The debate surrounding the correct interpretation of Ghadeer Khumm is arguably the defining issue separating Sunni and Shia muslims. Was Ali ibn Abi Talib, a man who was adopted and raised by the Prophet [saw] , the first male to submit to Islam [though many sunni’s accept he was the first ‘child’], and the hero of so many of the battles appointed as the successor of the Prophet [saw] or not?
There is no doubt he holds a prominent position among both Shia and Sunni muslims who respect , love and revere him. However Sunni muslims contend that the Shia interpretation of Ghadir is devoid of context and rational sense, and that the Prophet [saw] did not appoint or confirm the appointment of anyone – though he gave indications of the qualities of certain of his companions, ultimately leaving the choice for his Ummah to make. This piece will seek to comment on common contentions made by Sunni’s against the Shia account of events.
Before carrying on, let us familiarise ourselves with the tradition, which took place between Mecca and Medina after the end of the farewell Hajj at a place known as Ghadeer Khumm in front of tens of thousands of companions [estimates go up to nearing six figures] shortly before the death of the Prophet [saw].
It is important to note that this piece in and of itself is not designed to conclusively prove the successorship of Ali ibn Abi Talib as many more evidences can be brought which should be taken holistically with this piece. However, what has been brought has been felt sufficient to address Sunni contentions against the Shia position, as well as address the Sunni interpretation. We sincerely hope that readers from all schools of thought enter into this with an unbiased and open mind. We have endeavoured to fairly assess contentions and to objectively analyse the issue providing clear and consistent logic.
“…Then the Messenger of Allah continued: “Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: “Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: “Whoever I am his Mawla, ‘Ali is his Mawla. O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him…”
(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,4 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371 (5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators) (6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572 (7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters) (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
This article will aim to deconstruct popular contentions of the Shia interpretation of Ghadeer Khumm the following manner:
Essential Introduction
[i] Does it make sense for the Prophet [saw] to appoint anyone, and is the timing of Ghadeer in coherence with this?
Context
[I] Did the Prophet [saw] not deliver his message to the ‘majority’ of muslims who were from the regions of Mecca or were south of Mecca in T’aif, or Yemen, as well as Oman, Najran, Bahrain or Kufa who would thus have not travelled northwards on the way to Medina after the completion of Hajj?
[II] What was the rank and role of these later converts to Islam [From Mecca , T’aif, Yemen, Oman, and other regions] in preserving the Sunnah?
[III] Should the Prophet [saw] have given the declaration in Makkah?
[IV] Was the declaration at Ghadeer-Khumm in response to hateful speech spoken against Ali ibn Abi Talib by soldiers angry at his actions in Yemen, and how widespread was the discontent?
[V] Level of discontent
Analysis of the declaration
[VI] How can we understand the meaning of ‘Awla’ and ‘Mawla’
[VI-A Awla]
[VI-B Mawla]
[VI-C] A holistic assessment of ‘Munkuntum mawla’
[VI-D – The real hatred against Ali ibn Abi Talib as more deep rooted than Yemen]
[VI-E – Stronger virtues given to Ali ibn Abi Talib than ‘friend’]
Aftermath
[VII] How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic sunni traditions?
[VIII Part B] The event of Saqifah
[VIII] Why was Ali ibn Abi Talib not duly given his right after the death of the Prophet [saw], and did he or any of the other companions protest?
[IX] Did Ali ibn Abi Talib or any of the other companions fight for his right?
[X] Conclusion
Essential introduction: Does it make sense for the Prophet [saw] to appoint anyone, and is the timing of Ghadeer in coherence with this?
We ask everyone to consider this particular issue in as objective a manner as possible. The Prophet Muhammed [saw] was a man who had supreme religious, political, social, and spiritual rule and authority over all of the muslims. He was their focal point; his leadership was essential.
The Prophet [saw] knew full well that many tribes had not truly embraced Islam, many had not done so at all, and there were hypocrites in Mecca and even Medina itself who sought to use his death as an opportunity to rebel, apostate and cause rebellion. So much was the Prophet [saw] concerned about insuring there was always a system of order that he left Ali ibn Abi Talib behind in charge of Medina when he made for the battle of Tabouk at the very end of his life, so as to ensure there would be order and the hypocrites would not take advantage of the death of Muhammed [saw]. No-one can deny that Muhammed [saw] constantly grieved for his Ummah and pondered over how to solve the many issues that plagued it. He was so stringent in even neglecting small matters, that it is not befitting on him to claim he ignored one of the most pertinent issues of all – which is leadership after him. Would he not have thus been mindful of ensuring that he dealt with the matter of who would replace him?
For sake of argument, even if he did not need to appoint a person himself and rather wanted some among the muslims to do so under a Shurah, would it not make sense for him to set out the conditions for this consultation and possibly also have it done during his own life time, so that the muslims could choose and receive his blessing and know full well who would be the one to lead after him? Perhaps he could define the members to be allowed in the Shurah – as Umar ibn Al Khattab did, and set key conditions which Umar ibn Al Khattab had done.
In many political hierarchies, the position of President or leader is one that is highly protected. In America, if the president dies the one who will take charge is the Vice President. So much are they concerned with ensuring there is never a power gap , if both the president and the vice president die in a catastrophic accident, there is an individual named as the ‘Designated’ president who is never allowed to be in the some location as both the president and vice president, who will assume charge. We find that even Abu Bakr sought to appoint someone at his death, and Umar ibn Al Khattab sought to clearly define the conditions of the Shurah and what members are to be allowed in it.
It is pertinent here to note that the declaration of Ghadeer took place shortly before the death of the Prophet [saw]. If there was ever a time to make an absolute declaration of this manner pertaining to leadership and successorship, what better time then to do it before he was about to pass away?
Context – Part one
[I] Did the Prophet [saw] not deliver his message to the ‘majority’ of muslims who were from the regions of Mecca or were south of Mecca in T’aif, or Yemen, as well as Oman, Najran, Bahrain or Kufa who would thus have not travelled northwards on the way to Medina after the completion of Hajj?
One of the key contentions used against the Shia perspective of the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm being an appointment of Ali ibn Abi Talib as the successor of Muhammed [saw] is that it was done in the absence of many of the muslims who either resided in Makkah, or were south of Makkah in T’aif, or Yemen, Oman, Najran, and Kufa among other places. They therefore contend that it is illogical for the Prophet [saw] to have given the declaration in-between Makkah and Medina, and not in Makkah itself where all the muslims had been before they had to either remain in their city as would be the case for those residing in Makkah , or depart. The ones travelling north of Mecca may well have followed the Prophet [saw] , but they contend that it is not logical to claim those who were from Yemen, T’aif, or Oman would have gone north of Mecca when the route to their homelands was mainly south or in the direction opposite to where the Prophet [saw] was travelling. Therefore, they conclude if the Prophet wanted to make a declaration of successorship, why not do it in front of ass large an audience as possible?
In order to address this, we must first gain a holistic understanding of the geographical and historical realities surrounding the various regions of Arabia.
Yemen with districts such as [San’aa, Ma’rib, Al-Jund, Hamdhaan, Zama, Zabeed, Jarsh, Hadramaut, As-Sakaasik and As-Sukoon]
The Messenger of Allah [saw] has sent Khalid ibn Walid to Yemen in order to try to bring order to it and invite them towards Islam. Khalid ibn Walid had failed in his attempt to try to gain victory in Yemen and Ali ibn Abi Talib was instead sent in his place to try to secure a victory [which he did] and then immediately join the Prophet [saw] for Hajj. Thus, those in Yemen would have been very freshly converted , almost immediately before the Hajj season. Furthermore, many did not convert, and many may only have done so temporarily for political reasons. It is therefore illogical to assume that Yemen had a large and healthy muslim population, well observant of the rituals of Islam and already ready to immediately send forth large numbers towards the Hajj. In reality it would be expected that few from Yemen if many at all would have made it for the Hajj.
During the life of Muhammed [saw] himself, one of the first regions to apostate was Yemen, led by the dominant tribe in the region known as the Ans, led by the self-proclaimed prophet ‘Al-Aswad’. In fact, when they had heard of his death, there were further rebellions from Yemen. It is important to note, this is not an attempt to claim there were no genuine muslims from Yemen, nor a fair number, however they would have had a very limited representation in the Hajj -if at all- given the fact they had only just converted immediately before the Hajj season as well as harboured many hypocrite tribes who were dominant in the region who may only have converted for their own safety and political motivations. Yemen was also one of the last regions during the life time of the Prophet [saw] to have rebelled and resisted Islam.
