Hadith of Ghadir Khumm A Sunni Perspective

5 Votes
GIFT2SHIAS OCTOBER 24, 2013 3 COMMENTS

Introduction
It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific
context in which the Prophet (
) 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 ( ) over a
certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet (
), 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 Prophets intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate
Ali ( ) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali ( ) 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 (
) divinely appointed Ali (

) 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 ( )
was divinely appointed by the Prophet (
) and the Shia creed is

correct.
(2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet (
)
appointed Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to
accept the fact that Ali ( ) was never appointed at all by the Prophet (
) 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
Ghadir Ghadir
Type keywords and press Enter
Wesal TV in English! Wesal TV in English!
ABOUT ABOUT DONATE OUR CALL DONATE OUR CALL GOT GOOD MATERIAL? GOT GOOD MATERIAL? GUESTBOOK GUESTBOOK Q/A Q/A
Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A
Sunni Perspective] Sunni Perspective]
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 Shiism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that
the Prophet (
) supposedly nominated Ali ( ) to be

his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet (
) never appointed Ali ( ) and the Shia must abandon all of

their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr ( ) usurped the God-appointed
Caliphate of Ali ( ).
Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia paradigmand so important to the
Shia theologythat 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 Muhammads 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
Alis vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage
source: http://www.amaana.org/gadhir/gadhir1.htm
Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu
Bakr ( ), split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali (
) 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 (
).
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 Shiism, then indeed Shiism is a
very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet (
) appointed Ali
( ) 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 todays 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 Quran was revealed:
O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you
dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you
from the people (Quran 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).
Blog Stats Blog Stats
590,920 hits
Email Subscription Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this
blog and receive notifications of new posts
by email.
Join 860 other followers
Enter your email address
Sign me up!
Contact us Contact us
gift2shias@googlemail.com
FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Spread the word (our Spread the word (our
banners)! banners)!
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
Quran was revealed:
Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I
was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Quran 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 Prophets immediate successor.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm
Why It Just Doesnt Make Sense
The Shia claim that the Prophet (
) completed his last Hajj, said his

Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Mecca, and then afterwards appointed Ali (
) 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 grce 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 Shiism.
As we all know, the Prophet (
) 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 (
) wanted to
appoint Ali ( ) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable
explanation why the Prophet (
) 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 (
) 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 (
) 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 (
) to Ghadir Khumm.
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet (
) did
not appoint Ali ( ) 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-
Widaa), 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 todays
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
Our discussion board Our discussion board
Recent Posts Recent Posts
Imams can raise someone from dead
They can make lawful whatever they wish
and unlawful!!
Khulul-tajesm shia report
Ayatollah al-Muzaffar distorting hadith from
Sunnan Tirmizi
lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home.
source: http://www.utm.thaqalayn.org/files/ghadeer.pdf
The Shia website claims that Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the
various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgramage from neighboring lands would
disperse and embark upon their own routes back home. A simple look at any map would show
how utterly absurd this is. The following map comes from Al-Islam.org:
Source of map: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/route.jpg
Is there any rationale as to why the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc. would travel towards
Ghadir Khumm on the way back to their home cities in the completely opposite direction? We
hope that the reader can understand how truly absurd this proposition is.
To give an analogy, let us assume that the President of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America)
lives in San Francisco and that he wishes to nominate his replacement in front of all the ISNA
members. Each year, ISNA holds its largest conference in Chicago, in which thousands of ISNA
members from ever city in America congregate. They come from San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta,
Milwaukee, Washington D.C., etc. Their flight to Chicago would look like this:
Now that all the ISNA members are present at the yearly conference in Chicago, would it not
seem fairly self-evident that this would be the most fitting place for the ISNA president to
nominate his successor? After the conference, everyone heads back to their respective home
cities, so the ISNA president heads back towards San Francisco with a stop-over in Cheyenne.
Would it make any logical sense that the other ISNA members pass through Cheyenne on the
way back to their home cities in the opposite direction? This truly would make no sense. It
would look something like this:
No rational mind could accept such a thing. It would make little sense for the ISNA president to
nominate his successor in Cheyenne as opposed to Chicago during the yearly conference. A
person who lives in Washington D.C. would not travel West to go to Cheyenne, but rather he
would travel in the opposite direction towards his home. A person who lives in Chicago certainly
wouldnt 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 (
) 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 Prophets 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:
Sunnan Tirmizi
Their shaykh as-Saduq
khayanatul Ilmiyah
Archives Archives
Select Month
Categories Categories
- Aaisha ( )
- Abu Bakr & Omar ( )
- Khaled bin Al-Waleed ( )
Ahl Al-Bayt = ASWJ
Alteration of Shia texts
Aqidah & Fiqh (Sunnah) explained
Arabic section /
Ashura & Muharram of the Karbalaites
Challenges
Debates
Defence of Companions (general)
Defence of Sunnah
FADAK, Fatimah & Abu Bakr
Fiqh of Shia
General
Ghadir QOM
Graves, Shrines & Tombs
Hadith analysis
History
Ilm Al-Hadith and Rijal of Shias
Imams & Imamate in the light of Shia
narrations
Introduction
Invented myths and legends
Jamal/Siffen Fitnah
Journey to shia books
Karbala Ashura Muharram
Let's re-read Nahj Al-Balagha
Media
Merits of ahlel-bait
News
Non-Shias in the light of Shia books &
scholars
On books and authors
On the authenticy of Shia texts
Q/A
Refutation of 'Al-Muraja'at'
Refutation of Kamal Al-Haydari
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 (
) appointed Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to

the fact that the Prophet (
) 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 (
) would appoint Ali

( ) 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 (
) was responding to certain

individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib ( ). The background behind this
was that a few months earlier, the Prophet (
) had dispatched Ali

( ) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the
Shia website, www.najaf.org: Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen.
(http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm)
The army led by Ali ( ) 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 ( ) on the
one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathirs al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah:
Amongst the states 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 ( ) placed his deputy commander in charge of the
troops stationed in Yemen, while he himself head out towards Mecca to meet the Prophet
(
) for the Hajj. We read:

