Importance of Recitation of Durood and Its Virtues

[By Maulana Najeeb Qasmi]

Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

Surely, Allah and His angels send blessings to the Prophet. O you who believe, do pray Allah to bless him, and send your Salaam (prayer for his being in peace) to him in abundance (Al-Ahzab: 56).

This verse indicates the position of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which he enjoys among those who are in heavens, i.e. that Allah mentions him in the assembly of angels and sends His blessings to him, and the angels also supplicate Allah for the high position of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Allah also ordains upon those who are in the earth to send their supplication for the mercy and blessings of Allah on His prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

It is mentioned in Hadith that when this verse was revealed, the companions said “O messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we know how to salute you i.e. saying “Assalamu Alaika Ayyuhan Nabi, during salah, How to recite Durood?. Allah’s messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) instructed them to recited Durood Ibrahimi which the Muslims recite during salah after “At-Tahiyyat.”  [Bukhari].

Meaning of Durood: Sending Durood by Allah to His messenger means showering His mercy on him and exalting his name in the assembly of the angels. Sending Durood by angels and Muslims to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) means to supplicate Allah to shower His Mercy on the Prophet and exalt his mention.

Virtues of reciting Durood:

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever recites one Durood (Salat) upon me, Allah will send ten Duroods (Salat) upon him”.  [Muslim]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever, from my Ummah, recites, sincerely from his heart, a prayer (Salat) upon me, Allah sends ten blessings upon him, raises his Darajat by ten degrees and records for him ten good deeds and erases off him ten evil deeds“. [Nisai]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The closest to me from amongst you on the Day of Resurrection will be one who sends more Durood to me”. [Tirmizi]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Sending more Durood to me will cause the forgiveness of small sins. [Tirmizi]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: As long as Durood is not sent to me, duas are stopped from being accepted. [Tabrani]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: May his nose soil with dust in whose presence mention is made of me and he does not supplicate for me. [Tirmizi]

i.e. Jibrail (alayhissalaam) invoked Allah against the one who does not recite Durood upon hearing of the name of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying: May that person be destroyed in whose presence you are mentioned and who does not confer blessings upon you. Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said “Aameen”

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned but he does not supplicate for me. [Tirmizi]

Based on the sincerity and Taqwa, different rewards have been mentioned in Ahadith for the recitation of Durood.

There are many wordings reported in Ahadith for Durood. However, the below mentioned words of Durood (Darud-e-Ibrahimi) are the best among them:

اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ، وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ.

(Allahumma Salli ‘Ala Muhammad, wa ‘Ala Aali Muhammad Kama Sallaita Ala Ibrahima, wa Ala Aale Ibraheema, Innaka Hameedum Majeed).

O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the family of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as You sent your Blessings on Ibraheem (alayhissalaam) and on the family of Ibraheem (alayhissalaam), for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious.’

Some Important Occasions for Reciting Durood:

1. One should recite Durood whenever one hears, reads or writes the name of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as stated in a Hadith. One can also say “Sallallahu Alaihe Wasallam” only.

2. Allah’s messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Salah is ought to be started with the praise of Allah and in the last Qa’dah, Durood is to be recited after the recitation of At-Tahiyyat then one has to supplicate. After listening Adhan but before reciting the supplication of Adhan.

3. Send more Durood on Friday:

4. Before any supplication send Durood.

5. Whenever you find time send Durood.

Scholars have differed on whether the recitation of Durood in the last Qa’dah after At-Tahiyyat is wajib (obligatory) or Sunnate Mu’akkadah. However, we should recite Durood in the last Qa’dah of each salah (whether Fardh or Nafl).

Allah’s messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘When you hear Adhan (Call to Salah) then repeat what you hear, and send Durood to me, for whoever sends Durood to me once, Allah will send Durood to him ten (times), then recite the supplication of Adhan‘.  [Muslim]

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Send Durood to me on Friday as much as possible, as the person who sends Durood to me on Friday is brought before me  [Hakim & Bayhaqi].

A man came to the mosque, offered Salah and started supplicating after finishing his Salah, O Allah forgive me, have mercy on me. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) told him, when you offer Salah and start supplicating first of all, praise Allah, send Durood to me then supplicate for you.

Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Neither make my grave a place of fair nor your home a graveyard, send Darud to me wherever you are it will reach me  [Musnad Ahmad].

Dajjalic Olympics Games -A Symbol of Pure Shirk

[By Ibn Ahmad]

Allah Ta’ala in Qur’an Kareem  says:

Verily  Allah  does  not  forgive  that  Shirk  be  committed,  but  may  forgives  all  (sins)  besides  this  for whom  He  wills.  Whoever commits  Shirk  has  in deed  invented  a  terrible  sin. [Surah an-Nisa, verse 48] 

It  is  very  disturbing  to see  Muslim  countries  participating  in  an  event  like the  Olympic  Games.  It seems  most  of  us  do  not know  why  the  Olympic Games  are  held  in  the  first place.     

Here  are  the  historical facts  behind  the  advent  of the  Olympic  Games. After reading  these  facts  a  true  Muslim  will  realise  that  it is  nothing  but  Shirk  (sheer polytheism)  to  attend  these games  (either  as  participants  or  as  spectators),  to watch  them  in  the  media and  to  follow  and  discuss the events and their results:

The  Olympic  Games, which  originated  in  ancient  Greece  as  many  as 3,000  years  ago,  were  re vived  in  the  late  19th  century  and  have  become the  world’s  pre-eminent sporting  competition. From  the  8th  century B.C.  to  the  4th  century A.D.,  the  Games  were held  every  four  years  in Olympia,  located  in  the western  Peloponnese peninsula,  in  honour  of the  god  Zeus. (Nauzubillāh).    
Ref: http://www.history.com/ topics/olympicgames
       
Zeus…was  the  sky and  thunder  god  in  ancient  Greek  religion,  who ruled  as  king  of  the  gods of Mount  Olympus (Nauzubillah)…Zeus  was also  infamous  for  his erotic escapades.  
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Zeus

Yet  another  source relates  the  origins  of  the Olympic  Games  as  follows:

According  to  historical records,  the  first  ancient Olympic  Games  can  be traced  back  to  776  BC. They  were  dedicated  to the  Olympian  gods (Nauzubillah)  and  were staged  on  the  ancient plains  of  Olympia.  They continued  for  nearly  12 centuries,  until  Emperor Theodosius  (a  Roman Emperor)  decreed  in  393 A.D.  that  all  such  “pagan cults”  be  banned.          Ref: https://www.olympic.org/ ancientolympicgames/ history

If  Emperor  Theodosius, the  Roman  Emperor  who was  a  Christian,  decreed that  Olympic  Games  be banned  because  it  was  one of  the ‘pagan  cults’,  then where  are  the  Muslims  of today?  It  is  a  great  shame indeed  that  we  are  actually taking  delight  in  participating  in  the  Olympic  Games and  following  the  events  instead  of  making  any  at tempts  to  get  it  banned. Even  the  media  in  Muslim countries  support  these kuffaar games of shirk.

Abu Sa’id Al Khudri (Radiyallahu  ‘anhu)  narrates:  I  heard  Rasulullah (Sallallahu ‘alaihi  wasallam) saying:  Anybody  amongst you  who  sees  an  evil should  change  it  with  his hands;  If  he  is  unable  to do  so,  then  with  his tongue;  if  he  is  unable  to do  this  (even),  then  by  his heart  and  this  is  the weakest  form  of  Iman. (Muslim).

Note:  To  change  it  by heart  means  that  one  should  at  least  consider  it  a vice  in his  heart  and  should supplicate  for  its  change. Instead  of  considering  it  a vice  we  are  taking  pride  in being  part  and  parcel  of  the event.  By  doing  so  we  are supporting  the  games  of shirk which   had  been  initiated  in  honour  of  the  hallucinated  mythical  gods  of  the Greeks.

The  heads  of  the  Muslim  states  all  over  the world  are  answerable to Allah  Subhanahuwa  Ta’ala  for    permitting  their  people  to  participate  in  these games  of  shirk.

How Hadhrat Salman al-Faarisi (radhiyallahu anhu) find Islam

[By Abu Bakr ibn Ali Muhaddith al-Haythami (rahimahullah) from his book Majma uz Zawaa’id]

One of the greatest of companions, Salman the Persian, once Zoroastrian (Magian) narrates his story to Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) of his search for the true religion of Allah Ta’ala.  His Journey from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, then atlast, his long search finally ends with Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) meeting the promised Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and earning his freedom to become one of his closest companions.

The blessed Companion of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Salman al-Faarisi (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates his journey to Islam as follows:

“I was a Persian man from the people of Isfahaan [a city of Iran]  from a town known as Jayi.  My father was the town chief.  To him, I was the most beloved creature of God.  His love for me reached the point to which he trusted me to supervise the fire [his father was a Zoroastrian] he lit. He would not let it die down.

My father owned a large area of fertile land. One day, while busy with his construction, he told me to go to his land and fulfill some chores he desired. On my way to his land, I came across a Christian church.  I heard the sound of people praying inside.  I did not know how people lived outside, for my father kept me confined to his house!  So when I came across those people [in the church] and I heard their voices, I went inside to watch what they were doing.”

When I saw them, I liked their prayers and became interested in their religion.  I said [to myself], “By God, this religion is better than that of ours.”  By God, I did not leave them until sunset.  I did not return to my father’s Land.

I asked [i.e., the people of the church].  “From where did this religion originate?”

“They said, ‘In Al-Shaam.’ [It encompasses the areas known today as Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Jordan]

I returned to my father who had become worried and sent [someone] after me.  Upon my arrival, he said, ‘O son!  Where have you been?  Didn’t I entrust you with an assignment?”

I said, “My father, I came across some people praying in their church and I liked their religion.  By God I stayed with them until sunset.”

My father said, “My Son!  There is no good in that religion; the religion of you and your forefathers’ is better.’ ”

“No, by God, it is better than our religion.”

He threatened me, chained me by my feet and kept me confined to his home.  I sent a message to the Christians requesting them to inform me of the arrival of any Christian trade caravan coming from Al-Shaam.  A trade caravan arrived and they informed me, so I then told [the Christians] to let me know once the people of the caravan finish their business and set off to return to their country.  I [indeed] was informed [by them] when the people of Al-Shaam finished their business and were about to set off to their country, so I then let loose the chains from my feet and accompanied [the caravan] until we reached Al-Shaam.

Upon my arrival I asked, “Who is the best amongst the people of this religion [of yours]?”

They said, “The bishop. [He is] in the church.”

I went to him and said, “I like this religion, and I would love to be with you and serve you in your church, in order that I may learn from you and pray with you.”

He said, “You may enter and stay with me,” so I joined him.

After some time, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) discovered something of the bishop.  He was a bad man who ordered and motivated his people to pay charity, only to keep it for himself.  He did not give it to the poor.  He had heaped up seven jars of gold and silver!  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) continued:

I despised him because of his deeds.

He [the bishop] died.  The Christians gathered to bury him.  I informed them that he was a bad man who ordered and motivated people to give him their charity only to keep it for himself, and that he did not give any of it to the poor.  They said, “How do you know this?”

I replied, “I can show you his treasure.”

They said, “Show us!”

I showed them the place [where he kept it] and they recovered from it seven jars heaped up with gold and silver.  When they saw it they said, “By God we will never bury him.”  So they crucified him and stoned him.

They replaced their bishop.  I never saw anyone [from them] who prayed better than him [the new bishop]; nor a man more detached from this worldly life and attached to the Hereafter, nor a person more committed to working day and night.  I loved him more than anyone else I loved before.

I stayed with him for sometime before his death.  When his death approached I told him, “O [so and so], I stayed with you and loved you more than anything else I loved before.  Now the Decree of God [i.e., death] has come, so who do you recommend for me [to keep to], and with what do you order me?”

The bishop said “By God! People are in total loss; they have altered and changed [the religion] they were upon. I do not know of anyone who is still holding to the religion I am upon except a man in al-Musil, [modern-day Mosul, a city of Iraq  so join him [and he gave me his name].”

When the man died, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) moved to al-Musil and met the person he recommended…

I said to him, “[Such & such person] at the time of his death  recommended me to join you.  He told me that you are holding to the same [religion] as him.”  I stayed with him and found him to be the best man holding on to the matter [religion] of his  companion.

Soon he died.  When death approached him, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) requested of him [as he did earlier with his first companion] to recommend another person who was upon the same religion.

The man said, “By God!  I don’t know of anyone on the same matter [religion] as ours except a man in Naseebeen [A city on the road between Al-Musil and Al-Shaam]  and his name is [such and such], so go and join him.”

Following his death, I traveled to the man of Naseebeen.”  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) found the man and stayed with him for a while.  The same incidents occurred.  Death approached and before he died, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) came to the man and asked for his advice as to whom and where to go.  The man recommended that Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) join another man in Amuria [A town that was part of the Eastern Region of the Roman Empire]  who was also upon the same religion.

Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) moved to Amuria after his companion died.  He found his new reference and joined him on his religion.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) [at that time] worked and, “earned some cows and one sheep.”

Death approached the man of Amuria.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) repeated his requests, but [this time] the answer was different.

The man said, “O son!  I don’t know of anyone who is upon the same [religion] as we are.  However, a Prophet will emerge in your lifetime, and this Prophet is on the same religion as Abraham.”

The man described this Prophet, saying, “He will be sent with the same religion as Abraham.  He will come from the land of Arabia and will migrate to a place located in between two lands filled with black stones [as if burned by fire].  There are palm trees spread in the midst of these two lands.  He can be recognized by certain signs.  He [will accept] and eat [from] the [food] which has been given as a gift, but will not eat from charity.  The seal of Prophethood will be between his shoulders.  If you can move to that land, then do so.”

The man died, and Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) stayed in Amuria.  One day, “Some merchants from the tribe of Kalb [An Arab tribe] passed by me,” Salman said, “I told them, ‘Take me to Arabia and I will give you my cows and the only sheep I have.’”  They said, “Yes.”  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) gave them what he offered, and they took him with them.  When they reached Waadi al-Quraa [close to Madinah], they sold him as a slave to a Jewish man.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) stayed with the Jew, and he saw the Palm trees [his previous companion had described].

“I hoped that this would be the same place described by my companion.”

One day, a man who was a first cousin to Salman’s (radhiyallahu anhu) master from the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraidha in Madinah came visiting.  He bought Salman (rashiyallahu anhu) from his Jewish master.

“He took me with him to Madinah.  By God!  When I saw it, I knew it was the place my companion described.

Then God sent  His Messenger [i.e., Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him].  He stayed in Makkah as long as he did [thirteen years].   I did not hear anything about him because I was very busy with the work of slavery, and then he migrated to Madinah.

[One day,] I was on a palm-tree on top of one of its date-clusters doing some work for my master.  A first cousin of his came and stood in front of him [his master was sitting] and said, “Woe to Bani Qeelah [people of the tribe Qeelah], they are gathered in Qibaa” [The outskirts of Medinah]  around a man who came today from Makkah claiming to be a Prophet!”

I trembled so fiercely when I heard him that I feared that I would fall on my master.  I descended and said, ‘What are you saying!?  What are you saying!?’

My master became angry and punched me hard saying, “What business do you have in this [matter]? Go and mind your business.”

I said, “Nothing!  I just wanted to be sure of what he was saying.”

On that evening, I went to see the Messenger of God while he was in Qibaa.  I took something with me which I had saved.  I went in and said, “I was told that you are a righteous man and that your company [who] are strangers [here] are in need.  I want to offer you something I saved as charity.  I found that you deserve it more than anyone else.”

I offered it to him; he said to his companions, “Eat,” but he himself kept his hand away [i.e., did not eat].  I said to myself, “This is one [i.e., one of the signs of his Prophethood].”

Following this encounter with the Prophet(sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) left to prepare for another test!  This time he brought a gift to the Prophet in Madinah.

“I saw that you do not eat from that given as charity, so here is a gift with which I wish to honor you.”  The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ate from it and ordered his companions to do the same, which they did.  I said to myself, “Now there are two [i.e., two of the signs of Prophethood].”