T’aif
Another major location south of Mecca is the region of T’aif. This was also one of the very last regions to be conquered , and the inhabitants of this city have a particularly poignant history with the Prophet [saw]. It was in T’aif where the prophet [saw] had sought to find a better place to spread Islam after the hostility he faced in Mecca, and was met there with ridicule and pelted with stones and chased away. Furthermore, among those who fought the Prophet [saw] at Hunayn, one of his last major batles, were warriors of the Saqif tribe in Ta’if. After the loss in Hunayn, they had fled back to their land and built strong forts and protections to repel any attack from the muslims. If one studies what occurred in the battle of T’aif they will see that the enemies managed to inflict damage on the muslims, and that despite some success, there was no conclusive victory here.
Ibn Hisham states:“As the Muslims camp was just within the range of arrows shot from the rampart of Taif, the Prophet (peace be upon him) transferred it to another side of the city. The siege continued for some twenty-five to thirty nights during which the two opponents fought tooth and nail to get the better of one another as they traded a barrage of arrows. The Prophet , used for the first time catapults in the siege of Taif whose ingress and egress were completely blocked. The arrows shot by the enemy took its toll on the lives of several Muslims.” (Ibn Hisham, Vol. II, pp. 478-83) Thus, at the very end of the life of the Prophet [saw], T’aif still remained a region which harboured those who hated Islam, and the Prophet [saw], who had expelled him during his early years and sent soldiers to fight him in Hunayn. The conclusion was a inconclusive battle at T’aif not long before the last pilgrimage. Thus, T’aif was far from a region containing a stronghold of muslims like in Medina, which by far contained the most of any city.
Najran
It is due to a lack of geopolitical and historical context that one assumes it had any sizeable muslim following, at least during the period of the farewell Hajj. Najran is a region south of Mecca and Yemen, and was the home to a christian community who famously had almost entered into a Mubahila with the Prophet [saw] in the very last year of his life, and a short period before the farewell hajj. They had decided not to go through with the Mubahila [mutual invocation of Gods curse on the wrongdoers]. Upon seeing the Prophet [saw] bringing Ali ibn Abi Talib, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain and instead the region submitted to the Prophet [saw] and paid the Jizya tax and were thus now under the protection of the muslims. This christian dominant region would not have had many muslims at this time in any sense.
Oman
Oman is a region that is to the south-east of Mecca and again one of the very last regions to have submitted to Islam. Furthermore, very shortly after the death of the Prophet [saw] Oman , dominated by the tribe of Azd, rebelled under their chief Laqeet bin Malik . This is hardly compelling evidence for the piety, spread, and strength of Islam in this region. Like Yemen and T’aif, it had only succumbed during the very last year or so of the life of the Prophet [saw], and additionally contained either very newly converted muslims or dominant groups of hypocrites and those that politically submitted but certainly not religiously owing to the large hypocrite rebellion by the main tribes.
Kufa, Syria and other locations
Though many Sunni’s writing on this matter have rightly pointed out that Kufa did not embrace Islam until after the death of the Prophet [saw][6], suffice to say many have also added this region in. Unfortunately, this is an error on part of many refutations on Ghadeer – they often do not fully appreciate the geographic and historical contexts.
Conclusion for part I
It has been clearly demonstrated that the regions of Yemen, Oman, T’aif and Najran only submitted very shortly after the farewell Hajj, and staunchly opposed the Prophet [saw], and even then only surrendered as a last resort. Most of not all of these regions contained a large number of continuing hostile tribes many of whom rebelled after his death. As for Kufa [though it is not south], Islam had not yet touched that region. Thus, those muslims who were anywhere south of Mecca would have only comprised of a small fraction of the total present during the farewell Hajj rather than being a large percentage. A number of that fraction may also have contained hypocrites. A special section has been devoted specifically for Mecca, as it is a region which requires an deeper analysis which will be covered later, inshAllah as well as analysing the role of the hypocrites during Hajj and why the Messenger of Allah [saw] may have opted not to deliver it in Makkah.
[II] What was the rank and role of these later converts to Islam [From Mecca , T’aif, Yemen, Oman, and other regions] in preserving the Sunnah?
The companions according to an authoritative view are graded into several ranks otherwise known as Tabaqat and the sunni scholar Al-Hakim has graded the Sahaba into twelve ranks – his opinion being taken as the correct one. The highest rank given are those who entered Islam in Makkah itself, and the ones in-between consist of the companions who converted before the migration, or reached him before he entered Medina, followed by the Ansaar among other ranks. The penultimate rank is given to those who embraced Islam on the day of the conquest of Mecca and the lowest rank to those who embraced Islam after the Arab conquests in the last year or so of the life of the Prophet [saw]. Thus, when it comes to rank and closeness, as well as companionship to the prophet [saw] those who accepted islam and were from Yemen, Oman, T’aif would be included in the lowest ranks.
This is not to claim they are not respected by Sunni’s, rather this focuses on their impact on their contribution to preserving the traditions of the Prophet [saw]. In recognition that these later converts to Islam generally had a much lower impact and a far less influential role than the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar [Those of Medina] a term has been given for these later converts who converted after the conquest of Mecca as well as the Arab conquests which subsequently followed it which was termed “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum” . The sunni scholar Al-Saghani [d.650] compiled a list of narrations and their number according to Ibn Hazm for each of the members who have narrated a tradition from the “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum.” Of the 42 narrators of hadith listed, only four of them narrated more than one tradition, some narrated one and the majority narrated none at all.
Therefore it is clearly evident those who converted at the conquest of Makkah and the Arab conquests after had seen the Prophet [saw] far less, and had almost little to no direct influence in transmitting his Sunnah as far as allegedly reporting for him goes. The importance of this will be expanded in the following section regarding the converts of Makkah.
[III] Should the Prophet [saw] have given the declaration in Makkah?
Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.
“I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar’s last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.”
The above tradition is so remarkably similar to the situation the Prophet [saw] was in. The caliph of the time, Umar ibn Al Khattab, wishes to make a declaration regarding successorship and warning people about an issue pertaining to it in the Hajj season itself. Rather than giving the speech at Hajj, he is advised by Abdur Rahman bin Auf that the Hajj will gather people from all around Arabia and the other conquered lands, and that rather, he should make this important statement in Medina, where the prophets traditions were preserved and were Islam had gain a true stronghold. Furthermore he warned that people at Hajj from different regions were far weaker with regards to understanding, comprehending, and upholding the true meanings and intentions of the Sunnah and putting statements in their proper place. Umar ibn Al Khattab seemed to accept and agree with this advice, and waited only until Medina to give his very important speech.
Abdur Rahman bin Auf was also correct in his assertion, given that the “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum’ who converted at the day of the conquest of Mecca and after had very little if at all any contribution to reporting from the Prophet [saw] and having the same role in the traditions of the Prophet and an understanding of the religion.
Furthermore one must also consider that by the time of Umar ibn Al Khattab, many of the apostate tribes of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, T’aif and other regions had been dealt with in the Ridda wars. Furthermore, Islam had been in these lands for at least a decade, if not more than this. Despite this, Umar ibn Al Khattab is still worried about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions in Arabia not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was far more grave at the time of the Prophet [saw] where Mecca had barely just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen,Ta’if and other such places had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would en-masse apostate.
If Umar Ibn Al Khattab and other senior companions such as Abdurahman Ibn Awf could recognise the problematic nature of making certain proclamations in Mecca during the Hajj season when all had gathered, pertaining to the issue of leadership itself, at a time when Islam had more time to grow in these lands and hypocrites had been generally dealt with, why could the Prophet [saw] also not desire and seek to to likewise, at a time when the situation was far graver?
