It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said.
For example, the Quranic verse “slay them wherever you find them” is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation.
Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally different (and misleading) picture.
The Prophet’s intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was said.
The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia
The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) divinely appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should “set the stakes”:
(1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Shia creed is correct.
(2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was never appointed at all by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid.
The reason we need to make this very clear from the outset is that the Shia propagandists have this uncanny ability to move the goalposts whenever they lose a debate. They will jump from one topic to another; if they lose the debate over Ghadir Khumm, then they will bring up the Incident of the Door, or Saqifah, or Fadak, or who knows what else.
The entire foundation of Shi’ism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) supposedly nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) never appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the Shia must abandon all of their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) usurped the God-appointed Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia paradigm–and so important to the Shia theology–that the Shia masses have a yearly celebration known as “Eid-e-Ghadir”.
Amaana.org says“Eid-e Gadhir is celebrated with great rejoicing by Shia Muslims where they remember Prophet Muhammad’s last instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Ali’s vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage…
Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first of the divinely appointed Imams. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, refers to Ghadir Khumm as a “momentous event” and the basis for the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
The reason it is neccessary to strongly emphasize the importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia is that we will show how the supposedly strongest ‘weapon’ in the arsenal of the Shia propaganda is actually very weak. If this is the very basis of Shi’ism, then indeed Shi’ism is a very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm but simple logic dictates otherwise.
What the Shia Claim Happened
Al-Islam.org says“After completing his last pilgrimage (Hajjatul-Wada’), Prophet [s] was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where he and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is close to today’s al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from different provinces used to greet each other before taking different routes for their homes.
In this place, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:
“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)
The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.
Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of ‘Ali and said:
“For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).”
Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:
“Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)
The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.
Why It Just Doesn’t Make Sense
The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) completed his last Hajj, said his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Mecca, and then afterwards appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm. Let us analyze this claim: Ghadir Khumm is located between Mecca and Medinah, near the city of Al-Juhfah, as mentioned by the Al-Islam.org website. It is a watering hole in the middle of the desert. The coup de grâce to the Shia argument is the fact that Ghadir Khumm is located approximately 250 km away from Mecca. This simple fact is enough to shatter the entire premise of Shi’ism.
As we all know, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) delivered his Farewell Sermon in Mecca during his last Hajj. This was in front of the great majority of the Muslims, who had come from all of the various cities to do Hajj. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable explanation why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not do this during his Farewell Sermon to all of the Muslims. The entire Muslim Ummah was gathered there to hear his parting words, so surely this would be the most appropriate time and opportunity to appoint a successor.
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Muslims completed their Hajj after which everyone went back to their respective home cities. The people of Medinah went back to Medinah, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Syria went back to Syria, and the people of Mecca stayed put in Mecca.
It was only the group that lived in cities in the North of the Arabian Peninsula that passed by Ghadir Khumm. This would consist of only those who were heading towards Medinah and the minority of Muslims that lived in places such as Syria. Therefore, when the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great number of the Muslims were not present including those living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. After the Hajj, the Meccans stayed behind in Mecca, the people of Taif went back to Taif, the people of Kufa went back to Kufa, the people of Yemen went back to Yemen, etc. Only the group going to Medinah (or passing through/near it) accompanied the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to Ghadir Khumm.
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in front of all the Muslims, but rather what happened at Ghadir Khumm happened in front of just the handful of Muslims who were heading back to Medinah (or passing through/near it). Let us look at what one Shia website claims:
The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says“ On the 18th of Dhul-Hajjah, after completing his “farewell pilgrimage” (Hajjatul- Wida’a), the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) had departed Makkah en route to Madinah. He and the entire Muslim caravan, numbering over 100,000, were stopped at Ghadeer Khumm, a deserted-yet-strategically situated area that lies between Makkah and Madinah (near today’s Juhfah). In those days, Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage from neighbouring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home.
The Shia website claims that “Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgramage from neighboring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home.” A simple look at any map would show how utterly absurd this is. The following map comes from Al-Islam.org:
Is there any rationale as to why the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. would travel towards Ghadir Khumm on the way back to their home cities in the completely opposite direction? We hope that the reader can understand how truly absurd this proposition is.
