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.

Advertisements

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.

Life Sketch of Syed Ahmed Shaheed (rahimahullah)

By Maulana Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (rahimahullah)

It  is  a  strange  and  inexplicable  phenomena  of  Muslim history  that  whenever  sincere  efforts  have  been  made  for revival  of  Islamic  tenets  extraordinary  results  have  come  to be  seen  in  its  three  branches,  viz.,  faith,  (righteous)  deeds and  morals  and  such  examples  of  courage  and  fortitude, integrity  and  probity,  sympathy  and  service,  justice  and equality,  affection  and  compassion,  fidelity  and  self-sacrifice were  witnessed  which  were  forgotten  for  a  long  duration  of time  and  there appeared  to  be  no  hope  of  their  coming  up again.

These  winds  of  change  blew  at  different  times of  history. Sometimes  for  long  and  sometimes  for  short  periods.  But  authentic  records  of  such  revivalist  movements  have  been preserved  for  posterity.

Such  a  change  came  about  in  India  at  the  beginning of  thirteenth  century  Hijri  when  Syed  Ahmed  Shaheed  raised the  banner  of  faith  and  ‘jihad’  which  brought  to  mind  the memories  of  early  Islamic  history.

Syed  Ahmed  Shaheed  based  his  movement  on  the  simple and  pristine  faith  of  the  earliest  times  and  instilled  a  spirit of  belief  and  ‘jihad’  and  organised  a  large  body  of  warriors and  preachers.

He  established  the  centre  of  his  activities  in  the  north-west  region  with  the  ultimate  object  of  expelling  Englishmen (British  Imperialists)  from  India  and  setting  up  a  theocratic state.  The  ‘mujahidin’  as  they  were  called,  inflicted  many crushing  defeats  on  the  trained  Sikh army  in  various  battles and  to  begin  with,  laid  down  the  foundation  of  Islamic Rulership in  North-West  Frontier,  established  revenue  and  Civil  Courts at  different  places.  But  the  local  misguided  villagers  fell upon them  as  it  were  under  a  pre-meditated  plan  and  murdered most  of  them  in  cold  blood.

The  Amir, Syed Ahmed, Maulana Muhammad  Ismail and other  indefatigable  ‘mujahidin’  laid  down  their  lives  in  the battlefield  of  Balakot  for  the  sake  of  Islam  and  ‘shariat’  and With  their  martyrdom,  the  hope  of  an  Islamic  Nation also  died out like  the  last  flicker  of a  dying  flame  as  a  result  of persistent perfidy  of  certain  tribal  heads,  their  internal  feuds,  self-invented  conventions  and  petty  rivalries.

The  surviving  followers  established  themselves  at different places and kept the flame  of faith  and  ‘jihad’  burning. But  the  Englishmen  pursued  and  subjected  these  valiant ‘mujahidin’  to  merciless  cruelties,  atrocities  and  oppression. Their  properties  were  confiscated  and  some  of  them  were sent  to  the  gallows  and  some  were  sentenced  to  life imprisonment.  But  these  intrepid  ‘mujahidin’  braved  these persecutions  and  prosecutions  with  magnanimous  courage and  unflinching  and  axiomatic  faith  in  their  mission.  They lived  and  died  for  propagation  of  Islam  and  preservation  of ‘shariat’  and  left  a  shining  example  of  devotion  and  sacrifice for  the  coming  generations  and  showed  that these  ideals  have to  be  propagated  and  preserved  at  all  costs  and  no  sacrifice is  too  great  in  the  way  of  Islam  and  ‘shariat’  be  it  wealth or  life.

But  the  messenger  and  those  who  believe  with him  strive  with  their  wealth  and  their  lives.  Such are  they  for  whom  are  the  good  things.  Such  are they  who  are  the  successful.” [Surah  at-Tauba: 88]

[Syed  Abul  Hasan  Ali  Nadwi,
Dar-e-‘Arafat (Rae  Bareli), 14th  April,  1974. 20th  Rabi-ul Awwal.  1394 A.H.]

The  Pitiable  Conditions  of  Muslims  in  thirteenth Century  India

The  political,  religious  and  moral  condition  of  Muslims in  lndia  in  the  thirteenth  century  Hijri  (the  end  of  eighteenth and  beginning  of  nineteenth  century  C.E.)  had  come  down to  rock  bottom.  The  Mughal  Empire  had  disintegrated  and East  India  Company  and  its  allies  swayed  over  various  parts of  India.  The  remaining  parts  were  held  by  petty  rulers  and  sardars.  The  Mughal  King,  Shah  ‘Alam,  was  a  figure-head. The  whole  of  South  India  was  at  the  mercy  of  Marathas. The  Punjab  and  part  of  Afghanistan  were  ruled  by  the  Sikhs. The  capital,  Delhi  and  adjoining  areas  were  the  target  of Maratha  and  Sikh  forays.  The  political  credibility  of  the Muslims  was  at  a  low  ebb.  They  had  no  leader  who  could unite  them.  They  were  weak  and anybody  could  harass  them at  will.

The  moral  fabric  of  the  Muslim  society  was  shattered and  many  sinful  and  heretic  practices  had  become  a  fashion and  people  used  to  pride  over  them.  The  use  of  alcohol  was not  uncommon,  the  high  and  low  revelled  in  wild  orgies.  The morality  and  sense  of  shame  had  lost  their  importance  with some  people;  many  Muslim  women  had  entered  the European  households.

The  polytheistic  and  heretic  rites  had  infiltrated  in  the “millat”.  The  Muslims  had  acquired  such  beliefs  for  which the  Jews,  Christians  and  infidel  Arabs  had  earned  the  wrath of  Allah.  Many  un-Islamic  and  Shiite  rituals  had  entered  the ‘sunni’  society  and  most  of  its  members  had  lost  sight  of ‘shariat’:  The  Islamic  traditions  were  being  forsaken.  The injunctions  of  Glorious  Qur’an  and  ‘traditions’  were  not observed  even  in  literate  and  respectable  Muslim  families. The  widow  re-marriage,  daughter’s  share  in  property  and traditional  greetings  were  under  taboo  by  social  conventions. The  same  way,  the  obligatory  duty  of  Hajj  was  dropped  on the  pretext  of  anarchic  and  disorderly  conditions.  The Glorious  Qur’an  was  thought  to  be  a  riddle  not  to  be understood  or  impossible  to  be  explained  by  the  uninitiated and  it  was  considered  a  ‘forbidden  tree’. 

But  it  would  not  be correct  to  presume  that the  thirteenth century  was  all  unenlightened  or devoid  of  learning,  religious activity,  spiritual  life  or  there  was  no  pursuit  of  knowledge. The  earlier  part  of  thirteenth  century  is  historic  for  Islam  and Muslims  in  India.  There  were  such  erudite  scholars  that  it would  not  be  easy  to  find  their equals  anywhere else,  scholars who  were  unique  for  their  profound  knowledge  and understanding  of Traditions  of the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  geniuses  in  the  fields  of  literature  and  poetry,  tutors  with encyclopaedic  knowledge  and  sufis  and  mystics  of  high  order were  all  there.  There  was  a  net-work  of  schools  and monasteries (khanqah)  and  ‘ulama’  who were busy  in  teaching and  preaching,  writing  and  compiling,  the  schools  and ‘ khanqah’  were  full  of  students  and  disciples  (murid)  in  those days.

It cannot  however,  be  denied  that  the  store  of knowledge,  which  their  predecessors  had  built  up  was  being depleted  for  want  of  replenishment.  There  was  no  further addition  and  no  progress.  There  were  geniuses  in  different branches  of  learning  but  their  energies  were  being  frittered away  for  want  of  purpose  in  life.  The  noble  qualities  of fortitude  and  bravery, sense  of  shame  and  ambition  were being  wasted  for  contemplible  ends  and  epicurism  was  the order  of  the  day.  There  were  scattered  sages  and  geniuses but  no  organised  body  as  such.  The  life  had  lost  its  moorings and  there  was  no  trace  of  any  useful  and  popular  movement.

There  was  an  urgent  need  for  such  a  person  or  body of  persons  who  would  utilise  the  talents  of  these  persons and  give  them  a  direction.  who  would  popularise  the  ecstasy of  “khanqah”  and  the  light  of  learning  of  the  schools.  The ‘Ulama’  who  would  ride  the  chargers  and  the  ‘mujahid’  who would  enkindle  the  flame  of  love  of  Allah,  provide  warmth to  the  low-spirited  and  enliven  the  spirit  of  religion  from  one end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  who  would  put  to  good  use the  inherent  talent  of  the  Muslims;  who  would  have  foresight; who  would  not  consider  anything  useless;  who  would  have the  healing-touch  of  a  christ;  who  would  be  the  epitome  of all  such  qualities  which  go  to  make  one  an  ‘imam’  of  his time.  This  was  the  singular  honour  for  which  Syed  Ahmed (rahimahullah) was  the  most  suitable  person  in  the  galaxy  of  ‘ulama’  and sages.  We  are  narrating  in  this article  the  selected  facts  and tales  of  his  tenacity  of  purpose,  impact  on  Muslim  society and  revolutionary  changes  which  he  brought  about  during his  life  time.

The  Family

Shaikh-ul-Islam Syed Qutubuddin  Muhammad al-Madani was  the  son  of  Syed  Rashid-ud-Din,  who  was  the  twelfth descendant  of  Muhammad  Zu  Nafs  Zakiyya  Shahid,  grandson  of  Hazrat  Hasan.  Shaikh-ul-lslam  Syed  Qutubuddin  was a  high-minded  sage  and  a  pious  man  who  was  endowed  with courage  and  spirit  of  ‘jihad’  along  with  erudite  knowledge and  piety.  He  came  to  India  with  a  party  of  ‘mujahidin’ through  Ghazni  and  conquered  Kara  (in  Allahabad)  where he  settled,  died  and  lies  buried.  The  scions  of  Shaikh Qutubuddin  had  inherited  qualities  of  leadership,  self-possession.  abstinence  and  piety.  There  was  one  sage  Hazrat Shah  ‘Alamullah  in  the  descendants  of  Syed  Qutubuddin during  the  reign  of  Aurangzeb  Alamgir.  He  was  ‘authorised’ (majaz)  by  Hazrat  Syed  Adam  Binnori,  one  of  the  ‘khalifa’  of  Hazrat  Mujaddid  Alf  Sani.  He  was  very  pious  and  staunch  ‘traditionalist’.  He  died  in  1096  (1684)  and  was  buried  at Daerah  (Rae  BareIi)  which  he  had  founded.

The  Birth

Syed  Ahmed  was  the  fifth  descendant  of  Shah ‘Alamullah.  He  was  born  in  1201  (Nov.  1786).  His  father’s name  was  Syed  Muhammad  lrfan  and  grandfather’s  Syed Muhammad  Nur.  At  the  age  of  four  he  was  enrolled  in  a ‘maktab’.  But  he  was  not  disposed  to  learning  and  did  not make  any  progress  in  book  lore  despite  the  best  of  efforts. He  was fond  of manful  sports  and soldiership  from  childhood. When  he  reached  adolescence  he  used  to  attend  on  the  old, infirm  and  widowed  in  the  manner  the  elders used  to  wonder at  it.  He  was  very  fond  of  prayers  and  ‘zikr’.

To  Lucknow  In  Search  Of  Livelihood

His  father  Maulana  Muhammad  lrfan  breathed  his  last when  he  was  only  twelve  years  old.  The  conditions  warranted that  he  should  shoulder  the  responsibility  of  maintenance  of the  family,  and  look  for  livelihood.  He  went  to  Lucknow  with seven  other  relations  in  search  of  a  job.  The  distance  from Rae  Bareli  is  seventy  eight  km.  They  had  one  mount  and they  used  to  ride  it  in  turn.  But  Syed  Sahib  used  to  insist on  others  to  ride  at  his  turn  and  preferred  to  walk.  He  looked after  his  companions  throughout  the  journey  and  reached Lucknow.  Nawab  Sa’adat  Ali  was  the  Ruler  at  that  time.  He was  an  ambitious  and  able  administrator.  But  inspite  of  that except  for  a  few  jagirdars  and  big  businessmen  there  was unemployment  and  poverty.  Everyone  busied  himself  in looking  for  a  job  in  Lucknow,  But  it  was  difficult  to  find  one. lnspite  of  hard  work  and  day-long  labour  they  had  to  be content  with  a  frugal  and  insufficient  meal.  Syed  Sahib  was staying  with  a  nobleman  who  had  high  regard  for  his  family. But  he  used  to  feed  the  rich-fare  he  used  to  get  from  the host  to  his  companions  and  he  was  content  with  potluck.

Under The  Tutelage  Of  Shah  Abdul  Aziz (rahimahullah)

He  passed  four  months  under  difficult  conditions.  Once the  ruler  went  for  shooting  and  the  nobleman  with  whom Syed  Sahib  was  staying  went  with  the  entourage.  Syed  Sahib with  his  companions  went  with  the  party  and  attended  on the  co-travellers.  He  had  to  undergo  many  hardships  in  this safari.  Syed  Sahib  tried  to  persuade  his  companions  to proceed  to  Delhi  and  profit  from  Shah  ‘Abdul  Aziz  but  to no  avail. 

Ultimately  he  went  to  Delhi  by  himself. He  travelled  the  entire  distance  on  foot,  served  the travellers  on  way  but  continued  the  journey  most  of  the  time thirsty  and  hungry  and  reached  Delhi  after  many  days.  When he  reached  Delhi  he  had  blisters  in  his  feet  on  account  of continuous walking.  He  presented  himself before  Shah  Abdul Aziz. Shah  Abdul  Aziz  knew  the  family  well.  He  expressed great  pleasure  on  introduction  and  after usual  formalities  sent him  to  his  brother  Shah  Abdul  Kadir. He  acquired  such  competence  in  ‘contemplative sciences’  in  a  very  short  span  of  time  which  others  normally  attain  after  hard  and  strenuous  endeavour  -ranging  over  a long  time. 

He  was  ordained  (khalifa)  and  permitted  to  go to  Rae  Bareli.  He  stayed  here  for  two  years  during  which period  he  married  also.

Joins  The  Army  Of Amir  Khan

He  needed  actual  fighting  experience  to  perfect  the  art of  ‘jihad’  for  which  he  was  destined  and  which  was  his  main object  in  life.

He  went  to  Delhi  again  in  1226  (1811)  and  at  the instance  of  Shah  Abdul  Aziz  joined  the  army  of  Amir  Khan who  was  engaged  in  armed  struggle  in  Malwa  and  Rajasthan. He  tried  to  divert  his  struggle  and  contain  the  ascending English  power.  Amir  Khan  was  an  ambitious  Afghan  soldier of  fortune,  who  had  collected  a  good  number  of  valiant  and adventurous  fighters  around  him.  He  was  a  power  to  reckon with  and  the  rulers  sometimes  requisitioned  his  services.  The Englishmen  too  could  not  ignore  him.

Syed Sahib served  Amir  Khan  for  six  years.  He  continued his  prayers  and  preachings  along  with  his  duties  with  the result  that  the  entire  camp  became  a  centre  of  preaching. The  armymen  greatly  benefited  from  it  and  there  was  a marked  change  in  the  life  of  Amir  Khan  himself.

Return  To  Delhi

When  Amir  Khan,  compelled  by  circumstances  and disloyalty  of  some  of  his  close  associates  sought  truce  with Englishmen,  Syed  Sahib  opposed  it,  but  when  he  eventually signed  the  treaty  and  accepted  the  State  of  Tonk.  He  was disheartened  and  left  for  Delhi.

This  time  a  large  number  of  people  gathered  around him  and  two  eminent  persons of  the  family  of Shah  Waliullah, Maulana  Abdul  Hai  and  Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail  were initiated  (bai’at).  Because  of  these  two  renowned  ‘ulama’  the great  and  small,  ‘ulama’  and  ‘mashaikh’  thronged  around  him in  multitude,  and  his  popularity  increased  day  by  day.  He started  preaching  around  Delhi  and  went  to  Muzaffamagar, Saharanpur and  other  historical  places,  which  had  produced great  men  and  were  inhabited  by  ‘ulama’  and  nobility-the cities  like  Rampur,  Bareilly,  Shahjahanpur,  etc.,  where hundreds  of  people  were  ‘initiated’  and  they  recanted  and abandoned  polytheislic  and  heretic  practices.  Haji  Abdul Rahim,  who  was  one  of  the  famous  ‘mashaikh’  of  his  time came  for  ‘initiation’  with  thousands  of  his  disciples.  This  tour proved  very  auspicious  for  the  entire  region.  It  is  said  on authority  that  whenever  he  stayed  even  for  a  short  time the  obligatory  (farz)  prayers  (in  mosques)  were  re-established, religious  beliefs  were  revived,  ‘sunnat’  were  restored,  the  zeal for Islamic  tenets  was  renewed  and  above  all  people developed  a  dislike  for  polytheistic,  heretic  and  Shiite practices.  Maulana  Abdul  Hai  and Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail were  with  him  in  this  tour,  lot  of  people  benefited  from  their sermons  and  lives  of  many  people  were  revolutionized.