In fact, we find in Saheeh Shia narrations that the Prophet [saw] indeed was worried about those who were hypocrites, or those who would claim he is lying, or turn away. Though this is of no value to sunni’s, it merely confirms that Shia’s have original and reliable sources which confirm rational sense, historical context, and the very same worry is echoed in Sahhih Bukhari by Abdurahman ibn Awf and agreed upon by Umar ibn Al Khattab. The following is from Al Kafi and is a Saheeh [Authentic] hadith:
“Allāh commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he explains to them al-Wilāyah like he has explained to them al-Salāh, al-Zakāh, al-Sawm, al-Hajj. So when this came to him from Allāh, He tightened with that the Messenger of Allāh’s (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) chest, and he became frightened that people will apostate from their religion and they would (accuse) him of lying, and his chest became tightened, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) returned to his Lord (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and Allāh (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) revealed (wahy) to him – ‘O Messenger, convey what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, it will be as though you have not conveyed My message. Allāh protects you from men.’ (5:67). So he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) executed the command of Allāh (تعالى), and he mentioned and established the wilāyah of `Alī (عليه السلام) on the day of Ghadīr, and he called for a congregational salāh and commanded the people to convey what they witnessed to the absentees (i.e. convey the news of Wilāyah of `Alī to those who are not present)”
Context-Part two
[IV] Was the declaration at Ghadeer-Khumm in response to hateful speech spoken against Ali ibn Abi Talib by soldiers angry at his actions in Yemen, and how widespread was the discontent?
One of the ways to explain why Muhammed [saw] would choose to specially deliver a speech at Ghadeer Khumm and use the words he did, as well as interpret ‘Mawla’ is that this was all to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib from rumours which had spread about him from discontent members of his battalion who had accompanied him to Yemen, shortly before he rejoined the Prophet [saw] for Hajj. It is stated that because some of these companions decided to speak out against him, and spread rumours about his usurpation of the Khums and unfair treatment, the Prophet [saw] opted to defend him after the Hajj.
Although there can be debate about particular details of this, it is accepted that some among the companions did show discontent against Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is written in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, as well as that of Ibn Hisham the following:
“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…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650 and Ibn Hisham in his Seeraah)
Important points to raise based on the above:
1. The evidence from the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Hisham should be clear evidence that the Prophet [saw] very quickly addressed the issue there and then, rising up to tell the army that Ali ibn Abi Talib is not one they should blame, but rather, he is so committed and fair in the way of Allah that he would never wrong anybody. This statement, if anyone respected the words of the Prophet [saw] should have sufficed there and then and he continued on with the Hajj after settling the matter. If these clear words had not, then they ought to have removed any ill-feelings after the final sermon, where the Prophet [saw] had stated ““Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.” If the Prophet [saw] felt there was any need to add more to this to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib in this particular instance, he would have done so, but his words were clear and decisive to anyone who regarded the Prophet [saw] as Awla over them and their Mawla.
2. Is it not more logical that the Prophet [saw] would have opted to settle the issue immediately, rather than waiting almost two weeks until the 18th of Dhul-Hijjah which was the date of the declaration of Ghadeer?
3. If the Prophet [saw] had made his declaration of Ghadeer Khumm to stop rumours against Ali ibn Abi Talib which had begun to spread as well as reprimand some members of the Army, why did he not do it at Makkah, which would have been the opportune moment to close the issue without letting it grow as the Hajj carried on? Afterall, when he had left Hajj, rumours about Ali ibn Abi Talib may have remained among those who did not follow him on his way to Medina through Ghadeer Khumm.
4. It was well known that Ali ibn Abi Talib was a man loved by the Prophet [saw]. He was the hero of Badr, the hero of Khandaq, the Hero of Khaybar, the first male muslim, married to the daughter of the Prophet [saw], the one made his brother in the pact of brotherhood, the one whose relation to the Prophet [saw] was as Aron was to Moses. The one for whom love was faith and hatred was hypocrisy. Those from the army ought to have known that, considering that they themselves were of the people of Medina. They knew full well the close relation and the virtue and merit the Prophet [saw] had with Ali ibn abi talib. Their issue with him – those among the army- was how he handled the Khums and so it makes more sense for the Prophet [saw] rather than saying whosoever friend he is, Ali is also his friend, to clearly state what Ali ibn abi talib had done was not wrong. They already knew the relation he had to the Prophet [saw] and were more concerned with what the judgement of the Prophet [saw] was on a particular action of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This goes for a large cohort of those who has followed the Prophet [saw] and were from Medina and so returned with him – they knew full well the relationship enjoyed by Ali to the Prophet [saw].
[V] Level of discontent
In order to justify why the Prophet [saw] would make a very bold declaration in front of tens of thousands, and perhaps even close to 100,000 [though this is fairly disputed], an attempt is made to claim that the discontent against Ali ibn Abi Talib was by a large number of men who had begun a massive furore.
However, the fact remains that the battalion taken by Ali ibn Abi Talib to Yemen contained around 300 men as per the majority of historical sources. Furthermore, it is illogical to claim all 300 showed discontent but rather, a percentage or fraction of the army did so.
For example, we can see that a few individuals at first complain against Ali ibn Abi Talib and are instantly reprimanded:
The Prophet (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He 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.” [Saheeh Bukhari]
It is important to note here that the reply to Buraida varies in Saheeh Bukhari, and two variant versions are given, and hence no-one has a right to claim any one tradition.
[According to the Khasa’is by An Nasa’i:] “The Holy Prophet sent a group of army under the command of Ali ibn Abi Talib, after the war (Imam) Ali reserved one female servant for him. Among the companions four of them discussed negatively about Ali ibn Abi Talib and they decided that they will complain to the Holy Prophet,…When the above mentioned group of army return back they went to see the Prophet, one companion stood up among those four and he complained about Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Prophet turn his face on the other side then second companion stood up and also complained, then the third companion stood up and complained, the same thing to the Prophet then the forth one stood up and complain the same thing. The Prophet look towards then and we could see from the facial expression of the Holy Prophet that he was angry. The Prophet said “What made you to complain about Ali ibn Abi Talib, surely Ali is from me and I am from Ali and he is the Wali(Master) of all the believers after me.”
Although there is a debate about the authenticity of the above, it adds to historical evidence which suggests that it was not the entire army which showed resentment, but rather a percentage of the force of 300 who were not left to their thoughts but instantly reprimanded and corrected by the Prophet [saw].
Some have used the following to suggest it was the whole army or the vast majority who complained: “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…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
Linguistically, one can use ‘the army’ to represent a percentage among the army.In a small force of 300, even fifty individuals complaining ma linguistically be rendered in this form. It was far from a furore and a fitnah, but rather an issue held by a percentage from among a small battalion who were from Medina and knew well the status of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and were corrected and reprimanded right away as to the correct action of Ali ibn Abi Talib in how he handled the Khums, which would have thus closed the matter and made there absolutely no need for there to be any further declaration on this particular issue. Furthermore, even if a small number of individuals came to complain, if this number increased, it explains why the prophet after addressing individuals decided to address a group as a whole.
Shaykh-Al-Mufeed [shia scholar] thus writes in Kitab Al Irshad: “The Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, said farewell to him and returned to his army. He met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He denounced them for that. “Shame on you!” he said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. “Whatever made you give them the breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of Allāh, may Allāh 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 on 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 on him, became numerous [many complained, but this does not imply the whole army or most]. The Apostle of Allāh ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be on him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of Allāh, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion.” At this the people refrained from mentioning him and they realised the high position he enjoyed with the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, and his anger against anyone who wanted to find fault with him.”
The above is only brought to show that shia’s and the shia ulema are not ignorant of what happened in Yemen, but given the evidence it is quite clear that the matter had been addressed by the Prophet [saw] and resolved immediately.
Analysis of declaration
[VI] How can we understand the meaning of ‘Awla’ and ‘Mawla’
According to a number of articles written by Sunni’s, Shia’s have misinterpreted and mistranslated both the terms ‘Awla’ and ‘Mawla’. We will first look at contentions against the Shia translation and interpretation of Awla and then examine Mawla.
[VI-A Awla]
At Gahdeer Khumm, it is accepted unanimously that the Prophet [saw] stated: “Alastu Awla bil-Mu’mineen min Anfusihim?”.
This can be translated to ‘Am i not more worthy/closer /do i not have greater rights on/ to the believers than they are to their ownselves?’/ ‘do i not have more authority/over the believers than they have over their ownselves’.
Even if one translates ‘Awla’ to mean being closer, the expression of the Prophet [saw] being ‘closer to the believers than they are to their ownselves’ naturally demonstrates the willing obedience we must all have towards the Prophet [saw], preferring his commands over ours which clearly denotes absolute authority.