In his (Alis) 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
(
):
When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from entering the city (of
Refutation of Kamal Al-Haydari
Refuting Shia doubts
Salawat issue (sending Salam on
Sahaba/Ahl Al-Bayt) etc.
Shia beliefs
Shia commentary of Quran
Shia lies
Shia Mahdi
Shia vs Companions
Shia VS Quran
Shirk according to Shiism
So called "shia unity".
Something really ugly
Take a few minutes to think on this
Takfir & Grudge
Taqiyyah
Tashayyu' analysed
The assault on Fatimah (RA)
The NAME issue lame Shia excuses
Their belief in prophets
Tijani the Ex-Sufi
Uncategorized
Useful books
Various fatwas of shia scholars
Verdict on the Rafidah
Links Links
alrad.net AMMUNITION IN ARABIC
Alsonnah Rare rebuttals
Answering-Ansar (Shiapen) lies
Answers For Shia Friend
French taqiya.net
German Rafidah Shredder
Good blog against the Rafidah
Muslim Answers
Notes on Shi'ism
Russian Gift2Shias
shia-show.blogspot.co.uk
sunnah.com
Turkish Gift2Shias Rfizilerin nan
Esaslar
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: Whomsoevers
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. whomsoevers 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 Alis 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 ( ), had conquered many camels, but Ali ( ) forbade them
from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed that Ali (
) prevented them from riding the camels of the war spoils that they had acquired. But
when Ali ( ) had left for Mecca, his deputy commander had succumbed to the
pleas of the people and allowed them to ride these camels. When Ali ( ) saw
that, he became angry and he blamed the deputy commander. Abu Saeed ( )
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: StopBy Allah, I have known that he (Ali) has
done good for the sake of Allah.
A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaqs 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 treatmentwhen 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 ( ) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back
OUR BOOK: Merits of the Ahl OUR BOOK: Merits of the Ahl
Al-Bayt Al-Bayt
BOOK: Merits of the family BOOK: Merits of the family
of Ali Ibn Abi Talib of Ali Ibn Abi Talib
SHIA SCHOLARS ABOUT THE SHIA SCHOLARS ABOUT THE
QURAN QURAN
criticize Ali ( ) 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 (
) 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 Alis army were very upset with Ali
( ) for denying them linen and camels from the spoils, and they were not
pleased with the fact that Ali ( ) himself was accorded a special share of the
Khums (i.e. the fifth of war booty). Of course, Ali ( ) cannot be blamed for this
privilege of taking an extra share of the Khums, which is a right accorded to the Prophets
family in the Quran. Nonetheless, the people had anger in their eyes, so they took special
offense when Ali ( ) took a slave girl for himself from the Khums; the soldiers
wrongfully accused Ali ( ) 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
( ) that the Prophet (
) defended Ali (
) 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 dont 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 ( ) look evil at all. In fact, the Prophet (
)
defended Alis actions. It should be noted that even the Prophet (
)
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 (
) urged the Muslims

to treat their slave girls as their wives. On other occassions, the Prophet (
) 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 ( ) was not criticizing Ali (
) because he thought having a slave girl was immoral. Instead, Buraida (
) was only criticizing Ali ( ) for taking part of the Khums while denying it to
his men; to Buraida ( ), it would have been immaterial what Ali ( )
took from the Khums whether it be a slave girl, linen, or camels.
Thirdly, the fact that Ali ( ) 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 ( ) was angry at Ali ( ) for
IMAM SUYUTIS: Merits of IMAM SUYUTIS: Merits of
the Ahl Al-Bayt the Ahl Al-Bayt
One of the BEST books in One of the BEST books in
refutation of the Imamate refutation of the Imamate
Books in 15 languages Books in 15 languages
taking a slave girl in the Sunni Hadith, similarly was Fatima ( ) angry at Ali
( ) 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
:
( 1 )

.

: :

: .

[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 Fatimas house. One day Fatima entered
and saw that his head was in the girls 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 fathers house? He
said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.
(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, p.163; it is also narrated in
Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on How her life with Ali was)]
source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html
Fourthlyand this ends the debate altogetheris 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
bootyBuraida, 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):
To smack, or not smack To smack, or not smack
yourself THE SHIA yourself THE SHIA
RULING RULING
More about Al-Hussein {RA} More about Al-Hussein {RA}
& Karbala & Karbala
Chief of the youth of Chief of the youth of
Paradise Paradise
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, Dont 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 someones 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 Prophets
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 Alis 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 Shia Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22)
The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context
The Sunnis say that the Prophet (
) was forced to make his

declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali ( ) 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 (
) 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
Mufids 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 Alis soldiers getting angry at him]
have nothing to do with the incident of Ghadeer Khumm.
The entire episode [of Alis 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
must-know must-know
must-listen must-listen
Master of Lies Master of Lies
Fatality! Fatality!
Iranian Sunni News! Iranian Sunni News!
Ahl Al-Sunnah of Iran Ahl Al-Sunnah of Iran
THEMSELVES telling about THEMSELVES telling about
their situation their situation
the Prophets 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-Qadah (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 ( ) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet (
) 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
( ) rode out to meet the Prophet (
) in Mecca, not
Medinah. Ali ( ) and his men performed Hajj with the Prophet (
) and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali (
), 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 Prophets Farewell Pilgramage and the Declaration at
Ghadir Khumm! We read:
The Prophets 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 thingsThen 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-Qada. 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
Biggest Persian database of Biggest Persian database of
rebuttals of Radah rebuttals of Radah
arguments (including Ex-Shia arguments (including Ex-Shia
writers) writers)
Ex-Shias (now Muslim) Ex-Shias (now Muslim)
More Ex-Shias More Ex-Shias
Brother Noor Al-Deen Al- Brother Noor Al-Deen Al-
Maliki the Algerian exposing Maliki the Algerian exposing
EACH AND EVERY LIE of EACH AND EVERY LIE of
Ayatollah Al-Haydari (Al- Ayatollah Al-Haydari (Al-
Mullabis) Mullabis)
Exclusive in ENGLISH! Exclusive in ENGLISH!
MUST WATCH! MUST WATCH!
MUST WATCH TOO! MUST WATCH TOO!
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
Who Was Angry With Ali ( )?
The Shia propagandists then claim that it was only Khalid ( ) and Buraida
( ) who were upset with Ali ( ).
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 Alis 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
Must watch either! Must watch either!
Safa TV (Arabic) Safa TV (Arabic)
Wesal TV (Arabic) Wesal TV (Arabic)
The complaints against Ali ( ) were numerous and it was the people who
were discontented (not one or two individuals), and the Prophet (
)
ordered the call to the people in general. It is clear that the vast majority of Alis 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 ( ) had angered all of his soldiers, and we seek
Allahs refuge from laying the blame on anybody, especially since the Prophet (
) himself forgave Buraida ( ) and the others. The bottom line point,
however, is that many people were angry at Ali ( ) and this is was the reason
why the Prophet (
) had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm,

to exonerate Ali ( )not to nominate Ali ( ) 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 Àli Mawla. (Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is
also his Mawla.)
2) The second addition is: Allahummu wali man walaah wa àdi man àdaah. (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 (
) saying Ali ( ) 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: Whomsoevers 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-Nisai in
Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak [v3 / p119 /
#4578]; Abu Nuàym; Ibn Jarir and others)
Wesal Farsi! Wesal Farsi!
Books Books
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! Whomsoevers 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 (
) said: allahummu wali man

walaah wa àdi man àdaah, 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 (
)
nominated Ali ( ) as his successor. In fact, the word Mawlalike many other
Arabic wordshas 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:
Whomsoevers 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 Muàdat (enmity). This definition of the
word Mawla makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (
) 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 Shafii 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 earthnot even the staunchest Shiahas 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.
That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those
who believe, and because the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them.
(Quran, 47:11)
This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is referring to a close protecting
friend. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the
second part of this verse in which Allah says: the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them.
Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of course the disbelievers have a
leader, such as today the American disbelievers have George Bush as their leader. This fact is
mentioned in the Quran itself:
Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr. (Quran, 9:12)
And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire. (Quran, 28:41)
And so when Allah says the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them, this refers to a
protector of extreme closeness, not that they dont have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla
to mean Imam or Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend.
The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet
(
) was advising the people to love Ali ( ) and be

close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr ( ), Umar ( ), and
Uthman ( ) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar (
) was so beloved to Ali ( ) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali
) was so beloved to Ali ( ) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali
( ) served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was the
mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali ( ). In other
words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet (
) nominating Ali ( ) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to
stop criticizing Ali ( ) and to love him.
Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends) are Allah and His Messenger and the
believersthose who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow
down humbly. As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and
the believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be triumphant.
(Quran, 5:55-56)
In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as being Mawla. How then can the
Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are
suddenly Caliphs or Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this verse
refers to Ali alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers in the plural. No doubt, Alilike
many other righteous believerswas included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and
exclusively to him since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word Mawla here refers to love,
extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a single instance in the Quran in which the
word Mawla is used to refer to Imamah or Caliphate.
In another verse of the Quran, Allah says:
No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment.
Does this mean that no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of Judgment? Surely this
makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of the Quran that Allah refers to two people and
calls both to be Mawla; if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the
leader of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could be Mawla of
each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer to both of them as Mawla as Allah does
in the Quran.
The word Mawla is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let us examine Sahih al-Bukhari
(Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715). The Prophet (
) says:
The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja are
my beloved helpers (Mawali), and they have no protector except Allah and His
Apostle.
Does the word Mawla here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph
or Imam over the Prophet (
)? Of course not. It makes more logical

sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet (
) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla).

It is also important to point out that the Prophet (
) did not say

after me in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is
also his Mawla without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the
Prophet (
) had meant whomsoevers leader I am, this Ali is also

his leader, which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a very big
problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs in the same land at the same
time, and there are many Hadith in which the Prophet (
) warns
against having two Caliphs. Without the words after me, it would become a very confusing
sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of course, the Prophet (
) did not mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On the
other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla (beloved friend) at the same
time. One can love the Prophet (
) and be close to him, and at the

same time love and be close to Ali ( ).
If the Prophet (
) meant to nominate Ali ( ), then

why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying something vague such as
whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla, why didnt the Prophet (
) say something clearer such as I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I die or Ali is
my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after me. Surely, this would have cleared up
the matter. The Prophet (
) was commanded to be clear in

delivering the Message, and none of the Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm
to mean that Ali ( ) was nominated as Caliph.
To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows:
The prophet (SAW) did in fact say clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) was his
successor and the next Caliph and many other clearer things but these hadeeth
were not transmitted by the sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny
the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla
hadeeth because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI
(A.S.).
Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording
otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more direct
and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would think that it
is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would then take it out. In
fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW) did in fact say it clearly that
IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the next Caliph but the Sunnis reject
those.
This argument is actually conceding the entire debate. Here, the Shia is saying:
1) The clear sayings of the Prophet (
) were removed by the

Sunnis.
2) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm about Ali ( ) being Mawla was not removed
because it was not as direct and clear about the matter of Imamah or Caliphate.
Well then, isnt the entire debate over? Was it not the Shia who was arguing this entire time that
the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a clear and definite proof for the Imamah and Caliphate of Ali
( )? Indeed, this argument is admitting the fact that the Hadith about Ghadir
Khumm does not talk clearly about Imamah/Caliphate; the Prophet (
) saying that Ali ( ) is Mawla of the believers does not in any way prove that Ali
( ) was to be Caliph. In fact, had it been clear, then the Sahabah would not have
transmitted it, correct? Therefore, we seebased on this line of thinkingthat the Hadith of
Ghadir Khumm could not have been clear about the Imamah of Ali ( ), otherwise
it wouldnt have been narrated by the same Sahabah who sought to usurp his Caliphate.
Indeed, this Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was never interpreted to mean that Ali ( )
was Caliph and instead it was simply in reference to the virtues of Ali ( ). If the
Prophet (
) praises somebody, this does not automatically make

this person the Caliph of the Ummah. As for the Shia Hadith on the matter, those are irrelevant
to us because the Shia are known to be liars and mass fabricators when it comes to Hadith.
Conclusion
Contrary to the Shia claims, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with Caliphate or
Imamah. Instead, the Prophet (
) was merely refuting a group of

people under the command of Ali ( ) who were criticizing Ali ( )
with very harsh words. Based on this, the Prophet (
) urged people
that Ali ( ) was the Mawla (beloved friend) of all the Muslims, just like the
Prophet (
) was. Had the Prophet (
)
wanted to nominate Ali ( ) as the Caliph, then he (
)
would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Mecca instead of on his journey back to
Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Mecca and the rest of the Muslims.
Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Mecca and the rest of the Muslims.
Playing Games with the Quran
Al-Islam.org says
In this place (of Ghadir Khumm), the following verse of the Quran was
revealed:
O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you
dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you
from the people (Quran 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.
This is an oft-repeated claim of the Shia, namely that this verse (5:67) was revealed in regards
to Alis nomination to Caliph; in other words, the Prophet (
) should
not worry about the awful reaction of the Sahabah to the declaration of Alis Imamah and
Caliphate.
As is usually the case, the Shia propagandists have no qualms with playing legoes with the
Quran and using the Quran as their own personal jigsaw puzzle. In fact, verse 5:67 could not
possibly have been revealed in regards to Alis nomination, namely because it was directed
towards the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). The Shia take the verse out of
context, without considering the verse that comes right before it and the verse that comes right
after it. Let us take a look:
[5:66] And if they (the Jews and the Christians) had observed the Torah and the
Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would
certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them
there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you
from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed
His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For
Allah guides not those who reject Faith.
[5:68] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians)! You follow no
good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you
from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord
shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not
therefore for the disbelieving people.
So we see that the verse before and after is talking about the People of the Book, and it is in
this context that the verse 5:67 was revealed, reassuring the Prophet (
) that he should not fear the Jews or the Christians and that he (
) should clearly deliver the Message of Islam which will be made supreme over Judaism
and Christianity. The Prophet (
) is told in verse 5:67 that he

should not fear these men who mean mischief, and in the very next verse (5:68) Allah says that
the Message of Islam will only increase them in inordinacy and disbelief. It is exceedingly
clear that we are talking about the same group of people, namely the disbelievers from
amongst the People of the Book who mean to make mischief and who become obstinate in
inordinacy and disbelief.
In fact, that entire section of the Quran is referring to the People of the Book, starting from
verse 5:59 and going all the way to 5:86. Let us reproduce the verses below:
[5.59] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians)! do you find fault
with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed
to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from
Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of
whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are
worse in place and more erring from the straight path.
[5.61] And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they come
in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows best what they
concealed.
[5.62] And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin
and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired;
certainly evil is that which they do.
[5.63] Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from
their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired?
Certainly evil is that which they work.
[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be
shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are
spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from
your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief;
and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection;
whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make
mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.
[5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil)
We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have
made them enter gardens of bliss
[5:66] And if they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was
revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above
them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are
moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to
you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and
proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean
mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.
[5:68] Say: O People of the Book! You follow no good till you observe the Torah
and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely
that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them
increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving
people.
[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and
the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good they
shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
[5.70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of Israel and We sent to
them apostles; whenever there came to them an apostle with what that their
souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they slew.
[5.71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind
and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of them became blind
and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.
[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of
Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and
your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has
forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no
helpers for the unjust.
[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the
three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what
they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have
indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to
eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold,
how they are turned away.
[5.76] Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any
harm, or any profit? And Allah He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
[5.77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion,
and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led
many astray and went astray from the right path.
[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by
the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed
and used to exceed the limit.
[5.79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did;
certainly evil was that which they did.
[5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil
is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased
with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
[5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to
him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are
transgressors.
[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who
believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find
the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are
Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and
because they do not behave proudly.
[5.83] And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see
their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize;
they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).
[5.84] And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the
truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause
us to enter with the good people?
[5.85] Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with
gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who
do good (to others).
[5.86] And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these
are the companions of the flame.
It is very clear that all of these verses are about the Jews and the Christians, and it is absurd
that the Shia could just cut and paste the Quran as they wish. This is manipulating the Word of
Allah and a very big sin that leads to the path of the Kufr. And yet, you will find that the Shia
universally make the claim that this verse was revealed with regards to the Ghadir Khumm
address and the nomination of Ali ( ). So this is the length that the Shia
propagandist will go to in order to twist Quran and Hadith in order to create the imaginary tale
that the Prophet (
) nominated Ali ( ) to be Caliph.

Al-Islam.org says
In this place, the following verse was revealed:
O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and
if you dont do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and
Allah will protect you from the people (Quran 5:67).
Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse
of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum:
(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under commentary of verse 5:67,
v12, pp 49-50, narrated on the authorities of Ibn Abbas, al-Bara Ibn
Azib, and Muhammad Ibn Ali.
(2) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, p50, narrated on the authorities of
Atiyyah and Abu Said al Khudri.
(3) Nuzul al-Quran, by al-Hafiz Abu Nuaym narrated on the authorities
Abu Said Khudri and Abu Rafi.
(4) al-Fusool al Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki al-Makki, p24
(5) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, under commentary of verse 5:67
(6) Fathul Qadir, by al-Shawkani, under commentary of verse 5:67
(7) Fathul Bayan, by Hasan Khan, under commentary of verse 5:67
(8) Shaykh Muhi al-Din al-Nawawi, under commentary of verse 5:67
(9) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p301
(10) Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by al-Ayni
(11) Tafsir al-Nisaboori, v6, p194
(12) and many more such as Ibn Mardawayh, etc
The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to describe them. They have
become notorious for their half-quotes. Here the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them
one by one. The first one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool the
Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse 5:67 was revealed at
Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact opposite in his book!
Imam Razi mentions that various people have claimed that the verse was revealed on different
occassions. He lists ten possibilities of when the verse could have been revealed. It is
wellknown that the style of the scholars was to list the most important view first and the least
important view last. It should interest the deceitful Shia to know that Imam Razi did mention
Ghadir Khumm but as the absolute last one, meaning in his eyes it was the weakest possible
view.
We will now provide the commentary of Imam Razi word for word:
Scholars of Tafseer have mentioned many causes of revelation:
(1) The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of stoning and
retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the Jews.
(2) The second cause is that it has been revealed because of the Jews criticism
and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet had remained silent about them,
thus this verse was revealed.
(3) Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is O Prophet! say to
thy wives: (i.e 33:28), the Prophet did not deliver this verse to them out of fear
that they may choose this world, and thus it (i.e 5:67) was revealed.
(4) Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint Jahsh. Aisha
said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah concealed part of what was
revealed to him, then he has committed a great lie against Allah, for Allah has
said: O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) and was the Messenger
of Allah to conceal part of what was revealed to him he would have concealed
His saying: And you hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light
[33:37]
(5) Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites hated it, so he
used to withhold from urging them for Jihad.
(6) Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: Revile not ye those
whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their
ignorance. [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling their gods, so this
verse was revealed, and He said: Proclaim i.e the faults/criticism about their
gods and do not hide it, and Allah will protect you against them.
(7) Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims, because in the
Last Pilgrimage after he had declared the rulings and rituals of Hajj, he said:
Have I not declared (it to you)? They said: Yes. He said: O Allah be my witness.
(8) Eighth: It has been narrated that he rested under a tree in one of his
journeys and hung his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he was sleeping
and snatched the sword saying: O Muhammad, who will protect you against
me? He said: Allah, so the hand of the Bedouin trembled, the sword fell from
his hand, and he banged his head against the tree until his brains burst, so Allah
revealed this verse and explained that He will protect him against people.
(9) Ninth: He used to fear Quraysh, the Jews and the Christians, so Allah
removed this fear from his heart with this verse.
(10) Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress Alis excellence, and when the
verse was revealed, the Prophet caught hold of Alis hand and said: One who
has me as his mawla has Ali as his mawla. O Allah, Be his friend who befriends
him, and be his enemy who is his enemy. (Soon) after this, Umar met him (Ali)
and said: O Ibn Abi Talib! I congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the
mawla of every male and female believer. This is the saying narrated from
Abdullah ibn Abbas, Baraa ibn Aazib and Muhammad bin Ali.
You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is more fit to
explain the verse as Allah assuring him (the Prophet) of protection against the
cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and ordered him to announce the
proclamation without having fear of them. This is because the context before this
verse and after this verse is addressing the Jews and Christians; it would not be
possible to throw a verse in the middle (of other verses) making it foreign to
what is before it and after it.
(source: Tafseer al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of the verse
5:67, volume 12, pp.49-50)
In other words, Imam Razi did mention ten possibilities but he stated that the only strong
opinion was that the verse was revealed about the Jews and Christians and this is why he
mentioned this possibility first.
Is it any wonder that the deceitful Shia Encyclopedia did not mention that Imam Razi mentioned
ten possibilities and stated that the only reasonable one was the first? Instead the Shia rely on
half-quotes; indeed, they are a people who love Taqiyyah and deception. We warn the Sunni
laypersons not to be impressed by their lengthy lists of references; whenever the Shia give a
list of references but no exact quote, it is a good sign that they are twisting the text just like
they twist the Quran and play legoes with it.
As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows:
My father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn Zakariya told us: Ali
Ibn Abis told us: from Al-Amash from Atiya Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.
The Isnad is weak. If we analyze the narrators, we find:
(1) Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi
Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: He is weak.
Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: He is not strong.
(2) Ali Ibn Abis
Yahya Ibn Maeen said: He is nothing. And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai,
and Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi.
Ibn Hibban said: His mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted.
(3) Al-Amash
He is Mudalis.
(4) Atiya Al-Awfi:
Ahmad said: He is weak.
Al-Nasai said: He is weak.
Ibn Hiban said:He heard from Abu Saeed hadiths and when he died he used to sit with Al-Kalbi,
so if Al-Kalbi said: The Messenger of Allah said such-and-such, he would memorize it and he
gave him the kunya of Abu Saeed and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: Who narrated
this to you? He would say: Abu Saeed narrated this to me. So they (i.e those who inquired)
would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi.
He further stated: It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about
them.
And then he related from Khalid Al-Ahmar that he said: Al-Kalbi told me: Atiya told me: I have
given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say: Abu Saeed narrated to us.
Accordingly, Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the
Prophet, i.e. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.
(5) Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Saeb Al-Kalbi
Al-Suyuti said in Al-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas: And the weakest of its chains is
the way of Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn
Marwan Al-Sadi, the young, is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi
and Al-Wahidi narrate through it.
Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mujam Al-Udaba of Tafseer at-Tabari: And he (Tabari) did not make
reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did not include in his book anything from the book of
Muhammad Ibn Al-Saeb Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi
for they create suspicion (athina) in his view, and Allah knows best.
Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tareekh Al-Kabeer: Muhammad Ibn Al Saeb Abu Al- Nadhir Al-
Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed. Ibn Mahdi and Ali told told us: Yahya Ibn Saeed
told us: from Sufyan: Al-Kalbi told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies.
Al-Nasai said: He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written.
Ahmad Ibn Haroon said: I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer Al-Kalbi. He said: Lies. I
said: Is it permissible for me to look into it? He said: No.
CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all.
The other books cited by the Shia contain this same chain, such as Asbab Al Nuzul by Imam
Wahidi al Naysaburi:
: :
: : :

) :
(

In the Tafseer Dar al-Manthur of Imam Suyuti, we find that the same chain is cited:
#6609
:

And the same is the case with Imam al-Shawkani in Fath Al Qadir.
The point is that none of the sources actually prove the Shia argument. If they did, then you
would have seen the Shia providing complete quotes, but they cannot do that because that
would expose the weakness in their arguments! To conclude the matter, no reliable Sunni
source says that the verse was revealed at Ghadir Khumm.
As is well known, the incident of Ghadir Khumm occurred near the Prophets death when all of
Arabia had already been subdued by the Muslims under the guidance of the Prophet; this
included the Christians in Najran and the Jews in Yemen. What is there for the Prophet to fear
from proclamation when his followers have increased a hundred-fold? It would not make sense
for this verse to have been revealed at the time of the Prophets peak of power. Rather, this
verse was revealed at a much earlier stage of the Prophetic era when Islam was still struggling
for its survival, surrounded by many enemies.
Al-Islam.org says
Revelation of Quranic Verse 5:3
Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the
Quran was revealed:
Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I
was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Quran 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 Prophets immediate successor.
This is another Shia fabrication: the Quranic verse 5:3 (this day I have perfected your
religion) was revealed at the end of the Farewell Sermon on top of Mount Arafat. This fact is
reported in Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Sunan, and others:
It (i.e. the verse This day I have perfected your religion) was revealed on a
Friday, the Day of Arafat
It was, after all, the Farewell Sermon of the Prophet (
) and it is
therefore natural to assume that this was the appropriate place for the religion to be sealed. In
fact, it is for this very reason that we deny that Ghadir Khumm could possibly be in relation to
the Imamah of Ali ( ). The verse This day I have pefected your religion had
already been revealed and nothing else could be added to the faith after this. If the Shia insist
that something as major as the Imamah of Ali ( ) was added after this, then
where are these verses in the Quran about such a thing?
Why is the Quran completely silent in regards to the nomination of Ali ( )?
Surely, Allah would have mentioned this in the Quran if it was a divinely ordained matter? Why
is it that Allah supposedly revealed verse 5:67 and 5:3 all about Ali ( ) and his
Imamah, but Allah did not choose to simply include Alis name in those verses and make it clear
to the Muslims that Ali ( ) was the next divinely appointed leader of the Muslims?
To add more confusion to the matter, neither of these verses talks about Imamah or Caliphate
at all. It is truly amazing how the Shia always say this and this Quranic verse refers to the
Imamah of Ali ( ) and yet Allah never just says so Himself.
Rebuttals
Ghadir Khumm was a central location, a source of water that represented the
last place where the people from different locations were together before
splitting up on their separate ways to go home. It was the last moment during the
hajj when indeed EVERYONE was present.
Ghadir Khumm was a central location only for those Muslims heading north, either to Medinah
or those passing through Medinah to places such as Syria. As we have discussed earlier,
Ghadir Khumm is located midway between Mecca and Medinah; Ghadir Khumm is located 250
km away from Mecca. It may indeed be a common pit-stop for that fraction of the Muslims
heading to the North, but it is not, however, a central location for the Muslims heading in the
other directions, such as those heading South of Mecca to Taif or Yemen.
Does it make logical sense that the people of Mecca would find any need to pass through
Ghadir Khumm on their return trip to Mecca after Hajj? Are they not already in Mecca, their
home city? The Meccan Muslims would have ended their Hajj in Mecca, and the Muslims of
Medinah would have left for their home city, stopping at Ghadir Khumm without the company of
the Meccan Muslims whom they had left behind in Mecca. The same can be said of the People
of Yemen, of Taif, etc. Indeed, all of these major Muslim cities were not included in the speech
at Ghadir Khumm, and this is very odd: had the Prophet (
) wanted
to nominate Ali ( ) as Caliph, then surely he would have done this in front of all
the Muslims from Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.
In fact, the Shia polemicists have been accutely aware of this fact and it is for this reason that
they insist to the masses that Ghadir Khumm was the place where all the Muslims went before
parting for home and that therefore the Ghadir Khumm address was to all the Muslims. This
fact is only believable to the ignorant masses who do not care to take out a map and really
find out where Ghadir Khumm is. Once a person takes out a map, it becomes quite clear how
bugus the Shia claims are; in fact, only a fraction of the Muslims were present at Ghadir
Khumm (i.e. those heading towards Medinah).
It is based on the distance from Mecca to Ghadir Khumm that we ascertain that it is much more
believable that the Prophet (
) was correcting a specific group of

Muslims (i.e. the soldiers from Medinah who had been dispatched to Yemen) rather than
addressing the general masses of the Muslims. The speech of Ghadir Khumm was addressed
primarily to the group that had been criticizing Ali ( ), and it was for this reason
that the Prophet (
) did not include this in his Farewell Sermon of

the Last Hajj in front of the Muslim masses.
An Appeal to Common Sense:
Allah, the All-Knowing, describes the sublime character of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) as follows:
Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to
him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the
believers (he is) compassionate [9:128]
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was an extremely kind-
hearted and compassionate. He always took every effort to ensure the well-
being and comfort of his followers, and was never known to impose any extra
burden or hardship upon others. He was even known to shorten his prayers
upon hearing the voice of a baby crying. It is impossible to infer that the
Prophet, who was sent as a mercy unto the worlds had ordered his followers to
sit in the burning heat of the Arabian desert, without any shade, for several
hours, only to announce to them that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.
why do you think Muhammad stopped 60 000 people in the middle of the
desert months before he knew he was going to die? To say, ya know, Ali is my
buddy?!
In fact, the Shia here have brought up a point which works against them, not for them. We
would like to ask the exact same question: why indeed would Prophet Muhammad (
) senselessly force the Meccans to march out 250 km to the watering hole of
Ghadir Khumm which is located in the middle of the desert? Why indeed would the Prophet
(
) force the People of Taif to travel in the exact opposite direction

(North as opposed to South)? The Shia living in Taif today travel to Mecca, complete Hajj, and
then they return to Taif. They do not find it necessary to travel 250 km to Ghadir Khumm and
then turn around to travel another 250 km back to Mecca and then to Taif in the South, a
detour that would have added a few weeks in extra travel time!
Instead, what is more probable is that the Prophet (
) and the
Muslims heading towards Medinah stopped at the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm in order to
refresh themselves. It was over there that the Prophet (
) heard
people again criticizing Ali ( ) despite what the Prophet (
) had earlier warned them about. Therefore, the Prophet (
)
addressed them all at Ghadir Khumm, urging them to take Ali ( ) as a beloved
friend. It should be noted that the Muslims heading towards Medinah would generally stop at
Ghadir Khumm as it was a watering hole; it was a pit-stop on the way to Medinah, where the
Muslims would rest for awhile and it was during that rest that the Prophet (
) addressed them after a group of Muslims had criticized Ali ( ).