Back  To  Home  Town

He  came  back  home  to  Rae  Bareli.  The  entire  region was  then  in  the  grip  of  a  famine  and  there  was  scarcity  and suffering,  poverty  and  privation  and  he  had  over  a  hundred persons  to  feed.  But  there  was  an  atmosphere  of  Shekinah and  absolute  faith  in  Allah.  There  were  great  scholars  and sufis  with  him  and  everyone,  inspite  of  his  scholarly  learning used  to  profit  from  him  and  he  used  to  be  busy  in  serving the  people.  This  small  hamlet  was  a  crowded  monastery (khanqah),  a religious  school  and  a  training  ground  for  ‘jihad’. It  was  a  time  of  great  delight  and  ecstasy  though  full  of hardships.  He  also  visited  Allahabad,  Benares,  Kanpur  and Sultanpur during this  period  and  people came  to  him  in  groups for  ‘bai’at’.

The  Visit  To  Lucknow

There  was  a  good  number  of  Pathans  in  Lucknow Cantonment  who  were  devotees  of  Syed  Sahib’  and  his ancestors,  of  whom  Nawab  Faqir  Muhammad  Khan  is  worth mentioning.  He  undertook  this  journey  to  Lucknow,  with about  one  hundred  and  seventy  disciples,  at  the  request  of these  people  for  their  reformation.  Maulana  Abdul  Hai  and Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail  were  with  him  in  this  tour  also. Nawab  Ghaziuddin  Haider  was  the  Ruler  and  Nawab Mo’tamad-ud-Dowlah  Agha  Mir  was  his  Minister  at  that  time. But  there  was  chaos  and  disorder,  repression  and  injustice in  the  State.  The  high  and  mighty  indulged  in  epicureanism and  sensualism.  It  was  the  spring  time  of  merry-making, amusement  and  fun.  But  at  the  same  time  there  were  some people  who  were  amenable  to  good  counsel  and  they  had regard  and  respect  for  the  greatness  of  religion.  The  city was  the  centre  of  scholars  and  sages  and  the  select  among the  nobility  from  outlying  areas  had  also  emigrated  here. There  were  many  pearls  of  the  first  water  in  the  masses awaiting  the  master-touch  of  a  wonder-worker.

Syed  Sahib  and  his  companions  stayed  on  the  western bank  of  Gomti  near  Shah  Pir  Muhammad  mosque.  The  day he  reached  there,  people  started  coming  in  great  number and  they  used  to  mill  around  the  place  from  morning  till  night. The  successive  and  persuasive  sermons  of  Maulana Muhammad  Ismail  had great effect  on  the  local  people.  These sermons  changed  the  lives  of  thousands  of  people.  They came,  recanted and started a  new  life.  The  people of  Lucknow greatly  benefited  spiritually  by  the  visit  of  Syed  Sahib  and his  blessed  party  during  this  short  stay.  The  great  savants and  sages  used  to  visit  and  enter  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’.  Maulana Abdul  Hai  and  Maulana  Muhammad  lsmail delivered sermons every  Friday  and  members  of different  fraternities  (biradaris) became  the  disciple  (murid)  of Syed  Sahib  and  recanted  from polytheism  and  heresies  (bid’at).  There  were  innumerable feasts  and  many  works  of  wonder  (karamat)  were  witnessed during  this  time.  The  polytheism  and  heresies  were  reduced to  the  minimum  and  those addicted  to  crimes  and  wickedness recanted.  The  government  was  perturbed  at  the  popularity of  Syed  Sahib,  specially  at  the  relinquishment  of  Shiite practices.  He  was  warned  but  he  continued  his  preachings and  invited  people  to  the  true  religion  with  determination and  grit.

He  returned  to  his  home  town  after  one  month  and during  this  period  he  felt  the  urgent  need  for  ‘jihad’  in  view of  the  oppressions  over  Muslims  in  the  Punjab  and  became restless  for  it.  Whenever  he  saw  a  youngman  of  strong physique,  he  would  say,  “He  is good  for  our cause.”  He  would often  wear  arms  so  that  other  people  may  realise  their importance.  He  would  hold  mock-battles, target  practice  and display  of  martial  arts  and  soldiership.

The  Hajj

During  this  period  along  with  other  tenets  of  Islam,  the fundamental  tenet  like  Hajj  was  abandoned  or  neglected  on account  of  the juristic  excuse  of  insecurity  on  way.  A  few  so  called  ‘ulama’  had  given  a  judicial  decree  (fatwa)  for  it to  be  dropped.  Syed  Sahib  wanted  to  stop  this  practice  and preached  the  obligatory  nature  of  Hajj  himself  with  great force.  He  considered  it  necessary  to  take  practical  steps  to revive  it  and  went  for  Hajj  with  a  number  of  savants  and distinguished  persons.  He  asked  his  disciples  to  write  letters to  different  places  on  the  indispensability  of  Hajj,  with  the result  that  a  large  number  of  pilgrims  collected  at  this declaration  and  invitation  for  it.  He  started  with  four-hundred pilgrims  on  2nd  July,  1821.  after  Id  prayers  (ld-ul-Fitr) from
his  home  town.

He  went  to  Dalmau  from  Rae  Bareli  and  from  there he  went  to  Calcutta  by  boat.  On  way  Maulana  Abdul  Hai and  Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail  and  other  savants  in  the caravan  delivered  sermons  in  which  polytheism  and  heresies were  countered  and  correct  beliefs  and  virtuous  deeds  were restituted.  Thousands  of  men  and  women  entered  the  fold of  ‘bai’at’.  It  is  said  that  not  a  single  Muslim  was  left  as  the entire  city  of  Mirzapur  entered  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’  and thousands  of  Muslims  in  Benares  including  the  savants  and sages  came  for  bai’at  with  the  result  that  polytheistic  and heretic  practices  were  hit  hard.  He  reached  Patna  via Ghazipur  and  Danapur  and  stayed  there  for  two  weeks. During  his  stay  importance  of  ‘shariat’  was  emphasised  and heresies  were  denounced  with  vigour.  He  sent  a  few  Tibetan nationals  to Tibet  from  Azimabad  for  preaching  and the effect of  their  efforts  was  felt  in  China  also.  He  reached  Calcutta from  Azimabad  and  stayed  there  for  three  months.  Calcutta was  the  seat  of  the  British  Government  and  the  biggest  city of  lndia.  He  brought  about  a  religious  revolution  there.  The heads  of  different  families  and  fraternities  (biradari)  declared to  their  families  and  fellow  brothers  that  those  who  do  not enter  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’  of  Syed  Sahib  and  do  not  stick  to ‘shariat’  would  be  boycotted.  The  people  lined  before  the halting  place  of  Syed  Sahib  at  this  announcement.  The  pubs and  dens  of  vice  were  deserted.  The  grand-children  of  Tipu Sultan,  whose ancestors had good  relations with  the ancestors of Syed  Sahib greatly  benefited  by his  advices.  He  left  Calcutta for  Hajj  pilgrimage  with  seven  hundred  and  seventy  five persons.  The  rush  of  on-lookers  was  so  great  that  the  roads were  blocked  with  Muslims  and  non-Muslims  and  it  was difficult  for  pedestrians  to  pass  through  the  crowd.  The caravan  reached  Jeddah  on  16th  May,  1822,  stopping  and preaching  at  every  port  and  coastal  region  on  way.  He entered  the  Haram’  on  21st  May,  1822.

The  people  of  this  holy  place  also  took  advantage  of his  presence. The  ‘imam’  of  the Grand  Mosque  and  the  Grand ‘ Mufti’  of  Makkah  became  his  disciples  (murid)  and  the chief tains  and  noblemen  of  other  Muslim  states  profited  from him.  He  passed  the  month  of  fasting  in  Makkah.  During  the period  of  Hajj  he  took  a  vow  (bai’at)  for  ‘jihad’  from  his companions  at  ‘Aqba-e-Ula’  -the  place  where  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan)  had  taken  the  vow  (bai’at) from  ‘Ansar’  and  which  later  became  the  basis  of  his emigration  to  Madinah.

He  went  to  Madinah  from  Makkah.  There  also  savants and  sages,  high  and  low  crowded  round  him  in  great numbers. He  returned  to  Makkah,  passed  the  second  month  of  fasting there,  performed  Hajj  for  the  second  time  and  returned  to Rae  Bareli  on  30th  April,  1824.

The  Pre-Occupation  At  Home  Town

He  stayed  at  Rae  Bareli  from  30th  April,  1824  to  17th January,  1826 -for  one  year  and  ten  months.  It  was  his last  stay  in  his  home  town.  He  occupied  himself  with preaching  and  inducing  others  for  ‘jihad’  which  included practical  training–both  spiritual  and  physical  of  the companions.  This  period  was  full  of  rigorous  performance of  religious  duties,  asceticism  and  vigorous  work.  The  life was  simple  and  spiritual,  austere  and  disciplined.  The  entire village  (Daera  Shah  Alamullah)  was  full  of life  and  high  spirits.

Need  For  Emigration

The  pitiable  condition  of  the  Muslim  scholars  and helpless  position  in  which  Islam  was  placed  at  that  time  was clear  to  Syed  Sahib.  He  was  a  spectator to  the  over-whelming influence  of  un-lslamic  powers,  specially  intolerable  tyranny to  which  the  Muslims  in  the  Punjab  were  subjected.  The  entire community  was  living  a  serf-like  life  of  distrust  and  disrespect, disappointment  and  discomfiture.  Their  property  was  being confiscated  on  trivial  grounds.  The  chambers  in  the  famous Shahi  Mosque  of  Lahore  were  being  used  as  stables.  There was  restriction  on  azan  and  Islamic  practices  at  many  places and  Muslims  had  become  despondent  and  restless  with  this contemptible  treatment.

In  this  big  border  province which was  inhabited by martial community  (Pathans)  among  Muslims  and  where  they  had clear  majority  this  disgrace  and  subordination  under  a  non-Muslim  power,  which  was  inimical  to  them,  could  not  be allowed  to  remain  as  such.  It  was  a  permanent  danger  for Delhi,  whole  of  north-west  India,  and  Afghanistan.  It  was far-sightedness  and  political  acumen  of  Syed  Sahib  and  his companions  that  they  realised  this  danger  and  made  the Punjab  the  centre  of  their  crusading  activities.

The  rise  of  British  power  in  India,  internecine  feuds among  Muslims  and  the  resultant  dispersion  and  decline  of Islamic  influence  disturbed  him.  Raising  the  ‘Voice  of  Truth’ and  need  for  liberation  of  Islamic  lands  made  a  demand  for ‘jihad’  from  all  duty-conscious  and  self-respecting  Muslims. In  his  opinion  ‘jihad’  was  an  important  part  of  religion  and he  considered  emigration  as  the  first  step  towards  it.  Because under  the  prevailing  conditions  ‘jihad’  was  difficult  without emigration.  The  clear  verses  of  the  Glorious  Qur’an  and Traditions  incited  him  for  ‘jihad’  and  love  of  Allah  and  Divine Pleasure  excited  him  to  act  and  he  made  a  firm  determination for  it.

Though  his  main  object  was  India  is  clear  from  several letters  which  he wrote  to different Heads  of States  and  Muslim Rulers  in  and  outside  India.  Maharaja  Ranjit  Singh  had established  his  rule  in  the  Punjab  and  the  Muslims  were tyrannised, that  is  why  they  needed  immediate  help.  Besides. in  view  of  military  strategy  and  political  expediency  it  was necessary  to start  this  movement  from  north-west  India  which was  the  centre  of  powerful  and  zealous  Afghan  tribes.  Then some  of  their  families  and  relations  were  his  disciples  (murid) and  respected  him.  They  promised  help  and  co-operation  for this  purpose.  Moreover.  other  Muslim  countries  extended right  up  to  Turkey.  He  was  preparing  himself  and  his companions  for  ‘jihad’  from  the  very  beginning.

The  Emigration

He  bid  adieu  to  his  home  town  Rae  Bareli  on  17th January,  1826.  The  caravan  passed  through  plains  and deserts,  hills  and  dales,  forests  and  rivers,  mountains  and passes  and  covered  United  Provinces,  parts  of  Malwa, Rajasthan,  Baluchistan  and  North-West  Frontier  to  reach Afghanistan  which  was  in  itself  an  arduous  task.  They  had to  undergo  various  hardships,  hunger  and  thirst,  because  of shortage  of  provisions  and  water,  fear  of  highway  robbers. They  passed  through  new  places,  encountered  unfamiliar dialects  and  strange  people,  some  courteous  and  some contemptuous,  faced  their  doubts  and  suspicions,  their curiosities  and  dose  enquiries,  prying  and  spying,  etc.  They endured  all  these  odd  situations  on  their  way.  The  caravan consisted  of  noblemen,  saints and  sages,  rich  and  enthusiastic youngmen,  weak  and  infirm,  but  full  of  zest  for  ‘jihad’  and consisted  of  six  hundred  ‘mujahadin’.

He  stopped  at  Dalmau,  Fatehpur,  Banda,  Jalon, Gwalior,  Tonk  and  he  was  welcomed  at  every  place  and people  became  his disciples  (murid).  The  Maharaja  of  Gwalior asked  for  an  audience  and  he  presented  gifts.  He  went  to Tonk  from  Gwalior.  The  Nawab  of  Tonk  received  him  with great  enthusiasm  (Syed  Sahib  had  served  in  his  army  for  six years  at Tonk)  and saw  him  off.  He  reached  Hyderabad  (Sind) via  Ajmer,  Pali  and  through  toilsome  desert  of  Marwar.  On way  thousands of  men  and  women entered  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’ and  many  persons  accompanied  him.  Sind  was  under  the rule  of  independent  rulers,  who  were  members  of  a  family and  lacs  of  warriors  and  war-veterans  lived  in  their  territories. There  were great  many  ‘aulia’  who  had  disciples  all  over Sind. They  welcomed  Syed  Sahib  and  assured  all  help.  The  Ruler of  Sind,  Mir  Muhammad  and  the  elite  received  him  with  open arms.

He  stayed  at  Hyderabad  (Slnd)  for  a  week  and  went  to Pirkot  and  stayed  there  for  two  weeks  and  then  went  to Shikarpur  and  met  the  respectable  and  prominent  persons. of  the  place.  He  went  to  Chhatarbagh  and  Dhadhar  from Shikarpur.  On  way  he  stayed  at  many  places  and  invited the  people  for  ‘jihad’.  The  savants,  sufis  and  citizens  paid their  homage  to  him.  He  journeyed  through  the  narrow  and perilous  Bolan  Pass  with  the  entire· caravan.  It  is  a  natural gorge  which  has  been  carved  by  denudation  for  strong  willed  conquerors  and  the needy  passersby  in  the  long  chain of  mountains  which  separate  India  from  Afghanistan.  He reached  Shal  (Quetta)  through  Bolan  Pass.  The  Chief of Shal paid  him  great  respect  and  many  ‘ulama’  became  his  murid.

In  Afghanistan

He  went  to  Kandahar.  The  Barakzai  brothers  ruled  over Afghanistan  during  this  period,  who  were  called  Durranis. Purdil  Khan  ruled  over  Kandahar.  Mir  Mohammad  Khan  over Ghazni,  Dost  Muhammad  Khan  and Sultan  Muhammad  Khan over  Kabul  and  Yar  Muhammad  Khan  over  Peshawar.  But there  was  no love  lost between  them and  they  used  to engage in  family  feuds  most  of  the  time.  The  main  purpose  of  this visit  was  to  unite  these  brothers  and prepare  them  for  ‘jihad’ against  the  enemies  of  Islam.

When  he  reached  Kandahar,  the  ruler  received  him  and thousands  of  ‘ulama’,  noblemen  and  other  persons  came  out of  the  town  on  foot  to  welcome  him.  The  roads  were  jampacked  with  people.  He  stayed  in  Kandahar  for  four  days. Everybody  was  ready  and  willing  to  join  him  for  ‘jihad.’  He went  to  Ghazni  from  Kandahar.  About  four  hundred  learned men,  students  and  sages  from  monasteries  (khanqah)  came to  him  eager  for  ‘jihad.’  He  selected  two  hundred  and  seventy persons  and  took  them  with  him.  He  informed  Mir Muhammad  Khan  of  Ghazni  and  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan of  Kabul,  of  his  arrival  and  the  purpose  of  his  visit  and  asked for  their  cooperation.  When  he  reached  Ghazni,  rich  and learned  persons  came  about  three  miles  out  of  the  town  on foot  to  receive  him.  He  encamped  near  the  mausoleum  of Sultan  Mahmood  Ghaznavi  and  lot  of  people  entered  the fold  of  ‘bai’at’.

He  stayed  at  Ghazni  for  two  days  and  left  for  Kabul. The  rich,  the  elite and  thousands of common  people  received him  outside  the  town.  The  cloud  of  dust  raised  by  the  horses and  crowd  blinded  everything.  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan came out  to  receive  him  with  his  three  brothers  and  fifty  horsemen. He  stayed  in  Kabul  for  one-and-a-half  months.  He  spoke about  reforms  and  ‘jihad’  most  of  the  time.  The  elite  and the  commonmen,  profited  by  his  preachings  finding  the  faithlifting  atmosphere,  burning  desire  for  ‘jihad’  and  the  will  to lay  down  their  lives  in  the  ‘Way  of  Allah’  the  people  joined the  blessed  caravan.  He  did  his  best  to  bring  reconciliation between  the  Barakzai  brothers  but  he  did  not  succeed.  He left  for  Peshawar.  The  people  used  to  receive  him  with  great enthusiasm  all  through  the  journey.  He  exhorted  the  people for  ‘jihad’  on  way  and  reached  Nowshera.  He  made  the ‘jihad.’ beginning  of  the  highly  desired  object  and  a  great  divine worship  which  was  the  culmination  of  years  of  preaching and  striving  and  the  chief  purpose  of  this  strenuous  journey.