In Surah Ahzab, verse 6, it states: “The Prophet is more worthy over believers than [they are to] their own selves…”
Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir writes regarding this Ayah: “Allah tells us how His Messenger is merciful and sincere towards his Ummah, and how he is closer to them than they are to themselves. His judgement or ruling takes precedence over their own choices for themselves”
The above interpretation by Ibn Kathir clearly shows that the phrase ‘closer to the believers than they are to their own-selves’ denotes one of absolute authority, the judgement of the Prophet [saw] takes precedence over their own judgements. Thus, the Ayah and the meaning of this phrase encompasses more than dearness and affection that one would say when they claim they love a family member more than their love themselves – which is poetic usually. Rather, it is more than mere love, it is the acknowledgement of the authority the Prophet [saw] has over us, and an authority which is absolute, so much so we give preference to it over what we think, feel, or ourselves judge and desire. Therefore when the Prophet [saw] states: “Alastu Awla bil-Mu’mineen min Anfusihim?”, he is reminding the believers that the relationship he has over them is one of absolute authority whether one integrates the meaning into the translation or uses the literal phrase.
Before making the phrase ‘whomsoevers Mawla i am, Ali is his Mawla’, the Messenger of Allah [swt] stated: “Alastu Awla bil-Mu’mineen min Anfusihim?”,Which essentially means ‘Do i not hold more authority over you [i.e by taking preference to my commands, my actions, and what i have decreed over what you yourselves want to do, wish or think]. He first establishes that the relationship he has between him and the people is that of absolute authority.
Thus, when the Prophet says ‘Mawla’ after using the word ‘Awla’, he has already established the position he has on them is of authority, and that whomsoever he is thus a Mawla of, Ali is also his Mawla. Now some people may say that you could have a statement of rhetorical affirmation before another unrelated statement. For example, if a headmaster said ‘Do i not have authority over you? Then whomsoever respects me, should also respect Fulan’. In a sense, they affirm it is used as a rhetorical device whereby one first gets the attention of the audience before making an important point.
For instance, there are cases whereby the Prophet [saw] asks the others is their lord not Allah [swt]? When they affirm he is [Bala in Arabic] he continues to talk about the noble Quran.
However, what is important is, in this case, as in many cases, the first part [to get attention] is not linked to the second in a direct manner of subject. In the case of Ghadeer Khum, not only does he remind them of his authority over them and thus his relationship to them, he subsequently talks about being the master of the believers and whomsoever he is the Master [has authority over] Ali is also the master. Had the Prophet [saw] said ‘then love Ali and respect him’ rather than ‘ whoever master i am, Ali is his master’ it would not logically follow that he has established his authority to make a point.
We are not claiming here that the first part of the tradition is evidence that the subsequent part is a designation of authority, but rather, it is the strongest opinion and when taken holistically with all of the other evidences, is the only logical one.
[VI-B Mawla]
Perhaps the most controversial word here is Mawla. What is often stated by those attempting to refute the Shia view of Ghadeer is that Mawla has well over a dozen meanings. Why would the Prophet [saw] use a word that has so many meanings? The reality of the matter is, many if not most words in the Arabic language have many meanings and they are defined by their context.
When the Prophet [saw] said ‘whomsoever Mawla i am’ he immediately discounted the majority of the meanings, such as slave and that which does not befit him. So those trying to claim Mawla can even mean servant or slave are using a point that is extremely disingenuous.
Furthermore, the dominant meaning of Mawla is ‘Master’. The following are quotes taken from respected grammarians in Islamic history.
1. In the famous Lisan Al-Arab dictionary it states: he author of Lisan ul-Arab says: “Sibawayh says, “Wilaya stands for the guardianship of someone; taking charge of his “affairs and fulfilling his needs. The mawla (guardian) of a woman is he who undertakes the responsibility of contracting marriage on her behalf; she cannot get married without his agreement. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says: (For women who got married without the permission of their guardians, their marriage is invalid.) Thus, the real meaning of this word (mawla) is to take charge of a matter and to carry it out. The various uses of the expression simply express this basic fact, such as saying the word ‘man’ for Zayd, Amr and Bakr. Allah is called Mawla because He is the ruler of the affairs of Man.
2. 2. Az-Zajjaj and al-Farra’ said, as mentioned in al-Fakhr ar-Razi’s book At-Tafsir, vol. 29 p. 227, Egyptian edition that “Mawla means worthier.” It was mentioned that Abul-Abbas al- Mubarrid had said that Mawla means worthier and most deserving..
3. Some senior scholars have discussed this subject in their books. Abu Ubayda says in his book Ghareebul-Qur’an: “Mawla means worthier.”
4. Abdul-Malik bin Marwan as his evidence: “Al-Anbari said in his book Tafsirul-Mushkil fil-Qur’an: “Mawla means the worthier.”
5. And Zamakshari, the famous sunni scholar, combines both meaning in the following: “Az-Zamakhshari said in his Tafsir, vol. 4 p. 66, Egyptian edition: “In fact, Mawla means your place, where it would be better for you to be. [a worthier place]“
6. Al-Halabi, in his book At-Taqrib, said: “Mawla, in fact, means worthier and the other expressions are derived from it. The master is a mawla because he is worthier to manage his slaves’ affairs and to bear with their faults. The slave is a mawla because he is worthier to obey his master. So too are the freed slave,the helper who is more worthy of helping whom he helps, the ally to be more worthy of supporting his allies, the neighbour to be more worthy of helping his neighbour and defending him, the son-in-law to be more worthy of his relatives, the imam to be more worthy of whom he leads and the cousin to be more worthy of helping his cousins.” Since the word (Mawla) means worthier, there is no excuse to turn it away from its real meaning and seek other ones.
We find that in the following tradition, Ali ibn Abi Talib himself interpreted ‘Mawla’ to mean master, and this tradition and its implications will be discussed in the very next section, and we highly recommend all readers to see what we have to say about it:
Rabah bin al-Harith said: ‘A group of men passed by Ali in Rahba and they said: ‘Peace be upon you our master (Maula). ‘He (Ali) said: how can I be your master (Maula) and you are Arab?’ They replied: ‘We heard Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) state on the day of Ghadir: ‘Of whomsoever I am his master (Maula) then this (Ali) is his master (Maula)’. Rabah said: ‘When they left, I followed them and asked (people): ‘Who are they?’ They answered: ‘They are group from Ansar and Abu Ayub al-Ansari is among them”. [Musnad Ahmad, Volume 38 page 541:] Shu’aib al-Arnaoot said: ‘The chain is Sahih’
Interestingly, Ali ibn Abi Talib, a man who had been present in front of at least tens of thousands, if not an audience which neared the high five figures, would have known and clearly remembered Ghadir Khumm. Interestingly, even he seems to take the meaning of guardianship, rulership, and authority. This tradition is particularly revealing and Ali ibn Abi Talib had spoken in this manner in a very deliberate way which will be analysed in the next section.
[VI-C] A holistic assessment of ‘Munkuntum mawla’
If we now take on the two lines of the tradition, the clear interpretation begins to become clear:
“The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves…” [Noble Quran 33:6] – Saheeh international translation]
“The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves…” [Noble Quran 33:6] – Shakir]
“The Prophet has more authority over the believers than themselves…” [Noble Quran 33:6] – Muhammed Sarwar]
It has been established in the previous section under ‘Awla’ that this word within the context of the Prophet [saw] in the above verse means that the Prophet [saw] as a greater right and is more worthy in obedience to his commands, in giving preference to what he wants, and what he says, over what we ourselves want. It is an indication of absolute authority over the believers.
Furthermore, it has also been demonstrated according to respected grammarians that Mawla means Master as a dominant meaning in the sense of having guardianship, authority, and rights over another, in addition to ‘being more worthy’. It all depends on who the term ‘Mawla’ is referred to.
Thus, let us now analyse the accepted parts of the mutawattir tradition of Ghadeer Khum:
“Alastu Awla bil-Mu’mineen min Anfusihim?”. Man Kuntum Mawla, Fahadha Aliyun Mawla.
It now becomes clear to any seeker of the truth what the most sensible and clear conclusion of the above statement is. After the Prophet [saw] questions the tens of thousands who are listening to him and asks them whether or not he has more rights over them [in his absolute authority] than they do over their own selves, he then uses a word which has been commonly interpreted as either being Master, or in its roots, having more rights over another and more worthy.
Thus, when the masses accepted that Muhammed [saw] has more authority/rights and is more worthy over them than they are over themselves, whomsoever he is the Mawla of [more worthy in his absolute authority], Ali too his Mawla [more worthy in his absolute authority].
In fact, many have actually taken the word Mawla to mean master, rather than ‘friend’. However they interpret this as the Hashemite link between the Prophet [saw] and Ali ibn Abi Talib [as]. This will be discussed in further editions of this work, as it is more nuanced. Suffice to say, admitting something like that already heavily gives in to the Shia interpretation and contradicts the claims of those who have translated it as ‘beloved’.