To give an analogy, let us assume that the President of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) lives in San Francisco and that he wishes to nominate his replacement in front of all the ISNA members. Each year, ISNA holds its largest conference in Chicago, in which thousands of ISNA members from ever city in America congregate. They come from San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Washington D.C., etc. Their flight to Chicago would look like this:
Now that all the ISNA members are present at the yearly conference in Chicago, would it not seem fairly self-evident that this would be the most fitting place for the ISNA president to nominate his successor? After the conference, everyone heads back to their respective home cities, so the ISNA president heads back towards San Francisco with a stop-over in Cheyenne. Would it make any logical sense that the other ISNA members pass through Cheyenne on the way back to their home cities in the opposite direction? This truly would make no sense. It would look something like this:
No rational mind could accept such a thing. It would make little sense for the ISNA president to nominate his successor in Cheyenne as opposed to Chicago during the yearly conference. A person who lives in Washington D.C. would not travel West to go to Cheyenne, but rather he would travel in the opposite direction towards his home. A person who lives in Chicago certainly wouldn’t accompany the ISNA president to Cheyenne after the conference, but rather he would stay behind in Chicago where he lives. Indeed, the more sensical return paths of the ISNA members would look something like this:
In this analogy above, San Francisco is Medinah, Chicago is Mecca, and Cheyenne is Ghadir Khumm. It is clear that the only people passing through Cheyenne are those that are headed towards San Francisco or the West Coast. Therefore, it would not be wise for the ISNA president to deliver his nomination speech in Cheyenne because the Muslims from all the other cities would not be present. It would instead make much more sense that he deliver such a speech in Chicago, where the conference is held. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would have appointed his successor in Mecca during his Farewell Sermon, not in the middle of nowhere on the way back to Medinah.
When the Muslims embarked on the Hajj, let us assume that these were the routes they took:
Now that the Muslims from all the cities have assembled in Mecca, would this not be the most appropriate time to declare the Prophet’s successor? The Shia propagandist would have us believe that the Muslims going to Taif and Yemen would travel an extra 500 km (round trip) to the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm and then head back in the opposite direction. As stated by the Shia themselves, Ghadir Khumm was a watering hole and a resting point for those travelling…the only thing they fail to mention is that it is a resting point for those passing through it, not those heading in the opposite direction altogether! The Shia would have us believe that the return trip of the Muslims would look like this:
This is nothing short of nonsense. After the Hajj, everyone heads back to their home cities and the Meccans would stay put since they lived in Mecca. Why would they have head out towards a watering hole in the middle of nowhere? Considering the fact that the Muslims were on foot in the desert, this journey back and forth of 250 km to Ghadir Khumm and back would have added a few extra weeks in transit time. Does this not flout logic and rational thinking? Indeed, the more sensical image would be the following:
Therefore, the conclusion we reach is that the Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not address this point in his Farewell Sermon at all. As for the incident of Ghadir Khumm, we have seen how unlikely it is that this would be the place that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the next Caliph; indeed, the mainstream Muslim version of Ghadir Khumm just makes more sense.
What Really Happened at Ghadir Khumm
Nobody denies the incident of Ghadir Khumm; however, what we deny are the exaggerations of the Shia with regards to said event. First off, the Shia exaggerate as to how many people were present at Ghadir Khumm, often giving numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As we have shown above, only the Muslims heading towards Medinah were present at Ghadir Khumm, which means that the Meccans were not present, nor were any of the people of Taif, Yemen, etc. In fact, the Shia often quote that 100,000 people were present at Ghadir Khumm but this is likely an over-exaggeration, and rather this is the number of people present in Mecca for the Hajj from all of the cities, not only those who were returning to Medinah (which was only a fraction of that number). Whatever the case, no matter what number the Shia use, this can only be a fraction of the Muslims because it would not include the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.
The context of Ghadir Khumm must be taken into consideration. What happened at Ghadir Khumm was that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was responding to certain individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه). The background behind this was that a few months earlier, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had dispatched Ali (رضّى الله عنه) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the Shia website, www.najaf.org: “Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen.” (https://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm)
The army led by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was very successful in Yemen and they captured a lot of war booty. It was over this war booty that a dispute began between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on the one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathir’s “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah”:
Amongst the state’s fifth of the spoils there was enough linen to clothe the whole army, but Ali had decided that it must be handed over to the Prophet untouched.
After the victory in Yemen, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) placed his deputy commander in charge of the troops stationed in Yemen, while he himself head out towards Mecca to meet the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) for the Hajj. We read:
In his (Ali’s) absence, however, the man he left in charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for nearly three months.
The troops stationed in Yemen then set out to Mecca to complete the Hajj with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم):
When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from entering the city (of Mecca), Ali rode out to meet them and was amazed to see the transformation that had taken place (in regards to their clothing).