The  Battle  Of Akora

He  asked  in  a  despatch  from  Nowshera  to  the  Ruler of  Lahore  to  embrace  Islam  in  the  first  instance  or  accept suzerainty  of  Islam  and  pay  ‘jizya’  and  in  case  of  non-acceptance  of  these  terms  threatened  him  with  war.  He  also wrote  that  probably  you  may  not  have  that  love  for  liquor which  we  have  for  martyrdom.  The  Ruler  of  Lahore  sent a  big  Sikh  army  in  reply  to  this  notification.  The  moment he  received  the  news  he  made  preparations  for  ‘jihad.’  The ‘ mujahidin’  were  overjoyed  with  an  opportunity  for  ‘jihad’ and  everyone of them was  brimming over with  the  high  spirits of  martyrdom.  The  ‘mujahidin’  were  seven  hundred  and  the enemy strength was estimated at seven  thousand armed  men. The  handful  ‘mujahidin’  confronted  their  ten  times  strong enemy  at  midnight  on  20th  Dec.,  1826.  The  ‘mujahidin’ fought  with  their  heart  and  soul  and  the  enemy  fell  back. By  dawn  they  were  routed  and  put  to  flight.  This  victory inspired  the  Muslims,  the  tribal  chiefs,  ‘ulama’  and  elite  came to  enter  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’  at  the  hands  of  Syed  Sahib.  The people  had  confidence  in  him  now.  He  made  peace  in between  warring  tribal  chiefs.  Khadi  Khan  of  Hund  fort became  his  disciple  and  Syed  Sahib  stayed  at  Hund  fort  for three  months  at  his  request.

The  Raid  On  Hazru

The  local  people  expressed  their  desire  to  make  a  dawn attack  on  Hazru  which  was  a  big  trading  centre  in  the  Sikh territory.  Syed  Sahib  permitted  it,  but  he  did  not  participate in  it.  The  raiders  committed  many  irregularities  in  taking  the spoils  of  war.  They  did  not  heed  the  instructions  given  by Syed  Sahib.  They  did  whatever  they  liked  without  regard  to any  rules.  The  ‘ulama’  among  the  ‘mujahidin’  unanimously decided  that  the  most  important  and  the  foremost  task  is to  appoint  an  ‘imam’  and  ‘amir’  so  that  the  ‘jihad’  be  carried out  under  his  leadership  and  command.

Then  on  13th  January.  1827  at  Hund  ‘bai’at’  for ‘ imamat”  and  ‘khilafa’  was  carried  through  at  the  hands  of Syed  Sahib  unanimously.  Khadi  Khan, Ashraf  Khan, Fateh Khan, Bahram  Khan,  and  the  big  and  small  chiefs  came  to him  for  ‘bai’at’  on  both  the  counts.  Besides the  ‘ulama  of India  also  accepted  his  “imamat”  Syed  Sahib  issued  letters for  ‘bai’at’  and  ‘imamat”  to  all  the  chiefs,  rulers,  savants  and sages  of  India.  The  Rulers  of  Peshawar  and  Kabul  Yar Muhammad  Khan  and  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  came  with a  big  party  for  bai’at on  seeing  his  piety  and  popularity. He  promulgated  laws  of  ‘shariat’  after  election  as  “amir”  and issued  ordinances  based  on  ‘shariat’  all  around.  The judgements  in  Darul  Qaza  were  being  delivered  according to  ‘shariat  now.  The  result  of  this  superintendence  (ihtisab) was  that  no  non-praying  Muslims  were  found  in  the  whole area-far and  near.

The  Battle  Of  Saidu  And  Poisoning

The  whole  region  had  become  united  as  a  single  unit under  lhe  “imamat”  and  “khilafat”  of  Syed  Sahib.  The suzerainty  of  big  and  small  landlords  came  to  an  end  and they  became  envious  though  they  entered  the  fold  of  ‘bai’at’ compelled  by  circumstances.  But  they  were  boiling  within their  hearts  for  vengeance  and  were  in  league  with  the  Sikh government  at  Lahore.

There  were  several  skirmishes  with  the  Sikh  army.  The local  landlords  who  were  outwardly  with  Syed  Sahib  but  at heart  with  the  Sikhs,  expressed  their  desire  to  make  an organised  and  final  stand  against  the  Sikhs. The  plain  of Saidu was  selected  at  the  instance  of  the  local  landlords.  When the  preparations  for  it  were  in  full  swing  somebody  poisoned the  food.  The  local  people  and  some  others  from  outlying areas  were  with  the  Muslim  army  including  the  landlords  and their  troops.  The  Muslim  army  had  the  upper  hand  and  on the  point  of  winning  the  battle  then  all  of  a  sudden  the  chiefs of  Peshawar  joined  hands  with  the  Sikhs.  Yar  Muhammad Khan deserted  with  his  troops.  The  ‘mujahidin’ were left  alone to  fight  the  Sikhs  –rather  the  Sikhs  and  the  deserters.

At  Panjtar

In  view  of  the  changed  circumstances  Syed  Sahib  shifted to  Panjtar  from  Hund  at  the  request  of  Fateh  Khan,  ruler of  Panjtar  and  made  it  Lhe  centre  of  his  activities.  Panjtar is  a  secure  place  situated  in  the  mountains  of  Swat  and  it remained  the  headquarter  of  the  ‘mujahidin’  for  quite  a  long time.  It  was  an  Islamic  camp  and  centre  of  preaching  and reforms.  This  mountainous  fastness  was  a  solemn  place  of which  every  nook  and  corner  was  crammed  with  ‘mujahidin · and  devotees  who  were  most  of  lhe  time  busy  in  recitation of  the  Glorious  Qur’an-‘zikr’,  preparation  for  ‘jihad’  and  there was  an  atmosphere  and  spirit  of  fellow-feeling  and friendliness.  service  and  sacrifice.

Khadi  Khan  became  very  apprehensive  with  Panjtar being  the  headquarter,  he  turned  jealous  and  prejudiced  against Syed  Sahib  and  wanted  to  harm  his  cause.  The  unexpected tum  of  events  at  Saidu  did  not  dishearten  Syed  Sahib  and did  not  in  any  way  affect  his  dedication  to  his  mission.  He went to Buner,  Swat and  Hazara.  The  lour was very successful so  far  as  preaching,  reformation  and  preparation  for  ‘jihad’ were  concerned.  He  went  to  Khar  which  is  the  centre  of Swat.  He  stayed  there  for  one  ‘year.  Maulana  Abdul  Hai passed  away  during  this  period.  He  was  ‘Shaikhul-lslam’  of the  Muslim  army  (mujahidin)  and Syed  Sahib had  high  regards for  him.

Encounter  With  The  French  General

General  Ventura,  a  French  General  in  the  services  of Maharaja  Ranjit  Singh,  attacked  the  ‘mujahidin’  with  an  army of  about  ten  to  twelve  thousand  and  helped  Khadi  Khan  of Hund.  General  Ventura  retreated  under  fierce  attack  by  the ‘mujahidin’  who  fought  with  zeal  for  ‘jihad’  and  fondness  of martyrdom.  He  returned  to  Lahore  after  this  defeat discomfited.  He  took  the  field  again  after  a  few  months  and advanced  towards  Sammah.  Khadi  Khan  welcomed  him  and secretly  helped  him.  Syed  Sahib  wrote  letters  to  the responsible  persons  of  that  region  and  informed  them  of General Ventura’s  adventure, and  organised a  line  of defence. The  ‘mujahidin’  took  a  vow  to  fight  to  the  last.  When  General Ventura  saw  that  the  ‘mujahidin’  have  taken  up  positions of  vantage  in  the  hills  and  passes  he  again  retreated  out  of fear.  When  the  local  people  saw  the  steadfastness  of  ‘mujahidin’  and  signs  of  Divine  help,  they  came  for  ‘bai’at’ in  groups.  Syed  Sahib  also  went  round  the  villages  and strengthened  the  system  of  ‘shariat.’  Khadi  Khan  conspired with  the  enemies  inspite  of  instructions  and  warning  to  desist from  it.  Syed Sahib  attacked  the  Hund  fort  and  seized  it  under compulsion.  Khadi  Khan  lost  his  life  in  the  battle.

The  Battle  Of  Zaida

Amir  Khan,  brother  of  Khadi  Khan.  joined  hands  with Yar  Muhammad  Khan  at  whose  instance  Syed  Sahib  was poisoned  at  Saidu.  Syed  Sahib  spoke  to  Yar  Muhammad Khan  and  asked  him  not  to  create  dissension  and  discord.

However,  he  launched  an  attack  on  the  ‘mujahidin’  at  Zaida. The  Durrani  army  was  driven  back by the  ‘mujahidin ·  because of  their  firmness  and  resolute  stand  and  they  captured  their cannons.  The  defeated  army  retreated  in  disorder,  Yar Muhammad  Khan  was  killed.  The  routed  Durrani  army attacked  the  Hund  fort  which  was  under  the  control  of ‘ mujahidin.’  They  were  fifty  or  so  in  number  but  they  fought with  undaunted  courage and determination  and  repulSed  their attack  and  this  attempt  also  ended  in  fiasco.

The  news,  somehow  got  circulated  that  the  ‘mujahidin’ intended  to  attack  Peshawar  which  was  in  the  hands  of  the Durranis.  They,  therefore,  left  Peshawar.  The  ‘mujahidin’ seized  Ashra  and  Amb  in  the  meantime.

Syed  Sahib  thought  of  advancing  towards  Kashmir  and for  it,  it  was  necessary  to  seize  Phuira.  He  sent  an  expedition under  the  command  of  his  nephew,  Syed  Ahmed  Ali.  The Sikhs  attacked  them  from  an  ambush  and  many  ‘mujahidin’ lost  their  lives  including  Syed  Ahmed  Ali.  Syed  Sahib  camped at  Amb,  enforced  the  system  of  ‘shariat’  and  initiated reformation  of  society.

The  Battle  Of  Mayar

Sultan  Muhammad  Khan decided  to  fight  a  decisive  battle with  the  ‘mujahidin. He  collected  a  big  army  of  Durranis and  for  this  end  in  view  he  reached  Charsadda  via  Chamkani. Syed  Sahib  also  camped  at  Toru  with  ‘mujahidin.  He  did his  best  to  prevent  the  chiefs  of  Peshawar  from  this  fraternal feud.  But  they  did  not value  this  spirit  of  reconciliation.  Sultan Muhammad  Khan  and  his  relations  swore  by  the  Glorious Qur’an  to  fight to  the  last.  The  entire army  passed  underneath the  Glorious  Qur’an  which  was  hung  in  a  gate.  There  was much  blood-shed  at  the  battle-field  of  Mayar  which  lies between  Toru  and  Hoti.  Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail  and Shaikh  Wali  Muhammad  seized  their  artillery.  The  Durranis turned  tail and  left  the  field  in  shambles  and  the  mujahidin· emerged  victorious.  The  mujahidin’  demonstrated  such fortitude  and  heroism,  courage  of  conviction  and  devotion to  duly  and  penchant  for  the  ‘coming  world’  that  it  reminded of  the  heroic  deeds  of  early  Muslims.

The  Triumphant  Entry  in  Peshawar

Syed  Sahib advanced  towards  Peshawar after the  victory of  Mayar  which  was  an  important  city  after  Kabul  and  Lahore in  north-west  and the  capital  of  North-West  Frontier  Province for  a  long  time.  The  circumstances  compelled  him  to  take over  Peshawar.  When Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  felt  sure  that the  ‘mujahidin’  have  decided  to  annex  Peshawar  he  left  it with  members of his  family  and  started  negotiations  with  Syed Sahib.  When  Syed Sahib entered  Peshawar,  the  people  were very  happy.  They  illuminated  the  city  and  provided  sherbet at  different  places.  The  ‘mujahidin’  demonstrated  the  spirit of  true  Islamic  virtue  and  training,  probity and circumspection. Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  offered to  make  peace,  promised fidelity  and  vowed  that  if  Peshawar  be  given  back  to  him, he  would  enforce  ‘shariat’  laws  and  convert  the  region  into an  Islamic  one.  Syed  Sahib  had  not  undertaken  this expedition  for  territorial  conquest  but  to  establish  Islamic government  and  to  enforce  ‘shariat.  He,  therefore,  accepted the  offer  and  gave  him  one  more  chance.  Peshawar  was handed  back  to  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  and  Syed  Sahib left  for  Panjtar.

The  Massacre  Of  ‘Quzat’

The  tribal chiefs,  specially  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  and worldly-minded  ‘ulama’  realised  that  enforcement  of  Islamic laws  and  ‘shariat·  and  appointment  of  revenue  collectors would  be  against  their  personal  interests  and  result  in  loss of  their  income.  They,  therefore,  decided  to  get  rid  of  them.

Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  prepared  a  scheme  to  ‘defame the  ‘mujahidin’  among  the  elite  and  the  common man  a  little after  he  was  handed  over  Peshawar.  He  obtained  the signatures  of  a  few  ‘ulama  on  a  ‘fatwa that  the  beliefs  of the  ‘mujahidin’  are  perverse  (fasid).  He  prepared  a  scheme to  murder  all  the  ‘Quzat’.  revenue  collectors  and  censors (muhtasib)  appointed  by  Syed Sahib  at  one  time  in  the  region of  Peshawar  and  Sammah  except  Panjtar.  They  were murdered  in  a  ruthless  manner  –somebody  was  killed  while praying  in  the  mosque  and  somebody  while  defending himself.  The  oppressors  did  not  heed  the  supplications  of ‘ ulama’,  womenfolk  and  non-Muslims  too.  The  ‘mujahidin’ who  were  thus  put  to death  were  the  choicest pick  from  India and  were  the  product  of  years  of  hard  training.

The  Second  Emigration

Syed  Sahib  lost  heart  with  this  merciless  killing  of innocent  ‘mujahidin.’  He  was  so  heart-broken  with  the infidelity,  thanklessness,  oppression  and  barbarism  of  the local  people  that  he  decided  to  emigrate  from  there.  He collected  the  ‘ulama’  and  the  chiefs,  investigated  the  reason for  this  heart-rending  incident,  placed  before  them  the  chief aim  of  his  visit  and  his  efforts  in  this  regard.  When  he  realised that  his  companions  were  innocent  and  oppressed  and  the entire  blame  for  this  massacre  lay on  the  local  people.  he finally  decided  to  emigrate.

When  the  ‘ulama’  and  those  persons  who  were  sincere at  heart  got  wind  of  emigration  they  grew  anxious  and  came to  Syed  Sahib  in  a  body  and  requested  him  not  to  emigrate. But  he  did  not  agree.  He  had  come  to  know  that  Fateh  Khan had  colluded  with  Sultan  Muhammad  Khan  in  his  conspiracy to  exterminate  the  ‘Quzat’,  revenue  collectors  and  censors. Fateh  Khan  also  did  not  request  to  stay  on  but  supported it  in  secret.  Syed Sahib  forgave  them  instead  of  any  retaliation or  revenge.  He  condoned  Fateh  Khan  also  and  treated  him with  kindness  and  presented  him  a  few  gifts.  But  he  did  not waver  in  his  firm  resolve  to  emigrate  from  there  and  camped at  Rajduari.  On  way  the  people  from  Sammah  (where  the Quzat  revenue  collectors  and  censors  were  killed  in  cold blood)  came  in  tears  to  him  and  requested  him  to  come  back to  Sammah.  He  said.  “‘A  faithful  (Muslim)  is  not  bitten  twice from  the  same  hole”.

Towards  Kashmir

Syed  Sahib  selected  Kashmir  for  future  reformative activities.  He  moved  towards  Kashmir  with  the  remaining companions  who  were  not  prepared  to  leave  him  in  these conditions  of  gloom  and  confusion,  indefiniteness  and uncertainty.  The  Valley  of  Kashmir  was  safe  and  provided with  such  natural  defences  that  an  intelligent  leadership·could derive  lot  of  advantages  from  it.  The  location  was  such  that it  could  influence  India  and  those  Muslim  countries of  Central Asia  which  were  important  from  racial  and  military  point  of view  and  which  had  established  strong  Islamic  governments in  the  past.  Besides,  cordial  relations  could  be  established with  them.

At  Balakot

The  administration  of  the  states  of  Pakhli  and  Kaghan Valley  were  in  a  state  of  flux-partly  on  account  of  successive  Sikh-incursions  and  partly, because  of  their  clan  feuds.  They wanted  the  help  of  Syed  Sahib.  These  states  lay  on  way  to Kashmir  where  he  wanted  to  establish  the  centre  of  his  future activities.  The  second  emigration  was  being  made  for  that purpose.  Balakot was  the  most  suitable  place  to  lend  support to  these  states,  consolidate  his  own  armed  strength  and  for advancement  towards  Kashmir.  It  is  situated  at  the  southern end  of  Kaghan  Valley  and  shut  in  by  a  mountain  and  there is  no  inlet  except  the  mouth  of  Kunhar  river.  There  are  two mountain  ranges  running  parallel  with  the  valley  in  which the  passage  in  between  is  not  more  than  half-a-mile  wide. The  river  Kunhar  flows  in  this  narrow  passage  with  the  hills of  Kalu  Khan  and  Matikot  on  the  eastern  and  western  sides respectively.  This  emigration  was  beset  with  many  dangers and  was painstaking.  The  mountains and valleys  were covered with  snow,  and  the  path  was  full  of  twists  and  turns.  There was  no  arrangement  for  supplies  and  transport.  It  proved to  be  an  outstanding  example  of  his  ambition  and  daring, endurance  and  forebearance  and  strength  of  faith  of  his companions  for  the  object  in  view.  He  reached  Sachchun from  Panjtar halting  at different  places  on  way  and  proceeded towards  Balakot  and  reached  there  on  17th  April,  1831.