One may now ask why Muhammed [saw] used this language, rather than merely stating ‘Ali will be your Caliph after me’ in explicit terms in ghadeer. To begin with, Muhammed [saw] knew that people would rebel against Ali ibn Abi Talib, and this knowledge was not kept from him. Furthermore, he was aware of the hatred that would come to Ali ibn Abi Talib and the jealousy that existed even during his own life time. This will be evidenced and expanded on in the next section.
Muhammed [saw] wanted to ensure that whoever took him as a leader, as someone who they gave preference to his commands and obeyed him above their wants and desires, and thus, whoever considers him more worthy and their master, Ali too is their master. If he had just say ‘Ali is your Mawla’, it would miss the power of the preceding statement made, whereby the Prophet [saw] links obedience to Ali with obedience to him. Therefore, anyone who accepts him, but would reject Ali should know this is unacceptable.
Mawla also encompasses a far stronger meaning than ‘Caliph’. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman could never claimed to have more authority on the believers than they do over their own selves. Ali ibn Abi Talib was more than just a ‘Caliph’ after the Prophet [saw], he was the one who took the place of the Prophet [saw] after his death as the one who had absolute authority over all of the believer.
[VI-C – The real hatred against Ali ibn Abi Talib as more deep rooted than Yemen]
Furthermore, the way the Messenger of Allah [swt] has worded himself is also of significance. It is well known that one of the defining traits of Ali ibn Abi Talib is that two groups of people would be destroyed on his account, those who exaggerate him [and claim divinity and other attributes such as the accursed Abdullah ibn Saba’] and those who hate him or have jealousy or nurse a grudge with him.
Indeed, it is a historical fact during the time of the Banu Ummayah, particular during the times of Muawiyah and the first major Ummayad Caliphs, the cursing of Ali ibn Abi Talib on the pulpits during the Friday prayer was common place. This itself is evidence of the hatred there was for Ali ibn abi Talib.
“I came to Um Salama and she said to me: “How come Allah’s Messenger is being cursed among you?’. I replied: “We seek refuge from allah or praise Allah or some similar words. She said: “I heard Allah’s Messenger [saw] saying , ‘whoever curses Ali, has cursed me’” [Musnad Ahmad, Vol 6, Page 323 Declared Sahih by Shaykh Shoib Al-Arnaut].
Qurtubi in his famed work Al-Mufhem, Volume 20, page 25, whilst commenting on the tradition under discussion [whereby M’uawiyah asks Sa’d why he does not curse Ali/ to use Ali] also stated that during the Ummayad dynasty, he practise was to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib:“The statement of M’uawiyah to S’ad bin Abi Waqqas “What prevents you from cursing Abu Turab” indicates that the first generation of Bani Ummaya would abuse and belittle Ali.
Imam Ibn Kathir, in his Badaya wa Al Nahayah writes [Volume 8, Page 235] “ “When Marwan was a governor of Mu’awiya in Madina, he would curse Ali every Friday from the pulpit (Minbar). Hasan bin Ali then said to him: “Allah then cursed your father by the tongue of His messenger when you were in his ‘Sulub’ (loins) and has said that the curse of Allah be upon Hakam and his progeny.”
As we have also seen from Bukhari, Buraida states he hates Ali ibn Abi Talib, to the Messenger of Allah [saw]:
The Prophet (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He 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.” [Saheeh Bukhari]
And from Tarikh At Tabari: “Ali b. `Abdallah b. `Abbas b. `Abd al-Muttalib. His mother was Zur’ah bt. Mishrah b. Ma`di-Karib b. Wali’ah b. Shurahbil b. Mu`awiyah b. Hujr al-Qird b. al-Harith al-Walladah b. `Amr b. Mu`awiyah b. al-Harith b. Mu`awiyah b. Thawr b. Muratti’ b. Thawr, that is, Kindah. His kunyah was Abu Muhammad. It was reported that he was born the night `Ali b. Abi Talib, the Commander of the Faithful, was killed, in Ramadan 40/February 661. He therefore was given both the name and the kunyah of [`Ali b. Abi Talib], that is, Abu al-Hasan. `Abd al-Malik b. Marwan said to him: “By God, I shall not tolerate it that you would use both the name and the kunyah [of `Ali b. Abi Talib].” So he changed his kunyah and made it Abu Muhammad.”
Here is what it states in the foot-notes: l-Tabari, Ta’rikh, II, 1592. The matter of genealogy and family relations within the Quraysh was of crucial importance in Umayyad propaganda, which is reflected in the stance taken by `Abd al-Malik; see Sharon, “The Umayyads.
We find that even Umulmumineen Aisha herself nursed such a grudge with Ali ibn Abi Talib, that when the Prophet [saw] was in his last period shortly before his death, she could not even bring herself to say his name:
When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956 The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated: “The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)”
This was also in Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 hadith 761: Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah told me that ‘Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-’Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn ‘Abbas of what ‘Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom ‘Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.”
While many accepted the Prophet [saw], owing to the fact the fathers of so many died in battle fields by the sword of Ali , and that he enjoyed a very high rank and status, there was hatred, jealousy, and envy towards him. Furthermore, tribal rivalries may not have accepted power remaining in the hands of the Banu Hashim, and would have seen this as favouritism on part of the Prophet [saw].
By first saying ‘whomsoever Mawla i am” what the Messenger of Allah [saw] wanted to make clear was that whoever had accepted him as an authority over them, should now consider Ali ibn Abi Talib just as they consider him an authority. One can not oppose Ali ibn Abi Talib, yet claim to love and obey the Messenger. Had the Prophet [saw] only said Ali is your Mawla, many may have accepted the Prophet [saw] as their master, but not Ali ibn Abi Talib. Thus, the Prophet [saw] using this immediately makes clear that obeying him means also obeying Ali ibn Abi Talib.
[VI-D Stronger virtues have been used than ‘Friend’ by the Prophet]
It must also be noted that the Prophet [saw] had made far greater praise in support of Ali ibn Abi Talib and this should have been something the majority of those in Medina would have heard or known about. Calling him his friend was not as strong as praise he had previously used. There in fact, was no need to remind anyone that Ali was his friend, given the people he preached to would naturally have consisted a large bulk of those of Medina who had heard the following strong praises:
1. Al Bukhari mentions this tradition in his Sahih, “Kitab al Jihad wa al Siyar”: Sahl ibn Sad said: “The Prophet (pbuh&hp) said on the day of (the victory of) Khaybar: “Tomorrow I will give the standard to a man, by whose hand God shall conquer (Khaybar). He loves God and His Messenger, and God and His Messenger love him.” The people passed the night wondering as to who will receive it and everyone was hopeful of getting it. (The next day) the Prophet (pbuh&hp) declared: “Where is Ali?” He was told: ‘He is suffering with an eye pain.’ (When Ali came) the Prophet applied his saliva to his eyes and prayed for him. Ali recovered as if he had no pain before. Then the Prophet (pbuh&hp) gave it (the standard) to him…
2. “”Are you not pleased to have the position (manzilah) in relation to me as that Aaron had in relation to Moses?”” [Al Bukhari]
3. “May God’s mercy be upon Ali. My God, keep the Haqq (truth, righteousness, justice) always with Ali.” [Tirmidhi, Al Hakim]
4. Ali ibn abi Talib was chosen as the ‘self’ of the Prophet [saw] or at least, those whom the Quran referred to as ‘call yourselves’.
5. Ali ibn Abi Talib was one of the five under the cloak of Kisa, to whom Allah [swt] revelled the verse “And Allah only wishes to keep away from you all forms of impurity oh Ahlulbayt, and purify you with a thorough purification” [Saheeh Muslim and other sources].
6. Ali ibn Abi Talib, despite being a Muhajir like the Prophet, was still made his ‘brother’ during the pact of brotherhood when the Prophet [saw] reached Medina [Seerah ibn Ishaq and many other sources].
7. “Loving Ali is the sign of Belief, and hating him is the Sign of hypocrisy” – Sahih Muslim.
8. He was the hero of Khandaq, Khaybar, remained steadfast when many fled in Uhud and Hunayn, and no-one can forget his heroics in Badr. The tales of Ali ibn Abi Talib lifting the gate of Khaybar when forty men could not lift it after words and bringing enormous relief to the muslims by slaying men who drove fear into the hearts of the companions were spread far and wide , such that all were aware of his merits and virtue and closeness to the Prophet [saw].
