'al-Ghadir' - The Real Picture

'al-Ghadir' The Real Picture

Many people, especially those fond of reading the weekly column of Hajiya Bilkisu (mni) 'Civil Society Watch', were taken aback upon reading that special piece she chose to give the title 'Maulid – Time for Reflection'. Although the topic might make the reader take it at face value, but the content was far from the issue of Maulid – at least the so called maulid of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Hajiya Bilkisu (mni) had something else to proclaim under the guise of the Maulid celebration. It is the issue of the 'al-Ghadir' hadith. Through her narration of what transpired from the talk given by the cleric, Lazari, she did not only try to make her readers believe that the Shi'ite's view of the 'al-Ghadir' event was what 'actually happened' and that narrating such 'facts' makes the followers of the Sunnah uneasy, but she claimed that the event also clarifies the 'proven logic of the Shi'ahs'.

Given Hajiya Bilkisu's acclaimed literary prowess and the respect she commands from various readers of the Trust newspapers, she is in a better position to know that issues as scholarly subtle and serious as the Shi'ah-Sunnah polemics are not the type to be discussed through this kind of medium, particularly given the fact that she made mention of the Sunni Muslims and their view on the matter without giving regard to the fact that intellectual fairness expected of an accomplished writer should have compelled one to refer his readers to a Sunni source for them to verify the claim. What more of an experienced and internationally recognized journalist of Hajiya Bilkisu's calibre? Would that she bothered to ask Lazari after his lecture to help her gain access to some of the Sunnah sources, more especially that Lazari claimed that more than 50 sources in Sunni literature do confirm the events the way the Shi'ahs view them. I doubt very much if Lazari himself – not to talk of Hajiya Bilkisu – was able to lay his hands on all or even 5 of these sources in its Arabic original, or for that matter, knows even what are regarded as sources with the Sunni.

The most ironic of the issue is Hajiya Bilkisu's conclusion that "the positive role of the "al-Ghadir" is established by the facts that it first clarifies the proven logic of the Shi'ahs and proves that the inclination of Muslims to Shi'ism – notwithstanding the poisonous publicity of some people – is not due to political, ethnic, or other trends and considerations. It also verifies that a powerful logic based on the Qur'an and the 'sunnah' has given rise to this".

This sweeping and unprofessional judgement can only come from someone that has been overwhelmed by the incessant unilateral campaigns of the Shi'ites which they direct to the gullible and religiously uninformed among the Muslims, who regard Islamic knowledge and its sources for granted, such that they simply rely on the surface information that comes their way without going deeply into the fine didactic details that are necessary for making informed judgement on matters of such import.

As regards the 'al-Ghadir' hadith, it is surely regarded by the Shi'ites as the strongest argument from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) that confirms Ali's imamate. And that is after failing to find the slightest basis or reference to such a fundamental aspect of their creed in the Qur'an and in fact the Sunnah itself. Unfortunately the version of the 'Ghadir' hadith they rely on, and the details of which they believe to have 'actually happened' is considered by the scholars of the Sunnah as totally unauthentic and a blatant falsehood ascribed to the noble Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam). I am referring here to that version of the 'al-Ghadir' hadith mentioned by Lazari as reported by Hajiya Bilkisu (mni) that the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) was accompanied by 124,000 people; that he told the people that Ali ibn Abu Talib is their leader and they should follow him; that he raised and held Ali's hand and said 'he is my successor, follow him as your leader'; that he turbaned Ali and requested all those present to pledge the oath of allegiance to him; and that THEY ALL DID; that the process of bay'a lasted for three consecutive days; that there was no contention and nobody objected; that among the persons who gave their allegiance were 'Umar and Abu Bakr; that Umar even congratulated Ali on the spot; that over fifty sunnah books recorded this event.

Lazari, and in fact many Shi'ite scholars that speak about this issue and who claim that sunnah books recorded it, assume and want their readers and audience to assume and, in fact, believe that the event is actually recorded in the same manner and context they mention. This is, to say the least, the apex of academic and intellectual dishonesty. That is because no one on earth can confirm the authenticity of the hadith in question with those details mentioned by Lazari and his likes.

One thing not known by many Muslims who are not acquainted with the Shi'ites and their methodology of deceiving people is that when they discuss an issue with the Ahl as-Sunnah they pose their arguments the way they suit their desires and serve the purpose of their Mazhab, and in referring to evidences they believe to substantiate their course, they refer to the books of Ahl al-Sunnah in which the mere mention of a part of the hadith or even a sentence of it is made, making their reader assume that what is actually contained in those books tallies exactly with what the Shi'ites claim. So, the uninformed who are not privileged to know Islam from its original sources take it that what they read is the truth and that the Muslim Ummah following the Sunnah are guilty of disregarding those well articulated arguments and 'clear' and 'unequivocal' evidences accepted and succumbed to by their predecessors.