The  Last  War  And  Martyrdom

Prince  Sher  Singh  was  deputed  by  his  father,  Maharaja Ranjit  Singh,  to  fight  a  last-ditch  battle  with  the  ‘mujahidin.’ When  he  came  to  know  that  Syed  Sahib  had  camped  at Balakot  with  his  companions,  he  brought  a  large  army  and camped  at  the  east  bank  of  Kunhar  river  about  five  miles from  Balakot.

When  it  was  clear  that  Sikh  army  would  attack  Balakot scaling  down  from  Matikot,  arrangements  were  made  for  a final  show down with  it.  The  valley  of Balakot was strategically favourable  for  the  ‘mujahidin.’

Prince  Sher  Singh  lost  hope  of  winning  the  war  on account  of  Balakot’s  natural  defences  and  was  thinking  of going  back.  But  some  local  people  guided  him  and  his  army reached  Matikot  on  6th  May,  1831  in  a  short  time.  The  Sikh army  attacked  the  ‘mujahidin’  while  coming  down  from Matikot.  Syed Sahib  was  in  the  forefront  and  the  ‘mujahidin’ were  closely  following  him.  The  volley  of  Sikh  bullets  was raining  like  hail.  Syed Sahib moved  ahead of  others and calledout  the  battle-cry  ‘Allah-u-Akbar’  aloud.  He  was  moving  fast like  a  lion  after  its  prey.  He  found  a  big  rock  in  the  Held. He  took  cover  behind  it  and  started  firing  from  there.  The ‘mujahidin’  followed  him  and  at  first  sent  a  salvo  of  gun-fire from  their  guns  and  then  carbines  and  killed  many  enemy soldiers.  The  enemy  started  retreating  under  barrage  of  fire towards  the  hilJs  and  ascending  it.  The  ‘mujahidin’  dragged them  down  and  put  them  to  sword.

The  ‘mujahidin’  lost  sight  of  Syed  Sahib  and  felt  sure that  he  has  been  martyred.  Maulana  Muhammad  Ismail  was hit  by  a  bullet  in  the  head  and  he  was  martyred  too.  The enemy saw that  the  ‘mujahidin’  were  confused.  they  attacked once  again  with  all  their  might  and  sent  a  continuous  barrage of  gun-fire  wilh  the  result  that  the  scales  turned  againsl  the ‘mujahidin ·  and  many  of  them  lost  their  lives.  (May  their  souls rest  in  eternal  peace).

The  journey  of  these  intrepid  ‘mujahidin’  which  started on  17th January, 1826, when Syed Sahib  left  his  home  town Rae  Bareli  with  a  handful  of  ‘mujahidin’  ended  at  Balakot on  6th  May,  1831.  They  left  their  beloved  families  at  home and  covered  deserts  and  valleys,  mountains  and  forests, countenanced  the  rebellion  and  infidelity  of  the  Durranis.  but they  were  so  enamoured  of  their  Creator  and  were  so  fond of  martyrdom  that:

Life  is  the  price  for  proximity  with  beloved in  the  realm  of  love,

The  head  is  a  burden  on  shoulders  with t his  life-giving  news

The Ahkaam Of The Ring

[By Syed Anwar Ali]

The Prohibition of Wearing Gold Rings for Men and the Permissibility of Silver Rings

Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar رضي الله عنهما relates that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a gold ring made and he kept the stone (gem) of the ring facing his falm, ‘Muhammad Rasool Allah’ was engraved in it. The Sahabah رضي الله عنهم likewise had rings made. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw that they had rings made he threw his away and said, “I will never wear this again.” Then he صلى الله عليه وسلم had a silver ring made. The Sahabah رضي الله عنهم likewise had silver rings made. Ibn ‘Umar رضي الله عنهما says, “After the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه wore the ring, then Sayyiduna ‘Umar رضي الله عنه and then Sayyiduna ‘Uthman رضي الله عنه wore the ring until it fell into the well of Arees.”  [Imam Bukhari رحمه الله in his Saheeh: Book of ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘The Silver Ring’ Hadeeth #1]

In the early stages of Islaam the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a gold ring made until he was informed of its prohibition. It was a habit of the Sahabah رضي الله عنهم to follow the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in every aspect of life. When they saw that he had a gold ring made they also had similar rings made. Sayyiduna Jibreel عليه السلام later informed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that the wearing of gold is prohibited for men, so he took an oath, “I will never wear a gold ring again.” 

The prohibition of adorning oneself with gold is also understood from the following Ahaadith

Sayyiduna ‘Ali رضي الله عنه reports, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took hold of some silk and put it in his right hand and took hold of a piece of gold and put in his left hand and said, ‘These two are totally prohibited for the men of my nation.'” [Imam Abu Dawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘Silk for women’ Hadeeth #1] 

Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه relates, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited the wearing of a gold ring.”  [Imam Bukhari رحمه الله in his Saheeh: Book of ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘Gold rings’ Hadeeth #2] 

Imam an-Nawawi رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Muslim, “The scholars have agreed upon the fact that it is permissible for women to wear gold rings and forbidden for men. Abu Bakr [ Abu Bakr Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Amr Ibn Hazm] رحمه الله  Ibn Muhammad رحمه الله is of the opinion that it is permissible for men, and some others also say that it is Makrooh (Tanzeeh), not Haraam.” 

Imam an-Nawawi رحمه الله further writes, “These two opinions are void due to the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘Silk and gold is prohibited for the men of my nation and permissible for the women.'”  [Shaykh Shamsudeen رحمه الله in Sharhul Muslim lin-Nawawi (This is an abridged version of al-Minhaaj fi Sharhis-Saheehil-Muslim by Imam an-Nawawi رحمه الله): Chapter on ‘The prohibition of wearing a gold ring for men and the abrogation of its permissibility at the beginning of Islam’]

Imam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Muslim, “The scholars have agreed that it is permissible for men to wear silver rings on a general basis.” [Imam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله in al-Mufhim: Chapter on ‘The permissibility wearing a silver ring for men’] 

Imam Muhammad رحمه الله writes in his Muwatta, “It is not permissible for men to wear gold, metal or copper rings but silver is exempted from these. Whereas there is nothing wrong in women wearing gold rings.” [Imam Muhammad Ibn Hasan ash-Shaybaani رحمه الله in al-Muwatta: Chapter on ‘The detestation of wearing a gold ring’] 

Shaykhul Hadeeth Muhammad Zakariyya رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Muwatta lil-Malik recording from the author of Muhalla, “The opinion of the four Imam’s and the clear majority of the scholars is that it is forbidden for men to wear gold rings. A group of scholars have deemed permissible the wearing of gold rings, among whom is Ishaq Ibn Rahawai رحمه الله based on the Hadeeth recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah رحمه الله, ‘Five Sahabah passed away and they were wearing gold rings.'” [Shaykhul-Hadeeth Muhammad Zakariyya رحمه الله in Awjazul Masaalik: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding the wearing of a ring’] 

As for those among the Sahabah رضي الله عنهم who wore gold rings, Hafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says, “If they were aware of the abrogation they would have also refrained from it.” [Hafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘Gold rings’] 

Mufti Taqi Uthmani حفظه الله writes regarding the statement of Hafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله, “It is not possible that this statement is said about Baraa’ Ibn ‘Aazib رضي الله عنه because he himself narrated a Hadeeth about the prohibition of gold for men. The wording of the Hadeeth is: ‘The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered us to carry out seven things and prohibited us from seven.’ Under the seven prohibited things he mentioned the wearing of a gold ring for men. It is possible that he interpreted the prohibition as Tanzeeh or he wore the ring assuming the prohibition to be a concession on his behalf. The Hadeeth recorded by Imam Ahmad رحمه الله indicates towards this fact. Muhammad Ibn Malik رحمه الله says, ‘I saw Baraa’ Ibn ‘Aazib رضي الله عنه wearing a gold ring, upon which he said, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم distributed some wealth and made me wear this and said, ‘Wear that which Allah and His Prophet have given you to wear.'”‘” [Mufti Taqi Uthmaani حفظه الله in Takmilah Fathil-Mulhim: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of wearing a gold ring for men and the abrogation of its permissibility at the beginning of Islam’] 

‘Allamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله mentions in his commentary of Bukhari names of several Sahabah رضي الله عنهم who wore gold rings: 

1. Anas Ibn Maalik رضي الله عنه 
2. Baraa’ Ibn ‘Aazib رضي الله عنه 
3. Jaabir Ibn Samura رضي الله عنه 
4. Huzhaifah Ibn Yamaan رضي الله عنه 
5. Zaid Ibn Arqam رضي الله عنه 
6. Zaid Ibn Haaritha رضي الله عنه 
7. Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqaas رضي الله عنه 
8. Suhaib Ibn Sinaan رضي الله عنه 
9. ‘Abdullah Ibn Yazeed رضي الله عنه 
10. Abu Usayd رضي الله عنه [Allamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘Gold rings’] 

‘Allamah Teebi رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Mishkaat, “The scholars are unanimous upon the fact that it is permissible for women to wear gold ring and prohibited for men.” [Allamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif ‘an Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

What is meant by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم throwing away the ring is explained by ‘Allamah Khaleel Ahmad رحمه الله, “It does not mean he destroyed the ring but it means he donated it to the women folk to acquire benefit from or he donated it’s value to the poor and needy.” [Allamah Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri رحمه الله in Badhlul-Majhood: Book on ‘The Ring’ chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding the making of the ring’] 

‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmeeri رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Bukhari, “The conclusion of this subject is, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم at first wore a gold ring which he threw away. At a later stage he had a silver ring made which he kept in his possession.” [Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmeeri رحمه الله in Faidhul-Baari: Chapter on ‘The Prophet threw away his ring’] 

Hafidh Ibn al-Arabi رحمه الله writes, “When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to write letters to the non-Muslim countries inviting them to Islaam it was said to him, ‘They do not accept documents without a stamp of proof.’ So for this reason the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a ring made. Before this he had a fingernail which he used as a stamp.” [Hafidh Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki رحمه الله in ‘Aaridhatul-Ahwazi: Book on ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘The element which is desirable as a gem of a ring’] 

Hafidh Ibn al-‘Arabi رحمه الله is alone in reporting this view (a fingernail was used as a stamp), so on this basis his report will not be accepted. 

The letters were sent out to Kisraa, Qaysar and Najaashi. Kisraa was the name of the persian king of that time, Qaysar was the name of the roman king and Najaashi was a title used for the abyssinian (habashi) kings. [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

The Wearing of a Ring is only Sunnah for those persons who need it

Imam at-Tahaawi رحمه الله records a Hadeeth on the authority of Abu Rayhaanah رضي الله عنه, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited the wearing of a ring other than a Zhee Sultaan (a person who has power, authority, or rule).” He writes, “A group of scholars are of the opinion that it is Makrooh for anyone to wear a ring other than by a Zhee Sultaan.” Further on he writes, “Another group acting contrary to this say, there is nothing wrong in wearing a ring whether he be a Zhee Sultaan or a common person.” [Imaam at-Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aanil-Aathaar: Chapter on ‘The wearing of a ring other than a Zhee Sultaan’] 

Also a similar Hadeeth has been recorded by Imaam Abu Daawood [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Book on ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘Those who label silk Makrooh’ Hadeeth #6] and Imaam an-Nasaa’ee [Imaam an-Nasaa’ee رحمه الله in his Sunan: Book on ‘Adorment’ chapter on ‘The plucking of the hair’ Hadeeth #1] on the authority of Abu Rayhaanah رضي الله عنه. In this, Abu Rayhaanah رضي الله عنه mentions that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited us from ten things, and the last thing he mentioned was, “The wearing of a ring other than by a Zhee Sultaan.” 

‘Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad رحمه الله says, “Some scholars derive from this Hadeeth that it is Makooh for anyone other than a Zhee Sultaan to wear a ring. But the clear majority of the scholars are of the opinion that it is permissible.” [Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri رحمه الله in Badhlul-Majhood: Book on ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘Those who label silk Makrooh’] 

‘Allaamah Zarqaani رحمه الله writes about the Hadeeth of Abu Rayhaanah رضي الله عنه recorded by Imaam Abu Daawood and Imaam an-Nasaa’ee, “Imaam Maalik classified it Dha’eef when questioned about it and also Imaam Ahmad.” 

Mufti Taqi Uthmaani حفظه الله writes, “The reason of its weakness has not become clear to me except that Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله says after recording it, ‘The narrator is alone in mentioning the ruling of the ring.’ He further writes, ‘Even if the authenticity of this Hadeeth is established then the prohibition will be from the degree of Tanzeeh.’ ‘Allaamah Khattaabi رحمه الله has indicated towards this fact in his Ma’aalimus-Sunan, ‘It is appropriate that the wearing of a ring be Makrooh (Tanzeeh) for everyone except a Zhee Sultaan otherwise it will be worn only fashion.” Also this is the opinion chosen by al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله, regarding which he says, ‘It is apparent that the wearing of a ring other than by a Zhee Sultaan is contrary to that which is preferable because it is a type of beauty and men’s nature is against this. The Ahaadeeth, which indicate towards its permissibility, are to divert the prohibition from the level of Tahreem. This view is also stengthened by a few sources, wherein the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has prohibited men from adorning themselves.” [Mufti Taqi Uthmaani حفظه الله in Takmilah Fathil-Mulhim: Chapter on ‘The wearing of a silver ring from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “With the exception of a Zhee Sultaan, to refrain from wearing a ring is preferable because it is only worn for beauty and fashion.” [‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘The wearing of the ring on the small finger’] 

Shaykhul-Hadeeth Muhammad Zakariyya رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Muwattaa lil-Maalik, recording from the author of Muhalla, “The scholars have disputed regarding the permissibility of wearing a silver ring. A large group is of the opinion that it is permissible on a general basis. Some say that it is Makrooh when a person intends beauty, and others say it is Makrooh with the exception of a Zhee Sultaan. The correct opinion according to the Shaafi’ee and Maalikee schools of law, is of its permissibility.” [Shaykhul-Hadeeth Muhammad Zakariyya رحمه الله in Awjazul-Masaalik: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding the wearing of a ring’] 

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes in relation to this issue, “It has been recorded from a group of Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم and Taabi’een رحمة الله عليهم that they would wear rings even though they were not considered to be among the Zhee Sultaan. It is possible that the word Zhee Sultaan refers to any person who has authority or rule in any field, not only a leader.” [al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘The making of a ring to stamp a document or to write letters to the non-believers and others’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله commenting on the statement, “The wearing of a ring for anyone other than a king or a judge is permissible,” writes, “This indicates that it is only Sunnah for him who needs a ring.” 

The author of at-Taatarkhaaniyya records from al-Bustaan, “Some scholars say it is Makrooh for a person other than a leader to wear a ring, whereas another group say it is permissible.” 

It has been narrated on the authority of Yoonus Ibn Ishaaq رحمه الله that he said, “I saw Qais Ibn Abi Haazim, ‘Abdur Rahmaan Ibn al-Aswad and ash-Sha’bee wearing rings on their left hands and they were not Zhee Sultaan.” 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله concludes, “The author of al-Ikhtiyaar’s statement is distinct in this matter, ‘The wearing of a ring is Sunnah for a person who needs it, like a leader or a judge and also those who come under this category.” [Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book of ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله states, “The Hanafee scholars have linked the Karaaha of wearing a ring to the degree of Tanzeeh because the Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم wore rings at the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم regardless of them being leaders or not.” He also states regarding Imaam at-Tahaawi’s text, “The wearing of a ring has been established from a group of Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم who were not Zhee Sultaan. It has been recorded from Hasan رضي الله عنه and Husayn رضي الله عنه that they wore rings on their left hands. Also from Ibn al-Hanafiyyah رحمه الله that he wore a ring on his left hand, from Qais Ibn Abi Haazim رحمه الله, ‘Abdur Rahmaan Ibn al-Aswad رحمه الله, Qais Ibn Thumaamah رحمه الله and ash-Sha’bee رحمه الله that they wore rings on their left hands. This is not correct, these people were not only leading authorities who were followed in every aspect of life, but they were also scholars, jurists and a few were among the commanders like Hasan رضي الله عنه and Husayn رضي الله عنه.” 