On the third encounter, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) came to Baqee-ul-Gharqad [a grave yard in Medina] where the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was attending the funeral of one of his companions.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I greeted him [with the greeting of Islam: ‘Peace be upon you’], and then moved towards his back attempting to see the seal [of Prophethood] which was described to me by my companion.  When he saw me [doing so], he knew that I was trying to confirm something described to me.  He took the garment off his back and I looked at the seal.  I recognized it.  I fell down upon it, kissing it and crying.  The Messenger of God, (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), told me to move around [i.e., to talk to him].  I told him my story as I did with you, Ibn ‘Abbaas [remember that Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) is telling his story to Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu)].  He [the Prophet] liked it so much he wanted me to tell my story to his companions.

He was still a slave owned by his master.  The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said to him, “Make a contract [with your master] for your freedom, O Salman.”  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) obeyed and made a contract [with his master] for his freedom.  He reached an agreement with his master in which he would pay him forty ounces of gold and would plant and successfully raise three hundred new palm trees.  The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then said to his companions, “Help your brother.”

They helped him with the trees and gathered for him the specified quantity.  The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ordered Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) to dig the proper holes to plant the saplings, and then he planted each one with his own hands.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “By Him in Whose hands is my soul [i.e., God], not a single tree died.”

Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) gave the trees to his master.  The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) gave Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) a piece of gold that was the size of a chicken egg and said, “Take this, O Salman, and pay [i.e., your master] what you owe.”

Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “How much is this in regards to how much I owe!”

The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Take it!  God will [make it] equal to what you owe.”

I took it and I weighed a part of it and it was forty ounces.  Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) gave the gold to his master.  He fulfilled the agreement and he was released.

From then on, Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) became one of the closest of companions to the Prophet.

The Search for the Truth

One of the great companions of the Prophet by the name of Abu Hurairah reported:

“We were sitting in the company of God’s Messenger when Surah al-Jumu’ah (Surah 62) was revealed.  He recited these words:

“And [God has sent Muhammad also to] others who have not yet joined them (but they will come)…” (Quran 62:3)

A person amongst them said, ‘O God’s Messenger!  Who are those who have not joined us?’

God’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) made no reply.  Salman the Persian (radhiyallahu anhu) was amongst us.  The Messenger of God (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) placed his hand on Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) and then said, ‘By the One in Whose Hands is my soul, even if faith were near Pleiades (the seven stars), men from amongst these [i.e. Salman’s (radhiyallahu anhu) folk] would surely attain it.” (At-Tirmidhi)

Many in this world are like Salman (radhiyallahu anhu), searching for the truth about the True and Only One God.  This story of Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) is similar to stories of people in our own time.  The search of some people took them from one church to another, from church to Buddhism or Passiveness, from Judaism to ‘Neutrality’, from religion to meditations to mental abuse.  There are those who shifted from one idea to another, but don’t even think of wanting to know something about Islam!  When they met some Muslims, however, they opened their minds.  The story of Salman (radhiyallahu anhu) is that of a long search.  You could make your search for truth shorter by benefiting from his.

Adhan and Iqamat In The Ears Of A Newly Born Baby

[By Maulana Najeeb Qasmi]

There are some Islamic teachings which are practiced at the time of birth of a newly born baby. One of such teachings is to pronounce Adhan in the right ear and Iqamat in the left ear of the baby.

Abu Rafi’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said: when Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was born, I saw the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pronounced Adhan in ear of Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). [Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood].

Abdullah bin Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: The Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pronounced Adhan in the right ear and Iqamat in the left ear of Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) after he was born. Hasan bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said Adhan should be pronounced in the right ear and Iqamat in the left ear of a newly born baby, by this way the baby is saved from Umme Sibyan. [Baihaqi].

Umme Sibyan is a kind of air which is harmful for the baby. Some say it is Jinn and a baby is saved from its mischief if Adhan and Iqamat are pronounced in the ears of that baby by the order of the Almighty Allah.

The first benefit of pronouncing Adhan in the ear of a newly born child is that his ear hears firstly the name of the Almighty Allah who created the baby from a minor drop and made him beautiful and among the best of the creatures.

Several Ahadith of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim reprot that satan flees away when he hears the words of Adhan and Iqamat and when a baby is born satan sits stealthily but when he hears Adhan and Iqamat the bad effect of the satan becomes lower.

The world is an examination hall that is why, when a newly born baby firstly comes to this hall he is given the lesson of Islam and the Divine Message.

Some wisdoms of pronouncing Adhan and Iqamat:

Note: Though the narrations regarding pronouncing Adhan and Iqamat in the ears of a baby are weak but they get strength by several other proofs. Also, this practice of Adhan and Iqamat has been observed by the Muslims from the beginning of Islam. Imam Tirmidhi has considered this Hadith Sahih and authentic and said that this practice has been observed by the Muslims form the very beginning of Islam. So, we must pronounce Adhan in the right ear and Iqamat in the left ear of a newly born baby. This issue has been mentioned in detail in the book of Allamah Ibn Qayyim “Tuhfatul Wadood Fi Ahkamil Maulood”.

Mas’alah: If the words of Adhan and Iqamat could not be pronounced when a baby got born, they may be pronounced at a later stage also, but if much time has passed and he is no longer a baby then there is no need to pronounce these words.

Related Article ➡ The Fiqh of Aqiqah: Rulings When a Child is Born

Moon Sighting – The Baatil Fatwa of the New York Darul Ifta

[By Majlisul Ulama]

QUESTION 

Please study the fatwa captioned:  

A VIABLE SHARIA BASED SOLUTION ON THE ISSUE OF RAMADHAAN AND EID MOON SIGHTING. 

This fatwa was issued by Al Muneer Foundation Inc. Darul Ifta Khatm-e-Nubuwwat of New York, U.S.A. in the year 2011. The fatwa, not only promotes global moon-sighting, but actually decrees that it is incumbent (Waajib). It in particular states that it is compulsory for  all Muslims of the world to  follow the declaration of Saudi Arabia on the  beginning and celebration of  Ramadhaan and Eid respectively. Kindly comment on the veracity of this Fatwa. Is it correct? 

ANSWER by the Taufeeq of Allah Azza Wa Jal 

The fatwa is egregiously  erroneous. 

(1) Islam is more than fourteen centuries in existence, and so is it with Ramadhaan and Eid. Moon-sighting and determining the Islamic months are not  new issues which have developed in this belated age in close proximity to Qiyaamah. The ludicrous scenarios stemming  from disputes regarding  the commencement of Ramadhaan and the celebration of Eid are the effects of  the jahl of the awaam (masses). Adding to the confusion is the flabby attitude  of  the Ulama  who  are  bending  too  far  backwards to  accommodate  the  ignorant  demands  of  the  ignorant masses  for  a  false  ‘unity’  based  on  their  vain  desires. Far from  solving  the issue  in  terms  of  the  Shariah,  the taqleed of  the  Ulama  to  the  desires  of  the  ignorant  masses,  only exacerbates the  confusion and  problem.

The  squabbling  over  the  moon  even  after  fourteen centuries  is  the  height  of  absurdity,  especially  when  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  clearly  laid down the principles and the laws in this  matter.

(2)  The  concept  of  global  moonsighting  never  existed  in Islam nor  is  there  any  indication  in  the  Shariah  for  the adoption  of  this  concept  spawned  just  a  couple  of  years ago by  juhala and fussaaq.

(3)  The emphasis  of    kow-towing  to  the  Saudi  regime  is  the  effect  of  bootlicking  by  the  Ulama,  which  in  turn  is  the effect  of  Saudi   monetary  and  other  perks  doled  out  to  the Ulama,  including to  the  current  breed  of   Deobandi  Ulama who  have  increasingly  become  liberals  and    bedfellows  with  the  corrupt,  fussaaq,  Saudi Salafis  of  the  Saudi regime,  hence  they  participate  in  the  Saudi-initiated conferences,  and  in  the  process  bootlick  and    submit to whatever  anti-Shariah  ‘fatwas’  are  disgorged  by  the  Saudi Salafi Ulama who are all on the payroll of  the  regime.

The  Saudi  regime  is  never  in  the  category  of  an  Ameerul Mu’mineen  who  has  sway  and    rights  over  the  Muslim Ummah  of  the  world.  The Wilaayat of  the  faasiq  Saudi regime does not extend beyond  the borders of Saudi Arabia. The decrees and proclamations of the Saudi regime are  not hujjat for the Muslims of the world. There is absolutely no Shar’i grounds for  the  baseless attempt to hoist Saudi hegemony on the entire Ummah of the world. The Saudi regime is currently in the process of destroying the Shariah, even the  extreme brand initially introduced by the first kings of the Saudi family. The current Saudi regime is bereft of any Islamic or Shar’i credentials. 

(4) The Darul Ifta of New York has simply lumped together numerous names of senior Ulama in a bid to steamroll its view of global moon-sighting and submission to Saudi Arabia. It has  quoted  the names of many kutub  to browbeat those who lack in sound  Shar’i knowledge.  The Darul Ifta has failed to apply its mind constructively. A close examination of the  masaa-il from the kutub will establish  the error of the Darul Ifta. 

The Darul Ifta simply lumps together names of kutub and names of Ulama without presenting the actual  statements of the  Ulama and  the kutub nor  discussing the contexts  to which the masaa-il are applicable. They have merely written an article which lacks Ilmi expertise. 

(5) The bootlicking of the authors of the fatwa is quite conspicuous from the following facts:

(a)  The emphasis on submitting to the fussaaq Saudi regime which has abandoned even the original Salafi’ism of its founders.

(b) Currying favour with the Barelwi Qabar Pujaaris, hence  the liberalized Deobandi  Molvis of the New York Darul Ifta say: “The respectable Ala-Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan…” Drawing support from the Barelwi Molvi who had branded all our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband as ‘kaafir’, speaks much for the bootlicking tactics of the Darul Ifta. 

(c) Their failure to understand that global-moonsighting is a recent development  spawned by  juhala, and that nowhere in  the Shariah  is there the slightest evidence for  this new phenomenon.  

Let us now examine their claims and arguments. The Darul Ifta alleges:

“In terms of Fiqah considering difference of horizons is absolutely non-credible. In layman’s terms it means that, global moon sighting is the exact requisite of Shariah and Sunnah.” 

In substantiation of this fallacy, the Darul Ifta cites Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Sunan Kubra Baihaqi  and Fatawa Shami.  Nowhere in any of these kutub is there even the remotest reference to ‘global moon-sighting’. The Darul Ifta has conveniently abstained from citing the actual narrations from these kutub. We therefore understand that their claim in this regard is  designed to hoodwink the unwary and ignorant.

The claim that Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ — “difference of horizons” is absolutely non-credible is erroneous. They have attributed Qat’iyyat (Absolute Certitude) to their view which is a figment of their opinion. Qat’iyyat is the effect of  Qur’aan and Ahaadith Mutawaatirah. It is  highly improper and arrogance for any Mufti to  claim that his  opinion or  the Fatwa of even a Mujtahid Imaam or the majority view is in the category of Qat’iyyat when there exists Ikhtilaaf, and even major difference of opinion,  on the issue among the Fuqaha of the same Math-hab as well as the Fuqaha of the other Math-habs. Furthermore, on this confounded issue of global moon-sighting there is not even a remote reference in the Shariah in terms of all Math-habs.  

The Darul Ifta has further compounded its error by equating the issue of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ to global moon-sighting whilst there is no relationship between these two issues. The meaning of difference in horizons being invalid, simply is the validity of  the sighting of one place for another place if  the information  reaches in a manner acceptable to the Shariah. It does not mean the compulsory imposition of the sighting of one place (city, town, country) on another region. Those who make this preposterous claim have failed to present their Shar’i evidence. They merely interpret Ahaadith and statements of the Fuqaha in terms of their own opinions.  

Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (Rahmatullah alayh), in his Jawaahirul Fiqh, Vol.1, whilst discussing the feasibility of having Eid on one day in the entire Pakistan to placate the whims of the  public, says:    

“……Though in terms of the Shariah, there is no significance in having Eid on the same day in the entire land. During the initial eras  of Islam, the  then current means of communication were not utilized for this purpose to  arrange Eid on the same day. Furthermore, due to  vast difference in Mataali (horizons) of a country, severe  difficulties can develop (in the pursuit to have Eid on the same day in the whole country).” 

On the issue of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ Hadhrat Maulana Yusuf Binnori (Rahmatullah alayh) whom the Darul Ifta has awarded the lofty title of “Ustaazul  Muhadditheen” said:   

“Sometimes the distance is so great that in reality, difference in horizons is possible, e.g. Peshawar and Dhaka. Therefore the (following) condition should be added: ‘On condition that the  distance between the two lands is not so great as to result in the reality of difference of horizon.”    
The validity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ relative to distant lands is an Ijmaee mas’alah (on which there is Consensus) as  Ibn Abdul Barr and others have explicitly stated. (Bidayatul Mujtahid of Ibn Rushd, Fathul Baari of Ibn Hajar). Even according to the Hanafiyyah, in distant lands Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is valid, Refer to Badaai’, Al-Ikhtiyaar Sharh Al-Mukhtaar and Tabyeenul Haqaaiq of Az-Zailaee. When Ijmaa’ is established then the other marjooh view is automatically negated.    

The statement of the Aimmah, namely: ‘Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is not valid’, is exclusive with such cities where such distance cannot be covered from the centre or end of the city (for difference of horizons to develop in reality).  The latitude adopted by the Muta-akh-khireen Hanafiyyah does not accord with the intention of the Aimmah nor is it factually correct.”  

Why is the Darul Ifta ignoring this explicit view of ‘Ustaazul Muhadditheen’? 

Since  Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is a contentious issue among the Fuqaha, and since this was not an issue among the Sahaabah, it is palpably ludicrous to predicate Qat’iyyat to it. The Fuqaha have not attributed Qat’iyyat to this issue which the New York Darul Ifta has attempted to elevate to the status of Wahi.  

Besides the Shaafi’ Fuqaha rejecting the validity of the claim of Iktilaaf-e-Mataali being ghair mu’tabar (not valid), even Hanafi Fuqaha accept it as valid. Imaam Al-Kaasaani states in his Badaaius Sanaai’:     

“………..This ruling is when both cities are near to each other at such a distance that  there is no Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ between them. However, if the distance is great, then the hukm of the one city will not be incumbent  on the other city because the horizons of cities when the distance between them is great differ. Then the  horizon  for people of every city  will be valid for  them, not for  those of another city.

Although according to Zaahirur  Riwaayat the  view  of  Invalidity  of Ikhtilaaf e Mataali’, and  this  is the  majority    view  of  the  Ahnaaf  which  we  accept,  it  is  utterly  fallacious  to  attribute Qat’iyyat  to  it,  and  to  pretend that  this  is  the  only  view  of  the Hanafi  Fuqaha.  What aggravates  the  pretence  is  that  the  Deen  is  being manipulated  to  serve  the  political  and  nafsaani  objectives of  the  corrupt, Faasiq  Saudi regime so desirous of imposing its  hegemony on the Ummah.  It  is  a  fallacy  and falsehood  to  deny  the  existence  of  the  valid  difference  of opinion  among  the  Ahnaaf  on  this  issue.  The  following appears in Al Ikhtiyaar  Li Ta’leel  Mukhtaar:

“When  the  sighting  of  the  hilaal  is  established  in  a  city, then  it  becomes  binding  on  all  the  inhabitants,  and there  is no  consideration  for difference  of  horizons. So has Qaadhi Khaan  narrated. This  is  Zaahirur  Riwaayat,  and  it  has  been narrated  from  Shamsul  Aimmah  As-Sarakhsi.  It  has  been said: (The hukm) differs with Ikhtilaaf- e-Mataali’.

It is  narrated in  Fataawal- Husaamiyah: ‘If  the people of a city after sighting the  hilaal fast for thirty days while the people  of another city fast  29  days  having  sighted the hilaal, then  upon them is the Qadha of one  day. (This ruling  applies) if  the  two  cities  are  so  near (to each  other) that their horizons are  the  same. If they are so far (from each other) that their respective  horizons differ then the hukm of  the one city does not apply  to the other city.”

In Tabyeenul Haqaa-iq of Az-Zailaee, the following appears:     

Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is not valid. And, it  has been said that it is valid.” (More or less the same  is narrated in Tabyeenul Haqaa-iq as mentioned above). It is more appropriate that it (i.e. Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali) be valid. ……..The daleel for the validity of  Mataali’ is the narration of Kuraib………” 

The aforegoing have been mentioned not in refutation of Zaahirur Riwaayat, but in refutation of the utterly baseless contention  of the attribution of Absolute Certitude (Qat’iyyat’ – the status of Wahi –) to  the   Zaahirur Riwaayat view. 