Indeed, the problem with the percentage among the small battalion who had gone to Yemen was not of the closeness the Messenger of Allah [swt] had with Ali ibn Abi Talib, for he had given far stronger praise before and this relationship and his virtue was well known. The problem that a small number had was his dealing with the Khums, and merely stating that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend would not change the minds of those who thought he had acted unjustly. What would is to directly address the claim made against him – which the Prophet did almost two weeks prior before starting hajj, and closed the matter there and then.
Aftermath
[VII] How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic sunni traditions?
To begin with we will quote a tradition whereby Ali ibn Abi Talib makes direct reference to this event. The tradition is deemed authentic and is in the Musnad of Ahmad.
“Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abu Laylah said: I witnessed ‘Ali administering an oath to the people in the plain of Rahbah. ‘Ali said: “I adjure those of you in the name of Allah who heard the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir saying `’Ali is the Mawla of whom I am Mawla’ to stand up and to testify. He who was not an eyewitness doesn’t need to stand up.”Thereupon twelve (12) such companions who had participated in the Battle of Badr stood up. The occasion is still fresh in my memory. [Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p119, see also v5, p366]
As we can see above, Ali ibn Abi Talib was fully cognisant and remembered what occurred on the day of Ghadeer, and placed so much emphasis on it he asked others in the name of Allah to stand up and testify that they had witnessed him say it. Now, one may argue that the above hadith does not explicitly prove the shia position or prove how Ali ibn Abi Talib interpreted it. This is true when the hadith is taken alone, but what it does prove is that he knew full well what occurred on the day , he remembered it well, and he placed great emphasis on it as demonstrated by asking others to swear by it.
Now read the following tradition from Musnad Ahmad:
Rabah bin al-Harith said: ‘A group of men passed by Ali in Rahba and they said: ‘Peace be upon you our master (Maula). ‘He (Ali) said: how can I be your master (Maula) and you are Arab?’ They replied: ‘We heard Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) state on the day of Ghadir: ‘Of whomsoever I am his master (Maula) then this (Ali) is his master (Maula)’. Rabah said: ‘When they left, I followed them and asked (people): ‘Who are they?’ They answered: ‘They are group from Ansar and Abu Ayub al-Ansari is among them”. [Musnad Ahmad, Volume 38 page 541:] Shu’aib al-Arnaoot said: ‘The chain is Sahih’
The above tradition is very revealing. One interpretation of the above – and a very erroneous one is to suggest Ali ibn Abi Talib forgot what happened at Ghadir and was confused as to why he was calling them his Mawla, which is not a tenable one considering what has been established. Now that we have established from the first tradition in Musnad Ahmad that Ali ibn abi Talib knew full well what Mawla meant , and remembered the day of Ghadir and even got others to swear by it, we then see him make a very peculiar statement. Senior companions, such as Abu Ayub Al-Ansari and those from the Ansar [and it is significant it is these particular members and this point will be expanded on] called him their Mawla.
Secondly, some people try very hard to claim the dominant use of Mawla means friend, or beloved, and that very few people interpret it as ‘master’. However here we see Ali ibn Abi Talib himself in an authentic sunni hadith seems to interpret it as master to begin with.
Furthermore, one can see Ali ibn Abi Talib using a rhetorical and very intelligent manner of questioning. No-one can claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib forgot Ghadir, nor can anyone claim that senior members of the Sahaba were confused by Ali who thought they called him his master. Rather, what Ali ibn Abi Talib was doing here was asking a question so they they could affirm why they regarded him as their master. He was trying to test their resolve and insight by asking this. By making it clear they were free men [Arab] he wanted to ask them in which way he was their master.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Abu Ayub Al-Ansari is an important one, considering him and a number of the Ansaar are regarded by shia’s as those who returned to Ali ibn Abi Talib and opposed the appointment of the first Caliph. We also find in Tarikh-At-Tabari reports whereby members of the Ansaar advocate on behalf of Ali ibn Abi Talib:
We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]‘. Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation
Just to note, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaydah were already present at Saqifah when the scuffle was taking place. The greatest man on that list according to sunni’s by consensus [as Uthman was not mentioned] was Ali ibn Abi Talib [as]. It could only have been him the was meant, even by logic of our sunni brothers/sisters in islam. This is evident given he was not present, and they had said that one of the men in the list they would not have disputed and if they wanted authority , they would not dispute it.
[Tarikh -At Tabari[: Ibn Humayd-Jarir – Abu Ma’shar Ziyad b. Mughzrahl-Kulayb-Abu Ayyub-Ibrahim- “The Ansar gathered in a roofed building (sagifah)12s9 of the Banu Sa’idah to render their oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. This news reached Abu Bakr, so he came to them with’Umar and Abu’Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah, asking [them] why [they had gathered]. They replied, “Let us have a ruler (amir) from us and another from you.” Abu Bakr said, “The rulers (umard’
will be from us, and the viziers (wuzard’ from you.” Abu Bakr then added, “I am pleased [to offer] you one of these two men: ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaydah. Some people came to the Prophet asking him to send a trustworthy man with them. The Messenger of God said that he would send a truly trustworthy man with them, and he sent Abu ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah. I am pleased [to offer] you Abu ‘Ubaydah.” ‘Umar stood up saying, “Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence? 11290 and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [‘Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said, “We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except ‘Ali.”
[VIII] Why was Ali ibn Abi Talib not duly given his right after the death of the Prophet [saw], and did he or any of the other companions protest?
This is perhaps one of the other main contentions raised against the idea of the confirmation of Ali ibn Abi Talib at Ghadir. The question that is asked is, how is it that some of the close companions of the Prophet [saw] went against his command, and sought leadership for themselves? And why did Ali ibn Abi Talib not protest? [The reality is, he did protest and there is irrefutable evidence of this, that he and other companions did so].
However, in order to address this particular question, we have to understand that the Prophet of God did not have at the time 120,000 loyal, devout companions. Rather the companions were in groups. There were the Muhajiroon, the Ansar who were of the people from Medina. There were also those who converted at the very end of his life time during the conquest of Mecca, such as Abu Sufiyan and others, and a percentage who converted from the conquests – many of whom turned apostate or rebelled during the Ridda wars. As it has been established, other than those of Medina, we find that only four members of those who converted after the conquest of Mecca transmitted more than one tradition, the majority of them transmitting none at all.
The only people who really knew the Prophet [saw] were the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar. There is no doubt among them there may have been many good companions, and Shia muslims respect many prominent ones such as Abdullah ibn Abbas [ra], Jabir ibn Abdullah and his father [ra], Abu Ayyub [ra], Abdullah ibn Ma’sud [ra], Abu Sa’id al Khudri [ra], Salman Al Farsi [ra], Harat Bilal [ra], Ammar ibn Yassir [ra], and many others. Shia’s also do not make a comment on the general masses, many of whom were not prominent , the elderly, women, the children, those who mainly converted very late among them, and their judgement will be upon Allah [swt].
The Quran must now be sought on guidance for this issue. Has there in the noble Quran ever been a case where a Prophet of God has appointed a successor, and those who had obeyed that Prophet of God among them a number turned away from obeying who he had chosen? It is pertinent to note here that the Quran is a reminder for all of humanity. When Allah [swt] gave these stories, it was not simply to educate them about what happened, but as an example and a warning for the companions, those who came after them, and everyone up until the day of judgement. One can not state that as a body of human beings, the Sahaba were not also capable of committing the same mistakes any other large body of human beings had done.
We find in the noble Quran that when Prophet Musa [as] went up into the mountain stating it would be for 30 days, Allah [swt] in order to test the children of Israel extended this by ten days. In those ten days, a prominent companion of Musa [as] Samiri and other companions thought he would not return or had died. Before Musa [as] had left , he had appointed Harun in charge of the people during the month he was away. However, after Musa [as] was not returning , the people disobeyed Harun and many turned back. It is important to note that there were a fair number who did not, but in this case, most of them did turn back.
Noble Quran [ 20:85-87] [Allah] said, “But indeed, We have tried your people after you [departed], and the Samiri has led them astray.”
So Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved. He said, “O my people, did your Lord not make you a good promise? Then, was the time [of its fulfillment] too long for you, or did you wish that wrath from your Lord descend upon you, so you broke your promise [of obedience] to me?”
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], “O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order.” They said, “We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us.”