The word Zhee Sultaan does not only refer to a leader but it also includes those who have any type of authority or power in any field. [‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘Prohibition from wearing a ring for other than a Zhee Sultaan’] 

The Ring Should Be Worn On The Right Hand

Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله relates in his Sunan on the authority of Sayyiduna ‘Ali رضي الله عنه, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would wear his ring on his right hand.” [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding wearing a ring on the right and left hands’ Hadeeth #1] 

He also relates on the authority of Sayyiduna ‘Umar رضي الله عنه, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would wear a ring on his left hand.” [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding wearing a ring on the right and left hands’ Hadeeth #2] 

‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله writes in his commentary of Mishkaat, commenting on the Hadeeth, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would wear a ring on his right hand,” “The last action of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in relation to this matter was wearing the ring on his left hand. But there is no disagreement in the Ahaadeeth regarding the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wearing a ring on his right and left hands because both actions are permissible. He would at times wear it on his right hand and other times on his left hand. Also there is no Hadeeth indicating clearly the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم consistency or steadfastness on any one practise. The scholars unanimously agree regarding the permissibility of wearing a ring on both hands. There is disagreement as to which hand is more virtuous. The most authentic opinion in our Madhhab is wearing the ring on the right hand, because the ring itself is a sign of elegance and the right is more worthy and rightful of being adorned.” [‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif ‘an Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes that Imaam Baghawi رحمه الله has mentioned in his Sharhus-Sunnah, “At first the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wore the ring on his right hand and later transferred it to his left hand and this was his last practise in this matter.” In relation to this issue there is a dispute among the Shaafi’ee scholars. The most authentic opinion is wearing the ring on the right hand. Preference is given to the right hand because the left hand is used to clean the private parts. By wearing the ring on the right hand no kind of impurity will reach it. This is the opinion of one group, whereas another group does not give preference to either. Imaam Abu Daawood’s chapter, “The wearing of a ring on the right and left hands” also indicates towards this fact. [al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘He who kept the stone of his ring facing his palm’] 

It is mentioned in Fataawa ‘Aalamgeeri, “The ruling of wearing the ring on the right hand is Mansookh.” [Fataawa ‘Aalamgeeri: Book on ‘Detestable actions’] 

Imaam Bayhaqi رحمه الله says, “The ruling of wearing the ring on the right hand is Mansookh.” As evidence he presents the Hadeeth recorded by Ibn ‘Adi رحمه الله and others, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wore a ring on his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand,” Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله says, “This was not the permanent practise of the Prophet, so therefore it will not lead to Naskh. The most that can be said is, the left hand is more virtuous. Also, this is the most authentic opinion in our Madhhab.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

‘Allaamah Zarqaani رحمه الله writes, “Even though the apparent meaning of the Hadeeth leads one to think that the ruling is Mansookh, but this is not correct.” Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says, “If this Hadeeth was established it would bring an end to all disagreements in this matter, but it’s chain of narration is Dha’eef.” [Sharhus Zarqaani: Chapter on ‘The inscription on the ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “Imaam Maalik رحمه الله is of the opinion that it is perferable to wear the ring on the left hand and Makrooh to wear it on the right hand.” He was asked, could a person wear a ring on his right hand due to necessity? He replied, “There is nothing wrong with that.” ‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله further writes, “A person should wear the ring on the small finger of his left hand and refrain from wearing it on the right hand and also from any other finger.” [‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘He who kept the stone of his ring facing his palm’] 

al-Faqeeh Abu al-Laith رحمه الله has balanced the ruling by saying that there is no difference whether a person wears the ring on his right or left hand. ‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله says, “A person should wear a ring on the small finger of the left hand and abstain from wearing it on any other finger and the right hand.” [‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله writes in his book of Islamic Law relating from al-Qahastaani رحمه الله and others, “A person should wear the ring on his left hand. It has also been said that it should be worn on the right hand except that is has become a tradition and trend of the Rawaafidh (Shi’a), so it is necessary to refrain from this.” [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul-Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله commenting on this statement writes that it was a tradition of the Rawaafidh in those days but as for now this no longer remains. (One should keep in mind ‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله lived from 1198 to 1252 A.H.). Some also say to wear it on the right hand is a sign of unjust people but this holds no weight because authentic Ahaadeeth contradict this. [Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “The correct opinion is that to wear a ring on the left hand is more accurate even though authentic Ahaadeeth establish the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wearing a ring on his right hand, but his practise remained on the left.” [‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in al-Binaayah: Book on ‘Detestable actions’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

Muhaddith Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi رحمه الله mentions, elaborating on the tradition, “Hasan رضي الله عنه and Husayn رضي الله عنه both wore rings on the left hand,” “Although this is permissible but now he Rawaafidh made this their trend so it has become Makrooh for us.” [Muhaddith Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi رحمه الله in al-Kawkab ad-Durri: Chapter on ‘The clothing of the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم] 

It is possible that during the lifetime of ‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen, the Rawaafidh had abandoned their tradition of wearing a ring on the right hand. During the lifetime of Muhaddith Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi (1244 to 1323 A.H.) they had adopted the custom of wearing a ring on the left hand, for this reason this practise was regarded unworthy of being practised upon. 

‘Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad رحمه الله further explains, “The Hanafi scholars have prohibited the wearing of a ring on the left hand from the time this became a custom of the Ahlul-Bid’ah (Innovators, meaning the Rawaafidh). Without doubt it is forbidden to imitate the Ahlul-Ahwaa (any group who follows their whims and desires) as it is forbidden to imitate the non-believers. The scholars may have differed in relation to their belief but for certain they are Fussaaq (grave sinners) and to imitate the Fussaaq is not permissible.” [Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri رحمه الله in Badhlul-Majhood: Book on ‘The ring’ Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding wearing a ring on the right and left hands’] 

The Ring Should Be Worn On The Small Finger

Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه relates that the ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was on this finger, and he pointed to the small finger of the left hand. [Imaam Muslim رحمه الله: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the abrogation of it’s permissibility in the beginning of Islaam’ Hadeeth #20] 

Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله writes, commenting on this Hadeeth, “There is no controversy or dispute amongst the scholars nor the practise of the predecessors that for a man to wear a ring on the small finger is more virtuous as opposed to the other fingers. This is because the ring is more safeguarded and protected whilst carrying out daily work.” He further writes that if a person wears a ring on his ring finger then this is also permissible. [Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله in al-Mufhim: Chapter on ‘The wearing of a ring for men on the small finger’] 

Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه relates that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade me from wearing a ring on this finger and this finger. The narrator says that he pointed to the middle and index fingers. [Imaam Muslim رحمه الله: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the abrogation of it’s permissibility in the beginning of Islaam’ Hadeeth #24] 

‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله, commenting on this tradition, writes that it is Makrooh for a man to wear a ring on his middle and index fingers. This Karaaha is from the degree of Tanzeeh. [Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif ‘an Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal رحمه الله says, “It is Makrooh to wear a ring on the middle and index fingers.” [Allaamah Qastallaani رحمه الله in al-Mawaahib al-Laduniyyah: Chapter on ‘The inscription on the ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes that it is mentioned in al-Ajnaas that it is preferable for a man to wear a ring on the small finger of the left hand. [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in al-Binaayah: Book on ‘Detestable actions’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen writes, recording from Zhakheerah that it is preferable to wear the ring on the small finger of the left hand, as opposed to all the other fingers and the right hand. [Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

Imaam Ibn Maajah رحمه الله relates on the authority of Sayyiduna ‘Ali رضي الله عنه that, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited me from wearing a ring on the thumb and small finger.” [Imaam Ibn Maajah رحمه الله in his Sunan: Book on ‘Clothing and things pertaining to it’ chapter on ‘Wearing a ring on the thumb’] 

‘Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad رحمه الله writes, “The scholars are unanimous that the ring should be worn on the small finger.” [Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri رحمه الله in Badhlul-Majhood: Book on ‘The ring’ chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding a metal ring’] 

The opinion attributed to the majority of the scholars seems to contradict the above Hadeeth recorded by Imaam Ibn Maajah رحمه الله. Shaykh ‘Abdul Ghani رحمه الله writes, “It is possible that Sayyiduna ‘Ali رضي الله عنه was prohibited due to a valid excuse or he was prohibited from combining two rings at one time.” [Shaykh ‘Abdul Ghani Dehlawi رحمه الله in Injaahul-Haajah: Book on ‘Clothing and things pertaining to it’ chapter on ‘Wearing a ring in the thumb’] 

The Stone (Gem) Of The Ring Should Be Facing The Palm

Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه reports, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wore a silver ring on his right hand and on it was a stone from Abyssinia (Habshah). He also kept the stone facing his palm.” [Imaam Muslim رحمه الله: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the abrogation of it’s permissibility in the beginning of Islaam’ Hadeeth #18] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes that Ibn Battaal رحمه الله said, “There is no prohibition or command in the Ahaadeeth regarding the stone facing inwards or outwards, both of these methods are permissible.” [‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘He who kept the stone of his ring facing his palm’] 

Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله relates a tradition on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaaq رحمه الله wherein he says, “I saw as-Salt Ibn ‘Abdullah رحمه الله wearing a ring on the small finger of his right hand. I questioned him, ‘Why are you wearing the ring in this manner?’ He replied, ‘I saw Ibn ‘Abbaas رضي الله عنهما wearing his ring in this manner.'” As-Salt Ibn ‘Abdullah رحمه الله further says, “I think he also mentioned I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wearing the ring in this manner.” [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding wearing a ring on the right and left hands’ Hadeeth #4] 

‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله writes that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم kept the stone facing inwards because it protects a person from pride and conceit. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not give any order or command regarding this, so it is permissible to keep the stone facing outwards. The pious predecessors (Salaf) have practised both methods. [‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif ‘An Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله says that it is permissible to wear the ring with the stone facing outwards because there are narration’s mentioning the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم doing this. [Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله in al-Mufhim: Chapter on ‘The wearing of a ring and keeping the stone facing inwards’] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله says that the ring should be worn with the stone facing inwards. [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul-Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

The author of al-Hidaaya mentions this statement with the addition, “…contrary to women, because it is a type of beauty and fashion for them.” [Allaamah Burhaan-uddeen al-Marghinaani رحمه الله in al-Hidaaya: Book on ‘Detestable actions’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله, commenting on this, writes, “Men should keep the stone of the ring facing inwards because they wear it due to necessity, whereas women wear it for beauty.” [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in al-Binaayah: Book on ‘Detestable actions’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم Had Several Rings

Imaam Muslim رحمه الله relates on the authority of Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه that, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a silver ring and on it was a stone from Abyssinia.” [Imaam Muslim رحمه الله: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the abrogation of it’s permissibility in the beginning of Islaam’ Hadeeth #17] 

Imaam Bukhaari رحمه الله also relates from Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه that, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a silver ring and the stone was also silver.” [Imaam Bukhaari رحمه الله: Book on ‘Clothing’ chapter on ‘The stone of the ring’] 

These two Ahaadeeth apparently seem to contradict one another. Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله writes, “In reality there is no contradiction. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a few rings. One had an Abyssinian stone whereas another had a silver stone. It has also been narrated that he wore a ring with a carnelian (‘Aqeeq) stone.” [Imaam Qurtubi رحمه الله in al-Mufhim: Chapter on ‘The permissibility of engraving a person’s name in a ring’] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله writes that Imaam Bayhaqi says in Shu’ab, “The two aforementioned Ahaadeeth indicate that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had two seperate rings. One which had an Abyssinian stone, and another which had a silver stone.” Haafidh Ibn ‘Abdul Barr رحمه الله says that the narration mentioning the stone being of silver is the most authentic. Another group of scholars mentions otherwise. Imaam Nawawi رحمه الله, after recording both statements, writes that both of these opinions are correct. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم at one time had a ring with an Abyssinian stone, and at another time had a ring with a silver stone. ‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله says that the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never wore more than one ring at one time is agreed upon, whereas him not making more than one ring is not. It is an established fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took a ring from Khaalid Ibn Sa’d رضي الله عنه or ‘Amr Ibn Sa’eed رضي الله عنه, and also that Ya’laa Ibn Umayya رضي الله عنه made a ring for him. [Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the permissibility of a silver ring for them] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله says that the loop of the ring is taken into consideration not the ring itself, thereby it is permissible that the stone be plain, carnelian-red or even ruby. [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul-Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes that it is mentioned in al-Ajnaas, “There is nothing wrong for a man to wear a silver ring with a silver stone. Also if the stone is onyx, carnelian-red, turquoise, ruby or emerald.” [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in al-Binaayah: Book on ‘Detestable actions’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

It Is Permissible To Wear A Ring Made From Carnelian

Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari رحمه الله says regarding the Hadeeth, “Wear a ring made from carnelian (‘Aqeeq) because it is blessed,” “‘Aqeeli has recorded it in ad-Du’afaa, Ibn Laal in Makaarimul-Akhlaaq, al-Haakim in his Taareekh, al-Bayhaqi, al-Khateeb, Ibn ‘Asaakir and ad-Daylami in Musnadul-Firdaus on the authority of Ummul Mu’mineen ‘Aa’isha رضي الله عنها. Numerous transmissions indicate that this Hadeeth does have an origin. Ibn ‘Adi has also narrated this Hadeeth in al-Kaamil on the authority of Anas رضي الله عنه with a different text, ‘Wear a ring made from carnelian (‘Aqeeq) because it removes poverty.'” [Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله writes, “It is mentioned in Shira’tul-Islaam that to wear a ring made from carnelian or silver is Sunnah. The commentator of Shira’tul-Islaam writes, ‘One should know that it has been said that to wear a ring made from carnelian is Haraam because it is a stone. Imaam Abu Haneefa has preferred this opinion.'” [Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the permissibility of a silver ring for them’] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله writes, “Shamsul A’imma Sarakhsi has authenticated the permissibility of wearing a ring made from jasper and carnelian.” [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul-Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله says, “Qaadi Khaan is also inclined to this opinion.” [‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The metal ring and others’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله writes, recording from Ghurarul-Afkaar, “The most authentic view is that there is nothing wrong in wearing a ring made from carnelian because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wore a ring made from carnelian, and he also said, ‘Wear a ring made from carnelian because it is blessed.'” ‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله further writes, “The correct opinion regarding wearing a ring made from jasper is that it is not permissible because idols are made from this. For this reason it has become like brass, and regarding brass there are clear injunctions which attest to its prohibition.” [Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم Would Not Wear A Ring Constantly

Imaam an-Nisaa’ee رحمه الله reports on the authority of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar رضي الله عنهما, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a silver ring made which he would use to stamp and he would not wear it.” [Imaam Nisaa’ee رحمه الله: Chapter ‘The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم threw away the ring and refrained from wearing it’] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله writes, “The meaning of this Hadeeth is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would not wear a ring constantly.” [Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The prohibition of a gold ring for men and the permissibility of a silver ring for them’] 

The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم Ring Fell From The Hands Of ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه Into The Well Of Arees

Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes, “Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه was given the responsibility of looking after the ring.” [Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “The ring was in the possession of Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه for a period of six years, and in the seventh year it fell into the well.” [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines] 

‘Allaamah Baghawi رحمه الله writes in his Sharhus-Sunnah, “The ring fell from the hands of Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه into the well of Aress.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Haafidh Ibn Katheer writes that in the year 30 A.H. the Prophet’s ring fell from the hands of ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه into the well of Arees. [Haafidh Ibn Katheer رحمه الله in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah: Chapter on ‘The events which took place in 30 A.H.’] 

Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes, “The well of Arees is in a garden near the masjid of Quba. The ring falling from the hands of Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه (mentioned in the previous Hadeeth) is possibly a metaphorical indication or vice versa. Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه asked for the ring from Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه to stamp a document with. He was deeply concerned about some matter which caused him to fiddle with the ring. Then accidentally it fell into the well. Or he returned it to Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه and then it fell in.” [Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘The silver ring’] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari رحمه الله writes, “The apparent text of the Hadeeth indicates that the ring fell from the hands of Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه. Also, in another Hadeeth it is explicitly mentioned that the ring fell from the hands of Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه, who was made responsible for looking after it. It is possible that one of them handed the ring to the other, the other one came forward to take the ring and it fell. For this reason, the falling of the ring has been attributed to both of them. But still an objection can be raised against the Hadeeth recorded by Imaam Bukhaari رحمه الله on the authority of Anas رضي الله عنه. When Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه at the well of Arees, he took out the ring and started to fiddle about with it, when all of a sudden it fell. (The narrator says) ‘We remained with Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه for three days, draining out the water, but we couldn’t find it. Also, the Hadeeth recorded by Imaam an-Nisaa’ee رحمه الله, that Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه asked for the ring from Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه to stamp a document. He was deeply concerned about some matter which caused him to fiddle with the ring, when all of a sudden it fell. This Hadeeth also answers the question as to why Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه indulged himself in futile work.” [Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘The silver ring’] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “After Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه lost the ring in the well of Arees, he had another one made with the same inscription.” [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul-Qaari: Chapter on ‘The statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, ‘No one should engrave as I have engraved on my ring’] 

Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes, “Some of the scholars have said that there is a secret about the ring of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, which was also in the ring of Prophet Sulaymaan عليه السلام.” The reason is that when Prophet Sulaymaan عليه السلام lost his ring, along with it he also lost his kingdom. And when Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه lost the ring of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, all the affairs collapsed on him. The Khawaarij rebelled against him and this was the beginning of the corruption and evil that ultimately led to his martyrdom, and also, affairs will remain like this until the last day. [Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines’] 

It Is Permissible To Engrave Any Name On The Stone (Gem) Of The Ring

Imaam Bukhaari رحمه الله reports on the authority of Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a silver ring made, and he engraved ‘Muhammad Rasool Allaah’ on it. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “I have made a silver ring and I have engraved on it ‘Muhammad Rasool Allaah.’ No one should engrave on their rings as I have engraved.” [Imaam Bukhaari رحمه الله: Chapter on ‘The statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, “No one should engrave as I have engraved on my ring” Hadeeth #1’] 

Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says, “Abul-Fath al-Ya’muri claims the ring was made in the 7th yearh A.H and others claim it was made in the 6th year A.H.” It is possible that these two opinions are combined, by saying that it was made sometime at the end of the 6th year and the beginning of the 7th year. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم sent letters during the truce period, which was in Dhul-Qa’dah of the 6th year, then he returned to Madeenah in Dhul-Hijjah and sent some messengers in the month of al-Muharram. The ring was made before the messengers were sent to the neighbouring non-Muslim countries. 