On the issue of the different horizons, there are two conflicting  views with conflicting effects. The one view is that of the invalidity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’  and the other view is  the validity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’. The former is the Zaahirur Riwaayat version to  which the majority of the Hanafi Fuqaha  subscribe while the latter  is the view of  the vast majority of the Shaafi’ Fuqaha and of some Hanafi Fuqaha. Ibn Abdul Barr  reports Ijmaa’ of the Maaliki Fuqaha on the validity view. “Ustaazul Muhadditheen”, Allaamah Binnuri upholds this Ijmaa’.  

Those who subscribe to the invalidity view are of the opinion that irrespective of distance and differences in horizons,  the sighting of one place is valid for another place. However, they do not claim that acceptance of the sighting of distant places is incumbent. Hadhrat Mufti Rashid Ahmad (Rahmatullah alayh), author of Ahsanul Fataawa, who subscribed to the view of  invalidity of difference in horizons, interpreting the fatwa of  Imaam Al-Kaasaani (Rahmatullah alayh), the illustrious author of Badaaius Sanaai’, one of the most authoritative Hanafi works, says:  
“Reflecting on the full text of Badaai’ it becomes clear that at this juncture (of the specific mas’alah under discussion), the objective is not to discuss the issue of validity or invalidity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’. On the contrary, the objective is to explain that if two cities are so near to each other to preclude the possibility of difference in horizons, then both these cities will be in the same category, i.e. the confirmation of the sighting of the one city will be Hujjat-e-Mulzimah (a decree which is binding) on the inhabitants of the other city. There is no need for an independent hujjat for the other city. It is just as the sighting is confirmed for the entire city and for even its suburbs.  

On the contrary, if the Matla’ (horizons) of both cities are different, then despite this Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ not being valid in terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat, the sighting of the one city will not be Hujjat-e-Mulzimah for the other city. The other city will require independent evidence (Hujjat) such as Shahaadat  or Shahaadat alal Qadha or Istifaadhah.”  (Ahsanul Fataawa, Vol.4, page 469)

It is abundantly clear from Badaai’ and also from the above explanation of Mufti Rashid Ahmad, that regarding places of  differing horizons, the sighting of one city is not Hujjat-e-Mulzimah for  other cities despite the invalidity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ in terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat which is the majority view. Thus, the announcement made by the corrupt Saudi regime is not Hujjat-e-Mulzimah for the Muslims of the world. But the objective of the Darul Ifta of New York is to supersede the Shariah and to hoist Saudi hegemony on the Ummah by fallaciously claiming the incumbency of following the Saudi announcements, and by attributing Qat’iyyat to the validity view. 

Mufti Rashid Ahmad has attempted to show that Imaam Al-Kaasaani in Badaai’ is not discussing the issue of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ and its consequence. We do not agree with his opinion.  Imaam Al-Kaasaani explicitly mentions the consequence of Iktilaaf-e-Mataali’. He says with clarity:  
   
“This (i.e. the applicability of the hukm of one city for the other city) is when the distance between the two cities is such that the horizons do not differ. However, if the cities are far apart, then the hukm of the one city will not be binding on the other city because the Mataali’ of cities in the case of great distance differ. Thus, for every city, its horizon will be valid, not the horizon of the other city.”

Then, Imaam Al-Kaasaani fortifies this view with the Fatwa of Shaikh Abu Abdullah Bin Abi Musa Ad-Dhareer. Stating the Fatwa, Imaam Al-Kaasaani says:  

“Abu Abdullah Bin Abi Musa Ad-Dhareer was asked about the people of Iskandariyya (Alexandria in Egypt). When the sun sets for the people on the ground, it remains visible for those on high towers for a considerable time. He said that for the people on the ground breaking fast is permissible, not for those on the towers because the setting of the sun differs in accordance with its different horizons, hence for the people of every place will be its horizon.” 

Imaam Al-Kaasaani has cited this fatwa as an analogy to fortify the view of the validity of differing horizons for the purpose of moon-sighting. On the basis of this analogy, it is quite clear that according to Imaam Al-Kaasaani, the sighting of one city is not valid for another distant city where the horizon differs just as it is not permissible for those on the towers to break fast despite the people in the very same place on the ground breaking their fast. Thus, Mufti Rashid Ahmad’s conclusion is in conflict with the logical conclusion stemming from the analogy proffered by Imaam Al-Kaasaani. From his analogy it is obvious, that the  confirmation of a sighting  of a city will not be Hujjat-e-Mulzimah for another distant city regardless of  the sighting being confirmed by Shahaadat, etc. as Mufti Rashid Ahmad has  claimed on the basis of his interpretation of  the text in Badaai’.

The Darul Ifta has quoted also Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) in an abortive bid to bolster its fallacy of global moon-sighting and the hallucinated incumbency stemming therefrom. In this regard, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) states in his Imdaadul Fataawa, vol.2, page 99: 
Question: “In a city because of cloudy conditions the moon is not sighted on the night at the end of 29th Sha’baan or Ramadhaan. Are the people obligated to  make effort to  obtain news from other places?” 

Answer:  “No (Shar’i) Hukm is established  without daleel. For this act (of  acquiring news from other places) there is no daleel, hence this act is not incumbent.” 

Note that Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) subscribes to the Zaahirur Riwaayat version, nevertheless, he is averse to the  act of embarking on unnecessary effort – an effort which the Shariah does not require. 

Further advising a gentleman who was of the view of  striving  to have  Ramadhaan and Eid on the same day  throughout the Indian subcontinent which at that time comprised of only India, Hadhrat Thanvi said:    

“Now I shall present my opinion by way of advice………..Even if the fatwa of other Ulama confirms the validity of implementing this (arrangement), and if the Ulama of your Anjuman give it preference, then too, this arrangement (for one Eid in the whole country) is not appropriate…….” See the full Fatwa in Imdadul Fataawa, Vol.2, page 98.

Not a single one of the Akaabir Ulama whom the Darul Ifta has mentioned and attempted to eke out support for its corrupt view, is of the opinion that it is incumbent on all Muslims of the world to have Ramadhaan and Eid on the same day. Not a single one of them has claimed the incumbency of global moon-sighting. Not a single one of them is of the opinion that it is incumbent on the people of one city to institute measures to acquire news of  the sightings of other cities and countries. 

In Fataawa Taataarkhaaniyah, Vol. 2, page 355, the difference in horizon with its effect is stated as follows:    

“The people of a city saw the hilaal. Is this  binding on the people of another city? The Mashaaikh differ in this regard. Some said: ‘It is not binding. The sighting of every city is binding on its people.’ In Al-Muntaqi……………     

In Az-Zaheeriyyah is mentioned that it is narrated from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) that  for every city is its sighting. In Qudoori it appears: If the difference (in the distance) between two cities is such that there is no difference in horizons, then the sighting of the one city will be incumbent on the  other city… However, if the distance is such that there is difference in the horizons, then the hukm of the one is not incumbent on the other city.”   

The other view of invalidity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ which is the Zaahirur Riwaayat view is also stated in Taataarkhaaniyyah. The objective for mentioning the other view is to show that many  Hanafi Fuqaha subscribe to it, and this is adequate for debunking the Qat’iyyat which the Darul Ifta has predicated to the invalidity view. 

The illustrious author of Hidaayah states in Mukhtaarun Nawaazil:   

“The people in one city fasted 29 days after having (their) sighting. The people of another city fasted 30 days after (their) sighting. If the mataali’  of the two cities do not differ, then the people of the one city have to make Qadha of one day. However, if  there is a difference in the Mataali’ then there is no Qadha on them.” 

Hadhrat Muhaddith Dahlawi Shah Waliyullah (Rahmatullah alayh) states the very same ruling in Musaffa Sharh Muwatta. He too subscribes to the validity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh), partially accepts the validity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’. Thus, he states in his Fataawa Rashidiyyah:  

“According to Zaahirur Riwaayat, Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is not valid for Saum and Iftaar. The sighting of the east will be established for the west if it is confirmed by Shar’i Hujjat. However, for Qur’baani, Eid of Zil Hajj and Hajj, it is valid (i.e. Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is valid).”

The maximum capital which could be extravasated from the  invalidity of  difference of horizons view (La ibrata li ikhtikaaf mataali’) is that if news of the moon-sighting from another place reaches by  Tareeq-e-Moojib, then the Hukm will apply to that place as well where the moon was not sighted. This does not necessitate the institution of elaborate methods to acquire the sightings of  other places, nor does it require global moon-sighting, nor is it incumbent on all places on earth to institute measures for  Ramadhaan and Eid on the same day, nor does the Shariah require  the institution of such unnecessary  measures, nor was there any such system in the annals of Islam’s 14 century history. 

In terms of the validity of  Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ view, it is not  even permissible to accept the news from places of different horizons. As mentioned earlier, this is the view of the Jamhur Shaafi’ Fuqaha, and of some Ahnaaf among whom is Imaam Al-Kaasaani (Rahmatullah alayh), and not forgetting “Ustaazul Muhadditheen” Allaamah  Binnuri, albeit as far as the latter is concerned, if the news reaches by Tareeq-e-Moojib, acceptance  will be permissible. The Darul Ifta of New York due to the paucity of its research, appears to be unaware of the view of Allaamah Binnuri whom they themselves have appointed as “Ustaazul Muhadditheen”.  

Furthermore, for the edification of the New York Darul Ifta, news of moon-sighting from Saudi Arabia  is not by  Tareeq-e-Moojib. Besides  the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia, no one is under Shar’i obligation to accept the announcements  of  the Saudi  regime.  The Saudi regime is never in the category of an  Ameerul Mu’mineen who has to  be incumbently obeyed  and  whose over the Ummah.  

It  should  be  abundantly  clear  that it is Wilaayat extends not  a  Shar’i  requisite to  have    Ramadhaan and Eid all  over  the  world  on  the same  days. There  is no substantiation for this    modernist juhala craze in the  Shariah a craze of the  juhala  which even the liberal molvis  are  making taqleed of.

For the further edification of  the  Darul Ifta’s Muftis,  it will be  appropriate to remind them  that  when approaching practical  situations,  the  mind  should  not operate from within the    confines of a straitjacket. This generally  is the case  when  the  Mufti seeks to peddle  only  his    view, being motivated by unholy  objectives such as bootlicking  the Saudi regime and    submission to the juhala. It is salubrious that they  understand that Zaahirur Riwaayat is not in  the  category  of Wahi. The lack  of Qat’iyyat  permits latitude  for  adoption  of   Ghair  Zaahirur  Riwaayat. There are innumerable  examples of  this adoption by  the  Fuqaha. Some examples  shall be briefly mentioned for  better understanding.

*    “When  a  woman  contracts  her  own  nikah  in the ghair  kuf, nikah is  valid  in  terms  of  Zaahirur Riwaayat  according to  Imaam Abu Hanifah  (Rahmatullah alayh). This is also the final view of Imaam Abu  Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh) and  Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah  alayh). However Imaam Al Hasan  (Rahmatullah alayh) narrated  from Imaam Abu Hanifah  (Rahmatullah alayh) that the  Nikah is not valid. Numerous of our Mashaaikh have adopted this view (which is in conflict with Zaahirur Riwaayat). – (Al-Muheet). The view for Fatwa in our age is the narration of Al-Hasan.   

Ash-Shaikh Al-Imaam Shamsul Aimmah As-Sarakhsi (Rahmatullah Alayh) said that the narration of Al-Hasan is closer to Ihtiyaat (caution). So does it appear in Qaadhi Khaan.”  

* “A woman contracts her nikah in ghair kuf. Does she have the right to abstain (from consummation) until her aulya (guardians) are satisfied (with her choice)? Faqeeh Abul Laith  (Rahmatullah alayh) issued the fatwa that she has this right despite it being in conflict with Zaahirur Riwaayat, and numerous of our Mashaaikh issued fatwa in accordance with Zaahirur Riwaayat. (Al-Khulaasah) 

* Masah of a quarter of the head being fardh is in terms of Ghair Zaahirur Riwaayat, and the fatwa is on this view whereas according to Zaahirur Riwaayat the Fardh is the extent of three fingers. 

* Bismillaah when beginning Wudhu is Mustahab in terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat. However, Imaam Tahaawi (Rahmatullah Alayh) and other Mutakkhireen Fuqaha hold the view that it is Sunnat

* According to Qaadhi Khaan, the perspiration of a donkey in terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat is taahir. However, according to the Jamhur, its perspiration is mashkook.

* If someone forgets to sit in Qa’dah Ula, then if he is closer to  the sitting position, he should sit in Qa’dah. In this case Sajdah Sahw is not Waajib. If he is closer to Qiyaam, then he should stand, not revert to sitting, and Sajdah Sahw is Waajib. This is in terms of Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat, and the fatwa is on this view. In terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat, he should sit  as long as he is not completely in Qiyaam

* If nomads make niyyat of  Iqaamat (of 15 days or more) in the wilderness, the fatwa is that their niyyat is  valid. This is in terms of Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat. According to Zaahirur Riwaayat, niyyat of Iqaamat in the wilderness is not valid. 

* According to Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat, after the first Takbeer in Janaazah Salaat, only Thana is recited, and this is the adopted view on which is the Fatwa. However, in terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat, Surah Faatihah also has to be added. 

* In terms of Zaahirur Riwaayat it is not permissible to nullify a Nafl fast without valid reason. However, according to Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat it is permissible, and the fatwa is on this view. 

* For the fear of losing Janaazah SalaatTayammum is permissible whether the one who fears losing the Salaat is the Wali or someone else. This is the Zaahirur Riwaayat view. In terms of Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat, Tayammum will be permissible for  someone other than the Wali.

*  The mas’alah of Mafqoodus Zauj adopted by the Akaabir  Ulama of Deoband is not even  from the Hanafi Math-hab. On the contrary, it is in conflict with the explicit Fatwa of the Ahnaaf. But, necessity dictated the adoption of the Maaliki view. 

There are numerous instances of the Fatwa being issued on Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat and which have been upheld by the Fuqaha of all ages. Thus, the  arbitrary claim that “difference of horizons is absolutely non-credible” is palpable bunkum. And how can it be “absolutely non-credible” when “Ustaazul Muhadditheen” propagates it? Just as the Hanafi Fuqaha have issued Fatwa on Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat on numerous masaa-il, so too have  some Ahnaaf  issued Fatwa on the Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat view pertaining to Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’.   Furthermore, the  difference of opinion pertaining to Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ exists in all Math-habs

The Darul Ifta states:

Therefore, it is a great disparity and unethical, especially for a Hanafi scholar to bring forth the Hadith of  Quraib, and advocate for the Shafee opinion. Doing so is not only against the consensus of the majority, but against the edicts of the top scholars of Deoband and Baralwi. None the less a Hanafi scholar has no justification for presenting this argument.”  

The muftis of the Darul Ifta are implying that “Ustaazul Muhadditheen” was ignorant of this  ‘fact’ and that he had acted unethically, and that he was advocating the Shaafi’ Math-hab, and that he was in conflict with the edicts of the top scholars of Deoband, and that he had no justification for his Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali view. We fail to comprehend the logic which condemns a scholar, yet awards him the awe-inspiring lofty title of “Ustaazul Muhadditheen”. 

The argument of the Darul Ifta is baseless. Firstly, there is no need to present the Baralwi view. Qabar Pujaaris should not be cited as daleel. Secondly, we are not aware of any Hanafi Ulama currently or at any earlier time advocating the Shaafi’ view of the validity of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’. It is thus misleading to aver that “a Hanafi scholar  is bringing forth the Hadith of Kuraib to advocate the Shaafi’ opinion”. This premise is baseless. Those  who reject the so-called ‘global moon sighting’, the objective of which is pure submission to Saudi designs, do not tender the Hadith of Kuraib to justify their stance, nor do they proffer the viewpoint of the Shaafi’ Math-hab in refutation of the Zaahirur Riwaayat which is in conflict with the validity of horizons view. The sole claim of those who reject global moon sighting is their rejection of Saudi announcements. They claim that the announcement of the Saudi regime is not Hujjat for those beyond the territorial  boundaries of  Saudi Arabia.  

The Darul Ifta is misleading Muslims by obfuscating the issue with unnecessary  Fiqhi technicalities. Those  who do not accept the modernist concept of global moon-sighting, do accept news of moon-sightings from all regions of  the country of their residence.  This is our  practice in South Africa. We accept reliable news which conforms to Tareeq-e-Moojib from any part of the country. In view of the absence of Tareeq-e-Moojib, we do not accept  news from beyond  the borders of South Africa. This rejection is not based on  the Shaafi’ view nor on Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat. We subscribe fully to Zaahirur Riwaayat, but without fossilized brains. Where there is a valid need, we shall depart from Zaahirur Riwaayat and adopt the Ghayr Zaahirur Riwaayat propounded by very senior and illustrious Hanafi Fuqaha. But on the issue of moon-sighting we are on the course of Zaahirur Riwaayat. Therefore, the  talk of  advocating the Shaafi’ opinion is obfuscating  drivel disgorged by the New York Darul Ifta in its abortive endeavour to impose Saudi bootlicking on the Ummah.  

In places like South Africa, those who are propagating a false and baatil ‘unity’ are constrained to set aside  the Jamhur Ahnaaf’s view of Zaahirur Riwaayat to toe the Shaafi’ line. In South Africa half the Muslim population is Shaafi’, hence those who clamour for a stupid and false ‘unity’ have to wait for the declaration of  the Shaafi’ maan-kykers (moon-sighters) whose declaration arrives generally hours after the  Hanafi pronouncement.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no need to  negate the valid Shaafi’ view based on the Hadith of Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) as reported by Hadhrat Kuraib (Radhiyallahu anhu).  Senior Hanafi Fuqaha have upheld the veracity of  the view  propounded on the basis of  that Hadith, and Fuqaha of all Math-habs acknowledge the correctness of the validity view  although they are in a minority in the Hanafi Math-hab.  

The Hanafi Fuqaha who sometimes subscribe to a view which coincides with the Shaafi’ Math-hab or any other Math-hab, do not advocate the other Math-hab. They base their fataawa on  solid dalaa-il of the Shariah. Consider the Hanafi view of  masah of the head. Although the Fardh extent of masah of the head during Wudhu according to Zaahirur Riwaayat is just three fingers, only a Haatibul Lail, jaahil mufti maajin will contend that these Hanafi Fuqaha were advocating the view of some other Math-hab

The same applies to the Asr Salaat time. Among our recent Akaabir,  Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) is of the view that the Qawi (strong)  view is after the shadow has reached once its length  (Mithl) despite the fact that  the Mash-hoor Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab is Mithlain (two lengths). It  will be highly improper to say that Hadhrat Gangohi was advocating the Shaafi’ view. Hadhrat Gangohi had his dalaa-il on the basis of which he  stated his fatwa

Another example of departure from Zaahirur Riwaayat is Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s fatwa on the end of Maghrib and beginning of Isha’. Whilst the official Fatwa of the Ahnaaf is that Maghrib ends with the disappearance of Shufuq Abyadh, and this is the commencement of Isha’ time, according  to Hadhrat Thanvi it is with the disappearance of Shufuq Ahmar (the red glow in the western horizon), and this is also the Shaafi’ view. But, it is stupid to contend that Hadhrat Thanvi was promoting the Shaafi’ view. He had his dalaa-il  on the basis of which he felt justified to depart from the Jamhoor’s view. 

Furthermore, despite Mithlain being the  Mufta Bihi version of the Ahnaaf for Asr, Hadhrat Gangohi contends that this is the weaker view and the Mithl is the stronger view although this is the Shaafi’ view, not that of the Ahnaaf. Commenting on the Asr time, Hadhrat Thanvi says in Imdaadul Fataawa, Vol.1, page 96:     

“The riwaayaat (narrations) of the Mutoon are of Mithlain, and the  Asl (actual) Math-hab is the Mutoon. This has been explicitly stated, although some (Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf)  such as  Durr-e-Mukhtaar, etc. have  given preference to the Mithl view. However, the Muhaqqiqeen have not preferred this view. Allaamah Shaami has elaborated on this issue in Raddul Muhtaar.    Furthermore, discharge of the obligation (of Asr Salaat) is with certainty in  the (Mithlain) view. This is  the most cautious view.  The validity  of  Asr  at one mithl is contentious………When the views of the Ulama of the same Math-hab  differ and when  both views are held by  Akaabireen, then to claim certitude is difficult….” 

Yet, Hadhrat Gangohi as well as other seniors differ and have adopted the ‘Ghayr Mufta Bihi’ view of Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad, describing it as the stronger view. But this does not mean that these great Fuqaha and Ulama had advocated the Shaafi’ viewpoint.

Allaamah Yusuf Binnuri after presenting an elaborate discussion on the issue of Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali, states in Ma-aarifus Sunan, Vol.5, page 340:  

“Ibn Abdul Barr  said: ‘They  (the Fuqaha) have adopted consensus that the sighting of  distant cities such as Khuraasaan and Andalus will not be considered.’  Stemming from the narration of Ijmaa’, is the Ijmaa’ of the Ulama of the Math-habs, not only of the Maalikiyyah as is imagined. Thus, the statement of the Aimmah, (namely, Laa ibrata li-ikhtilaaf-e-mataali’) is Mujmal (concise). It is exclusive with nearby places where there is no great difference in horizons.” 

This should be salubrious for those who have awarded the title of “Ustaazul Muhadditheen”  to Allaamah Binnuri. 

Therefore to claim that the Hanafi Ulama such as Allaamah Kashmiri, Allaamah Binnuri, and others are advocating the Shaafi’ Math-hab on this issue, is a fallacy of the New York Darul Ifta designed to promote submission to  the announcements of the corrupt, anti-Shariah Saudi regime. The argument which the Hanafi Fuqaha base on the Hadith of Kuraib are  valid and may not be  discarded. 

The Darul Ifta alleges:
   
“It is a fact that the Saudi scholars of Mecca and Medina adopt the exact method of the Sunnah for declaration  moon sighting.”

This ‘fact’ is the hallucination of the Darul Ifta. The genuine Saudi scholars have no say in the matter. The decision is made by the Saudi regime and the scholars of the regime. In recent days we have received queries by non-Saudis residing in Saudi Arabia who state that the regime follows its own calendar, hence they are in a quandary regarding Ramadhaan, Eid and Hajj. In Ahsanul Fataawa, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad states clearly:

“The declaration of Saudi Arabia is not a hujjat for Pakistan”.

He presents a number of reasons for the unreliability of Saudi declarations which are most certainly not in accordance with the Sunnah as alleged by the Darul Ifta of New York. In Ahsanul Fataawa, Vol.4, page 426, Mufti Rashid Ahmad states: 

“The news of sighting of the moon in Saudi Arabia is not HUJJAT for Pakistan 

(1) There is trepidation regarding the news of moon-sighting in Saudi Arabia having reached the degree of Istifaadhah.      

(2) In addition to the decision of moon-sighting in Saudi Arabia being in conflict with the Hanafi Math-hab, it is also in conflict with simple logic, hence it is not a Hujjat for Pakistan.” 

In a letter to the Minister of Justice, Muhammad Bin Ali Harkaan, the Mufti Sahib wrote:   

“Your decision regarding sighting of the moon is in conflict with reality. The factors for this are:

(1) When the skies are clear, nothing preventing the sighting of the hilaal, then sighting by only one or two persons only in the entire land is normally impossible. 

(2) Over there (i.e. in Saudi Arabia) even after acceptance of testimony, the moon is not visible the next day. The moon is not visible to the public at large even on the next night. 

(3) It is incumbent for the moon to be full on the 14th/15th night. However, in terms of the shahaadat (i.e. the testimony on the basis of which the declaration is made), the full moon is only on the 16th or 17th night. 

(4) The day when the moon is visible in the east during the morning, in fact even a day thereafter, sighting the moon is an impossibility because on these days the moon sets even before sunset. However, frequently, in Saudi Arabia the declaration of the sighting is made the very same day, i.e. the day the moon is visible in the east during the morning. 

(5) Even after the shahaadat of a sighting in Saudi Arabia, nowhere else in the world is this corroborated by a sighting, not even in the furthest western lands. 

(6)  According to the testimony (on the basis of which the declaration is made), the 1st of the month is on the very day of the birth of the moon. This is manifestly baseless. This leads to the conclusion that the moon  can be visible even prior to its birth.

No response to this came from  Saudi Arabia.”

Besides  the  above,  over  the  years  others  too  have  raised valid  doubts  and  made  valid  allegations  of  discrepancies perpetrated  by  the  Saudi  regime  regarding  moon sighting. The  very  bottom  line  is that the  news  and  declarations emanating  from  Saudi  Arabia  are baatil.  Therefore, even if  it  is assumed  that  the  news  attains  the  degree  of Istifaadhah, it  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance. It remains baatil. The  corruption  and damage are at the very  source.

The  Darul Ifta in its attempt to  ‘prove’ the validity of Saudi  declarations, have lumped  together the names of an array  of Deobandi Ulama who  allegedly uphold the news emanating   from the Saudi regime. Without   delving too much in the category  of some of the names  mentioned by the Darul Ifta, it will suffice to  say that we are not their muqallideen. Furthermore, some  of the seniors mentioned by  the Darul Ifta are submissive to  the Saudi regime which sponsors  some of their projects. These  seniors by the error of mingling and associating with the    agents of the regime have  become desensitized of the Haqq and are promoting submission  to the misguided, fussaaq,  corrupt Saudi Salafi regime – a regime that has betrayed even   its own religion of Salafi’ism.  Thus, this claim of the Darul Ifta  is devoid of Shar’i substance. It  is never a Shar’i daleel for which  we have to fall into prostration.

Referring to Allaamah Subki’s view of permissibility of accepting astronomical calculations (he was a Shaafi’), the Darul Ifta says:   

More so, Ustad-Ul-Muhaddiseen Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Binori (RA) and Grand Mufti of Pakistan Mufti Wali Hassan (Hasan!) Tonki (RA), have described the Subki’s judgement as wrong and figment of  imagination in the face of existing Shariah based ways.” 

It goes without saying that all Four Math-habs are agreed on the butlaan (baselessness and unacceptability) of astronomical calculations  for the purpose of establishing the Islamic months. Allaamah Subki (Rahmatullah alayh) had undoubtedly erred in his opinion. Our purpose for mentioning the above statement of the New York Darul Ifta, is the credence and confidence they repose on Hadhrat Allaamah Muhammad Yusuf Binuri (Rahmatullah alayh). They have awarded him the lofty title of ‘Ustaad-Ul-Muhaddiseen’, i.e. he is the Chief of the Muhadditheen. Yet the Darul Ifta is either ignorant of the Allaamah Binuri’s view pertaining to Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ or they have conveniently ignored it in their abortive endeavour to hoist Saudi hegemony on the Ummah. We have already explained the view of Hadhrat Allaamah Binuri on this issue. He is of the opinion that the invalidity of  Ikhtilaaf-e-Mataali’ is  restricted to places close to one other, where the horizons do not differ. This is the view of “Ustaad-UL-Muhaddiseen”. 

Brazenly and arbitrarily, the Darul Ifta of New York issues the preposterous directive which is devoid of Shar’i force:

In  conclusion,  Saudi  Arabia  follows  all  rules  laid  down by  the  Sharia  for  the  sighting  of  Ramadan  and  Eid  moon, so  its  declarations  are  valid,  be  it  against  calculations. Therefore,  it  is  incumbent  for  the  Muslims  living  in  USA and Britain  to follow  the decision provided the  decision is conveyed  to  according  to  the    conditions  given  by  Sharia.”

The  claim  is  baseless  as  has  already  been  explained  above. If  it  is  ‘incumbent’  for  the  Muslims  of  the  U.S.A.  and Britain  to  submit  to  the  declarations  of  the  Saudi  regime since  these  are  hallucinated  as  conforming  with  the Shariah,  why  does  the  Darul Ifta  confine  the  acceptance to only  the  U.S.A. and  Britain?  Why  would it  not apply  to the  entire  Ummah  of  the  entire  world?  We  have  no  answer for this sinister conundrum.

As  far  as  calculations  are  concerned,  it  is  agreed  that  this method is haraam  for de termining the Islamic  months, not only Ramadhaan  and  Shawwaal.  Astronomical calculations  are  not  valid  for  determining  any  of  the Islamic  months. However, Darul Ifta has  deceptively confined  the  invalidity  of  calculations  to    only Ramadhaan and  Zil  Hajj  be cause  it  is  aware  that  Saudi  Arabia  does employ    calculations  for  the  determination  of  the  Islamic months.  In  brazen  rejection  of  Rasulullah’s  express  and emphatic  command  to  sight  the  moon,  the  Saudi  regime utilizes calculations  to  suit their own objectives.

Let  it  be  known  that  it  is  Waajib  for  the  Muslims  of  the U.S.A.  and  Britain  to  physically  sight  the  hilaal  just  as it  is  Waajib  for  the  entire  Ummah.  The  Muslims  of these two countries hold no special status to exclude or exempt  themselves  from  this  command  of  the  Shariah. In  a  vast  country  such  as  the  U.S.A.,  there  is  a  100% possibility  of  fulfilling  the  command  of  the  Shariah  to sight  the  moon.  U.S.A.  Muslims  have  no  valid  excuse for discarding this Waajib command.

As  far  as  the  UK  is  concerned,  we are  informed  that  at  all times  the  skies  are  overcast  and  the  possibility  of  sighting the  hilaal  is  almost  nil.  Therefore  it  is  imperative  for  UK Muslims  to  establish  a  link  with  reliable  Muslims  in  a nearby  country,  preferably  Morocco,  for  information  of the  hilaal.  Once  a  reliable  link  has  been  established,  UK Muslims  should  follow  the  news  arriving  from  that  source. Since  the  Saudi  declarations  are,  to  say  the  least,  extremely dubious,  no  reliance  should  be  reposed  on  them.  Regarding  the  Saudi  declarations,  the  contention does  not pertain  to Istifaadhah  of  the  information. Even if  the information  reaches  reliably,  the  problem  is  at  the  source. The  Saudi  method  of  plotting  the  months  is  corrupt  and damaged in conflict  with the Shariah.

The  Saudi  Ulama  whom  the  Darul  Ifta  cites, are  not  a Hujjat. There  is  no  reliance  on  the  Salafis.  Furthermore, the  Saudi  regime  is  firmly  and  incrementally  on  an  anti-Shariah  course  in  its  bootlicking  of  America.  The  ‘grudge’ against  the  Saudi  regime  which  its  critics harbour is  classified  as  Bugdh  fillah  (Animosity/Hatred  for  Allah’s Sake), and this ‘grudge’ is among the most meritorious acts of Ibaadat. The system in Saudi Arabia is HARAAM. The regime now under the  aegis of U.S.-educated fussaaq and fujjaar are  repealing the laws of the Shariah. The  facts on the ground  vociferously  bear testimony for Saudi satanisim.  

Our advice for the Darul Ifta muftis is  that they should rather  execute the obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar  and advise the Saudi regime of its course of fisq and fujoor, instead of bootlicking them. The path of fisq and fujoor adopted by the Saudi regime is not hidden. It is conspicuous as bright as daylight, yet, these muftis are silent despite observing the pillage and plunder of the Deen taking place.

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]

[By ahlelbayt.com]

Introduction

It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Qur’anic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said.

For example, the Quranic verse “slay them wherever you find them” is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation.

Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally different (and misleading) picture.

The Prophet’s intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was said.

The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia

The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) divinely appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should “set the stakes”:

1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّ) and the Shia creed is correct.

(2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) appointed Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was never appointed at all by the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid.

The reason we need to make this very clear from the outset is that the Shia propagandists have this uncanny ability to move the goal-posts whenever they lose a debate. They will jump from one topic to another; if they lose the debate over Ghadir Khumm, then they will bring up the Incident of the Door, or Saqifah, or Fadak, or who knows what else.

The entire foundation of Shi’ism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) supposedly nominated Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) to be his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) never appointed Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and the Shia must abandon all of their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) usurped the God-appointed Caliphate of Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ).

Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia paradigm–and so important to the Shia theology–that the Shia masses have a yearly celebration known as “Eid-e-Ghadir”.

Amaana.org says

Eid-e Gadhir is celebrated with great rejoicing by Shia Muslims where they remember Prophet Muhammad’s last instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Ali’s vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage…

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

Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ), split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was the first of the divinely appointed Imams. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, refers to Ghadir Khumm as a “momentous event” and the basis for the Imamah of Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ).