Noble Quran [ 20:92] Moses] said, “O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?” [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, ‘You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.’ ”
Thus we can see from the above that the children of Israel, who had been saved by Allah [swt] from the terror of Fir’awn, and had seen wondrous miracles from the entire sea splitting, and were favoured above all lost their way when the Messenger among them had left. Some remained Loyal, and some prominent among them erred and led many others to errr.
Interestingly, in Saheeh Al Bukhari, Muhammed [saw] tells Ali ibn Abi Talib when leaving him behind in Medina: “…O Ali, are you not pleased that you are unto me like Harun [Aaron] was to Musa [Moses], except that there is no prophet after me”.
Not only was Ali ibn Abi Talib similar in the sense he was also left behind in Medina to look after the people when the Prophet left to Tabouk, but also similar in the remarkable sense in which he was left to lead the people some of whom stayed loyal and many of whom turned away after the death of the Messenger [saw]. In the case of the children of Israel it was when they thought Musa [as] had died and wouldn’t return.
Do we have any examples from the Quran about some of the companions of Muhammed [saw] fleeing and deserting after they themselves feel he has died?
A number of times in the noble Quran do we see Allah[swt] reprimanding the muslims for running away en-masse from battles. During the battle of Uhud, it is widely accepted the archers placed on the mountain disobeyed the Prophet [saw] who warned them not to leave their post because they thought they needed to obtain some war booty for themselves. We find in the same battle, when Muhammed [saw] was deserted and had very few companions around him, such as Abu Dujana [ra] , Ali ibn Abi Talib and others, there were rumours spread that he had died, which caused many of the muslims to flee.
The following verse was revealed to severely reprimand them. Noble Quran [3:144]: “Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful”
Ibn Kathir writes on this verse: When Muslims suffered defeat in battle at Uhud and some of them were killed, Shaytan shouted, “Muhammad has been killed.” Ibn Qami’ah went back to the idolators and claimed, “I have killed Muhammad.” Some Muslims believed this rumor and thought that the Messenger of Allah had been killed, claiming that this could happen, for Allah narrated that this occurred to many Prophets before. Therefore, the Muslims’ resolve was weakened and they did not actively participate in battle. This is why Allah sent down to His Messenger His statement.
Just as we found the children of Bani Israel losing faith after the absence of their leader, believing he was dead, we too here see that in the absence of Muhammed [saw] with the belief he had died, many began to question and revert back and lose resolve.
Some may claim that the Sahaba are not ‘infallible’. This is really a play on rhetoric, and a straw man because no-one claims that they are. However what is claimed that one can not merely regard any large body of people who naturally within that large body will include people ov varying ranks , faiths, and resolve as all righteous and pious – this is illogical. From the people of previous Prophets [saw] to the people of Muhammed [saw] and until the day of judgement, any large body of fallible human beings will include people of all kinds and ranks in their character. The fact so many deserted the Prophet [saw] and had their faith severely weakened to deserve a reprimand by virtue of divine revelation clearly demonstrates them falling into similar traps as those of previous prophets of God.
Furthermore, one may argue that this was early on , and that during the end of the life-time of Muhammed [saw] they began to learn and reflect and had greater resolve. However, evidence from both the Quran and widely accepted historical sources clearly hi lights this was not the case. Only a couple of years before the death of the Prophet [saw] many deserted him at the battle of Hunayn. We find in the noble
Quran [9:25]: “Truly Allah has given you victory on many battle fields, and on the Day of Hunayn (battle) when you rejoiced at your great number but it availed you naught and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you, then you turned back in flight.”
Ibn Kathir
“The two armies met in Humayn, a valley between Makkah and At-Ta’if. The battle started in the early part of the morning, when the Huwazin forces, who were lying in ambush, descended on the valley when the Muslims entered. Muslims were suddenly struck by the ambush, the arrows descended on them and the swords struck them. The Huwazin commander ordered them to descend and attack the Muslims as one block, and when they did that, the Muslims retreated in haste, just as Allah described them. The Messenger of Allah remained firm in his position while riding his mule, Ash-Shahba’. He was leading his mule towards the enemy, while his uncle Al-`Abbas was holding its right-hand rope and ﴿his cousin﴾ Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith bin `Abdul-Muttalib was holding the left rope. They tried to hold the mule back so it would not run faster toward the enemy. Meanwhile, the Messenger of Allah was declaring his name aloud and saying,
«إِلَيَّ عِبَادَ اللهِ إِلَيَ أَنَا رَسُولُ الله» (O servants of Allah! Come back to me! I am the Messenger of Allah! He repeated these words, «أَنَا النَّبِيُّ لَاكَذِبْ. أَنَا ابْنُ عَبْدِ
Very few companions remained with the Prophet [saw]. Of a force of tens of thousands who accompanied him , less than 1% remained according to most of the historical sources. The Messenger of Allah [saw] seeing the fleeing companions began to shut of them and adjure them to return , and remind them who he was lest they forgot that it was their duty to defend him and the religion.
For all those who try to justify what they acted in this way, the fact remains that Allah [swt] reprimands those who turned in flight, rather than understanding that they had no choice but to do so. The Prophet [saw] furthermore shouts at them to return to him, and does not seem to think they are all justified in running away because of ambush from the enemy.
If a large number were willing to flee several battles during the life of the Prophet [saw] one should not claim that the majority were all steadfast, pious, and strong in resolve because Quranic evidence and clear historical facts do not demonstrate this.
Additionally one must also note that in the noble Quran, those who were ardent and pious have been known to change. Shaytan is a prime example, of Jinn who was such a pious worshipper and was elevated to a rank in which he was with the angels. However, when Allah [swt] appointed Adam as one superior to him, despite all the servitude and the status he had gained, the jealousy caused him to rebel against the command of Allah [swt]. How often in history have we seen power, authority, and control, turn even a man who was once good into something else?
In fact, what occurred after the death of the Prophet [saw] was just that – a chaotic power struggle. After all , the power vacuum left by the Prophet [saw] would have certainly been attractive to a nation still divided by tribes, with affiliations and vested interests. Old rivalries between the two tribes of the Ansar – the Aws and Khazraj resurfaced. We find each party coveted power in order to secure their own safety and interests. Whoever replaced Muhammed [saw] would be in rule of all of Arabia and potential further lands after conquests, as well as the supreme leader of the muslims. Right after the death of Muhammed [saw] men seeking authority all over Arabia broke their treaties and many turned back as apostates during the Ridda wars.
Also worthy of note, Abu Bakr, Umar and other companions were prominent and had a high status. Many were confused in what had occurred and many wished avoid fighting and bloodshed, and so went a long with what had occurred at Saqifah.
[VIII Part B] The event of Saqifah
While the Prophet [saw] was being buried, some members of the Ansaar heard that certain members of the Muhajiroon sought to take power, and felt that they would be maligned and put to one side and so decided to preemptively select someone among themselves. Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates the event as chaotic and a catastrophe the Ummah in his eyes, had been saved from. In Saheeh-Al-Bukhari:
“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let’s go to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, ‘O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?’ We replied, ‘We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ They said to us, ‘You shouldn’t go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.‘ I said, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’ And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa`da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They said, ‘He is Sa`d bin ‘Ubada.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’ After we sat for a while, the Ansar’s speaker said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, ‘To proceed, we are Allah’s Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.’
There didn’t seem to be any sort of understanding from some members of the Ansaar who had gathered there that Abu Bakr ibn Quhafa, or Umar ibn Al Khattab, or Uthman ibn Affan or Abu Ubaidah were superior than most of the muslims. Rather it was a power struggle, and the few members of the Ansaar at Saqifah had accused Abu Bakr, and Umar ibn Al Khattab and a few emigrants of wanting to take power from them. In fact, Umar ibn Al Khattab only goes to Saqifah because he is told that some members of the Ansaar have already pre-emptively decided a leader amongst them.
Interesting to note – and this will be covered in the next section is that Ali ibn Abi Talib and others opposed Abu Bakr and Umar. They had heard about what they were doing with regards to leadership and boycotted them and gathered in the house of Fatima binte Muhammed [saw]. Some members of the Ansaar however, decided to choose their own leader before Abu Bakr or Umar or some of the emigrants could influence or say anything.
In the same Narration of Saheeh-Al-Bukhari, Umar ibn Al-Khattab continues after Abu Bakr had rose up to ask the Ansaar to nominate either Umar or Abu Ubaidah as the caliphs: “..And then one of the Ansar said, ‘I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.’ Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.’ He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler).”