He further says, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade them from engraving an inscription like his because the purpose of his ring was to be used as a stamp. This was a special mark through which his ring could be distinguished from others. Now if it was permissible for others to have the same inscription the initial purpose will no longer remain.” [Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fathul-Baari: Chapter on ‘The making of a ring to stamp a document or to write letters to the non-believers and others’] 

‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله writes, “The ring was made to stamp letters and documents, which were sent out to the neighbouring non-Muslim countries. So therefore if anyone was to have the same inscription it will cause disorder and confusion.” [Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif ‘An Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Imaam al-Qurtubi رحمه الله writes, commenting on, “The inscription on the ring was Muhammad Rasool Allaah,” “This is evidence proving that it is permissible for a person to engrave their own name on their ring. Excluding the name Muhammad even if it is the person’s own name. This is not permissible because we have been prohibited from this in the Hadeeth. Also, the Hadeeth is evidence proving that it is permissible to engrave the name of Allah, words of wisdom or even verses of the Holy Qur’aan.” [Imaam Qurtubi رحمه الله in al-Mufhim: Chapter on ‘The permissibility of engraving a person’s name on a ring’] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله writes, “Some scholars are of the opinion that it is Makrooh to engrave the name of Allaah on one’s ring.” Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says, “This opinion holds no weight. I quote, ‘When a person’s name is ‘Abdullaah, then without doubt this is not Makrooh.'” [Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Muhaddith Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi رحمه الله says, “The prohibition of engraving the name Muhammad on one’s ring no longer remains, because it won’t cause any confusion or dispute.” [Muhaddith Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi رحمه الله in al-Kawkab ad-Durri: Chapter on ‘The clothing off the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم’] 

The Inscription Can Be In Any Language

Imaam at-Tahaawi رحمه الله reports on the authority of Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه, that Sayyiduna ‘Umar رضي الله عنه said, “It is not permissible to engrave Arabic on one’s ring.” He also reports another tradition on the authority of Sayyiduna Anas, that the Prophet said, “Do not engrave in Arabic.” [Imaam Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aanil-Aathar: Chapter on ‘The inscription on rings’]

A group of scholars are of the opnion that it is Makrooh to engrave anything in Arabic, and as evidence they present this Hadeeth. They also say that there is nothing wrong if the inscription is other than Arabic. This is not correct, and it is contrary to the practise of the pious predecessors. What Sayyiduna ‘Umar رضي الله عنه actually meant is explained in the following Hadeeth. 

Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه says, “I asked Hasan رضي الله عنه as to what this statement, ‘Do not engrave in Arabic,’ means. He Replied, ‘Do not engrave on your rings Muhammad Rasool Allaah.'” [Imaam Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aanil-Aathar: Chapter on ‘The inscription on rings’] 

Listed below are various inscriptions of rings belonging to some of the Sahaaba رضي الله عنهم and great scholars after them: (Only the translation of the inscriptions are listed and Arabic text has been omitted): 

Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه : “What an excellent Master Allaah is” 

Sayyiduna ‘Umar رضي الله عنه : “Death is a sufficient advisor” 

Sayyiduna ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه : “You will indeed observe patience or you will be remorseful” 

Sayyiduna ‘Ali رضي الله عنه : “All authority belongs to Allah” 

Imaam Abu Haneefa رحمه الله: “Speak good otherwise remain silent” 

Imaam Abu Yusuf رحمه الله: “Whoever acts upon individual judgement will be remorseful” 

Imaam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan رحمه الله: “Whoever observes patience will be successful” [Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

These are the great Sahaaba رضي الله عنهم and scholars after them. They were all pious and god fearing people. How is it possible that they act contrary to the commandments of the beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Also, their practise indicates that it is permissible to engrave rings in Arabic. 

‘Allaamah Zarqaani رحمه الله writes that it is recorded in Ikleel by Imaam Haakim, “Sayyiduna Aadam عليه السلام made a ring and he engraved on it ‘Laa ilaaha illAllaah, Muhammadur Rasool Allaah.'” (This is a Marfoo’ narration). It is also mentioned in Nawaadir al-Usool, “The inscriptionon the ring of Sayyiduna Moosa عليه السلام was, “For every generation there are a set of laws.” Imaam Tabaraani رحمه الله records, “The gem on the ring of Sayyiduna Sulaymaan عليه السلام was divine. It was offered to him as a gift, which he willingly accepted. He placed it on his ring, and the inscription on it was, ‘I am Allaah there is no Lord except me, Muhammad is My servant and messenger.” [Sharhus-Zarqaani: Chapter on ‘The inscription on the ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم’] 

The Weight Of The Ring Should Not Exceed A Mithqaal

Sayyiduna Buraidah رضي الله عنه relates, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to a person who came to him wearing a bronze ring, ‘What is it that I smell from you the odour of idols?’ (The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم made this remark out of dislike) so the person threw away the ring. The person came again, but this time with a metal ring on. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him, ‘What is it that I see on you an ornament of the dwellers of Hell?’ So the person threw this ring and asked, ‘O Prophet of Allah! What should I make the ring out of?’ He صلى الله عليه وسلم replied, ‘Make it out of silver, and the weight should not exceed one Mithqaal.'” [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding metal rings’ Hadeeth #1] 

Mithqaal is the singular of Mathaaqeel. It weighs one dinaar, which is equivalent to 72 grains of barley. In Egypt it is equal to 24 Qeeraat. The author of Ahsanul-Fataawa writes, “The weight of the ring should be less than 4.86g.”  

‘Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله writes, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, regarding the bronze ring, ‘I smell from you the odor of idols,’ because in those days the idols were made from bronze. And he صلى الله عليه وسلم said, in regards to the metal ring, ‘An ornament of the dwellers of Hell,’ because metal was considered to be a type of jewellery for the non-believers, and the non-believers are the dwellers of Hell.” [Allaamah Teebi رحمه الله in al-Kaashif al-Haqaaiqis-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله writes, commentating on this Hadeeth, “Ibn Malik says, reporting from Mazhar, ‘The preferable view is that it should not weigh more than a Mithqaal, because it safeguards a person from extravagance. A group of the Shaafi’ee scholars are of the opinion that to exceed a Mithqaal is totally forbidden, and others have given preference to the view of permissibility. Among them is Haafidh ‘Iraaqi رحمه الله, who had labelled the aforementioned prohibition to the degree of Tanzeeh.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

The author of al-Ikhtiyaar says, “It is Sunnah that the weight of the ring be equivalent to one Mithqaal or less.” [al-Ikhtiyaar: Chapter on ‘Detestable actions’] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله says, “The weight of the ring should not exceed a Mithqaal.” [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul-Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

The Inscription On The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم Ring Was “Muhammad Rasool Allaah”

Imaam al-Bukhaari رحمه الله relates on the authority of Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه, “The inscription on the ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was on three lines: Muhammad on one line, Rasool on another line and Allaah on the other line.” [Imaam al-Bukhaari رحمه الله in his Saheeh: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines’] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله writes, recording from Meerak رحمه الله: “The apparent and obvious meaning of this Hadeeth is that the inscription on the ring was ‘Muhammad Rasool Allaah’ without any addition. But Abu Shaykh رحمه الله relates in Akhlaaqun Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم a narration of Ar’ara رحمه الله wherein he says, ‘Ibn Thaabit رحمه الله reports from Anas Ibn Maalik رضي الله عنه that he said, “The ring of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had an Abyssinian stone and the inscription on it was ‘Laa Ilaaha Illallaah Muhammad Rasool Allaah.”‘ Ibn al-Madeeeni رحمه الله has classified this as Dha’eef, so therefore this addition is now Shaazh. Also, a different addition has been recorded by Ibn Sa’d رحمه الله on the authority of Imaam Ibn Seereen رحمه الله as ‘Bismillaah Muhammad Rasool Allaah,’ but this is also Shaazh, and no one else has followed him in this narration (This is a Mursal narration).” He further says, “It has been mentioned from Taawoos رحمه الله, al-Hasan al-Basri رحمه الله, Ibraaheem an-Nakhaa’ee رحمه الله, Saalim Ibn ‘Abdillaah رحمه الله and others that there is no addition to Muhammad Rasool Allaah (This is also a Mursal narration).” Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله then says, strengthening this view, “There is no doubt that an addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted. It is possible that the Prophet had a few rings.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

‘Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad رحمه الله writes, “Some scholars say that the inscription on the ring was engraved in the correct manner (not back to front), and when it was used as a stamp it would also come out in the correct manner. In addition to this they say that this was among the distinctions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).” [Allaamah Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri رحمه الله in Badhlul-Majhood: Book on ‘The ring’ chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding the making of the ring’] 

Haafidh Ibn Katheer رحمه الله says, “There is a defect in the authenticity of this opinion also. I do not know of any Saheeh or Da’eef Hadeeth mentioning this.” [Haafidh Ibn Katheer رحمه الله in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah: Chapter on ‘Omitting the ring’] 

Meerak رحمه الله says, “It is apparent that the inscription on the ring was in the sequence mentioned in the Hadeeth, but with the inscription engraved back to front, because for the stamp to come out straight it is necessary that the inscription be in this manner.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

Ibn Battaal رحمه الله says, “The inscription being on two or three lines is not more virtuous than it being on one line.” [Sharhus Zarqaani: Chapter on ‘The inscription on the ring of the Prophet (peace be upon him)] 

‘Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله writes, “It is permissible to have an incription one one, two or three seperate lines.” [Allaamah ‘Aynee رحمه الله in ‘Umdatul Qaari: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines’] 

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes, “Some scholars are of the view that the inscription on the ring was written from the bottom to the top, meaning Allaah on the top line, Rasool on the middle line and Muhammad on the bottome line. I have not found any Hadeeth explicitly mentioning this, and also their view appears to contradict this Hadeeth.” [al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله in Fat’hul-Baari: Chapter on ‘Should the inscription of the ring be engraved on three lines] 

The aforementioned opinions of the scholars regarding the sequence of the inscription on the ring were based on possibilities, and not facts. Now, because copies of the documents and letters stamped by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are found in various contries of the world, we have come to know that the insciption was in this manner. Allaah engraved on the first line, Rasool on the second line and Muhammad on the third line. [This has been mentioned in Majmu’atul-Wathaaiq as-Siyaasiya] 

It Is Permissible To Wear A Silver-Plated Ring

Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله relates, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had a metal ring which had a coating of silver, only sometimes he would keep it in his possession. Sayyiduna Mu’ayqeeb رضي الله عنه was made responsible for looking after it.” [Imaam Abu Daawood رحمه الله in his Sunan: Chapter on ‘The narration’s regarding metal rings’ Hadeeth #2. He records this Hadeeth on the authority of Eyyas Ibn Harith رحمه الله who relates from his grandad.] 

‘Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله writes, “There is no prohibition in the Ahaadeeth pertaining to metal rings with silver coatings.” [Allaamah Dhafar Ahmad ‘Uthmaani رحمه الله in I’laaus-Sunan: Chapter on ‘The metal ring and others] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله writes after recording this Hadeeth, “The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would stamp documents with this ring but he would not wear it.” [Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله says, recording from at-Taatarkhaaniyyah, “There is nothing wrong in making a metal ring where the silver covers the ring in such a manner that the metal can no longer be seen.” [‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ Chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

The Prohibition Of Engraving Pictures On Rings

Imaam at-Tahaawi رحمه الله reports that al-Qaasim رحمه الله said, “‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood رضي الله عنه had two flies engraved on his ring.” [Imaam Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aaanil-Aathaar: Chapter on ‘The inscriptions on rings’ Hadeeth #3] 

Imaam at-Tahaawi رحمه الله also reports, “Huzaifah رضي الله عنه had two cranes engraved in his ring.” [Imaam Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aaanil-Aathaar: Chapter on ‘The inscriptions on rings’ Hadeeth #4] 

Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله writes, “It is not permissible to engrave pictures of humans or birds on rings.” [Imaam Haskafi رحمه الله in ad-Durrul Mukhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله writes, regarding the reason for this prohibition, “This practise has been prohibited because it is not permissible to draw or take pictures of living beings.” He also writes, recording from at-Taatarkhaaniyyah, “Al-Faqeeh Abu Layth رحمه الله says, ‘If a person has a picture of a living being on his silver ring then this is not Makrooh, not like the pictures in houses and clothes because the pictures on rings will be small.'” [‘Allaamah Ibn ‘Aabideen رحمه الله in Raddul-Muhtaar: Book on ‘Prohibited and permitted acts’ chapter on ‘Clothing’] 

‘Abdur Rahman رحمه الله relates that his father رحمه الله said, “I saw on the hands of Abu Burdah رحمه الله who is the son of Abu Musa al-Ash’aree رضي الله عنه a ring with a stone. A lion and a lioness along with a child were engraved on the stone of the ring.” Abu Burdah رحمه الله says, “The ring used to belong to the person regarding whom the people of this town believe to be the Prophet Daaniyaal عليه السلام. My father Abu Musa al-Ash’aree رضي الله عنه took this ring from him on the day of his buriel.” Abu Burdah رحمه الله further says, “Abu Musa al-Ash’aree رضي الله عنه asked the scholars of the village regarding the inscription on the ring. They replied, ‘Some astrologers along with some other knowledgeable people approached the king of the Prophet Daaniyaal’s عليه السلام era. They said to him, “On such and such a night, a boy will be born who will criticise and corrupt your kingdom.” The king said, “I swear by Allah that no child will remain alive for that night except that I will kill him.” All the children were killed, except that the Prophet Daaniyaal عليه السلام was thrown into the den of some lions. A lion and lioness both passed the night gently stroking him, and they did not cause him any harm. Some time later his mother came and found him being stroked by the lion and lioness. Thus Allaah the Almighty had saved him in this manner.'” Abu Burdah رحمه الله also relates, “Abu Musa al-Ash’aree رضي الله عنه further said, ‘The scholars of the village mentioned that the Prophet Daaniyaal عليه السلام had a picture of himself and the lion and lioness stroking him engraved on his ring. This was so that he does not forget the favours that Allaah bestowed on him.'” [Haafidh Ibn Katheer رحمه الله in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah: Chapter on ‘Some information regarding Daaniyaal (peace be upon him)] 

Imaam at-Taahawi رحمه الله writes in relation to those who had pictures engraved on their rings, “It is possible that it was permissible at one time, but later they engraved in Arabic over it.” He further writes, “Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه would dislike that people engrave pictures on their rings.” He would say, “When a person uses such a ring to stamp then it is as if he has drawn a picture.” [Imaam Tahaawi رحمه الله in Sharh Ma’aaanil-Aathaar: Chapter on ‘The inscriptions on rings’] 

Muhaddith ‘Ali al-Qaari رحمه الله writes, “Meerak رحمه الله says, ‘The Hadeeth reported by ‘Abdur Razzaq رحمه الله on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Aqeel رحمه الله, “Ibn ‘Aqeel took out a ring which had a picture of a lion and claimed that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to wear this ring. (The narrator Ma’mar رحمه الله says), A few of the Companions رضي الله عنهم washed the ring and drank the leftover water.” This Hadeeth, despite it being Mursal, has some weakness, because there are diverse opinions regarding Ibn ‘Aqeel’s authority, so what is his state when he is being disagreed with?'” [Muhaddith ‘Ali Qaari رحمه الله in Mirqaatul-Mafaateeh: Chapter on ‘The ring’] 

‘Allaamah Qastallaani رحمه الله writes, “‘Abdur Razzaq رحمه الله has quoted a few traditions regarding the permissibility of engraving pictures on rings. I have avoided mentioning them because they are neither correct nor authentic, so there is no benefit in mentioning them.” [Allaamah Shiaabud-Deen al-Qastallaani رحمه الله in Irshaadus-Saari: Chapter on ‘The insciption on the ring’] 

Additional Fatawa 

Gold, Silver & other types of Rings for Men

Mufti Muhammad Ibn Aadam

Question: 

Are men allowed to wear white gold rings or those that are made from metal, wood, brass, etc? 

Answer: 

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, 

It is unlawful for men to adorn themselves with any type of jewellery besides a silver ring. Gold has been decisively prohibited for men by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). 

Sayyiduna Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: 

“Gold and silk have been made lawful for the women of my Ummah and prohibited for men.” (Sunan Tirmidhi, no. 1720 & Sunan Nasa’i) 

Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) held silk in his right hand and gold in his left, and then said: “These two have been prohibited for the males of my Ummah.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Nasa’i & Musnad Ahmad) 

Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) reports that “the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the wearing of gold rings.” (Sahih Muslim). 

Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw a man wearing a gold ring. He (Allah bless him & give him peace) took of the ring, flung it and said: “One of you desires the live coal of fire, thus places it in his hand.” (Sahih Muslim) 

Due to the above narrations, it is unlawful (haram) for men to wear any type of gold jewellery. This also includes white gold, as the ruling is for gold regardless of the colour. Gold is Haram whether it is white or yellow. 

Rings made from other substances for men

In the Hanafi Madhhab, the only jewellery men are permitted to wear is a silver ring. Rings made from other than silver are impermissible, such as rings made from stone, metal, brass, platinum, etc… 

Imam al-Haskafi (may Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous work in Hanafi Fiqh, Durr al-Mukhtar: 

“It is not permissible for a man to adorn himself with any type of gold and silver besides a ring….. And it is impermissible to wear a ring except that which is made from silver, as silver rings are sufficient (m, for stamping), thus it will be unlawful (haram) to wear rings made from other than silver.” 