The reason it is neccessary to strongly emphasize the importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia is that we will show how the supposedly strongest ‘weapon’ in the arsenal of the Shia propaganda is actually very weak. If this is the very basis of Shi’ism, then indeed Shi’ism is a very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) appointed Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) at Ghadir Khumm but simple logic dictates otherwise.

What the Shia Claim Happened

Al-Islam.org says:

After completing his last pilgrimage (Hajjatul-Wada’), Prophet [s] was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where he and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is close to today’s al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from different provinces used to greet each other before taking different routes for their homes.

In this place, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)

The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.

Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of ‘Ali and said:
For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).”

Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:
Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)

The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.

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

Why It Just Doesn’t Make Sense

The Shia claim that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) completed his last Hajj, said his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat in Makkah, and then afterwards appointed Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) at Ghadir Khumm. Let us analyze this claim: Ghadir Khumm is located between Makkah and Madinah, near the city of Al-Juhfah, as mentioned by the Al-Islam.org website. It is a watering hole in the middle of the desert. The coup de grâce to the Shia argument is the fact that Ghadir Khumm is located approximately 250 km away from Makkah. This simple fact is enough to shatter the entire premise of Shi’ism.

As we all know, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) delivered his Farewell Sermon in Makkah during his last Hajj. This was in front of the great majority of the Muslims, who had come from all of the various cities to do Hajj. If the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) wanted to appoint Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) as his successor, then there is absolutely no cognizable explanation why the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not do this during his Farewell Sermon to all of the Muslims. The entire Muslim Ummah was gathered there to hear his parting words, so surely this would be the most appropriate time and opportunity to appoint a successor.

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and the Muslims completed their Hajj after which everyone went back to their respective home cities. The people of Madinah went back to Madinah, 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 Makkah stayed put in Makkah.

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 Madinah and the minority of Muslims that lived in places such as Syria. Therefore, when the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) stopped at Ghadir Khumm and the supposed incident happened, a great number of the Muslims were not present including those living in Makkah, Taif, Yemen, etc. After the Hajj, the Makkans stayed behind in Makkah, 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 Madinah (or passing through/near it) accompanied the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) to Ghadir Khumm.

Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Shia, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) did not appoint Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) in front of all the Muslims, but rather what happened at Ghadir Khumm happened in front of just the handful of Muslims who were heading back to Madinah (or passing through/near it). Let us look at what one Shia website claims:

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says:

On the 18th of Dhul-Hajjah, after completing his “farewell pilgrimage” (Hajjatul-Wida’a), the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) had departed Makkah en route to Madinah. He and the entire Muslim caravan, numbering over 100,000, were stopped at Ghadeer Khumm, a deserted-yet-strategically situated area that lies between Makkah and Madinah (near today’s Juhfah). In those days, Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage from neighbouring lands would disperse and embark upon their own routes back home.”

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

The Shia website claims that “Ghadeer Khumm served as a point of departure, where the various Muslims who had come to perform the pilgrimage 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.

Is there any rationale as to why the Muslims from Makkah, 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.

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.

No rational mind could accept such a thing. It would make little sense for the ISNA president to nominate his successor in
Cheyenne as opposed to Chicago during the yearly conference. A person who lives in Washington D.C. would not travel West to go to Cheyenne, but rather he would travel in the opposite direction towards his home. A person who lives in Chicago certainly wouldn’t accompany the ISNA president to Cheyenne after the conference, but rather he would stay behind in Chicago where he lives.

In this analogy above, San Francisco is Madinah, Chicago is Makkah, and Cheyenne is Ghadir Khumm. It is clear that the only people passing through Cheyenne are those that are headed towards San Francisco or the West Coast. Therefore, it would not be wise for the ISNA president to deliver his nomination speech in Cheyenne because the Muslims from all the other cities would not be present. It would instead make much more sense that he deliver such a speech in Chicago, where the conference is held. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) would have appointed his successor in Makkah during his Farewell Sermon, not in the middle of nowhere on the way back to Madinah.

Now that the Muslims from all the cities have assembled in Makkah, would this not be the most appropriate time to declare the Prophet’s successor? The Shia propagandist would have us believe that the Muslims going to Taif and Yemen would travel an extra 500 km (round trip) to the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm and then head back in the opposite direction. As stated by the Shia themselves, Ghadir Khumm was a watering hole and a resting point for those travelling…the only thing they fail to mention is that it is a resting point for those passing through it, not those heading in the opposite direction altogether!

This is nothing short of nonsense. After the Hajj, everyone heads back to their home cities and the Makkans would stay put since they lived in Makkah. 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?

Therefore, the conclusion we reach is that the Shia claim that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) appointed Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) in front of all the Muslims is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not address this point in his Farewell Sermon at all. As for the incident of Ghadir Khumm, we have seen how unlikely it is that this would be the place that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) would appoint Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) as the next Caliph; indeed, the mainstream Muslim version of Ghadir Khumm just makes more sense.

What Really Happened at Ghadir Khumm

Nobody denies the incident of Ghadir Khumm; however, what we deny are the exaggerations of the Shia with regards to said event. First off, the Shia exaggerate as to how many people were present at Ghadir Khumm, often giving numbers in the hundreds of thousands. As we have shown above, only the Muslims heading towards Madinah were present at Ghadir Khumm, which means that the Makkans 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 Makkah for the Hajj from all of the cities, not only those who were returning to Madinah (which was only a fraction of that number). Whatever the case, no matter what number the Shia use, this can only be a fraction of the Muslims because it would not include the Muslims living in Mecca, Taif, Yemen, etc.

The context of Ghadir Khumm must be taken into consideration. What happened at Ghadir Khumm was that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was responding to certain individuals who were criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ). The background behind this was that a few months earlier, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had dispatched Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) alongside 300 men to Yemen on an expedition. This is mentioned on the Shia website,
http://www.najaf.org:
Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen.” (http://www.najaf.org/english/book/20/4.htm)

The army led by Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was very successful in Yemen and they captured a lot of war booty. It was over this war booty that a dispute began between Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) on the one hand and his soldiers on the other. It is narrated in Ibn Kathir’s “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah”:

Amongst the state’s fifth of the spoils there was enough linen to clothe the whole army, but Ali had decided that it must be handed over to the Prophet untouched.
After the victory in Yemen, Ali ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) placed his deputy commander in charge of the troops stationed in Yemen, while he himself head out towards Makkah to meet the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) for the Hajj. We read:

In his (Ali’s) absence, however, the man he left in charge was persuaded to lend each man a new change of clothes out of the linen. The change was much needed for they had been away from home for nearly three months.

The troops stationed in Yemen then set out to Makkah to complete the Hajj with the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ):

When they (the soldiers sent to Yemen) were not far from entering the city (of Makkah), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Makkah would now be wearing their finest clothes in honor of the Feast, and they were anxious to look their best. But Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Madinah one of the troops bitterly complained of Ali to the Prophet, whose face changed color. “Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves?” he said; and when the man assented, he added: “Whomsoever’s beloved friend I am, Ali is (also) his beloved friend.” Later on in the journey, when they had halted at Ghadir al-Khumm, he gathered all the people together, and taking Ali by the hand he repeated these words [i.e. whomsoever’s beloved I am, this Ali is (also) his beloved friend”], to which he added the prayer: “O Allah, be the friend of him who is his friend, and the foe of him who is his foe”; and the murmurings against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were silenced.

The soldiers under Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) charge were not only perturbed over the change of clothes but also over the distribution of the spoils of war in general. The Muslims, thanks to the great leadership of Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ), had conquered many camels, but Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) forbade them from taking possession of these camels. Al-Bayhaqi narrates from Abu Saeed (رضّى الله عنه) that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) prevented them from riding the camels of the war spoils that they had acquired. But when Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) had left for Makkah, his deputy commander had succumbed to the pleas of the people and allowed them to ride these camels. When Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) saw that, he became angry and he blamed the deputy commander. Abu Saeed (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) said: “When we were on the way back to Madinah, we mentioned to the Prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali; the Prophet said: ‘Stop…By Allah, I have known that he (Ali) has done good for the sake of Allah.’”

A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah Rasool-Allah; we read:

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) came (back) from the Yemen to meet the Apostle in Makkah, 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 (رضّى الله عنه) had. When the army approached, he (Ali) went out to meet them and found them dressed in the clothes. When he asked what on earth had happened, the man (his deputee) said that he had dressed the men so that they might appear seemly when they mingle with the people. He (Ali) told him to take off the clothes before they came to the Apostle and they did so and put them back among the spoil(s). The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.”
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

Ibn Katheer narrates that the people in the army (i.e. the contingent sent to Yemen) started to criticize Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they had acquired. It was these men that accompanied the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) to Madinah 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 (رضّى الله عنه) who had been with him to Yemen complained to the Prophet about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) . 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-Madinah and his son Ibrahim passed away.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.241)

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm

To summarize the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm: The soldiers in Ali’s army were very upset with Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) for denying them linen and camels from the spoils, and they were not pleased with the fact that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) himself was accorded a special share of the Khums (i.e. the fifth of war booty). Of course, Ali ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ) cannot be blamed for this privilege of taking an extra share of the Khums, which is a right accorded to the Prophet’s family in the Quran. Nonetheless, the people had anger in their eyes, so they took special offense when Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) took a slave girl for himself from the Khums; the soldiers wrongfully accused Ali ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨ) of being a hypocrite for denying the clothes and camels to the men but for himself taking a slave girl. It was for this wrongful criticism of Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) defended Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm.

ShiaChat Member says:

You sick Saudi perverts can believe whatever filth you want about anyone at your own personal leisure but don’t dare bring this up here…
That accusation [that Imam Ali slept with a slave girl] is blatantly ummayyad propaganda to make our Mawla (A.S.) look bad…

First of all, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm as recorded in Sahih Bukhari was not intended to make Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) look evil at all. In fact, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) defended Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) actions. It should be noted that even the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) himself took a slave girl and this has been narrated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Slavery was the cultural norm back then and the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) urged the Muslims to treat their slave girls as their wives. On other occassions, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) would encourage emancipating slaves and marrying them. In any case, there are many lengthy articles that defend the Islamic position on this matter, and the reader is free to search the internet for them.

Secondly, it should also be noted that Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was not criticizing Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) because he thought having a slave girl was immoral. Instead, Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was only criticizing Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) for taking part of the Khums while denying it to his men; to Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ), it would have been immaterial what Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) took from the Khums whether it be a slave girl, linen, or camels.

Thirdly, the fact that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) took a slave girl is narrated in the Shia Hadith, so why should the Shia react so violently when a similar narration is in the Sunni Hadith? Is this not hypocrisy? Indeed, just as Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) was angry at Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) for taking a slave girl in the Sunni Hadith, similarly was Fatima (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ) angry at Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) for taking a slave girl in the
Shia Hadith. This Shia Hadith was narrated by one of the fore-fathers of Shia theology, namely Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, and it is available on YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website:

YaZahra.org says:

“Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147

ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺫﺭ ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻭﺟﻌﻔﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﻳﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺸﺔ ‏( 1 ‏) ﻓﺎﻫﺪﻳﺖ ﻟﺠﻌﻔﺮ ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺁﻻﻑ ﺩﺭﻫﻢ ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻗﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻫﺎ ﻟﻌﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺗﺨﺪﻣﻪ ، ﻓﺠﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺰﻝ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ .
ﻓﺪﺧﻠﺖ ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻓﻨﻈﺮﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻘﺎﻟﺖ : ﻳﺎ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻓﻌﻠﺘﻬﺎ ، ﻓﻘﺎﻝ : ﻻ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻨﺖ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﺖ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻓﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺮﻳﺪﻳﻦ ؟ ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﺗﺄﺫﻥ ﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﺰﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ : ﻗﺪ ﺃﺫﻧﺖ ﻟﻚ .
ﻓﺘﺠﻠﻠﺖ ﺑﺠﻼﻟﻬﺎ ، ﻭﺗﺒﺮﻗﻌﺖ ﺑﺒﺮﻗﻌﻬﺎ

[Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.
(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was”)]

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

Fourthly–and this ends the debate altogether–is the fact that this incident is mentioned in Shia sources as well. Shaykh Mufid, the classical Shia scholar, writes:

(Earlier) the Commander of the Faithful had chosen a slave-girl from among the prisoners. Now Khalid sent Buraida to the Prophet. He said: “Get to (the Prophet) before the army does. Tell him what Ali has done in choosing a slave-girl for himself from the Khums and bring him dishonor…

Buraida went to the Prophet. He (Buraida) had with him the letter from Khalid with which he had been sent. He began to read it. The face of the Prophet began to change.

“Apostle of Allah,” said Buraida, “if you permitted the people (to act) like this, their booty would disappear.”

“Woe upon you, Buraida,” the Prophet told him. “You have committed an act of hypocrisy. Ali ibn Abi Talib is allowed to have what is allowed to me from their booty…Buraida, I warn you that if you hate Ali, Allah will hate you.”
Buraida reported: “I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I could be swallowed into it. Then I said: “I seek refuge in Allah from the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of him.”

The Prophet forgave him.

(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.111-112)

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (volume 5, Book 59 Number 637):

Narrated Buraida (radhiyallahu anhu):

The Prophet sent Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to Khalid (رضّى الله عنه) to bring the Khums (of the booty) and I hated Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khums). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet, I mentioned that to him. He (the Prophet) said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khums.

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.”  Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for his saying ‘If I am someone’s mawla then Ali is his mawla too’, this is not in the books of Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim), but it is one of the reports which were narrated by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed.”

Therefore, we see that the Shia have created much ado about nothing. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a far cry from a nomination to Caliphate. The Shia scholar, SHM Jafri, writes:

The Sunnis explain the circumstance which necessitated the Prophet’s exhortation [at Ghadir Khumm] in that some people were murmuring against Ali due to his harsh and indifferent treatment in the distribution of the spoils of the expedition of Al-Yaman, which had just taken place under Ali’s leadership, and from where he, along with his those who participated in the expedition, directly came to Mecca to join the Prophet at the Hajj. To dispel these ill-feelings against his son-in-law, the Prophet spoke in this manner.

(The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, by SHM Jafri, p.21-22)

The Shia Attempt to Remove the Context

The Sunnis say that the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was forced to make his declaration at Ghadir Khumm due to what happened between Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and his soldiers in Yemen. The Shia approach this in one of two ways. The first response is to deny the event in Yemen altogether, claiming that it was merely “Umayyad propaganda” that Ali ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ) would ever take a slave girl like that. Of course, this response is quickly refuted by pointing out that these narrations are available in Shia sources as well, including Shaykh Mufid’s book Kitab Al-Irshad. Therefore, the Shia propagandist must fall back on another explanation, as offered by “Taair-al-Quds” below, which is to admit that the event in Yemen did take place but that it has nothing to do with Ghadir Khumm.

Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says:

“The Hadiths mentioning this incident [of Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him]…have nothing to do with the incident of Ghadeer Khumm.

The entire episode [of Ali’s soldiers getting angry at him] took place in Madinah in the Mosque around the Hujrah of the Prophet (s) and finished there and thus has nothing to do with the incident of Ghadir Khumm! The prophet (s) had already clarified this matter/issue which the Wahabi / Nawaasib aim to present as the context in the incident of Ghadir, which took place at a latter time in history.

…The incident of Ghadeer took place on 18th DhilHajj while the incident of Yemen took place in Rabbi ul Aakhir (Thaani) or Jamaadi ul Ulaa according to historians. There is no compatibility or possibility of mixing both these incidents as one of them took place on return from Meccah after Hajj while the other took place in Yemen earlier on and got resolved earlier as well in Masjid e Nabavi, Medinah, before the Prophet (s) even left for Hajj!”

In fact, both events (what happened in Yemen and Ghadir Khumm) occurred in the final year of the Prophet’s life. According to the classical Shia scholar, Shaykh Mufid, the expedition in Yemen was coming to an end in the last five days of Dhu al-Qa’dah (the 11th Islamic month) and the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred right thereafter in Dhu al-Hijjah (the 12th Islamic month). What “Taair-al-Quds” has deceptively done is claim that the expedition of Yemen took place in Rabi’ al-Thani (the 4th Islamic month) or Jumada al-Awwal (the 5th Islamic month), whereas Ghadir Khumm took place in the 12th month; this is a horrible half-truth. The Yemen campaign lasted many months and into the 11th month! So whereas the Yemen expedition may have started a few months back, it definitely did not end before the last five days of the 11th month, after which Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and his soldiers immediately joined the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) in Makkah to do Hajj.

As for “Taair-al-Quds” claims that the incident of Yemen was resolved in Madinah, then this is a horrible blunder on his part. After what happened in Yemen (i.e. the dispute over Khums), Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) rode out to meet the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) in Makkah, not Madinah. Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and his men performed Hajj with the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and it was during this time that the soldiers were grumbling about Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ), which led to the pronouncement at Ghadir Khumm.

“Taair-al-Quds” refers to it as propaganda to claim that the dispute between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) and his soldiers) in the same heading as the section entitled “The Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm”! We read:

The Prophet’s Farewell Pilgrimage and the Declaration at Ghadir Khumm.

…The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, had sent him (Ali), peace be upon him, to Yemen to collect the fifth share ( khums ) of their gold and silder and collect the breastplates and other things…Then the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, decided to go on the pilgrimage and to carry out the duties which God, the Exalted, had decreed…

He, may God bless him and his family, set out with them with five days remaining in (the month of) Dhu al-Qa’da. He had written to the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, about going on the pilgrimage from Yemen…

Meanwhile, the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, set out with the soldiers who had accompanied him to Yemen. He had with him the breastplates which he had collected from the people of Najran. When the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was nearing Mecca on the road from Medina, the Commander of the Faithful (Ali), peace be upon him, was nearing it on the road from Yemen. He (Ali) went ahead of the army to meet the Prophet, may God bless him and his family, and he left one of their number in charge of them. He came up to the Prophet as the latter was looking down over Mecca. He (Ali) greeted him (the Prophet) and informed him (the Prophet) of what he (Ali) had done and what he (Ali) had collected [in Khums] and that he had hurried ahead of the army to meet him. The Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family, was pleased at that and delighted to meet him…

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, said farewell to him (the Prophet) and returned to his army. He (Ali) met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He (Ali) denounced them for that.

“Shame on you!” he (Ali) said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them.

“Whatever made you give them breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of God, may God bless him and his family? I did not give you permission to do that.”

“They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me,” he replied.

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion…”

When the Apostle of God carried out his rituals of the pilgrimage, he made Ali his partner in the sacrifice of animals. Then he began his journey back to Medina. (Ali) and the Muslims went with him. He came to a place known as Ghadir Khumm…

(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.119-123):

Who Was Angry With Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ)?

The Shia propagandists then claim that it was only Khalid ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) who were upset with Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ).

Taair-al-Quds, Admin of ShiaOfAhlAlBayt says:

None of the hadiths mention any third individual besides Khalid bin Walid and Burayda (or Bara as in Tirmidhi) to be the complainers or the ones who initiated this BUGHZ (hatred) campaign towards Imam Ali (a.s) as reported through this incident.

This is another blatant lie by “Taair-al-Quds”. In fact, it was all (or at least most) of Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) soldiers who were upset with him, not just one or two soldiers. Shaykh Mufid writes:

The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, took them (the breastplates) off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, became numerous. The Apostle of God ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of God, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion…
(Kitab al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, pp.121-122)

The complaints against Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ) were “numerous” and it was the “people” who were discontented (not one or two individuals), and the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) ordered the call to the people in general. It is clear that the vast majority of Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) soldiers were discontented with him because he refused to allow them to wear the breastplates from the Khums. Therefore, it is improper to pinpoint the blame on one or two individuals; instead, the truth of the matter is that Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) had angered all of his soldiers, and we seek Allah’s refuge from laying the blame on anybody, especially since the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) himself forgave Buraida (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and the others. The bottom line point, however, is that many people were angry at Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) and this is was the reason why the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had to make the declaration at Ghadir Khumm, to exonerate Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ)–not to nominate Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) as his successor.

Fabricated Additions

The common Shia tactic to fool the Sunni layperson is to first state that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is in Bukhari and the most trusted books of the Sunnis (often times impressing Sunnis with long references), and then they go about quoting the variant versions from obscure and unreliable sources that depict Ghadir Khumm in a very different manner than is actually stated in the authentic books. This tactic of fooling people is called “acceptance by association.”

In fact, there are only two additions to the Hadith which are considered authentic and that too only by some scholars. For the purpose of debate, however, we shall accept them as authentic. Again, these two additions are not in the Sahihayn but rather they are in the variant narrations in other books. As the student of Hadith knows, Hadith have various gradings; as for the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, what is most authentic is that which is in Sahih Bukhari as reproduced above. However, there are other variant versions which have two additions:

1) The first addition is: “Man Kuntu Mawla fa ‘Ali Mawla.” (Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.)

2) The second addition is: “Allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah.” (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.)

The first addition is generally accepted, and the second one is weaker but some scholars do consider it authentic. As far as any other additions are concerned, these are not contained in the authentic books and are “mawdoo” or fabricated. Generally, the Shia are content in basing their arguments upon these first two additions, but no doubt after they are refuted, they will oftentimes then resort to using obscure sources to produce further additions such as the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) saying Ali (ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ) is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam, etc. These are all fabrications, and historically the Shia have been manufacturers of fabricated Hadith. The Shia are able to produce lengthy lists of obscure references about Ghadir Khumm because they themselves have been responsible for the multitude of forgeries in regards to Ghadir Khumm.

We have already seen the version of Ghadir Khumm in Sahih Bukhari and how it does not contain the addition of “Mawla”. However, this addition of “Mawla” can be found in this variant of the Hadith:

Buraida (رضّى الله عنه) narrated: “I invaded Yemen with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and I saw coldness from his part; so when I came (back) to the Messenger of Allah and mentioned Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and criticized him, I saw the face of the Messenger of Allah change and he said: ‘O Buraida, am I not closer to the believers than they are to themselves?’ I said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ He (then) said: ‘Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”

[Musnad Ahmad [v5 / p347 / #22995] with a Sahih chain of transmission and all trustworthy [thiqa] narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Nisa’i in Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak [v3 / p119 / #4578]; Abu Nu’aym; Ibn Jarir and others)

In a slightly different version:

Buraida narrated: “The Prophet sent me to Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; when I returned and complained about him to the Messenger of Allah, he (the Messenger of Allah) raised his head towards (him) and said: ‘O Buraida! Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”

(Sunan al-Kubra, v5, p130, #8466; a similar report can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba [v6, p.374])

In other narrations, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: allahummu wali man walaah wa’adi man`adaahâ, 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor. In fact, the word “Mawla”–like many other Arabic words–has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word “mawla” is actually “servant” and not “master.” A former slave who becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah (رضّى الله عنه).

One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various definitions of the word “Mawla.” Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word “Mawla” can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord, owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant, brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc.

Now let us examine the Hadith again:

Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.”

The word “Mawla” here cannot refer to “master”, but rather the best translation of the word “Mawla” is “a beloved friend”. It is clear that “Mawla” here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu’adat (enmity). This definition of the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”

The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means “beloved friend” but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that.

Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah:

“The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned.”

Imam Shafi’i said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm:

“What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam.”

Allah says in the Quran:

“So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is.” (Quran, 57:15)

No translator on earth–not even the staunchest Shia–has ever translated this to mean “Imam” or “Caliph”, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word “Mawla” comes from “Wilayah” and not “Walayah”. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership.

Allah says in the Quran:

“That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them.” (Quran, 47:11)

This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the second part of this verse in which Allah says: “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them”. Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of course the disbelievers have a leader, such as today the American disbelievers have Barack Obama as their leader. This fact is mentioned in the Quran itself:

Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr. (Quran, 9:12)

And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire. (Quran, 28:41)

And so when Allah says “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them”, this refers to a protector of extreme closeness, not that they don’t have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla to mean Imam or Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend.

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was advising the people to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and be close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was so beloved to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was the mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali (رضّى الله عنه). In other words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nominating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to stop criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and to love him.

Allah says in the Quran:

“Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends) are Allah and His Messenger and the believers–those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly. As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be triumphant.” (Quran, 5:55-56)

In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as being Mawla. How then can the Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are suddenly Caliphs or Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this verse refers to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers in the plural. No doubt, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) –like many other righteous believers–was included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and exclusively to him since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word “Mawla” here refers to love, extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a single instance in the Quran in which the word “Mawla” is used to refer to Imamah or Caliphate.

In another verse of the Quran, Allah says:

“No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment.”

Does this mean that “no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of Judgment”? Surely this makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of the Quran that Allah refers to two people and calls both to be Mawla; if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the leader of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could be Mawla of each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer to both of them as Mawla as Allah does in the Quran.

The word “Mawla” is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let us examine Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715).
Does the word “Mawla” here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph or Imam over the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)? Of course not. It makes more logical sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla).

It is also important to point out that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not say “after me” in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said “whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla” without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had meant “whomsoever’s leader I am, this Ali is also his leader”, which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a very big problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs in the same land at the same time, and there are many Hadith in which the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) warns against having two Caliphs. Without the words “after me”, it would become a very confusing sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of course, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla (beloved friend) at the same time. One can love the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and be close to him, and at the same time love and be close to Ali (رضّى الله عنه).

If the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) meant to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying something vague such as “whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla”, why didn’t the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) say something clearer such as “I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I die” or “Ali is my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after me.” Surely, this would have cleared up the matter. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was commanded to be clear in delivering the Message, and none of the Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm to mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه). was nominated as Caliph.

To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows:

ShiaChat Member says

The prophet (SAW) did in fact say clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) was his successor and the next Caliph and many other clearer things but these hadeeth were not transmitted by the sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla hadeeth because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.).

Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more direct and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would think that it is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would then take it out. In fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW) did in fact say it clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the next Caliph but the Sunnis reject those“.

This argument is actually conceding the entire debate. Here, the Shia is saying:

1) The clear sayings of the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) were removed by the Sunnis.
2) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) being Mawla was not removed because it was not as direct and clear about the matter of Imamah or Caliphate.

Well then, isn’t the entire debate over? Was it not the Shia who was arguing this entire time that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a clear and definite proof for the Imamah and Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? Indeed, this argument is admitting the fact that the Hadith about Ghadir Khumm does not talk clearly about Imamah/Caliphate; the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) saying that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is Mawla of the believers does not in any way prove that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was to be Caliph. In fact, had it been clear, then the Sahabah would not have transmitted it, correct? Therefore, we see–based on this line of thinking–that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm could not have been clear about the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), otherwise it wouldn’t have been narrated by the same Sahabah who sought to usurp his Caliphate. Indeed, this Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was never interpreted to mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  was Caliph and instead it was simply in reference to the virtues of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). If the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) praises somebody, this does not automatically make this person the Caliph of the Ummah. As for the Shia Hadith on the matter, those are irrelevant to us because the Shia are known to be liars and mass fabricators when it comes to Hadith.

Conclusion

Contrary to the Shia claims, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with Caliphate or Imamah. Instead, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was merely refuting a group of people under the command of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who were criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with very harsh words. Based on this, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) urged people that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the Mawla (beloved friend) of all the Muslims, just like the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was. Had the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) wanted to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  as the Caliph, then he (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Makkah instead of on his journey back to Madinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Makkah and the rest of the Muslims.

Playing Games with the Quran

Al-Islam.org says

In this place (of Ghadir Khumm), the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)

The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet [s] was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people.

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

This is an oft-repeated claim of the Shia, namely that this verse (5:67) was revealed in regards to Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) nomination to Caliph; in other words, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) should not worry about the awful reaction of the Sahabah to the declaration of Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) Imamah and Caliphate.

As is usually the case, the Shia propagandists have no qualms with playing legoes with the Quran and using the Quran as their own personal jigsaw puzzle. In fact, verse 5:67 could not possibly have been revealed in regards to Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) nomination, namely because it was directed towards the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). The Shia take the verse out of context, without considering the verse that comes right before it and the verse that comes right after it. Let us take a look:

[5:66] And if they (the Jews and the Christians) had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.

[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.

[5:68] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians)! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people.

So we see that the verse before and after is talking about the People of the Book, and it is in this context that the verse 5:67 was revealed, reassuring the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) that he should not fear the Jews or the Christians and that he (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)  should clearly deliver the Message of Islam which will be made supreme over Judaism and Christianity. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) is told in verse 5:67 that he should not fear these men who mean mischief, and in the very next verse (5:68) Allah says that the Message of Islam will only “increase them in inordinacy and disbelief.” It is exceedingly clear that we are talking about the same group of people, namely the disbelievers from amongst the People of the Book who mean to make mischief and who become obstinate in inordinacy and disbelief.

In fact, that entire section of the Quran is referring to the People of the Book, starting from verse 5:59 and going all the way to 5:86. Let us reproduce the verses below:

[5.59] Say: O People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians)! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?

[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

[5.61] And when they come to you, they say: We believe; and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it; and Allah knows best what they concealed.

[5.62] And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do.

[5.63] Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss

[5:66] And if they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.

[5:67] O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.

[5:68] Say: O People of the Book! You follow no good till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief; grieve not therefore for the disbelieving people.

[5.69] Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good– they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

[5.70] Certainly We made a covenant with the children of Israel and We sent to them apostles; whenever there came to them an apostle with what that their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they slew.

[5.71] And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.

[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

[5.76] Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah– He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

[5.77] Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.

[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.

[5.79] They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.

[5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

[5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

[5.83] And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).

[5.84] And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people?

[5.85] Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who do good (to others).

[5.86] And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.

It is very clear that all of these verses are about the Jews and the Christians, and it is absurd that the Shia could just cut and paste the Quran as they wish. This is manipulating the Word of Allah and a very big sin that leads to the path of the Kufr. And yet, you will find that the Shia universally make the claim that this verse was revealed with regards to the Ghadir Khumm address and the nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). So this is the length that the Shia propagandist will go to in order to twist Quran and Hadith in order to create the imaginary tale that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)  nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph.

Al-Islam.org 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 don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and
Allah will protect you from the people …” (Quran 5:67).

Some of Sunni references confirming that the revelation of the above verse
of Quran was right before the speech of Prophet in Ghadir Khum:

(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under commentary of verse 5:67,
v12, pp 49-50, narrated on the authorities of Ibn Abbas, al-Bara Ibn
Azib, and Muhammad Ibn Ali.
(2) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, p50, narrated on the authorities of
Atiyyah and Abu Sa’id al Khudri.
(3) Nuzul al-Quran, by al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym narrated on the authorities
Abu Sa’id Khudri and Abu Rafi.
(4) al-Fusool al Muhimmah, by Ibn Sabbagh al-Maliki al-Makki, p24
(5) Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz al-Suyuti, under commentary of verse 5:67
(6) Fathul Qadir, by al-Shawkani, under commentary of verse 5:67
(7) Fathul Bayan, by Hasan Khan, under commentary of verse 5:67
(8) Shaykh Muhi al-Din al-Nawawi, under commentary of verse 5:67
(9) al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p301
(10) Umdatul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by al-Ayni
(11) Tafsir al-Nisaboori, v6, p194
(12) and many more such as Ibn Mardawayh, etc…

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

The Shia propagandists are deceitful; there is no other way to describe them. They have become notorious for their half-quotes. Here the Shia give twelve sources; let us look at them one by one. The first one is at-Tafseer al-Kabeer by Imam Razi. The Shia are trying to fool the Sunnis by making it appear as if Imam Razi believed that this verse 5:67 was revealed at Ghadir Khumm. In fact, Imam Razi said the exact opposite in his book!

Imam Razi mentions that various people have claimed that the verse was revealed on different occassions. He lists ten possibilities of when the verse could have been revealed. It is wellknown that the style of the scholars was to list the most important view first and the least important view last. It should interest the deceitful Shia to know that Imam Razi did mention Ghadir Khumm but as the absolute last one, meaning in his eyes it was the weakest possible view.

We will now provide the commentary of Imam Razi word for word:

Scholars of Tafseer have mentioned many causes of revelation:

(1) The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of stoning and retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the Jews.

(2) The second cause is that it has been revealed because of the Jews’ criticism and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet had remained silent about them, thus this verse was revealed.

(3) Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is “O Prophet! say to thy wives:” (i.e 33:28), the Prophet did not deliver this verse to them out of fear that they may choose this world, and thus it (i.e 5:67) was revealed.