It is very interesting to note that even after Abu Bakr speaks, the Ansaar still do not want to elect him, and there is an enormous quarrel and in-fighting, so much so voices began to rise to such a level Umar ibn Al Khattab feared there would ensue chaotic scenes. It is here where Umar ibn Al Khattab does not really elaborate further, as he just mentions on impulse getting Abu Bakr to put his hand out so he and the few emigrants with him can give allegiance to him. What then led some of the Ansaar to go ahead with this ‘afterwards’ is up to debate and question. Some historians have noted the rivalries between the Aws and Khazraj resurfacing.
Suffice to say that what occurred was only to be expected – a chaotic power struggle for the coveted authority and rule among the muslims the Prophet [saw] had. As Umar ibn Al Khattab concludes in the same tradition: “`Umar added, “By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble.”
Interestingly, we find that many of the Ansaar would have chosen Ali ibn Abi Talib, however, what had occurred was that they heard plans by a small number of the emigrants who sought to secure power. Ali ibn abi Talib, members of the Banu Hashim, and a number of the companions opposed Abu Bakr and Umar. However, some of the other Ansaar saw that while some of the emigrants had sought power for themselves, rather than being maligned and pushed to the sidelines and have others rule over them who had disobeyed the command of the Prophet [saw], it was better for them to pre-empt this and choose a leader for themselves.
We again will present the traditions from Tarikh-Tabari, where some among the Ansaar state that they would only choose Ali ibn Abi Talib [when faced with the opposition of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaidah].
” We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]‘”. Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation.
Just to note, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaydah were already present at Saqifah when the scuffle was taking place. The greatest man on that list according to sunni’s by consensus [as Uthman was not mentioned] was Ali ibn Abi Talib [as]. It could only have been him the was meant, even by logic of our sunni brothers/sisters in islam. This is evident given he was not present, and they had said that one of the men in the list they would not have disputed and if they wanted authority , they would not dispute it.
[Tarikh -At Tabari[: Ibn Humayd-Jarir – Abu Ma’shar Ziyad b. Mughzrahl-Kulayb-Abu Ayyub-Ibrahim- “The Ansar gathered in a roofed building (sagifah)12s9 of the Banu Sa’idah to render their oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. This news reached Abu Bakr, so he came to them with’Umar and Abu’Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah, asking [them] why [they had gathered]. They replied, “Let us have a ruler (amir) from us and another from you.” Abu Bakr said, “The rulers (umard’ will be from us, and the viziers (wuzard’ from you.” Abu Bakr then added, “I am pleased [to offer] you one of these two men: ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaydah. Some people came to the Prophet asking him to send a trustworthy man with them. The Messenger of God said that he would send a truly trustworthy man with them, and he sent Abu ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah. I am pleased [to offer] you Abu ‘Ubaydah.” ‘Umar stood up saying, “Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence? 11290 and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [‘Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said, “We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except ‘Ali.”
It is worthy to note that Ali ibn Abi Talib, members of the Banu Hashim and many companions did not give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. It was a chaotic power struggle, and then he became the Caliph, and anyone who disobeyed the orders of giving their allegiance were ordered to give it, lest they be committing treason. Abu Bakr, Umar, and others were senior companions and commanded fear and respect, and it was time of confusion and Fitnah for the Ummah.
[IX] Did Ali ibn Abi Talib or any of the other companions fight for his right?
What many Sunni brothers and sisters are unaware of is that Ali ibn Abi Talib, members of the Banu Hashim, and a number of the companions opposed Abu Bakr and Umar, and did not give their Bayah to them. In fact, Ali ibn abi Talib withehld from recognising Abu Bakr as the Caliph for six whole months, during which there were several apostate tribes surfacing and great fitnah. Umar ibn Al Khattab as we have mentioned before, narrates in [Saheeh Al Bukhari]: “And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.
And again in [Saheeh Al Bukhari] it is mentioned: “So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When she died, her husband. ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, ‘All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. .. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these months. He sent a person to Abu Bakr requesting him to visit him unaccompanied by anyone (disapproving the presence of Umar).‘Umar said to Abu Bakr: By Allah, you will not visit them alone. Abu Bakr said: What will they do to me? By Allah, I will visit them. And he did pay them a visit alone. “
Although traditions try to explain away why he opposed him for six months, in order to come to truth we have to work on what we commonly can accept – that he opposed Abu Bakr for six months.
We ask the following:
1. If Ali ibn Abi Talib had truly heard the Prophet [saw] claim that the most superior after him among the people was Abu Bakr, and if he himself claimed Abu Bakr was superior to him , why did he not immediately recognise that the best man had been given the leadership role?
2. If Ali ibn Abi Talib’s grievance was that he was not consulted, then had he been consulted, would he have opted for anyone other than Abu Bakr to lead after the Prophet [saw]? If he would naturally have chosen Abu Bakr, than why would he grieve at all?
3. Why would he forsake it for six whole months, until the death of Fatima binte Muhammed ? Does it not seem like a normal action for people who are close, love each other, and for one who recognises the merits and superiority of Abu Bakr to meet with him to immediately discuss his differences, rather than withholding from him for six whole months, which is an enormous percentage of the time Abu Bakr was Caliph himself?
There is no doubt Ali ibn Abi Talib did not agree nor accept the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and sought to oppose him to mediate on the best course of action. However, there was not enough support for him, and causing a civil war when the byzantines and Persianss were looking at a young nation which had just lost their talisman and central leader in the Prophet [saw] would have been greatly against the better interests and survival of the religion of Islam.
[X] Conclusion
The contentions of Sunni arguments against Ghadir Khumm being a declaration for the appointment of Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] as the leader after the Prophet [saw] has in this piece, been dissected in three main bodies within encompassing multiple categories.
1.The context. 2.
The words spoken by the Prophet [saw]
3.The aftermath.
1. It has been clearly demonstrated that the majority of those who lived south of Mecca, such as in Yemen, had converted very freshly, just as Ali ibn Abi Talib himself was returning from victory to begin the Hajj. Many did not convert, and among those who did, many apostates during the lifetime and after the death of the Prophet [saw]. A similar pattern follows T’aif, Oman, and other regions. Therefore, they can not be considered as having contribution large percentages towards the final pilgrimage. Furthermore, according to Sunni scholars these very late converts are considered to be of the Mu’alafati Quloobuhum contributing almost nothing of any significance to Hadith narrators from the Prophet [saw]. Thus, the vast majority of Arabia took what they knew of what the Sunnah is and what the commands of Muhammed [saw] were from those in Medina. Imam Malik even based his muwatta on this concept. Umar ibn Al Khattab is given advice by Abdurhaman ibn Awf to suspend a declaration and statement regarding leadership after him until after he returns to Medina in Saheeh Al Bukhari, owing to the fact at his time there are many hypocrites from around Arabia and within Makkah itself, as well as the conquered lands, whilst people in Medina can understand his statement properly and convey it from him to others in its proper and intended meaning. Furthermore, the event of Ghadeer occurred just two months before the death of the Prophet [saw]. If there ever was a time to make a declaration of leadership after you, then doing so in an affirmative way very shortly after your death is the opportune moment.
2. It is quite clear that the prophet [saw] first ensures they affirm his absolute authority over them [by stating he is worthier over them more than they are over their own-selves], before subsequently stating that whomsoever he is more worthy over [Mawla] Ali is more worthy over, thus rendering the meaning to Mawla in its dominant usage as Master within this context. The meaning of ‘friend’ is contrary to the dominant usage of the word according to most respected Arab dictionaries, as well as the established context given the preceding statement by the Prophet [saw] as well as the relationship he had over the believers. Ali ibn Abi Talib according to an authentic hadith in Musnad Ahmad determined the word ‘Mawla’ to mean master.
3. Ali ibn Abi Talib opposed Abu Bakr for six whole months, as well as a number of the companions who did so for a while, in addition to members of the Banu Hashim. This is absolutely significant. If he had truly considered Abu Bakr superior to him, why would he resist in such a manner? If was hurt he was not consulted, then would he have wanted any other result than Abu Bakr being leader as per the Sunni muslims? Those who are close and loving would consult with each other and discuss the event right away, and acknowledge the superiority and be pleased with the outcome. Traditions explaining it away are against basic rationality. Furthermore, what occurred in Saqifah has been demonstrated to be a chaotic power struggle which could have ended in catastrophy. In fact, it sowed the roots for the destabilisation of the muslim Ummah, allowing the Banu Ummayah to slowly grow in prominence and influence leading to despots taking power.
Shia responses 