The great Hanafi jurist, Allama Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on the above in his super commentary (hashiya) saying: 

“It is Haram to wear other than a silver ring, because of what Imam Tahawi related with his chain of transmission to Sayyiduna Imran ibn Husain and Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with both of them) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the wearing of gold rings. And it is narrated that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wearing a ring made of brass. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What is it that I smell the odour of idols from you, so he got rid of the ring. Then he came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wearing a ring made of iron. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What is it that I find on you the adornment of the people of hellfire”, so he got rid of it and said: “From what substance should I make my ring O Messenger of Allah?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Make it from silver that is less than one Mithqal.” It becomes clear from the above narrations that to wear a ring that is made from gold, iron, metal and brass is Haram.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/359, fasl fi al-libas) 

The above statement of one the major Hanafi Imams is clear in determining the prohibition of wearing rings that are made from other than silver. However, it should be remembered here that consideration is taken of the ring itself and not the stone, as mentioned in Durr al-Mukhtar. 

Is wearing a ring Sunnah?

According to the Hanafi understanding (ijtihad), wearing a (silver) ring is only considered a Sunnah for those who need to stamp with it, such as a judge (qadhi) or an author. 

It is best for other than those who need to use a ring for stamping not to wear a ring. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is understood to have worn a ring for stamping, not adornment. As such, it is only a sunnah for those who have this need. However, as Imam Ibn Abidin mentions, it is permissible for men to wear a silver ring that is equivalent or less than 2.975 grams (mithqal). 

And Allah knows best 

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK 

Women Wearing Rings Made from other than Gold & Silver

Mufti Muhammad Ibn Aadam

Question: 

Is it permissible for women to wear rings made from other than gold and silver? 

Answer: 

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, 

Shariah has not only permitted women to adorn themselves, rather they are encouraged to do so to a certain degree. Islam has given this special permission only to women in order that they use the various means of adornment and be a means of pleasure and satisfaction for their husbands. 

Among the various means of adorning oneself, is the usage of jewellery and rings. Men have only been permitted to wear silver rings, and the idea is not to adorn yourself, rather the reason for this permissibility is to use silver rings for stamping and other purposes. This is the reason why, according to the Hanafi Ijtihad, it is preferable not to wear a ring for those who don’t need it for stamping. (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/361) 

Women are without doubt allowed to wear rings made from gold and silver. However, to wear rings made from other substances such as metal, wood, etc…is impermissible, even for women. 

The great Hanafi jurist, Allama Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) says: 

“It is unlawful (haram) to wear other than a silver ring (for men), because of what Imam Tahawi related with his chain of narrators to Sayyiduna Imran ibn Husain and Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with both of them) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the wearing of gold rings. And it is narrated that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wearing a ring made of brass. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What is it that I smell the odour of idols from you, so he got rid of the ring. Then he came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wearing a ring made of iron. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What is it that I find on you the adornment of the people of hellfire”, so he got rid of it and said: “From what substance should my ring be, O Messenger of Allah?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Make it from silver that is less than one Mithqal”. It becomes clear from the above narrations that to wear a ring that is made from gold, iron and brass is Haram……….And to wear rings made from iron, brass, copper and lead is Makruh for both men and women.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/359, fasl fi al-libas). 

It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya: 

“It is Makruh to wear a ring that is made from iron, copper, brass and lead for men and women. As far as using carnelian is concerned, there is a difference of opinion between the Hanafi scholars. Some said: it is impermissible to wear a ring made from it, whilst others permitted it.” (al-Fatwa al-Hindiyya, 5/335) 

In light of the Hadith mentioned by Ibn Abidin which has also been recorded by Imam Abu Dawud in his Sunan (4/470, no. 4220), the Fuqaha have stated that it is impermissible for women also to wear rings that are made from other substances such as copper, brass, metal, iron, etc… 

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Allah have mercy on him) states in the explanation of the famous Hadith “Search for something, even if it is just a ring made from iron.” (Sahih al-Bukhari): 

“Some claim the permissibility of wearing a ring made of iron in view of this Hadith, but their claim is incorrect, because the permissibility of acquiring it does not necessitate the permissibility of wearing it. It is possible that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) intended for it to be acquired so that the woman may benefit from its price.” (Fath al-Bari, 10/397, kitab al-libas). 

However, it should be remarked here that consideration is taken of the ring itself and not the stone, as mentioned in Durr al-Mukhtar (6/360). 

Also, if the various types of rings are plated with gold or silver, then there is nothing wrong in women wearing them. 

It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya: 

“There is nothing wrong in wearing a ring made of iron, but is plated with silver in a way that the iron is not visible.” (5/335) 

And Allah Knows Best 

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK 

On Which Hand and Finger Should a Man Wear his Silver Ring?

Question: 

On which hand and finger should a man wear his silver ring? Can you please clarify, since some people are saying it is wrong to wear the ring on the left hand? 

Answer: 

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, 

As for which finger, most of the scholars of Hadith and Fiqh are of the opinion that it is Sunna and recommended for a male, if he chooses to wear a silver ring, to wear it on his little finger of the hand. 

Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) reports in the chapter pertaining to clothing and adornment (Kitab al-Libas wa’l Zina) in his Sahih from Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: “The ring of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was on this”, and he pointed towards the little finger of his left hand. (Sahih Muslim, no: 2095) 

Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) says: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade me that I wear a ring on this or this finger of mine.” The narrator says that he pointed to the middle finger and the one next to it [i.e. the index finger].” (Sahih Muslim, no: 2078) 

Based on the above narrations, the renowned Shafi’i jurist and Hadith scholar, Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) states: 

“Muslim scholars have agreed that it is a Sunna [for men] to wear the ring on the little finger. As for women, they may wear rings on their various fingers.” (Al-Minhaj sharh Sahih Muslim, P: 1584) 

Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) then explains the reason for wearing the ring on the little finger. He says that the other fingers are more frequently used when utilizing the hand, whilst the little finger is not so frequently used due to it being at the corner of the hand. As such, he says, it is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzih) for a man to wear his silver ring on the middle and index fingers. (ibid) 

In light of the above reasoning given by Imam Nawawi and others, we can add that the thumb would probably take the same ruling as that of the middle and index fingers, since the thumb is also frequently used. As for the “ring” finger, due to it being close to the little finger and also not being frequently used, one may wear his ring on it.

As for which hand, there are somewhat conflicting reports regarding the practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Some narrations indicate that he wore his ring on his right hand, whilst others indicate that he wore it on his left hand. 

Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that “the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wore a silver ring on his right hand which had an Abyssinian stone in it, and he would keep its stone towards the palm.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 2094) 

Sayyiduna Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) says: “The ring of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was on this”, and he pointed towards the little finger of his left hand. (Sahih Muslim, no: 2095) 

As such, Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) states: 

“As for the [legal] ruling in this issue according to the jurists (fuqaha), they have all agreed upon the permissibility of wearing the ring on the right hand, and upon the permissibility of wearing it on the left hand, and there is no dislike (karaha) in wearing the ring on either of the two hands. However, they disagreed in regards to what is preferred. Many early scholars (salaf) wore their rings on the right hand, whilst many others wore theirs on the left hand. Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) considered wearing the ring on the left hand to be recommended (mustahab) and disliked wearing it on the right hand. In our [Shafi’i] School, both positions are mentioned by our scholars. The correct (sahih) opinion is that it is better to wear the ring on the right hand, for wearing a ring is a form of adornment, and the right hand is more deserving of this adornment and beautification.” (Al-Minhaj sharh Sahih Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, P: 1585) 

Shaykh Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) explains in his commentary of Sahih Muslim that most of the narrations indicate that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wore his ring on his right hand whilst some others indicate that he wore it on his left hand. Some scholars preferred the latter narrations whilst others preferred the former. Some scholars reconciled between the two types of narrations saying that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) initially wore his ring on the right hand and thereafter resorted to wearing it on his left hand. The great Master of Hadith (Hafidh), Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) reconciled by stating in his Fath al-Bari that if the objective is to adorn oneself, then one should wear the ring on the right hand. However, if one wears a ring for the purpose of stamping, then wearing it on the left hand would be better. (Takmila Fath al-Mulhim 4/82) 

Shaykh Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) then gives his personal stance on the issue at hand. He says: 

“It is possible to reconcile between the various narrations by assuming them to be describing different occasions. It seems that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) normally wore his ring on his right hand, as this is indicated by the majority of the narrations. However, he occasionally wore his ring on his left hand due to a need, or to show its permissibility. And Allah knows best.” (Ibid) 

Imam Badr al-Din Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him), the renowned scholar of Hadith and Hanafi jurist, is of the opinion that wearing the ring on the left hand is preferable. He explains in his commentary of Al-Hidaya that a man should wear his ring on the little finger of his left hand due to the fact that Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) both report that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) wore his ring on the left hand. Moreover, Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna Umar, Sayyiduna Ali, Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Huseyn (may Allah be pleased with them) all wore their rings on their left hands. As such, he says, it is better and preferable to wear the ring on the little finger of the left hand, and not on any other finger. (See: Al-Binaya fi sharh al-Hidaya 9/235-236) 

In light of the above, a man may wear his ring on either his right or left hand, since some scholars preferred the former whist others the latter. No one should be rebuked for wearing their ring on any one of the two hands, since both ways have been reported from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). 

In conclusion, it is Sunna and preferable for men to wear their silver rings on the little finger of either their right or left hands. To wear it on the middle and index fingers is somewhat disliked, but not forbidden. As for women, they may wear their rings on any finger of their right or left hands. 

And Allah knows best 

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK 

Jahez – Dowry Conditions set by the Groom for Marriage

[By Mufti Mohammad Yusuf Danka, Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre]

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

And whosoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger and transgresses his limits, Allah will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment.’ [Surah An-Nisa s4: v14]

Allah has revealed the ways and limits for every deed and action in this worldly life for those who obey him. This is ordained through the laws revealed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet. That individual who transgresses the boundaries set by the law of Allah and chooses a way other than that of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), he earns for himself nothing but disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter.
 
Jahez is a marriage custom present in this day and age within a minority of the Muslim population, this is commonly practiced amongst people of the indo-pak region. This un-islamic custom is primarily associated with Hinduism. The custom of Jahez is such that prior to marriage, the groom makes exceeding and unacceptable financial demands on the bride’s family as a condition of marrying their daughter (a form of ‘Male Dowry’). In the light of Shari’ah, such customs are considered as Haraam and despicable, equating it to the worst form of begging.

It is related from Sayyidina Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stated: ‘The person who begs from other people, on the Day of Judgement he will appear amongst the people without any flesh on his face.’ (Meaning he will be humiliated on the Day of Judgement) [Sunan Nisai #2589]

Sayyidina Hakim Ibn Hizam related: ‘On one occasion, I asked something of the Prophet, he gave to me. I then asked of Him again on another occasion, he also gave to me. After giving to me the second time the Prophet stated: ‘O Hakim, all this wealth is seen as good and pleasant, any individual who without greed and desire and without asking of anyone is given wealth, then that is a blessing for him. However, that person who asks with greed and desire for wealth, there will be no blessing in it for him, and the stomachs of such people will never be filled, and the upper hand is better than the lower hand (giving is better than receiving).

Sayyidina Hakim Ibn Hizam (radhiyallahu anhu) states: I replied ‘O Prophet of Allah I swear by Allah that you have been sent as a Prophet with the Truth. From now until the time I die, I will never ask anything of anyone.’ [Sahih Bukhari/Muslim]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar رحمه الله writes:

This companion (Ibn Hizam) of the Prophet attained a very great age of 120 years. His death being in 54 year Hijri. In the time of the Khulafa Rashideen he was offered a fund from Bait ul Maal with which to sustain his home. However, Sayyidina Ibn Hizam (radhiyallahu anhu) never accepted anything from anyone. [Fathul Bari Sharah Bukhari]

In Islam, on the occasion of marriage (Nikah) it has been made compulsory upon the groom that he gives Haq Mahr (dowry) to his wife to be. It is also in a Hadith of the Prophet ‘that individual who does not pay his wife’s Mahr and dies in that state, then from his wealth the dowry should be paid, in addition the wife must also be granted her lawful inheritance.’ [Sunan Ibn Majah #1891]

People who demand Jahez are principally demanding something which is considered Haraam. These are the same people who for gaining respect and honour on the occasion of Nikah, keep the value of the dowry of the bride at such a high level, knowing fully well that they will never be able to fulfil such a commitment. On many occasions, they have no intention of paying any such dowry, regardless of what is written at the Nikah. After marriage, they threaten and trouble the wife, to get the condition of dowry cancelled. The wife under duress is made to forgive her husband from paying dowry. The Scholars have stated that such circumstances are unacceptable and unjust. [Durr Mukhtar/ Fatawa
Rahimiyah vol 5, p269]

In Sunan Bayhaqi the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is reported to have stated: ‘The most blessed of marriages are those where there is the least amount of effort and most ease and the least expenses.’

There are three ways in which Jahez is commonly demanded:

1. Directly demanding and setting conditions for the in-laws to meet.

2. To request certain conditions through indication in speech and actions.

3. To deceive when marrying into a family with the intention to attain some worldly benefit. If on the occasion of marriage something is not attained, then to cause Fitnah and/ or threaten to break the marriage off.

Many parents to get their daughters married, go down the road of obtaining loans from people, getting interest based loans from banks, utilising their life savings and even selling their homes. All of this, just in the desire to get their daughter married will be un-islamic. Even then, the groom and his family are not satisfied and torment and trouble the bride that has come into their home and on occasions, we even hear stories of physical abuse.

In a country such as India, which proclaims the highest levels of equality and human rights, the newspapers are filled daily with accounts of women being killed due to Jahez. And on many occasions, it is the family of the groom that are responsible for the death of the women. On other occasions, the women become so demoralised and distraught by the tormenting of their in laws that they commit suicide.

On the occasion of the Nikah of Sayyidah Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) gave her as gifts: a blanket filled with date palm leaves, a leather pillow and a clay water pot. [Sunan Nisai #3389]

The Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the guardian of both Sayyidina Ali and Sayyidah Fatima (radhiyallahu anhuma). Therefore, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on behalf of Sayyidina Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) made this arrangement so that the obligation of Sayyidina Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would be fulfilled. There is no proof from the Ahadith that the Prophet did this for any of his other daughters Nikah. There was no tradition of Jahez during the time of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), nor during the time of the Sahaabah . [Mariful Hadith vol 7, p30]

Many people try to use the above Hadith to justify the matter of Jahez; this is a form of ignorance and misuse of Hadith. Are the gifts you demand under Jahez in line with that which the Prophet gave his beloved daughter Fatima (radhiyallahu anha)?

The custom of Jahez today is only a custom of the Hindus and nothing else, it has no place in Islam or the Sunnah. Those people who follow these customs are following the ways of the polytheists. In Mishkaat Masabih the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stated: ‘whosoever follows the ways of a particular people, they will be resurrected with them

The matter does not end here, some Muslim families who practise the custom of Jahez and their father or mother dies. The daughters are disregarded when it comes to inheritance if her marriage was conducted under the custom of Jahez. The girl’s family try to justify this by claiming that they already gave a great deal to her husband on the occasion of her marriage.
 
Sayyidina Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) relates the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stated: ‘that person who prevents a rightful heir from his or her inheritance, Allah will prevent that person from inheriting Jannah.’ [Sunan Bayhaqi/Ibn Majah #2703/ 2713]

In Jami’ Tirmidhi, Sayyidina Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) relates the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) stated: ‘That person who has taken someone else’s property is not one of us’.
 
Therefore, those people who practise the custom of Jahez and are troubling their daughters in law due to this, their daughters and sisters are also being troubled elsewhere due to this same custom. Success for Muslims is in living their life according to the laws of Allah and following the ways of his Messenger, for in this there is the great success of this world and the hereafter.

May Allah allow us to bring the complete understanding and practise of the Shari’ah and Sunnah into our lives, Aameen.

The Two Adhans for Jumu’ah and the views of Ghair Muqallideen

[By Mufti Afzal Hoosen Elias]

Two Adhans for Jumu’ah is Masnoon (Sunnat)

Hadhrat Saa’ib ibn Yazeed  (radhiyallahu anhu) said  that  in  time of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) the Adhan for Jumu’ah use to be at  the  time  the Imam sat on the  Mimbar. Then when the era of  the Khilaafat of Hadhrat  Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu)  came  and  the  quantity  of  people had increased, then  Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) gave  the  command  to  give  a  third  Adhan  (i.e. the  first  Adhan  for  Jumu’ah).  Therefore  upon  inclination,  that  Adhan was  given  and  this  had  become  a  separate  Sunnat.  [Bukhaari  Vol.1  pg 125, Abu Dawood Vol1 pg 155, Nasa’i Vol.1 pg 156]

It is established from the  mentioned Ahadith that in the  time  of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the  time  of  the  rightly  guided  Khulafaa, in the  era of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) there  was one Adhan which was given in front of the Imam by the  Mimbar.  In  the  era  of  the  Khilaafat  of Hadhrat  Uthmaan  Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu) when  there were more people, he had given the command to give one  more Adhan. This Adhan was  given in the presence of the  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam and not one of them objected it. Therefore  this Adhan, by consensus of the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam, has become  a common thing. In every era  after it this action has  continued. No Imam, Jurist or Mujthid has  objected to it. How could they  have contradicted it? Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’s  command  was  to  hold  firm  on  his and the Khulafa-e-Raashideen’s Sunnat

This Adhan was given with the  command of Hadhrat Uthmaan  Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu),  because this was his Sunnat,  and  according  to  the  command  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  it  is  necessary  to  carry  it  out.  At first, this Adhan was given on  a raised platform, later on it was given in the Masjid.