Laudation from the Muslims
After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of
allegiance to Ali ( ) and congratulate him. Among the first Muslims
to congratulate Ali were Umar and Abu Bakr, who said: Well done, O son of
Abu Talib! Today you have become the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and
women.
[Found in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhrudeen al-Razi,
Kitabul Wilayah by at-Tabari, and many others]
This is typical and classical Shia propaganda; they will say things like its in your own books
and then off-handedly quote our books but meanwhile injecting their own meanings into them.
What is found in the texts is only that Umar ( ) congratulated Ali (
) on becoming Mawla (a beloved friend) to all the Muslims, not that Umar ( )
pledged his allegiance to Ali ( ). Ali ( ) was being severely
criticized by his men and it was in this atmosphere that the Prophet (
) defended Ali ( ) and informed the Muslims that they shouldnt hate Ali
( ) but rather love him.
In fact, the Shia argument makes no sense. If Umar ( ) and the rest of the
Muslims pledged Bayaah to Ali ( ) and said today you have become the
leader, then what about the Prophet (
)? The key words here

are today and you have become, meaning that Ali ( ) is Mawla. If we
take the definition of Mawla to be Imam or Caliph, then this means that Ali ( ) is
the leader of the Muslims now and not Prophet Muhammad (
).
Surely, the Muslims cannot have two rulers at the same time, and this is stated in both Sunni
and Shia Hadith. Indeed, if Umar ( ) were really congratulating Ali (
) for his nomination as the next Caliph, then he would have said something like this: Well
done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You will soon become the Caliph of all the Muslims. Or maybe: Well
done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You were nominated to one day become (future tense) the Caliph of all
the Muslims. But he certainly would not have said: Congratulationstoday you have become
the leader.
The proper understanding of this congratulations given by Umar ( ) is that Umar
( ) was congratulating Ali ( ) on becoming the beloved friend of
all the Muslims. The atmosphere was such that the people had been criticizing and hurting Ali
( ), so the noble Umar ibn al-Khattab ( ) went to comfort him and
say kind words to him. The perceptive reader would note that Umar ( ) was very
kind in his praise of Ali ( ), and this is diametrically opposed to the Shia
paradigm which paints a portrait of conflict between Umar ( ) and Ali (
), casting Umar ( ) as an oppressor of Ali ( ). Do these kind
words seem to be said by someone who hates Ali ( ) as the Shia claim?
If we translate the word Mawla here to mean leader, then why would Umar ( )
pledge his Bayaah so lovingly by congratulating Ali ( )? The Shia had earlier
claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (
) to nominate Ali ( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from
your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His
Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah
guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67)
The Shia say that these men (who mean mischief) refer to the Sahabah especially Abu Bakr
( ) and Umar ( ). If this verse was truly revealed about Umar
( )and if Umar ( ) was truly seeking to usurp the Caliphate of Ali
( )then why does Umar ( ) congratulate Ali ( )
on his nomination? At most, we would expect such a person to grudgingly give the Bayaah, if at
all. But here, we see that Umar ( ) is the first to congratulate Ali (
) with regards to being Mawla. The bottom line point is that if the word Mawla meant leader,
then Umar ( ) would not have congratulated him on it. This praise said by Umar
( ) was transmitted widely to the people, so why should Umar ( )
do that favor to Ali ( ) if he was truly against him or if Mawla really meant
leader? Umar ( ) interpreted Mawla to be beloved friend and not leader
and this is the meaning understood by the people back then.
The Meaning of Mawla
The schools of thought differ on the interpretation of the word Mawla. In
Arabic, the world Mawla has many meanings. It can mean master, friend, slave,
or even client. If a word has more than one meaning, the best way to ascertain
its true connotation is to look at the association (qarinah) and the context. There
are scores of associations in this hadith which clearly show that the only
meaning fitting the occasion can be master. Some of them are as follows.
We definitely agree with this Shia author that there are many different meanings for the word
Mawla and we are glad that they at least admit this much. It is our hope that the Shia lay-
persons at least acknowledge this fact in debate, instead of being obstinate and pig-headed
with regards to the idea that Mawla can only mean master. Although we quoted the above
from a Shia propaganda article, we no doubt agree with this introduction, namely that:
1) Mawla has many different meanings.
2) We must look at the context in which the word was said to ascertain the meaning.
However, we disagree with this article which states that Mawla here is to be translated as
master. Let us refute this article point by point, Insha-Allah:
SalamIran.org says
In addition, there is also what (the Prophet), peace be on him and his family,
said on the day of Ghadir Khumm. The community had gathered to listen to the
sermon (in which he asked):
Am I not more appropriate for authority (awla) over you than yourselves?
Yes,
they answered.
Then he spoke to them in an ordered manner without any interruption in his
speech:
Whomsoever I am the authority over (mawla), Ali is also the authority over.
source: http://www.salamiran.org/Religion/Imam1/index.html
First: The question which the Holy Prophet asked just before this declaration:
Do I not have more authority (awla) upon you than you have yourselves? When
they said: Yes, surely, then the Prophet proceeded to declare that: Whoever
whose mawla I am. Ali is his mawla. Without doubt, the word mawla in this
declaration has the same meaning as awla (having more authority upon you).
declaration has the same meaning as awla (having more authority upon you).
Without a doubt, no. Awla and Mawla are two different words! Describing himself, the Prophet
(
) says:
Am I not more appropriate for an Awla (authority) over you than yourselves?
And describing Ali ( ), suddenly the Prophet (
)
switches to:
Whomsoevers Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.
If anything, this sudden switch in wording completely negates the Shia claims! The Prophet
(
) should simply have said that Ali ( ) was Awla

over the people, but instead he was very keen to say Mawla instead. The Prophet (
) first states that Allah has authority over the people, then he says that he
himself has authority over the people, but then suddenly he switches and uses the word
Mawla for Ali ( ), even though he had used the word Awla for Allah and
himself.
The Prophet (
) mentioned that he had authority over the believers

so that they would listen to him and befriend Ali ( ) as was his wish. The Muslims
under Alis command hated him, so the Prophet (
) was using his

influence to cause them to love Ali ( ) and take him as a beloved friend. An
analogy to this is if a mafioso was about to hurt a baker, but that baker turned out to be a good
friend of the mafia don. So the mafia don asks the mafioso: Are you loyal to me and do you
obey my commands? The mafioso replies in the affirmative. So the mafia don says: If you
obey my command, then be nice to this baker. This baker is my good friend, and if you are my
good friend, then you should also be friends with this baker.
It seems that the Shia are grasping at straws trying to inject the meaning of Imamah or
Caliphate into the word Mawla. In order to build their claim, they will borrow Quranic verses
that are on totally unrelated topics; whatever sounds good can work for the Shia, no matter
how true it is. Here, the Shia want us to just believe that Awla is the same as Mawla. The Shia
are just one step away from claiming that Ali ( ) must be Wali since the words
Ali and Wali are so similar.
Second: The following prayer which the Holy Prophet uttered just after this
declaration: O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be the enemy of the enemy of
Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali.
This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility
which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying
out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters. Are helpers ever
needed to carry on a friendship?
Al-Islam.org says
Glitters of Ahadith Relevant to the Ghadir Incident
To whomsoever I have been a master, this Àli is [henceforth] his master; O
Lord! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever
antagonizes him.
source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm
The Shia author of the article has clearly stated that in order to find out what Mawla means,
we need to use context clues. And he shows us the very next sentence in which the Prophet
(
) says: O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the

enemy to whoever antagonizes him.
This is a great Hujjah (proof) against the Shia claims! The word used is befriend or love
which means that Mawla here is being used to refer to a beloved friend. It is clear from this
that Mawla here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is
the opposite of Muàdat (enmity). This definition of the word Mawla makes most sense due to
the context, because the Prophet (
) immediately says O Allah,

befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.
How can it be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second
addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that? It is in fact
unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliphate and Imamah when the context has
nothing to do with that. And it is even more unbelievable that the Shia can bring forth proof
that is in fact the proof against their own arguments!
As for this part:
This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility
which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying
out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters.
This is merely Shia guesswork and conjecture; the Shia imagination knows no bounds and he
(the Shia) can read into the text amazing things. It is almost as if the Shia has some sort of
special power or perhaps super goggles with which only he can read what is in between the
lines that normal human beings cannot read, and it is this pair of goggles he uses when
reading into both Quranic verses and Hadith. Perhaps aliens from Mars were about to attack
and they would hate Ali ( ), so this is why the Prophet (
) said this! And look, the word aliens even has the word Ali in it!
There is no need for this Shia guesswork and conjecture when we already know why Ali (
) had many enemies. There have been multiple narrations about how Ali (
) had angered his soldiers by taking back their spoils of war and these people were
complaining about Ali ( ). It was in this atmosphere of unrest that the Prophet
(
) wanted to defend Ali ( ) and urged these men to

be friends with Ali ( ) because Ali ( ) should be loved by the
entire Muslim Ummah, as indeed all of the Ahlus Sunnah loves Ali ( ) to this day.
As far as the absurd idea that friends are not helpers, we wonder what kind of friends that Shia
author has? A very key part of friendship revolves around helping, lending support, etc. The
Prophet (
) said in numerous Hadith that Muslims should help out

their brothers, friends, neighbors, etc.
Third: The declaration of the Holy Prophet that: It seems imminent that I will
be called away (by Allah) and I will answer that call. This clearly shows that he
was making arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death.
How is it clear? It is not clear at all. If the Prophet (
) meant that,
then why didnt he (
) just say that? Why does the Shia have to

become the spokesperson for the Prophet (
) always telling us that

the Prophet (
) meant such-and-such even though he just said

such-and-such? Surely, the Prophet (
) could have said I am

about to die and therefore I am worried about who will be my successor and this is why
nominate Ali to be the Caliph after me. Instead, we have to guess and trust the Shia that this is
what the Prophet (
) really meant to say, and we all know how

creative the Shia imagination is.
The complete negation of this Shia claim is the fact that the Prophet (
) said something similar in his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat, starting his speech
by saying:
O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I
shall ever be amongst you again. (Bayhaqi)
And yet, the Prophet (
) did not mention the leadership of the

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

were certain Muslims who were criticizing and (emotionally) hurting his cousin.
Fourth: The congratulations of the Companions and their expressions of joy do
not leave room for doubt concerning the meaning of this declaration.
We have already addressed this point earlier. The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had
revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (
) to nominate Ali
( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people:
O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from
your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His
Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah
guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67)
And the Shia say that the Sahabah were the ones foremost against the nomination of Ali
( ). And yet now, the article is claiming that the Sahabah had expressions of
joy. Is this not a contradiction? If the people and the Sahabah were against Alis nomination so
much so that Allah had to reveal a verse in the Quran about this, then why would they
congratulate Ali ( ) and have expressions of joy? This is indeed a very big
contradiction, but no doubt it is the inevitable result of furthering any argumentno matter how
spuriousin order to bolster ones argument. What happens is that the Shia propagandist does
this so frequently that he forgets his earlier arguments and accidentally furthers two
contradictory claims.
The people were congratulating Ali ( ) because he had just been declared the
beloved friend of all the Muslims. If some childs parents told him to be friends with so-and-so
person, what is the first thing this child would do after his parents said that? No doubt the child
would go and introduce himself to that person and say kind words to him. This is the case at
Ghadir Khumm: there had been people who were criticizing Ali ( ), but then the
Prophet (
) declared that Ali ( ) was the beloved

friend of the Muslims, and so the people went to Ali ( ) to say kind words to him
and congratulate him on this honor. Again, it has nothing to do with leadership, Imamah, or
Caliphate. If that were the case, thenat least according to the Shia paradigmwouldnt the
Sahabah have been sullen and depressed, instead of joyful and elated?
It is strange how the Shia try to downplay the greatness of being declared a beloved friend:
we will often see Shia who say things like surely it couldnt mean just a friend. We do not
understand what they mean by just a friend. First of all, it is not any old friend, but rather it is
a beloved friend, indicating deep affection and love. Prophet Ibrahim ( ) was
referred to as Khaleel-Allah which means friend of Allah and this title is bestowed to him by
Allah. This is a great title, and nobody would say just a friend here. To be declared the friend
of Allah is no small thing, and neither is it any small matter being referred to as the beloved of
the Ummah.
only to announce to them that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.
Such a claim is yet more absurd when one considers the fact that Ali already
had an exalted status in comparison with the other Muslims.
Yes, Ali ( ) already had an exalted status, but this is silly nonsense to say that
the Prophet (
) can only praise a person once or twice. The

Prophet (
) exalted the status of Umar ( ) on

numerous occasions, yet we will never find any of the Sunnis who doubt the authenticity of
something only because he has already been praised before. The Prophet (
) continually heaped praise upon those worthy of praise, and Ali ( )

was one such individual. And although the Prophet (
) had exalted
Ali ( ) in numerous ways in the past, it was here that he gave him the honor of
being the beloved of the Ummah.
Furthermore, this event must be viewed in the appropriate context. The Prophet (
) was responding to a certain group of people who hated Ali (

) and who were becoming his enemies. In response to this time specific event, the Prophet
(
) urged the Muslims to love Ali ( ). Therefore, what

was said at Ghadir Khumm must be taken into context: had it been another Sahabi who was
being insulted and hated upon, then it is likely that the Prophets speech would have been in
regards to that other Sahabi instead. This can hardly be construed as a proof for Imamah or
Caliphate.
Al-Islam.org says
Number of Companions in Ghadir Khumm
Allah ordered His Prophet [s] to inform the people of this designation at a time
of crowded populous so that all could become the narrators of the tradition,
while they exceeded a hundred thousand.
Narrated by Zayd b. Arqam: Abu al-Tufayl said: I heard it from the Messenger
of Allah [s], and there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes
and heard him with his ears.
source: http://al-islam1.org/murajaat/54.htm
The Shia often bring up this narration in order to prove somehow that all the Muslims were
present at Ghadir Khumm. However, we urge the unbiased reader to look at the text which only
says: there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his
ears. This simply says that everyone present at Ghadir Khumm heard the Prophet (
) say what he said about Ali ( ). We are already agreed that

those at Ghadir Khumm were addressed by the Prophet (
), but the
issue is that only a fraction of the Muslims passed through Ghadir Khumm on that day.
The Position of Alis Grandson, Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib ( )
It is narrated in Ibn Saads Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra:
A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him
(Al Hasan ibn Hasan), Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: If i am Mawla
of someone, Ali is his Mawla?
He (Al Hasan) replied, By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he
would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to
you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you,
Oh people! This is your leader after me. The Messenger of Allah gave the best
good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning).
(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5)
Similar Praise for Other Sahabah
The fact that the Prophet (
) referred to Ali ( ) as
Mawla (beloved friend) cannot be used as a proof for any Prophetic nomination of Ali (
) as Caliph. Many other Sahabah were praised in a similar fashion, and yet nobody
understands these texts to mean that these other Sahabah are divinely appointed Infallible
Imams. Let us for, example, take the example of the Hadith in relation to Umar ibn al-Khattab
( ).
The Prophet (
) said: The truth, after me, is with

Umar wherever he is. (Narrated ibn Abbas)
And yet, nobody uses this Hadith to say that the Prophet (
) was
nominating Umar ( ) as his successor; not even Umar ( ) himself
interpreted it in this way, and it was he himself who nominated Abu Bakr ( ) to be
Caliph instead. In yet another Hadith, we read:
The Prophet (
) said: If a prophet were to

succeed me, it would have been Umar ibn al-Khattab. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
Had this been a Hadith in regards to Ali ( ), then the Shia would have been
quoting it left, right, and center; but a cool-headed understanding by the Ahlus Sunnah takes
into account all of the various Hadith in which the Prophet (
)
praised many Sahabah in various ways. These are all proofs for the exaltation of Sahabah
definitely but they do not entail Prophetic nomination to Caliphate and they definitely do not
convey any sense of divine appointment by Allah. In another Hadith, we read:
The Prophet (
) said: The first one whom the

Truth will shake hands with is Umar (narrated Ubay ibn Kaab)
And in yet another Hadith, we read:
The Prophet (
) said: There were in the nations

before you people who were inspired, and if there is one in my Ummah it is
Umar. (narrated Abu Hurrairah)
Therefore, based on these Hadith and many other similar Hadith said to other Sahabah, we
see that the Prophet (
) calling Ali ( ) to be Mawla

(beloved friend) was not a Prophetic nomination for Caliphate because others were praised in a
similar fashion. What the Shia do is reject all the Hadith in regards to those they dislike and
then accept only those in relation to Ali ( ); what is a bit amusing is that the Shia
does not care to look at Isnad, but to the Shia a Hadith is authentic if it praises Ali (
) and it is forged if it praises other Sahabah. This is the Shia science of Hadith; indeed, it
would not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia would accept a narration on the authority of
Mickey Mouse if it praised Ali ( ), and they would reject a Hadith narrated
through Ali ( ) himself if it meant praising Abu Bakr ( ), Umar
( ), etc.
Now let us look at the second addition to the Hadith, namely the following:
The Prophet (
) said: Befriend whoever befriends

him (i.e. Ali), and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.
The Shia will then use this Hadith to criticize those Sahabah who argued with Ali (
), and yet do they not know that the Prophet (
) also said
similar things of other Sahabah? For example, we read the following Hadith:
The Prophet (
) said: Whoever is angry with

Umar is angry with me. Whoever loves Umar loves me. (At-Tabarani)
In fact, the Prophet (
) said this not only about Ali (

) and Umar ( ), but about all of his Sahabah:
The Prophet (
) said: Allah, Allah! Fear Him with

regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them
loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his
hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and
whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for
Allah is about to perish! (Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi,
by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-
Bayhaqi in Shuàb al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami`
al-Saghir #1442).
Parting Words
The Shia have taken the event of Ghadir Khumm way out of context. The Hadith of Ghadir
Khumm has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate, and if it did, then nothing
prevented the Prophet (
) from clearly stating that instead of using

the word Mawla which is known by everyone to mean beloved friend. Furthermore, and this
point cannot be stressed enough, Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Mecca: if the
Prophet (
) had intended on nominating Ali ( ) then

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

nominated Ali ( ) at Ghadir Khumm as the Shia claim. This is the very
foundation block of Shiism, without which their faith has no basis whatsoever: if the Prophet
(
) did not nominate Ali ( ) to be Caliph, then the

Shia can no longer claim that Abu Bakr ( ) or the Sunnis usurped the divinely
determined designation of Ali ( ). And with that, the whole of Shiism collapses in
on itself, all because of an unaccountable 250 km separating Ghadir Khumm from Mecca and
separating Shiism from the truth.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
With special thanks to Brother Fahad and Brother Seif.
Expose Rafidism & share it:
Facebook 16 Twitter 2 Email Print
Like
Be the f irst to like this.
Related
Kamil Al-Ziyarat, another Rafidi book of
ultimate Shirk
Shias says: Umar was born from adultery!
POSTED IN: AQIDAH & FIQH (SUNNAH) EXPLAINED GHADIR QOM HADITH ANALYSIS
Malik
NOVEMBER 5, 2013 6:25 PM
Gift2shias
NOVEMBER 7, 2013 1:35 AM
3 Comments
I have always had problems in debating this topic however you mention some great points in
this article, thank you so much.
I mentioned many of the points you made recently in a debate with a Shia,
They bought up a hadith from Sahih Muslim which you didnt mention at all this article.
Some of it can be seen here, check the rest online.
He then said: One day Allaahs Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) stood up to deliver
sermon at a watering place known as khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised
Allaah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our
purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of
death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allaahs call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am
leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allaah in which there is right
guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allaah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to
hold fast) to the Book of Allaah and then said: The second are the members of my household I
remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the
members of his household? Arent his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His
wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom
acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: Ali and the
offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil and the offspring of Jafar and the offspring of
Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said:
Yes.
Which is then followed by the mawla bit, why would the prophet say leave to weighty things
including quran and my household and straight after make the announcement of Ali being his
friend?
Please let me know what you think.
The mawla bit is NOT in the Sahih Muslim narration, open your eyes please. As for WHY
the Prophet had to announce that Ali is a BELOVED friend of all believers (not just a
friend), then read the article, its all explained there.
No to Ghadir QOM, yes to Ghadir Khumm
Verse of purification.
Is There Conclusive Proof Of Shiism?
Omarshah29
NOVEMBER 5, 2013 8:10 PM
Could you give me the arabic/reference for this please :
Imam Shafii 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.
BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM. THE SHAAN THEME.
Follow Follow

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm A Sunni Perspective

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm A Sunni Perspective

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5 Votes

GIFT2SHIAS OCTOBER 24, 2013 3 COMMENTS

) said what he said. This is a general

) divinely appointed Ali (

) and the Shia creed is

) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid.

) supposedly nominated Ali ( ) to be

) never appointed Ali ( ) and the Shia must abandon all of

) completed his last Hajj, said his

) delivered his Farewell Sermon in

) did not do this during his Farewell

) and the Muslims completed their Hajj after which

) stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great

) appointed Ali ( ) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to

) did not address this point in his

) would appoint Ali

) was responding to certain

) had dispatched Ali

) for the Hajj. We read:

) to Medinah via Ghadir Khumm, and it is they who were being

) urged the Muslims

) was forced to make his

) had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm,

) saying Ali ( ) is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam,

) said: allahummu wali man

) was advising the people to love Ali ( ) and be

)? Of course not. It makes more logical

) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla).

) did not say

) had meant whomsoevers leader I am, this Ali is also

) and be close to him, and at the

) meant to nominate Ali ( ), then

) was commanded to be clear in

) were removed by the

) praises somebody, this does not automatically make

) was merely refuting a group of

) was. Had the Prophet (

) is told in verse 5:67 that he

) nominated Ali ( ) to be Caliph.

) was correcting a specific group of

) did not include this in his Farewell Sermon of

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

) had earlier warned them about. Therefore, the Prophet (

) addressed them after a group of Muslims had criticized Ali ( ).

)? The key words here

) to nominate Ali ( ) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

) should simply have said that Ali ( ) was Awla

) mentioned that he had authority over the believers

) was using his

) says: O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the

) immediately says O Allah,

) wanted to defend Ali ( ) and urged these men to

) said in numerous Hadith that Muslims should help out

) just say that? Why does the Shia have to

) always telling us that

) meant such-and-such even though he just said

) could have said I am

) really meant to say, and we all know how

) did not mention the leadership of the

) was increased because there

) declared that Ali ( ) was the beloved

) can only praise a person once or twice. The