“I gave them the garments,” said the deputy commander, “that their appearance might be more seemly when they entered in among the people.” The men all knew that everyone in Mecca would now be wearing their finest clothes in honor of the Feast, and they were anxious to look their best. But Ali felt he could not countenance such a liberty and he ordered them to put on their old clothes again and return the new ones to the spoils. Great resentment was felt throughout the army on this account, and when the Prophet heard of it, he (the Prophet) said: “O people, blame not Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of Allah to be blamed.” But these words were not sufficient, or it may be that they were only heard by a few, and the resentment continued.
On the way back to Medina one of the troops bitterly complained of Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed color. “Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves?” he said; and when the man assented, he added: “Whomsoever’s beloved friend I am, Ali is (also) his beloved friend.” Later on in the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking Ali by the hand he repeated these words [i.e. whomsoever’s beloved I am, this Ali is (also) his beloved friend”], to which he added the prayer: “O Allah, be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his foe”; and the murmurings against Ali were silenced.
The soldiers under Ali’s charge were not only perturbed over the change of clothes but also over the distribution of the spoils of war in general. The Muslims, thanks to the great leadership of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), had conquered many camels, but Ali (رضّى الله عنه) forbade them from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) prevented them from riding the camels of the war spoils that they had acquired. But when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had left for Mecca, his deputy commander had succumbed to the pleas of the people and allowed them to ride these camels. When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) saw that, he became angry and he blamed the deputy commander. Abu Saeed (رضّى الله عنه) said: “When we were on the way back to Medinah, we mentioned to the Prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali; the Prophet said: ‘Stop…By Allah, I have known that he (Ali) has done good for the sake of Allah.’”
A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah Rasool-Allah; we read:
When Ali came (back) from the Yemen to meet the Apostle in Mecca, he hurried to him and left in charge of his army one of his companions who went and covered every man in the force with clothes from the linen Ali had. When the army approached, he (Ali) went out to meet them and found them dressed in the clothes. When he asked what on earth had happened, the man (his deputee) said that he had dressed the men so that they might appear seemly when they mingle with the people. He (Ali) told him to take off the clothes before they came to the Apostle and they did so and put them back among the spoil(s). The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali, the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
Ibn Katheer narrates that the people in the army (i.e. the contingent sent to Yemen) started to criticize Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they had acquired. It was these men that accompanied the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to Medinah via Ghadir Khumm, and it is they who were being addressed in the famous Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.
In fact, in “Tareekh al-Islam”, the event of Ghadir Khumm falls under the heading “The Consolation of Ali”. We read:
The Consolation of Ali
During the Hajj, some of the followers of Ali who had been with him to Yemen complained to the Prophet about Ali. Some of the misunderstandings of the people of Yemen had given rise to misgivings. Addressing the Companions at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet of Allah said admiring Ali: “The one who is my friend is the friend of Ali…” Following the address, Umar congratulated Ali saying: “From this day on you are a very special friend of mine.” The Prophet then came back to Al-Medinah and his son Ibrahim passed away.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.241)
The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm
To summarize the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: The soldiers in Ali’s army were very upset with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for denying them linen and camels from the spoils, and they were not pleased with the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself was accorded a special share of the Khums (i.e. the fifth of war booty). Of course, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) cannot be blamed for this privilege of taking an extra share of the Khums, which is a right accorded to the Prophet’s family in the Quran. Nonetheless, the people had anger in their eyes, so they took special offense when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took a slave girl for himself from the Khums; the soldiers wrongfully accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of being a hypocrite for denying the clothes and camels to the men but for himself taking a slave girl. It was for this wrongful criticism of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) defended Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.
ShiaChat Member says“You sick Saudi perverts can believe whatever filth you want about anyone at your own personal leisure but don’t dare bring this up here…
That accusation [that Imam Ali slept with a slave girl] is blatantly ummayyad propaganda to make our Mawla (A.S.) look bad…
”
First of all, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm as recorded in Sahih Bukhari was not intended to make Ali (رضّى الله عنه) look evil at all. In fact, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) defended Ali’s actions. It should be noted that even the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself took a slave girl and this has been narrated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Slavery was the cultural norm back then and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) urged the Muslims to treat their slave girls as their wives. On other occassions, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would encourage emancipating slaves and marrying them. In any case, there are many lengthy articles that defend the Islamic position on this matter, and the reader is free to search the internet for them.