Today, in every Masjid this Adhan is given in the Masjid. In Hajj, those who have the good fortune of going to see with their own eyes that in Makkah Mukarramah in Masjid-e-Haram and in Masjidun Nabawi this Adhan is  given.  All praise is due to Allah  the writer was a witness to this  also with his own eyes. There is  no objection to this Adhan being given in the Masjid.

However, contrary to the  Mubarak Ahadith, consensus  of  the Ummat and actions of the  Ummat, those Ghair Muqallideen  which have given the Fatwa of  twenty rakaats Taraweeh Salaah  as an innovation (Bid’at), have  also decided that this Adhan also  is an innovation (Bid’at). 

These Ghair Muqallideen are  saying that this Adhan is bid’at  because  it  is  not established  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), thus it cannot be a  Sunnat. This is the reason that the Ghair Muqallideen do not  give  this  Adhan, instead  that  Masjid in which it is given they  have declared it to be Bid’at and  prevent one from it. 

Therefore, Molwi Muhammad  Saheb Jonaghari writes: “In the  time of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  after, in the time  of the two Khulafaa, this second  Adhan also was not present,  yes  in the time of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) it was made  present in order for the time to  be known. It was called out in the  high place of the bazaar, not in  the Masjid. Then in our time in those Masaajid in which two Adhans are given that is a clear  innovation and in no way can it be  permissible.”  (Fataawa-e-Sataariyya, Vol.3, pg 85)

Molwi Ubaidullah Saheb writes:  “On the road to the Masjid of Jumu’ah Salaah one Adhan is  established, from Hadhrat  Uthmaan Ghani (radhiyallahu anhu) a second Adhan is established outside the Masjid.  Then  there should be adequate  and the second Adhan should  not be called out.” (Fataawa e Sataariyya Vol.3 pg 85)

Molwi Abdur Rahmaan Saheb  Mudarris-e-Madrassah Mia Delwi concludes:  “To  give  one  Adhan at the time of the Khutbah on  the day of  Jumu’ah is Masnoon,  there is no need for two Adhans  …” because of  this, the Adhan of  Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) which is called the first Adhan called out in the Masjid is an innovation (Bid’at)”  (Fataawa  e Ulama e Hadith Vol.2 pg 179)

Abdul  Wahaab  Saheb  writes:  “In  the Musaajid of the Ahnaaf  and the Ghair Muqallideen there  were two Adhans of Jumu’ah as it  is the custom of the Ahnaaf  today”.  Maulana Mawsoof Abdul Wahaab Saheb narrates: “I gave the first Adhan with one knee  inside and one outside of the  Masjid.” From this confident person there is proof for the  issuing of a Fatwa of it being a  bid’at and the Fatwa of the  second Adhan given when the  time the Imam sits at the Mimbar  is correct. Today, in  most  Masaajid of the Ahle Hadith this way of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is acted  upon.  (Majmu al Risaa’il , pg. 21)

Conclusion:

The first Adhan of Jumu’ah which  is continuing from command of  the Khalifa Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and upon  which the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam had agreed upon, which has been  given in all the Islaamic kingdoms since the fourth century without  any objections, with which no  Imam, Jurist or Mujtahid had any  differences, because  that same Adhan is being given  inside the Masjid has become a Bid’at  in era  of the Ghair Muqallideen.  If  the  action  of  the Khulafaa-e-Raashideen  and  Sahaabah-e-Kiraam also is Bid’at and upon which the entire Ummat inherit  and to act upon is also a Bid’at,  then ask the Ghair Muqallideen that Sunnat is in whose actions will it be? Again it will mean that from the fourth century the entire  Ummats action was upon Bid’at  and today also the Imams and Muezzins who call out the Adhan in the Haramain Shareefain are committing the crime of Bid’at?

Respected readers, this is the  action of the Ghair Muqallideen  with Hadith. Now you decide is this conforming or contrary to the Hadith?

Who was the real child of Covenant?? Ishmael or Isaac??

Ishmael or Isaac?

Who was the  real  covenant child  of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam)? Obviously,  the Jews and Christians stand united  in their support for  Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam), the  second-born of  Abraham  and forefather of the Children of Israel. Muslims, however, believe him  to  be  Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam),  the first-born of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam)  and forefather  of  the Arabs. If modern-day Trinitarian Christians whose ancestors  worshipped trees and rocks can get away  with being counted among the spiritual progeny  of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) simply  because Jesus (‘Eesa alyhissalaam) descended from  Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam), then we as Muslim  monotheists can certainly present our  case for Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  a direct descendant of the first-born son of  Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam). Let’s attempt to ascertain the true identity  of this covenant son by  closely examining their own scripture, the book of Genesis in the Jewish Torah. 

We are told  in Genesis 22:2: “Take now  your son,  your only  son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there  as a burnt offering on one of the  mountains of which I shall tell you.”

At no time during the lifetime of Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam) was he ever the “only son” of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam). Did “God” forget about Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam), Isaac’s (Ishaaq alayhissalaam) brother who was fourteen years his senior? Christians will retort that God only intended the son Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam)  “loved,” the implication being that Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) hated Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam).  Although we can never believe such  nonsense,  what does the Law  say  about this? In Deuteronomy  21:15-17 we read:

“If a man  has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved  and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of  her who is unloved, then  it shall be, on the day  of  bequeaths his possessions to  his sons, that  he must not bestow firstborn  status on the son of the loved  wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn.  But  he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved  wife  as the firstborn by  giving him  a double portion  of  all that he  has, for he is the  beginning  of  his strength; the  right of the firstborn is his.”

Therefore, it matters not whether Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) loved Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam), he  is  the first-born. It was none other than the “evil pen of a scribe” who changed the name  “Ishmael” to “Isaac” in Genesis 22:2.

Truly  Allah has told  us: “Of  the Jews  there  are those who displace words  from  their (right) places…” [Qur’an 4:46].

The Jew or a Christian, the friend of Satan will shout: “But Ishmael was the illegitimate son of a bondswoman!”  Tell  him  to consider the following passage:  “Then Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her  maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband  Abram  to  be his  wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. So Hagar  bore Abram  a  son; and Abram named his  son,  whom  Hagar bore, Ishmael.  Abram  was eighty-six  years  old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram”  (Genesis 16:3,  15-16).

According to the Bible, Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) is  Abraham’s (Ibraheem alayhissalaam)  son through his  wife  Hagar.

God’s Covenant

Genesis 15 reveals to us two vital stipulations in the covenant  between God and the chosen child  of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam). It reads:

Then He (God) brought  him (Abraham) outside and said, ‘Look now  toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And he said to him,  (1) ‘So shall  your descendants be.’ On the same  day, the Lord made a covenant  with  Abram saying, (2) ‘To your descendants I have  given this land, from  the river of Egypt  to the great  river, the River Euphrates’”  (Genesis 15:5,18.).

The  vast majority of land between the two great rivers constitutes the Arabian desert and peninsula. This  region was  never conquered by  the Children of Israel, but  immediately  upon  the emergence of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Muslims. It was only with the appearance  of the Messenger of the Covenant, Prophet Muhammad (Malachi 3) that all idolatry  was rooted  out of these lands promised  to the covenant progeny of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam).  Jewish history demonstrates the obvious ineptness of the Children of Jacob to abolish the heathen worship of statues in Palestine and even in their  very Temple! Karen Armstrong, author of the popular book  A History of  God  remarks (emphasis is mine): “We  have  seen that it took the ancient Israelites some 700  years to break with their old religious allegiances and accept monotheism,  but Muhammad  managed to help the Arabs achieve this difficult transition  in  a mere 23 years” (page 146).

At this point it is worth giving  an  overall breakdown of the family  of Abraham the Patriarch,  the true in faith (Hanifah). Abraham’s first  son and covenant child was Ishmael,  whom  he bore through Hagar (Bibi Hajirah). Next, Sarah conceived a son called Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam).  Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) took  a third wife, Keturah, and had six sons with her. Ishmael’s (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) first born,  Nebajoth, had a brother named  Kedar (Genesis 25:13) and  his progeny  are called the Kedarites or Ishmaelites. Ishmael’s two daughters Basemath  and Mahalath wed Esau, who is  Edom. The  Lexicon Strongs’ Concordance gives Esau the title, “the  progenitor  of  the Arab peoples” and this to  a son of Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam)!! These become known as the Edomites. From Jacob (Ya’qub alayhissalaam), Isaac’s (Ishaaq alayhissalaam) other  son, twelve luminaries appear  with names  such as Ruben, Levi, Judah,  Joseph, and  Benjamin. The descendants of  Jacob (Yaqub alayhissalaam), and not Esau or Isaac, are dubbed the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’eel). Abraham’s first born of  Keturah, Midian, is described by  The Strongs’  Concordance as, “progenitor  of Midians or Arabians.”  Therefore  these Arabs are called the Midianites. A descendant of Midian named Jethro (Shu’ayb alayhissalaam in  the Qur’an)  gave his daughter Zipporah  permission to marry  a Levite named Moses (Musa alayhissalaam). Therefore, it can be observed that the vast majority  of the  progeny  of Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam) were and are in fact  Arabs “as numerous as  the stars”  who intermarried  and accepted  the sons and daughters of Jacob (Ya’qub alayhissalaam) as righteous servants of the Almighty.  

The  Sign  of  God’s covenant was circumcision. In Genesis 17:9, 11 God tells Abraham:  “As for you,  you shall keep My  covenant,  you  and your descendants  after you throughout their generations…and  you shall be circumcised in the flesh of  your  foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me  and you.” In verse 26 we are told: “That very  same day  Abraham  was circumcised,  and his son Ishmael.”
So far we have been told that:

1)  Ishmael is  Abraham’s first-born son. 

2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife.

3) The covenant seed will be as  numerous  as  the stars.

4)  The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.

5)  Ishmael  was  Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years.

6) Circumcision is  the symbol of God’s covenant.

7) Ishmael  was circumcised with his father on the same day  to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. 

None  of  the above have anything to do with Isaac!

Christians will no doubt point to verse 19 where God tells Abraham (Ibraheem alayhissalaam), “No, Sarah your wife  shall bear you son, and  you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant  for an  everlasting covenant, and with  his descendants  after him.”  Why has God changed his mind?  He continues: “And as for Ishmael, I have  heard you. Behold,  I have blessed him, and will  make  him fruitful, and will  multiply  him  exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him  a great nation” (verse 20). In  other words:  “Don’t  worry about  Ishmael, I’ll throw him a bone a two!” The  most obvious piece of Jewish scribal deception, however, occurs in Genesis 21:

Now Abraham  was one hundred  years old when his son Isaac  was born to  him…So  the child grew up and  was weaned. And Abraham  made a great feast on the same day  Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,  whom  she had borne  to Abraham, scoffing (playing with Isaac, REB  version). Therefore she said  to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondswoman  with her son; for the son of  this bondswoman shall not  be heir with  my son, namely  with Isaac’…So Abraham  rose early  in  the morning, and took  bread and a skin of  water; and putting it on  her shoulder, he gave  it and the boy  to Hagar,  and sent her away (he set the child on her shoulder, REB version). Then she departed and wandered in the wilderness of  Beersheba. And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy  under one of the shrubs. Then she went and sat  down across  from  him  at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, ‘Let me not see the death of the boy.’ So  she sat opposite him, and lifted her voice and wept. And God  heard the voice of the lad (God  heard the child crying, REB version). Then the angel of  God called  to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, ‘What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad and  hold  him  with your hand  (in  your hand), for I  will  make him a great nation.’ Then  God opened her eyes, and she saw  a  well of water. And  she went and filled the skin  with  water, and gave  the lad a drink.” – Genesis 21:5-19.

It is very  clear from  the text that we are given the profile of  an  infant  here and not that of a seventeen year old teenager. In Jewish  custom, a  child (Isaac)  is weaned after  three years. This would  have made Ishmael seventeen. Can you imagine a grown  man  sitting  on Hagar’s shoulder,  crying  beneath a shrub for water, and then being  lifted up  and  fed  by  his mother??  It is very interesting to note that although Ishmael (Usma’eel alayhissalaam) is referenced in no less than  eleven places  in this passage, he is  never addressed by  name. According to Genesis 16:10-11, God called him  “Ishmael” because He heard Hagar crying after  she ran  away  from  Sarah. In actuality, the child was not named until after Genesis 21:5-19 was  written  and “God heard”  (verse 17) the infant child Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) crying while he and  his  mother  settled in  Baca, “the weeping valley,” and not Beersheba as the Bible states. It seems as if the chronologies of these events have been deliberately  manipulated in order to  give the reader  the impression that Ishmael was banished  due to a conflict between him  and Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam). In  actuality, the  nameless infant would not know his  younger sibling  until many  years later. We are also told in  Genesis 25:9 that in the spirit of brotherhood,  both sons of Abraham (Ibrahim alqyhissalaam)  buried their father. From  this we can  also conclude that the story given in Genesis 16:10 in which God tells Hagar that she must “submit herself under Sarah’s hand,” and Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) is called a “wild ass of a  man,” are undoubtedly  forgeries penned by  the Jewish rabbis and scribes in order  to discredit the God-given rights of Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam), the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Where is Baca?

David wrote:  “Blessed are they  that dwell in thy house: they  will be still praising thee. Selah. Blessed is the  man  whose  strength is  in thee; in whose heart  are  the ways  [of them].  [Who]  passing through the valley  of Baca  make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools” (Psalms 84:4-6). Amazingly, this word appears in the Qur’an:

The  first House (of worship) appointed  for  men was that at  Bakka: full of  blessing and  of guidance for all kinds of  beings” (Qur’an  3:96).

Bakkah is the ancient name  of Makkah, named after the episode of Hagar (Bibi Hajirah) and her son. Christians and Jews  continue  to maintain that Baca is actually a river in Palestine yet they  have no  idea where it is located. This shouldn’t surprise  you. Christians don’t even know for certain  where the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus took place! This first House ever dedicated to the worship of the One True  God was constructed by  Abraham (Ibraheen alayhissalaam) and Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) in Bakka (Makkah)  as the Qur’an tells us. After they  raised the foundations  of the House, the Qur’an records their sublime supplication unto their Lord: 

Our Lord!  Accept (this  service) from  us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. Our Lord! make of  us Muslims, bowing to Thy  (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to  Thy (will); and show us  our place for the  celebration of (due) rites;  and turn unto  us (in Mercy);  for Thou  art the Oft-Returning,  Most Merciful. Our Lord! send amongst them a  Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them  and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”   – Qur’an 2:127-129.

The Holy  Messenger  “of their own”  would come from that very  city  thousands  of years later and would be called Muhammad, literally  the  Praised One  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). 

Esau or Jacob?…more deception

The Bible tells us that Rebekah, the wife of Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam), became pregnant  with twins. In Genesis 25:23 God tells her:

Two nations are in your womb.  Two peoples shall be separated from  your body;  one people shall be stronger than the other, and the  older shall serve the younger.” 
The two nations were the descendants  of Esau, an Arab  line, and the descendants of Jacob, the Israeli line.  Esau (hairy) was born first and Jacob “grabbing at his heel” shortly  followed. Notice the words of God above to  Rebekah, “the older shall serve the younger.” These  words are obviously  a fabrication given the following reasons: 

•  Genesis  25:31-34 relates  a story  in  which Jacob (Ya’qub alayhissalaam) tricks Esau  out of his  birthright over a cup of “pottage and lentils.” If  God had already  ordained that Esau serve his younger brother Jacob, then why does Esau need to be tricked at all??

•  In Genesis 27:22-29 Jacob fools his elderly  father Isaac (Ishaaq alqyhissalaam) by  pretending to be Esau by  wearing goat skins on his hands (in an attempt to  make himself appear hairier) to obtain his father’s lasting blessing. – “Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy  brethren, and let thy  mother’s sons bow down to  thee: cursed [be]  every  one  that curseth thee, and blessed  [be]  he that blesseth thee.”

If  Isaac (Ishaaq alayhissalaam) meant to give  these words to Esau, then what does this say about “God’s” words to Rebekah?

•  If God wanted Esau to serve Jacob then why  does the latter address the former as  “lord” (adon) yet addresses himself as  his “servant” (ebed) in Genesis 32:3-6, 33:1-10?

Also, why  does Jacob, Leah and her children,  the handmaidens and their children, Joseph, and  Rachel prostrate themselves  seven times to Esau if  he was inferior to his brother? 

Jacob comments: “If I have now  found  favor in  your sight, then receive  my  present  from  my  hand, inasmuch  as I have seen your face as though I had  seen the face of God, and you were pleased  with  me…Please let my  lord go on ahead before his servant. I will lead on slowly  at a pace  which the livestock that go before me, and the children,  are able to endure, until I come to my lord in Seir” (Genesis 33:10, 14).

Professor Abdul Ahad Dawood (formerly Reverend David Benjamin  Keldani) writes in his book Muhammad in the Bible:

When we behold the number of the family of Jacob when he went to Egypt, which hardly exceeded seventy heads, and when he was met by Esau  with an escort of  four hundred armed horsemen, and the mighty Arab  tribes submitted to the twelve Emirs belonging to  the family  of Ishmael,  and then when the Last  Messenger of  Allah proclaims the religion of Islam, all the Arab tribes unitedly acclaim him and accept  his religion,  and subdue all the  lands promised to the children of Abraham, we must indeed be blind not to see that the  Covenant was made with Ishmael (Isma’eel alayhissalaam) and the promise accomplished in the person of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam