (Qur’an 9:24)
2) Keeping the blood ties/familiar ties.
“O men! Fear your Lord Who created you from a single being and out of it created its mate; and out of the two spread many men and women. Fear Allah in Whose name you plead for rights, and heed the ties of kinship. Surely, Allah is ever watchful over you.” (Qur’an 4:1)
3) There is nothing new or novel in the idea that either the Blessed Prophet (saw) or Ali being a mawla.
“The believing men and believing women are friends (awliyau) of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and his Messenger. Those-Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 9:71)
Since wali and mawla share the same triliteral root (و-ل-ي) and have overlapping meanings of “close friend,” “protector,” “supporter,” and “guardian,” this verse directly establishes that all believing Muslims (men and women) hold this relationship with each other. Since the Prophet Muhammed (saw) is included among the believers in the verse above it cannot be said that we are his master.
4) His wives are their mothers. Ask your Shi’i friend, “Is Ayesha (ra) your mother?”
5) Nevertheless, you may act kindly toward your (awla) friends
The Blessed Prophet (saw) always had a beautiful and gentle way about him. So in saying, ‘Whoever I am his Mawla, then Ali is his Mawla‘ is a gentle reminder to those who took issue with Ali during the expedition. And if it is true that a verse of the Qur’an is quoted, the context itself tells us that we can act kindly towards our ‘awla’ and certainly one could believe that Ali was an awla of the believers during that time.
He (Ali)had the (Wilāyatal-Dhahir apparent guardianship), which all believers based upon their dhahir (apparent) share with each other.
Al-walāya (allegiance) and al-barā’a (disavowal), are big teachings in Islam that, unfortunately, are not taught to the majority of Muslims.
We give an overview of the Ibadi school position here:
Also, notice what the author states above:
“Taking for granted the controversial character in interpreting of the Ghadir tradition, the events mentioned above could have been understood by some of the Prophet’s Companions as indicative of his inclination towards ‘Ali, though he did not or could not nominate him explicitly, perhaps because of the old North Arabian custom of leaving the selection of a leader to the people. A commonly suggested obstacle in the way of ‘Ali is said to have been his comparatively young age at the time of Muhammed’s death.” —Sayyid Husayn Muhammed
So then the author goes on to mention other young people who were on a council. So there is a tacit admission here that people decide things by council. Which happens to be a verse in the Qur’an. Unlike the Shi’i concepts which are nowhere in the Qur’an.
“So those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is determined by consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided for them, they spend.” (Qur’an 42:38)
This one verse blows the whole idea of infallible imams right out of the water.
So an excellent question to ask about this Ghadir Khum would be to ask:
How did Ali Ibn Abi Talib himself understand it? Well, we get our answer right here!
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:
`Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Messenger (saw) during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. `Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Messenger (saw) this morning?” `Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else ), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” `Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Messenger (saw) for it.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4447)
Clear as day that the Ghadir Khum did not delegate Ali as the Amir of the Muslims!
Although it can be argued from the text that he did feel he had some stake in being the Amir (possibly based upon kinship) It is clear as day that he di dnot see himself as the default Amir of the Muslims.
Clear as day that Ali could see the Blessed Messenger (saw) as possibly denying the Caliphate to him!
In fact, what Ali seemed to be most distressed about was the $$$. That is a very practical concern.
Now the Shi’i will actually say that Ali was practicing Taqiya or dissimulation. Our response to that could be as follows: “Yes! This whole idea of Ali and Fatima (ra) being upset with Abu Bakr (ra) was possibly the taqiya! It was done between them so they could find and root out the real enemies of Abu Bakr(ra).”
We know that it is quite plausible that Ali, in his heart of hearts, loved Abu Bakr (ra) and one of the huge proofs of that is that out of all the names he could have possibly chosen for his children, he named one Abu Bakr(ra)!
Shi’i, outraged over this, will retort: “It was a common name!” Yeah, well, so is Larry, Lester and Kyle and yet not every Englishman names his child one of these names.
The Jews do not name their heir children Yeshu (Joshua), the Hebrew form of Jesus. That is done because of the extreme disdain they have for Jesus (as). However, Ali did not have that disdain towards Abu Bakr (ra).
Some of the Shi’i seem to imply that Ali went against this verse of the Qur’an.
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result.” (Qur’an 4:59)
Narrated `Aisha:
Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (saw) sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Messenger (saw) had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Messenger (saw) and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (saw), and will dispose of it as Allah’s Messenger (saw) used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). `Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that `Umar should come, `Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone ” Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then `Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Messenger (saw).” Immediately Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Messenger (saw) is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Messenger (saw) following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.” On that `Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this afternoon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of `Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then `Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. `Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.” On that, all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with `Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240)
Also note that this section: “So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died.” is not authentically attributed to Aisha. It known as idraj (interpolation) which has been added by Al Zuhri.
“O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion – Allah will bring forth in place of them a people He will love and who will love Him, Who are humble toward the believers, powerful against the ungrateful disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is All-Encompassing and Knowing. Your ally (waliyykumu) is none but Allah and His Messenger and those who have believed – those who establish prayer and give zakah, and they bow in worship. And whoever is an ally of Allah and His Messenger and those who have believed – indeed, the party of Allah – they will be predominant.” (Qur’an 5:54-56)
To us, this has to be the weakest evidence used by the Shi’i for their claim. This also shows weakness in Ali. We are not saying that we believe Ali to be weak, but if we are to believe the narrative of the Shi’i, it certainly shows weakness in Ali.
Consider what Allah (swt) said to the Blessed Messenger (saw)
“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 5:67)
If this was true for the Blessed Prophet (saw), what did Ali have to fear if none other than Allah (swt)?
“And [remember, O Muhammed], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him.” (Qur’an 33:37)
If Allah (swt) chided the Prophet (saw) for being concerned with what people thought, doesn’t Ali deserve to be reprimanded for fearing the people?
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”
Source: (Nahjul Balagha Sermon 205 https://al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-205-both-you-frown-over-small-matter)
This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.
He said, “When the Caliphate came to me,” This means he was not the Caliph at the time; he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.
Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people have chosen who will lead them and then gets forced into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.
According to Aisha (ra), the mother of the believers, and the one who has true guardianship, she related the following:
A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: “I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2387)
Shi’i claims about Ghadir Khum are so aggrandizing, sensational and melodramatic because their belief system (being ruled by Imams from Ahl Bayt) is not foundational to the Qur’an!
Shi’i impute failure to the Blessed Prophet (saw) if we are to believe their sensational claims.
Remember, that Allah (swt) instructed the Blessed Prophet (saw) the following:
“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 5:67)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message (l-balaghu) clearly(l-mubina). (Quran 64:12)
“But if you they turn away [Prophet], remember that your only conveying this message clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)
What the Shi’i do with Ghadir Khum is akin to what many Christians try to do with passages of the TNCH. No one reading the passages will see Jesus (as) in the text unless they already come with the predisposition to want to see Jesus (as) in the text!
“And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
None in their right mind does not see Jesus (as) in the text of Hosea 11:1-2. But when you are desperate to justify a belief, one will see what one needs to see.
Take, for example, this debacle in the ongoing debate between Christians and Jews concerning whether Jesus (as) was born of a virgin.
As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:
“We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.”
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV)
The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”
Let us go back to the Qur’an.
“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 5:67)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message (l-balaghu) clearly(l-mubina). (Quran 64:12)
You know what would have been fantastic? You know what would have been great?
For the Prophet (saw) to gather as many people as he could: (Not responding to an incident) but taking the impetus to gather the greatest possible number of people together and say in his blessed and eloquent tongue:
“When I die you should be led by Ali. For he will judge all matters for you from the book of Allah and my Sunnah. When he dies, the eldest of his sons will then lead you. And the like for his sons. If two sons are born simultaneously, the first son out the womb will lead you.”
Voilà! Why is that so difficult? Why is it so difficult for the one who is the most noble in speech and has the sweetest of tongues? The answer is it is not difficult. It is simply that no such proclamation took place.
Dear brothers and sisters and truth seekers. We are not to be ruled by a particular tribe of people, be it the Qurash or the Children of Israel. It is not human destiny to be ruled by the Jews or the Arabs. We are not to be ruled over by a particular family. The Shi’i themselves are in disarray over that matter.
We are to be ruled by any righteous Muslim (regardless of family, tribe, ethnicity) that meets and fulfils the conditions to be the Imam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
Let us be honest. The Caliphate of Ali was a short 5 years in which most of the time his sword was wet with the blood of the believers. Have you ever noticed that there is really a dearth of literature concerning the Muslim accomplishments during the time of Ali? We ask you what barakah really came from his leadership, if we are, to be honest? His caliphate was a tragedy that is only remembered for tragedies.
The Ahl Bayt are above reproach.
It was narrated from Jabir that:
“A woman from Banu Makhzum stole (something), and she was brought to the Prophet. She sought the protection of Umm Salamah, but the Prophet said: “If Fatimah bint Muhammed were to steal, I would cut off her hand.” And he ordered that her hand be cut off.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:4891)
Now if one did have to cut off the hand of Fatimah (ra) for theft does that mean one would need to hate her? This does not make sense. Likewise if Ali had to punish someone for violation of the law does that mean Ali would have to hate that person? That does not make sense.
Final Thoughts.
For the sake of argument, let us say we grant that Ghadir Khum was an explicit selection of Ali for the leadership of the Muslims. What consequence would it be for us as Muslims living today? It would mean that the companions of that time did not recognize it or denied him of it, and they would bear the consequences of it. Because the facts are this. None of the Shi’i sects today have a living accessible Imam today other than the Nizari Ismaili. They are all in dispute with each other over who the Imam should be.
However, there are three things that are clearly not established by the incident of Ghadir Khum. The first is that Ali is not maʿṣūm (معصوم) and the other is that he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة). Neither does it entail that the leadership of the Muslims is to remain with the descendants of Ali.
Please see our article:
There is but only one beautiful soul that each Muslim strives to emulate with every fiber of his or her being.
It is not Abu Bakr(ra) . It is not Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra). It is not Uthman Ibn Affan. It is not Ali ibn Abi Talib.
IT IS
“We have not sent you, save as a mercy unto all beings. (Qur’an 21:107)
If you enjoyed this article you may wish to read the following:
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
Prima Quran 