Secondly, it should also be noted that Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was not criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because he thought having a slave girl was immoral. Instead, Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was only criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking part of the Khums while denying it to his men; to Buraida (رضّى الله عنه), it would have been immaterial what Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took from the Khums whether it be a slave girl, linen, or camels.
Thirdly, the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) took a slave girl is narrated in the Shia Hadith, so why should the Shia react so violently when a similar narration is in the Sunni Hadith? Is this not hypocrisy? Indeed, just as Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) was angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking a slave girl in the Sunni Hadith, similarly was Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for taking a slave girl in the Shia Hadith. This Shia Hadith was narrated by one of the fore-fathers of Shia theology, namely Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, and it is available on YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website:
YaZahra.org says“Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147
عن أبي ذر رحمة الله عليه قال : كنت أنا وجعفر بن أبي طالب مهاجرين إلى بلاد الحبشة ( 1 ) فاهديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها أربعة آلاف درهم ، فلما قدمنا المدينة أهداها لعلي عليه السلام تخدمه ، فجعلها علي في منزل فاطمة .
فدخلت فاطمة عليها السلام يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السلام في حجر الجارية فقالت : يا أبا الحسن فعلتها ، فقال : لا والله يا بنت محمد ما فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين ؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل أبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : قد أذنت لك .
فتجللت بجلالها ، وتبرقعت ببرقعها
[Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.
(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was”)]
Fourthly–and this ends the debate altogether–is the fact that this incident is mentioned in Shia sources as well. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar, writes:
(Earlier) the Commander of the Faithful had chosen a slave-girl from among the prisoners. Now Khalid sent Buraida to the Prophet. He said: “Get to (the Prophet) before the army does. Tell him what Ali has done in choosing a slave-girl for himself from the Khums and bring him dishonor…”
Buraida went to the Prophet. He (Buraida) had with him the letter from Khalid with which he had been sent. He began to read it. The face of the Prophet began to change.
“Apostle of Allah,” said Buraida, “if you permitted the people (to act) like this, their booty would disappear.”
“Woe upon you, Buraida,” the Prophet told him. “You have committed an act of hypocrisy. Ali ibn Abi Talib is allowed to have what is allowed to me from their booty…Buraida, I warn you that if you hate Ali, Allah will hate you.”
Buraida reported: “I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I could be swallowed into it. Then I said: “I seek refuge in Allah from the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of him.”
The Prophet forgave him.
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.111-112)
The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (volume 5, Book 59 Number 637):
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet, I mentioned that to him. He (the Prophet) said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.”
This is the version of Ghadir Khumm narrated in the Sahihayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim), with no mention at all of the word “Mawla.” Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for his saying ‘If I am someone’s mawla then Ali is his mawla too’, this is not in the books of Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim), but it is one of the reports which were narrated by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed.”
Therefore, we see that the Shia have created much ado about nothing. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a far cry from a nomination to Caliphate. The Shia scholar, SHM Jafri, writes:
The Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated the Prophet’s exhortation [at Ghadir Khumm] in that some people were murmuring against Ali due to his harsh and indifferent treatment in the distribution of the spoils of the expedition of Al-Yaman, which had just taken place under Ali’s leadership, and from where he, along with his those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join the Prophet at the Hajj. To dispel these ill-feelings against his son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner.
(The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22)
The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context
The Sunnis say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was forced to make his declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his soldiers in Yemen. The Shia approach this in one of two ways. The first response is to deny the event in Yemen altogether, claiming that it was merely “Umayyad propaganda” that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) would ever take a slave girl like that. Of course, this response is quickly refuted by pointing out that these narrations are available in Shia sources as well, including Shaykh Mufid’s book Kitab Al-Irshad. Therefore, the Shia propagandist must fall back on another explanation, as offered by “Taair-al-Quds” below, which is to admit that the event in Yemen did take place but that it has nothing to do with Ghadir Khumm.
Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says“The Hadiths mentioning this incident [of Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him]…have nothing to do with the incident of Ghadeer Khumm.
The entire episode [of Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him] took place in Madinah in the Mosque around the Hujrah of the Prophet (s) and finished there and thus has nothing to do with the incident of Ghadir Khumm! The prophet (s) had already clarified this matter/issue which the Wahabi / Nawaasib aim to present as the context in the incident of Ghadir, which took place at a latter time in history.
…The incident of Ghadeer took place on 18th DhilHajj while the incident of Yemen took place in Rabbi ul Aakhir (Thaani) or Jamaadi ul Ulaa according to historians. There is no compatibility or possibility of mixing both these incidents as one of them took place on return from Meccah after Hajj while the other took place in Yemen earlier on and got resolved earlier as well in Masjid e Nabavi, Medinah, before the Prophet (s) even left for Hajj!