(4) Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint Jahsh. Aisha said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah concealed part of what was revealed to him, then he has committed a great lie against Allah, for Allah has said: “O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message)” and was the Messenger of Allah to conceal part of what was revealed to him he would have concealed His saying: “And you hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light” [33:37]

(5) Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites hated it, so he used to withhold from urging them for Jihad.

(6) Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: “Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance.” [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling their gods, so this verse was revealed, and He said: “Proclaim” i.e the faults/criticism about their gods and do not hide it, and Allah will protect you against them.

(7) Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims, because in the Last Pilgrimage after he had declared the rulings and rituals of Hajj, he said: Have I not declared (it to you)? They said: Yes. He said: O Allah be my witness.

(8) Eighth: It has been narrated that he rested under a tree in one of his journeys and hung his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he was sleeping and snatched the sword saying: “O Muhammad, who will protect you against me?” He said: “Allah”, so the hand of the Bedouin trembled, the sword fell from his hand, and he banged his head against the tree until his brains burst, so Allah revealed this verse and explained that He will protect him against people.

(9) Ninth: He used to fear Quraysh, the Jews and the Christians, so Allah removed this fear from his heart with this verse.

(10) Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress Ali’s excellence, and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet caught hold of Ali’s hand and said: “One who has me as his mawla has Ali as his mawla. O Allah, Be his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy.” (Soon) after this, Umar met him (Ali) and said: “O Ibn Abi Talib! I congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the mawla of every male and female believer.” This is the saying narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas, Baraa ibn Aazib and Muhammad bin Ali.

You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is more fit to explain the verse as Allah assuring him (the Prophet) of protection against the cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and ordered him to announce the proclamation without having fear of them. This is because the context before this verse and after this verse is addressing the Jews and Christians; it would not be possible to throw a verse in the middle (of other verses) making it foreign to what is before it and after it.

(source: Tafseer al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of the verse 5:67, volume 12, pp.49-50)

In other words, Imam Razi did mention ten possibilities but he stated that the only strong opinion was that the verse was revealed about the Jews and Christians and this is why he mentioned this possibility first.

Is it any wonder that the deceitful Shia Encyclopedia did not mention that Imam Razi mentioned ten possibilities and stated that the only reasonable one was the first? Instead the Shia rely on half-quotes; indeed, they are a people who love Taqiyyah and deception. We warn the Sunni laypersons not to be impressed by their lengthy lists of references; whenever the Shia give a list of references but no exact quote, it is a good sign that they are twisting the text just like they twist the Quran and play legoes with it.

As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows:

My father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn Zakariya told us: Ali Ibn Abis told us: from Al-Amash from Atiya Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.

The Isnad is weak. If we analyze the narrators, we find:

(1) Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi

Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: “He is weak.”

Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: “He is not strong.”

(2) Ali Ibn Abis

Yahya Ibn Maeen said: “He is nothing.” And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai, and Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi.

Ibn Hibban said: “His mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted.”

(3) Al-Amash

He is Mudalis.

(4) Atiya Al-Awfi:

Ahmad said: “He is weak.”

Al-Nasai said: “He is weak.”

Ibn Hibban 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 (رضّى الله عنه) and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: “Who narrated this to you?” He would say: “Abu Saeed (رضّى الله عنه) narrated this to me.” So they (i.e those who inquired) would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi.

He further stated: “It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about them.”

And then he related from Khalid Al-Ahmar that he said: “Al-Kalbi told me: Atiya told me: I have given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say: Abu Saeed narrated to us.”

Accordingly, Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the Prophet, i.e. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.

(5) Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Sae’b Al-Kalbi

Al-Suyuti said in Al-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas: “And the weakest of its chains is the way of Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn Marwan Al-Sadi, the young, is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi and Al-Wahidi narrate through it.”

Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mu’jam Al-Udaba of Tafseer at-Tabari: “And he (Tabari) did not make reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did not include in his book anything from the book of Muhammad Ibn Al-Sa’eb Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi for they create suspicion (athina’) in his view, and Allah knows best.”

Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tareekh Al-Kabeer: “Muhammad Ibn Al Sae’b Abu Al- Nadhir Al-Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed.” Ibn Mahdi and Ali told told us: “Yahya Ibn Saeed told us: from Sufyan: Al-Kalbi told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies.”

Al-Nasai said: “He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written.”

Ahmad Ibn Haroon said: “I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer Al-Kalbi.” He said: “Lies.” I said: “Is it permissible for me to look into it?” He said: “No.”

CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all.

The other books cited by the Shia contain this same chain, such as Asbab Al Nuzul by Imam Wahidi al Naysaburi.

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

And the same is the case with  al-Shawkani in Fath Al Qadir.

The point is that none of the sources actually prove the Shia argument. If they did, then you would have seen the Shia providing complete quotes, but they cannot do that because that would expose the weakness in their arguments! To conclude the matter, no reliable Sunni source says that the verse was revealed at Ghadir Khumm.

As is well known, the incident of Ghadir Khumm occurred near the Prophet’s death when all of Arabia had already been subdued by the Muslims under the guidance of the Prophet; this included the Christians in Najran and the Jews in Yemen. What is there for the Prophet to fear from proclamation when his followers have increased a hundred-fold? It would not make sense for this verse to have been revealed at the time of the Prophet’s peak of power. Rather, this verse was revealed at a much earlier stage of the Prophetic era when Islam was still struggling for its survival, surrounded by many enemies.

Al-Islam.org says

Revelation of Qur’anic Verse 5:3

Immediately after the Prophet [s] finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)

The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet [s] was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.

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

This is another Shia fabrication: the Quranic verse 5:3 (this day I have perfected your religion…) was revealed at the end of the Farewell Sermon on top of Mount Arafat. This fact is reported in Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, al-Sunan, and others:

It (i.e. the verse ‘This day I have perfected your religion…’) was revealed on a Friday, the Day of Arafat…”

It was, after all, the Farewell Sermon of the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and it is therefore natural to assume that this was the appropriate place for the religion to be sealed. In fact, it is for this very reason that we deny that Ghadir Khumm could possibly be in relation to the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). The verse “This day I have pefected your religion…” had already been revealed and nothing else could be added to the faith after this. If the Shia insist that something as major as the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was added after this, then where are these verses in the Quran about such a thing?

Why is the Quran completely silent in regards to the nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? Surely, Allah would have mentioned this in the Quran if it was a divinely ordained matter? Why is it that Allah supposedly revealed verse 5:67 and 5:3 all about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his Imamah, but Allah did not choose to simply include Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) name in those verses and make it clear to the Muslims that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the next divinely appointed leader of the Muslims? To add more confusion to the matter, neither of these verses talks about Imamah or Caliphate at all. It is truly amazing how the Shia always say this and this Quranic verse refers to the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and yet Allah never just says so Himself.

Rebuttals

ShiaChat Member says

Ghadir Khumm was a central location, a source of water that represented the last place where the people from different locations were together before splitting up on their separate ways to go home. It was the last moment during the hajj when indeed EVERYONE was present“.

Ghadir Khumm was a central location only for those Muslims heading north, either to Madinah or those passing through Madinah to places such as Syria. As we have discussed earlier, Ghadir Khumm is located midway between Makkah and Madinah; Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Makkah. 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 Makkah to Taif or Yemen.

Does it make logical sense that the people of Makkah would find any need to pass through Ghadir Khumm on their “return trip” to Makkah after Hajj? Are they not already in Makkah, their home city? The Makkan Muslims would have ended their Hajj in Makkah, and the Muslims of Madinah would have left for their home city, stopping at Ghadir Khumm without the company of the Makkan Muslims whom they had left behind in Makkah. The same can be said of the People of Yemen, of Taif, etc. Indeed, all of these major Muslim cities were not included in the speech at Ghadir Khumm, and this is very odd: had the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) wanted to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph, then surely he would have done this in front of all the Muslims from Makkah, 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 Madinah).

It is based on the distance from Makkah to Ghadir Khumm that we ascertain that it is much more believable that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was correcting a specific group of Muslims (i.e. the soldiers from Madinah who had been dispatched to Yemen) rather than addressing the general masses of the Muslims. The speech of Ghadir Khumm was addressed primarily to the group that had been criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , and it was for this reason that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not include this in his Farewell Sermon of the Last Hajj in front of the Muslim masses.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

An Appeal to Common Sense:
Allah, the All-Knowing, describes the sublime character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) as follows:

“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate… ” [9:128]

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was an extremely kind-hearted and compassionate. He always took every effort to ensure the well-being and comfort of his followers, and was never known to impose any extra burden or hardship upon others. He was even known to shorten his prayers upon hearing the voice of a baby crying. It is impossible to infer that the Prophet, who was sent as “a mercy unto the worlds” had ordered his followers to sit in the burning heat of the Arabian desert, without any shade, for several hours, only to announce to them that “Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.”

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

ShiaChat Member says

why do you think Muhammad stopped 60 000 people in the middle of the desert months before he knew he was going to die? To say, “ya know, Ali is my buddy?!

In fact, the Shia here have brought up a point which works against them, not for them. We would like to ask the exact same question: why indeed would Prophet Muhammad (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) senselessly force the Makkans to march out 250 km to the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm which is located in the middle of the desert? Why indeed would the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) force the People of Taif to travel in the exact opposite direction (North as opposed to South)? The Shia living in Taif today travel to Makkah, 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 Makkah and then to Taif in the South, a detour that would have added a few weeks in extra travel time!

Instead, what is more probable is that the Prophet  (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) and the Muslims heading towards Madinah stopped at the watering hole of Ghadir Khumm in order to refresh themselves. It was over there that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) heard people again criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) despite what the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had earlier warned them about. Therefore, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) addressed them all at Ghadir Khumm, urging them to take Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as a beloved friend. It should be noted that the Muslims heading towards Madinah would generally stop at Ghadir Khumm as it was a watering hole; it was a pit-stop on the way to Madinah, where the Muslims would rest for awhile and it was during that rest that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) addressed them after a group of Muslims had criticized Ali (رضّى الله عنه) .

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Laudation from the Muslims

After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of allegiance to Ali  and congratulate him. Among the first Muslims to congratulate Ali were Umar and Abu Bakr, who said: “Well done, O son of Abu Talib! Today you have become the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women.”

[Found in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhrudeen al-Razi, Kitabul Wilayah by at-Tabari, and many others]

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

This is typical and classical Shia propaganda; they will say things like “it’s in your own books” and then off-handedly quote our books but meanwhile injecting their own meanings into them. What is found in the texts is only that Umar (رضّى الله عنه)  congratulated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on becoming Mawla (a beloved friend) to all the Muslims, not that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) pledged his allegiance to Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  was being severely criticized by his men and it was in this atmosphere that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) defended Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  and informed the Muslims that they shouldn’t hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but rather love him.

In fact, the Shia argument makes no sense. If Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and the rest of the Muslims pledged Baya’ah to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and said “today you have become the leader…”, then what about the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)? The key words here are “today” and “you have become”, meaning that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is currently Mawla. If we take the definition of Mawla to be Imam or Caliph, then this means that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is the leader of the Muslims now and not Prophet Muhammad (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ). Surely, the Muslims cannot have two rulers at the same time, and this is stated in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. Indeed, if Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were really congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  for his nomination as the next Caliph, then he would have said something like this: “Well done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You will soon become the Caliph of all the Muslims.” Or maybe: “Well done, Ali ibn Abi Talib! You were nominated to one day become (future tense) the Caliph of all the Muslims.” But he certainly would not have said: “Congratulations…today you have become the leader.”

The proper understanding of this congratulations given by Umar (رضّى الله عنه)  is that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on becoming the beloved friend of all the Muslims. The atmosphere was such that the people had been criticizing and hurting Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so the noble Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) went to comfort him and say kind words to him. The perceptive reader would note that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was very kind in his praise of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and this is diametrically opposed to the Shia paradigm which paints a portrait of conflict between Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه), casting Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as an oppressor of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Do these kind words seem to be said by someone who hates Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the Shia claim?

If we translate the word “Mawla” here to mean “leader”, then why would Umar (رضّى الله عنه) pledge his Baya’ah so lovingly by congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

“O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith.” (Quran, 5:67)

The Shia say that “these men (who mean mischief)” refer to the Sahabah especially Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه). If this verse was truly revealed about Umar (رضّى الله عنه) –and if Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was truly seeking to usurp the Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–then why does Umar (رضّى الله عنه) congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on his nomination? At most, we would expect such a person to grudgingly give the Baya’ah, if at all. But here, we see that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) is the first to congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with regards to being Mawla. The bottom line point is that if the word “Mawla” meant leader, then Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would not have congratulated him on it. This praise said by Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was transmitted widely to the people, so why should Umar (رضّى الله عنه) do that favor to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) if he was truly against him or if “Mawla” really meant “leader”? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) interpreted “Mawla” to be “beloved friend” and not “leader”–and this is the meaning understood by the people back then.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

The Meaning of Mawla

The schools of thought differ on the interpretation of the word “Mawla.” In Arabic, the world “Mawla” has many meanings. It can mean master, friend, slave, or even client. If a word has more than one meaning, the best way to ascertain its true connotation is to look at the association (qarinah) and the context. There are scores of “associations” in this hadith which clearly show that the only meaning fitting the occasion can be “master”. Some of them are as follows.

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

We definitely agree with this Shia author that there are many different meanings for the word “Mawla” and we are glad that they at least admit this much. It is our hope that the Shia lay-persons at least acknowledge this fact in debate, instead of being obstinate and pig-headed with regards to the idea that Mawla can only mean “master.” Although we quoted the above from a Shia propaganda article, we no doubt agree with this introduction, namely that:

1) Mawla has many different meanings.
2) We must look at the context in which the word was said to ascertain the meaning.

However, we disagree with this article which states that Mawla here is to be translated as “master.” Let us refute this article point by point, Insha-Allah:

SalamIran.org says

In addition, there is also what (the Prophet), peace be on him and his family, said on the day of Ghadir Khumm. The community had gathered to listen to the sermon (in which he asked):

“Am I not more appropriate for authority (awla) over you than yourselves?”

“Yes”,

they answered.

Then he spoke to them in an ordered manner without any interruption in his speech:

“Whomsoever I am the authority over (mawla), Ali is also the authority over.”

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

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

First: The question which the Holy Prophet asked just before this declaration: “Do I not have more authority (awla) upon you than you have yourselves?” When they said: “Yes, surely,” then the Prophet proceeded to declare that: “Whoever whose mawla I am. Ali is his mawla.” Without doubt, the word “mawla” in this declaration has the same meaning as “awla” (having more authority upon you).

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

Without a doubt, no. Awla and Mawla are two different words! Describing himself, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) says:

Am I not more appropriate for an Awla (authority) over you than yourselves?

And describing Ali (رضّى الله عنه), suddenly the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) switches to:

Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.”

If anything, this sudden switch in wording completely negates the Shia claims! The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)  should simply have said that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Awla over the people, but instead he was very keen to say Mawla instead. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) first states that Allah has authority over the people, then he says that he himself has authority over the people, but then suddenly he switches and uses the word “Mawla” for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , even though he had used the word “Awla” for Allah and himself.

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) mentioned that he had authority over the believers so that they would listen to him and befriend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as was his wish. The Muslims under Ali’s command hated him, so the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was using his influence to cause them to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and take him as a beloved friend. An analogy to this is if a mafioso was about to hurt a baker, but that baker turned out to be a good friend of the mafia don. So the mafia don asks the mafioso: “Are you loyal to me and do you obey my commands?” The mafioso replies in the affirmative. So the mafia don says: “If you obey my command, then be nice to this baker. This baker is my good friend, and if you are my good friend, then you should also be friends with this baker.”

It seems that the Shia are grasping at straws trying to inject the meaning of Imamah or Caliphate into the word “Mawla”. In order to build their claim, they will borrow Quranic verses that are on totally unrelated topics; whatever sounds good can work for the Shia, no matter how true it is. Here, the Shia want us to just believe that Awla is the same as Mawla. The Shia are just one step away from claiming that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) must be Wali since the words “Ali” and “Wali” are so similar.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Second: The following prayer which the Holy Prophet uttered just after this declaration: “O Allah! Love him who loves Ali, and be the enemy of the enemy of Ali; help him who helps Ali, and forsake him who forsakes Ali.”

This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a friendship?

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

Al-Islam.org says

Glitters of Ahadith Relevant to the Ghadir Incident

“To whomsoever I have been a master, this `Ali is [henceforth] his master; O Lord! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.”

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

The Shia author of the article has clearly stated that in order to find out what “Mawla” means, we need to use context clues. And he shows us the very next sentence in which the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) says: “O Allah! Befriend whoever befriends him, and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.”

This is a great Hujjah (proof) against the Shia claims! The word used is “befriend” or “love” which means that Mawla here is being used to refer to a “beloved friend”. It is clear from this that “Mawla” here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu’adat (enmity). This definition of the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”

How can it be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that? It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliphate and Imamah when the context has nothing to do with that. And it is even more unbelievable that the Shia can bring forth “proof” that is in fact the proof against their own arguments!

As for this part:

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

This prayer shows that Ali, on that day, was entrusted with a responsibility which, by its very nature, would make some people his enemy; and in carrying out that responsibility he would need helpers and supporters.

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

This is merely Shia guesswork and conjecture; the Shia imagination knows no bounds and he (the Shia) can read into the text amazing things. It is almost as if the Shia has some sort of special power or perhaps super goggles with which only he can read what is in between the lines that normal human beings cannot read, and it is this pair of goggles he uses when reading into both Quranic verses and Hadith. Perhaps aliens from Mars were about to attack and they would hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه), so this is why the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said this! And look, the word “aliens” even has the word “Ali” in it!

There is no need for this Shia guesswork and conjecture when we already know why Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had many enemies. There have been multiple narrations about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had angered his soldiers by taking back their spoils of war and these people were complaining about Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It was in this atmosphere of unrest that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) wanted to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and urged these men to be friends with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should be loved by the entire Muslim Ummah, as indeed all of the Ahlus Sunnah loves Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to this day.

As far as the absurd idea that friends are not helpers, we wonder what kind of friends that Shia author has? A very key part of friendship revolves around helping, lending support, etc. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said in numerous Hadith that Muslims should help out their brothers, friends, neighbors, etc.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Third: The declaration of the Holy Prophet that: “It seems imminent that I will be called away (by Allah) and I will answer that call.” This clearly shows that he was making arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death.

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

How is it clear? It is not clear at all. If the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) meant that, then why didn’t he (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) just say that? Why does the Shia have to become the spokesperson for the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) always telling us that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) meant such-and-such even though he just said such-and-such? Surely, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) could have said “I am about to die and therefore I am worried about who will be my successor and this is why nominate Ali to be the Caliph after me.” Instead, we have to guess and trust the Shia that this is what the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) really meant to say, and we all know how creative the Shia imagination is.

The complete negation of this Shia claim is the fact that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said something similar in his Farewell Sermon atop Mount Arafat, starting his speech by saying:

“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again.” (Bayhaqi)

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

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

Fourth: The congratulations of the Companions and their expressions of joy do not leave room for doubt concerning the meaning of this declaration.

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

We have already addressed this point earlier. The Shia had earlier claimed that Allah had revealed verse 5:67 to encourage the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) without fear of the reprisal from the people:

O Messenger! Proclaim the Message which has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Message. Allah will protect you from these men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. (Quran, 5:67)

And the Shia say that the Sahabah were the ones foremost against the nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). And yet now, the article is claiming that the Sahabah had “expressions of joy”. Is this not a contradiction? If the people and the Sahabah were against Ali’s nomination so much so that Allah had to reveal a verse in the Quran about this, then why would they congratulate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and have “expressions of joy”? This is indeed a very big contradiction, but no doubt it is the inevitable result of furthering any argument–no matter how spurious–in order to bolster one’s argument. What happens is that the Shia propagandist does this so frequently that he forgets his earlier arguments and accidentally furthers two contradictory claims.

The people were congratulating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because he had just been declared the beloved friend of all the Muslims. If some child’s parents told him to be friends with so-and-so person, what is the first thing this child would do after his parents said that? No doubt the child would go and introduce himself to that person and say kind words to him. This is the case at Ghadir Khumm: there had been people who were criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) , but then the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) declared that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the beloved friend of the Muslims, and so the people went to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to say kind words to him and congratulate him on this honor. Again, it has nothing to do with leadership, Imamah, or Caliphate. If that were the case, then–at least according to the Shia paradigm–wouldn’t the Sahabah have been sullen and depressed, instead of joyful and elated?

It is strange how the Shia try to downplay the greatness of being declared a “beloved friend”: we will often see Shia who say things like “surely it couldn’t mean ‘just a friend’”. We do not understand what they mean by “just a” friend. First of all, it is not any old friend, but rather it is abeloved 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”.

The Thaqalayn Muslim Association says

“…only to announce to them that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was his friend.”

Such a claim is yet more absurd when one considers the fact that Ali already had an exalted status in comparison with the other Muslims.

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

Yes, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) already had an exalted status, but this is silly nonsense to say that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) can only praise a person once or twice. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)  exalted the status of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) on numerous occasions, yet we will never find any of the Sunnis who doubt the authenticity of something only because he has already been praised before. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) continually heaped praise upon those worthy of praise, and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was one such individual. And although the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had exalted Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in numerous ways in the past, it was here that he gave him the honor of being the beloved of the Ummah.

Furthermore, this event must be viewed in the appropriate context. The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was responding to a certain group of people who hated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and who were becoming his enemies. In response to this time specific event, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) urged the Muslims to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Therefore, what was said at Ghadir Khumm must be taken into context: had it been another Sahabi who was being insulted and hated upon, then it is likely that the Prophet’s speech would have been in regards to that other Sahabi instead. This can hardly be construed as a proof for Imamah or Caliphate.

Al-Islam.org says

Number of Companions in Ghadir Khumm

Allah ordered His Prophet [s] to inform the people of this designation at a time of crowded populous so that all could become the narrators of the tradition, while they exceeded a hundred thousand.

Narrated by Zayd b. Arqam: Abu al-Tufayl said: “I heard it from the Messenger of Allah [s], and there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.”

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

The Shia often bring up this narration in order to prove somehow that all the Muslims were present at Ghadir Khumm. However, we urge the unbiased reader to look at the text which only says: “there was no one (there) except that he saw him with his eyes and heard him with his ears.” This simply says that everyone present at Ghadir Khumm heard the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) say what he said about Ali (رضّى الله عنه). We are already agreed that those at Ghadir Khumm were addressed by the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ), but the issue is that only a fraction of the Muslims passed through Ghadir Khumm on that day.

The Position of Ali’s Grandson, Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه)

It is narrated in Ibn Saad’s “Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra”:

A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), “Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: ‘If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla?’”

He (Al Hasan) replied, “By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, ‘Oh people! This is your leader after me.’ The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning).”

(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5)

Similar Praise for Other Sahabah

The fact that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) referred to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as “Mawla” (beloved friend) cannot be used as a proof for any Prophetic nomination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. Many other Sahabah were praised in a similar fashion, and yet nobody understands these texts to mean that these other Sahabah are divinely appointed Infallible Imams. Let us for, example, take the example of the Hadith in relation to Umar ibn al-Khattab (رضّى الله عنه).

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ)  said: “The truth, after me, is with Umar wherever he is.” (Narrated ibn Abbas)

And yet, nobody uses this Hadith to say that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) was nominating Umar (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor; not even Umar (رضّى الله عنه)  himself interpreted it in this way, and it was he himself who nominated Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph instead. In yet another Hadith, we read:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: “If a prophet were to succeed me, it would have been Umar ibn al-Khattab.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)

Had this been a Hadith in regards to Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then the Shia would have been quoting it left, right, and center; but a cool-headed understanding by the Ahlus Sunnah takes into account all of the various Hadith in which the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) praised many Sahabah in various ways. These are all proofs for the exaltation of Sahabah definitely but they do not entail Prophetic nomination to Caliphate and they definitely do not convey any sense of divine appointment by Allah. In another Hadith, we read:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: “The first one whom the Truth will shake hands with is Umar…” (narrated Ubay ibn Kaab)

And in yet another Hadith, we read:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: “There were in the nations before you people who were inspired, and if there is one in my Ummah it is Umar.” (narrated Abu Hurrairah)

Therefore, based on these Hadith and many other similar Hadith said to other Sahabah, we see that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) calling Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be “Mawla” (beloved friend) was not a Prophetic nomination for Caliphate because others were praised in a similar fashion. What the Shia do is reject all the Hadith in regards to those they dislike and then accept only those in relation to Ali (رضّى الله عنه); what is a bit amusing is that the Shia does not care to look at Isnad, but to the Shia a Hadith is authentic if it praises Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and it is forged if it praises other Sahabah. This is the Shia “science” of Hadith; indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Shia would accept a narration on the authority of Mickey Mouse if it praised Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and they would reject a Hadith narrated through Ali (رضّى الله عنه) himself if it meant praising Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , etc.

Now let us look at the second addition to the Hadith, namely the following:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: “Befriend whoever befriends him (i.e. Ali), and be the enemy to whoever antagonizes him.”

The Shia will then use this Hadith to criticize those Sahabah who argued with Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and yet do they not know that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) also said similar things of other Sahabah? For example, we read the following Hadith:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: “Whoever is angry with Umar is angry with me. Whoever loves Umar loves me.” (At-Tabarani)

In fact, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said this not only about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه), but about all of his Sahabah:

The Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) said: Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish! (Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi, by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami`al-Saghir #1442).

Parting Words

The Shia have taken the event of Ghadir Khumm way out of context. The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has absolutely nothing to do with Imamah or Caliphate, and if it did, then nothing prevented the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) from clearly stating that instead of using the word “Mawla” which is known by everyone to mean “beloved friend.” Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, Ghadir Khumm is located 250 km away from Makkah: if the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) had intended on nominating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) then he would have done that at the larger gathering atop Mount Arafat during his Farewell Sermon in front of all the Muslims from every city.

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

We have shown that the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not (and could not have) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm as the Shia claim. This is the very foundation block of Shi’ism, without which their faith has no basis whatsoever: if the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ) did not nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph, then the Shia can no longer claim that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or the Sunnis usurped the divinely determined designation of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). And with that, the whole of Shi’ism collapses in on itself, all because of an unaccountable 250 km separating Ghadir Khumm from Makkah and separating Shi’ism from the truth.

Daughters – A Mercy of Allah Ta’ala

[By Maulana Najeeb Qasmi]

Almighty Allah says:

“To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male (offspring) upon whom He wills. Or both male and female and He leaves whoever He wills barren” [Al-Shura: 49-50].

In case of infertility, in spite of all efforts, they get neither sons nor daughters. Actually this depends only on the Almighty Allah’s will and His great wisdom. He gives everyone what is more suitable for him/her. Sons and daughters are among blessings and mercies of the Almighty Allah. We need both in order to fulfil the needs of the society. Men and women are helpful for each other, both would be incomplete, if they remain separated from each other. The Almighty Allah created this world and set everything so wisely and in such a beautiful way that everything has got due importance and became the sign of His great wisdom. In the same way the Almighty Allah has created both men and women, having equal importance and concerned rights. He made them inseparable from each other in order to carry on the system of this world. Both have been given distinguished features and respective responsibilities. Both need each other in order to fulfil worldly needs and to create an ideal society.

There are many evils and wrong practices which had into our so called modern society. Among such malpractices is the mindset of people who looks down the female child. They rejoice if they are blessed with a son, organize functions and do all possible things in order to demonstrate their happiness. On the contrary, if they have been given female child they do not feel happy, in lieu of that they are filled with inward grief and sadness. It is not only that but also sometimes father and all other members of the family put blame on the mother of the infant and she is verbally tortured without any wrong and she is vulnerable to their oppressions.

In fact, such mindsets of people are very dangerous and harmful for moral and ethical values of our society. A female child is a mercy of the Almighty Allah and deserves all respects and affections as a male child does.

Whosoever is blessed with it should be thankful to his Lord and happily accept His wise decision. It is inhuman to disregard a female child and it shows moral bankruptcy to have such behaviours. Despite all progress and development we are going back to the ignorant age with this malpractice. The holy Qur’an describes such unjust behaviours of ignorant age and strongly condemns them. Almighty Allah says:

And when the news of (the birth of) a female (child) is brought to any of them, his face becomes dark, and he is filled with inward grief! He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that whereof he has been informed. Shall he keep her with dishonour or bury her in the earth? Certainly, evil is their decision”. [Al-Nahl: 58-59].

In this verse, the Almighty Allah has expressed evil practices of the ignorant age and asked us not to repeat them. So now it is our moral and religious duty to be happy on the birth of female child in the same way as we do it on the birth of a male child, it is also our duty to treat all children equally.

There are a number of traditions in which the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has expressed the virtue of upbringing daughters, some of them are as follows:

Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever has three daughters, or three sisters, or two daughters, or two sisters and he keeps good company with them ((treats them well, gives their rights fixed as per laws of Islamic Shari’ah) and fears Allah regarding them, then Paradise is for him”. [Tirmidhi, chapter: regarding expenditure on daughters)].

The same Hadith is also narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu), but with a little addition, that is one of the companions of Prophet asked: if anyone has only one daughter, will he be deprived of this virtue? The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) replied: If he brings her up in the same manner, he will also deserve the paradise. [Ithaf Al-Sadat Al-Muttaqin].

It is narrated by Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) that the person who brings up daughters patiently, they will be a shield for him from the Hell Fire.[Tirmidhi]

It is narrated on the authority of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Whoever has  two or three daughters and he brings them up well (Treats them well and when they become mature enough he gets them married), he would be accompanied by me in the Paradise just like these two fingers. [Tirmidhi, chapter: regarding expenditure on daughters].

It is narrated by Aisha (radhiyallahu anhu) that once a woman came to her accompanied with her two daughters, she asked her for something, Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) says that there was nothing at home other than one date, so she gave that to the woman. The woman distributed it equally making it into two pieces so that each can get one. She did not take anything from that, then she returned. After a while, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) came, Aisha (radhiyallahu anha) narrated the story to him, then the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: the one who has two daughters and treats them well, they would be a shield for him from the Hell Fire. [Tirmidhi].

Note: After reading the above mentioned traditions regarding the person who has daughters and he brings them well, gives them proper education and gets them married after they reach the age of maturity, we can conclude the following three merits which he will deserve for his action:

Salvation from the Hell Fire.

Entry into the Paradise.

Company of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the Paradise.

It is obvious that love is the matter of heart, it is quite possible that one be more attracted to one of his children, but it should not be shown by action. Love is a hidden fact and it comes from within, it may be more or less. If anyone finds himself uncontrolled and increases his love for any of his children, he is not liable to answer for that, but if he shows it through his behavior in such a way that may hurt his other children, then it is prohibited.
It is the duty of parents to treat all of them equally.

If parents or either of them presents any gift to his children, it should be done on equal basis. Equality is not related to gifts alone, but it also includes everything that they provide for them whether it is related to any edible item, clothing, money or any other thing.

We should very clearly understand that both girls and boys have equal rights, there is no difference at all. One should not be mistaken and confused by the rulings of ‘Wirathah‘ (Islamic laws pertaining to descent and distribution) i.e. share of two daughters is equal to one son’s share. Here we should understand very clearly the fact that this share would be given to daughters after the death of father or parents, as far as he is alive daughters have equal rights as sons have. However the difference in the share of daughters after the death of parents is not going to lessen the value of girls, rather it boosts their rights. (The reason is that by that time generally she gets married and gets new right as a wife, in addition to that she also deserves a considerable share in the property left by her parents). However, the above mentioned instructions are for general situations, in particular cases exceptional treatment can be made and parents have open choice. For instance, any of the children fall ill, now parents have full right to spend extra money for his or her treatment. Similar is the case with education expenditure and any other needs. At the time of need, parents are allowed to make difference and they are not answerable for that.As mentioned above, daughters have their shares in the property of their parents even after getting married.

Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) care for His Daughters:

The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had four daughters and they were Fatima (radhiyallahu anha), Zainab (radhiyallahu anha), Ruqaiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) and Umme Kulthum (radhiyallahu anha). The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to love them much. Three of them passed away while the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was still alive. Only Fatimah (radhiyallahu anha), the beloved daughter of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) died six months after the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) death. All the daughters of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were buried in ‘Jannat Al-Baqi’ the famous graveyard in Madinah Munawwarah. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to love Fatimah (radhiyallahu anha) a lot. Whenever he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) went on journey, the last person whom he used to meet, it was none other than Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) and when he came back from the journey, it was again Fatimah whom he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to meet first. In fact the behavior of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) shows enormous love and care for daughters.