”
In fact, both events (what happened in Yemen and Ghadir Khumm) occurred in the final year of the Prophet’s life. According to the classical Shia scholar, Shaykh Mufid, the expedition in Yemen was coming to an end in the last five days of Dhu al-Qa’dah (the 11th Islamic month) and the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred right thereafter in Dhu al-Hijjah (the 12th Islamic month). What “Taair-al-Quds” has deceptively done is claim that the expedition of Yemen took place in Rabi’ al-Thani (the 4th Islamic month) or Jumada al-Awwal (the 5th Islamic month), whereas Ghadir Khumm took place in the 12th month; this is a horrible half-truth. The Yemen campaign lasted many months and into the 11th month! So whereas the Yemen expedition may have started a few months back, it definitely did not end before the last five days of the 11th month, after which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in Mecca to do Hajj.
As for “Taair-al-Quds” claims that the incident of Yemen was resolved in Medinah, then this is a horrible blunder on his part. After what happened in Yemen (i.e. the dispute over Khums), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) rode out to meet the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in Mecca, not Medinah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his men performed Hajj with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali (رضّى الله عنه), which led to the pronouncement at Ghadir Khumm.
“Taair-al-Quds” refers to it as “Wahabi / Nawaasib” propaganda to claim that the dispute between Ali and his soldiers happened right before Ghadir Khumm. We would like to ask “Taair-al-Quds” if he considers Shaykh Mufid to be one of the “Nawaasib”? Shaykh Mufid, in his epic book “Kitab al-Irshad” mentions the dispute in Yemen (between Ali and his soldiers) in the same heading as the section entitled “The Prophet’s Farewell Pilgramage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm”! We read:
The Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm.
…The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, had sent him (Ali), peace be upon him, to Yemen to collect the fifth share (khums) of their gold and silder and collect the breastplates and other things…Then the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, decided to go on the pilgrimage and to carry out the duties which God, the Exalted, had decreed…
He, may God bless him and his family, set out with them with five days remaining in (the month of) Dhu al-Qa’da. He had written to the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, about going on the pilgrimage from Yemen…
Meanwhile, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, set out with the soldiers who had accompanied him to Yemen. He had with him the breastplates which he had collected from the people of Najran. When the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was nearing Mecca on the road from Medina, the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, was nearing it on the road from Yemen. He (Ali) went ahead of the army to meet the Prophet, may God bless him and his family, and he left one of their number in charge of them. He came up to the Prophet as the latter was looking down over Mecca. He (Ali) greeted him (the Prophet) and informed him (the Prophet) of what he (Ali) had done and what he (Ali) had collected [in Khums] and that he had hurried ahead of the army to meet him. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was pleased at that and delighted to meet him…
The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, said farewell to him (the Prophet) and returned to his army. He (Ali) met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He (Ali) denounced them for that.
“Shame on you!” he (Ali) said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. “Whatever made you give them breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family? I did not give you permission to do that.”
“They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me,” he replied.
The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion…”
When the Apostle of God carried out his rituals of the pilgrimage, he made Ali his partner in the sacrifice of animals. Then he began his journey back to Medina. (Ali) and the Muslims went with him. He came to a place known as Ghadir Khumm…
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.119-123)
Who Was Angry With Ali (رضّى الله عنه)?
The Shia propagandists then claim that it was only Khalid (رضّى الله عنه) and Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) who were upset with Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says“None of the hadiths mention any third individual besides Khalid bin Walid and Burayda (or Bara as in Tirmidhi) to be the complainers or the ones who initiated this BUGHZ (hatred) campaign towards Imam Ali (a.s) as reported through this incident.
”
This is another blatant lie by “Taair-al-Quds”. In fact, it was all (or at least most) of Ali’s soldiers who were upset with him, not just one or two soldiers. Shaykh Mufid writes:
The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them (the breastplates) off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion…”
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.121-122)
The complaints against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were “numerous” and it was the “people” who were discontented (not one or two individuals), and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) ordered the call to the people ingeneral. It is clear that the vast majority of Ali’s soldiers were discontented with him because he refused to allow them to wear the breastplates from the Khums. Therefore, it is improper to pinpoint the blame on one or two individuals; instead, the truth of the matter is that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had angered all of his soldiers, and we seek Allah’s refuge from laying the blame on anybody, especially since the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself forgave Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) and the others. The bottom line point, however, is that many people were angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and this is was the reason why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm, to exonerate Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–not to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor.
Fabricated Additions
The common Shia tactic to fool the Sunni layperson is to first state that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is in Bukhari and the most trusted books of the Sunnis (oftentimes impressing Sunnis with long references), and then they go about quoting the variant versions from obscure and unreliable sources that depict Ghadir Khumm in a very different manner than is actually stated in the authentic books. This tactic of fooling people is called “acceptance by association.”
In fact, there are only two additions to the Hadith which are considered authentic and that too only by some scholars. For the purpose of debate, however, we shall accept them as authentic. Again, these two additions are not in the Sahihayn but rather they are in the variant narrations in other books. As the student of Hadith knows, Hadith have various gradings; as for the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, what is most authentic is that which is in Sahih Bukhari as reproduced above. However, there are other variant versions which have two additions:
1) The first addition is: “Man Kuntu Mawla fa `Ali Mawla.” (Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.)
2) The second addition is: “Allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah.” (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.)
The first addition is generally accepted, and the second one is weaker but some scholars do consider it authentic. As far as any other additions are concerned, these are not contained in the authentic books and are “mawdoo” or fabricated. Generally, the Shia are content in basing their arguments upon these first two additions, but no doubt after they are refuted, they will oftentimes then resort to using obscure sources to produce further additions such as the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saying Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam, etc. These are all fabrications, and historically the Shia have been manufacturers of fabricated Hadith. The Shia are able to produce lengthy lists of obscure references about Ghadir Khumm because they themselves have been responsible for the multitude of forgeries in regards to Ghadir Khumm.
We have already seen the version of Ghadir Khumm in Sahih Bukhari and how it does not contain the addition of “Mawla”. However, this addition of “Mawla” can be found in this variant of the Hadith:
Buraida narrated: “I invaded Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; so when I came (back) to the Messenger of Allah and mentioned Ali and criticized him, I saw the face of the Messenger of Allah change and he said: ‘O Buraida, am I not closer to the believers than they are to themselves?’ I said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ He (then) said: ‘Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”
(Musnad Ahmad [v5 / p347 / #22995] with a Sahih chain of transmission and all trustworthy [thiqa] narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Nisa’i in Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak [v3 / p119 / #4578]; Abu Nu`aym; Ibn Jarir and others)
In a slightly different version:
Buraida narrated: “The Prophet sent me to Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; when I returned and complained about him to the Messenger of Allah, he (the Messenger of Allah) raised his head towards (him) and said: ‘O Buraida! Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”
(Sunan al-Kubra, v5, p130, #8466; a similar report can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba [v6, p.374])
In other narrations, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said: “allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah”, which translates to: “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.” Some scholars have doubted the authenticity of this statement, but we shall hereby accept this second addition as authentic.
These are the only two additions to the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm that can be considered authentic, and therefore these are the only two we will deal with. The Shia propagandists will often add various narrations from weak and obscure sources, but this is not a valid methodology of debating. Oftentimes, these references are impossible to verify and many times they do not exist at all or are dramatically taken out of context. What is odd and a bit amusing is that the Sunnis oftentimes quote from Al-Kafi, the most authentic book of Shia Hadith, and yet the Shia will outright reject these Hadith as a basis for argumentation. If this is the attitude of the Shia towards their most authentic book of Hadith, then why do the Shia expect us to accept narrations from obscure and unreliable sources? In any case, in order to be fair, the only two additions we will discuss will be: (1) …This Ali is also his Mawla…, and (2) …befriend whosoever befriends him…
The Definition of the Word “Mawla”
The Shia claim that the word “Mawla” here means “master.” It is based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor. In fact, the word “Mawla”–like many other Arabic words–has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word “mawla” is actually “servant” and not “master.” A former slave who becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah.
One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various definitions of the word “Mawla.” Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word “Mawla” can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord, owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant, brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc.
Now let us examine the Hadith again:
“Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.”
The word “Mawla” here cannot refer to “master”, but rather the best translation of the word “Mawla” is “a beloved friend”. It is clear that “Mawla” here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”
The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means “beloved friend” but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that.
Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah:
“The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned.”
Imam Shafi’i said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm:
“What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam.”
Allah says in the Quran:
“So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is.” (Quran, 57:15)
No translator on earth–not even the staunchest Shia–has ever translated this to mean “Imam” or “Caliph”, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word “Mawla” comes from “Wilayah” and not “Walayah”. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership.
Allah says in the Quran:
“That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because the disbelievers shall h