The reality is that the hadith of 'al-Ghadir' is totally different from what the Shi'ites want us to believe. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallm) left Makkah after the farewell Hajj rites were completed, and on his way to Madinah he stopped at the place known as 'Ghadir Khum'. And it happened that before he left Madinah for Makkah, for the Hajj he had sent Ali ibn Abi Talib, leading a group of Muslims to Yemen on an expedition. The mission was successful and Ali and his men were victorious and were able to bring back with them the spoils of war. Knowing that the Messenger was at that time at Makkah for the Hajj, Ali ordered that he and his men should proceed to Makkah to meet the Messenger, (sallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) on his way leaving for Madinah. It happened that some of Ali's men were aggrieved by the fact that Ali did not allow them take anything of the booty until he reported everything to the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam), as such some of them spoke ill of Ali. When the two parties met at 'Ghadir Khum' Ali reported all that happened to the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi was alihi wa sallam). It was then that the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) gave a sermon and, in his effort to put records straight in respect of Ali's virtues and the lofty position he has with the Messenger, he warned the people against bearing any sort of enmity and hatred towards Ali. He made that clear by saying: 'For whomever I am a Maula, Ali is also a Maula for him'.

This narration is the authentic record according to the sources of the Sunnah and it is reported with these details in only the Sunan of Nasa'i among the six famous collections of the Sunnah.

The last portion of the hadith (that is, the statement: 'For whomever I am a Maula, Ali is also a Maula for him) is the authentic words that the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah believe to have emerged from the mouth of Prophecy and this is widely reported in several sources with authentic chains of transmission.

The word 'Maula' denotes various meanings, but here in this context it means one that deserves to be loved, befriended, and held in high esteem. The Messenger was warning the people that whoever loves him must love Ali, and this is the position of the Sahabah and the Muslim ummah. The other words mentioned in the hadith were additions made by the Shi'ites to drive home the idea of the so called imamate of Ali and the Ahl al-Bait. It has nothing to do with Ali's imamate or that of his progeny. Had the messenger wanted to declare that he would have done using the most unequivocal statements that everybody will grasp and understand the meaning, more especially that he was the most eloquent of all people. That is why we find that neither those present, nor Ali himself and his progeny understood that the Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam) wanted to assign Ali as his caliph immediately after him, a position the Shi'ites consider one of the fundamentals of their creed, and that one's faith is null and void without the belief in it.

Therefore, the claim that 124,000 were present and that all of them testified that the Messenger vested Ali with the post of caliph after him, and that some of them even congratulated him etc. are all lies that were concocted to find root for a creed that has failed to find any support from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I am not claiming here that those lies are not found in the books, that is, books of Ahl as-Sunnah, but in what position are such books held by the scholars of the Sunnah. Furthermore, mere mention of a narration in a source does not make it to be authentic, there are procedures and there is a methodology for ascertaining the authenticity or otherwise of hadith narrations and this is a whole field of knowledge. The scholars of this field are unequivocal in declaring these versions reported by Hajia Bilkisu and others not reported by her as fabricated hadith. In fact, a Shi'ite scholar by name Abdulaziz al-Tabataba'i brought to light and edited one such manuscript by the famous 15^th century hadith scholar and historian Shamsuddin al-Zahabi.

The statement that Ali (radiyallahu anhu) must be loved by all Muslims is one thing, and deducing from that same statement that Ali is the leader of all Muslims after the Messenger, is another thing. The first is clear from the statement and it is incumbent upon all Muslims to love and respect Ali (radiyallahu anhu). The second has no place and cannot be deduced from the statement.

The Shi'ite scholar Nuri at-Tabrasi confesses that this statement 'Man kuntu maulahu fa Aliyyun maulahu' is not enough to establish the leadership of Ali. He said: "The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam), on the day of 'al-Ghadir' did not make a categorical statement for Ali to be the caliph immediately without any interruption. He only alluded to it in an unclear and ambivalent word that means many different things" (Fasl al-Khitab Fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab p. 205-206).

So, my dear sister, you can see that it is not true that the hadith of 'al-Ghadir' has proven the logic of the Shi'ahs even according to some of their scholars. It is also not fair to make sweeping statements on issues that call for deeper scrutiny and examination of sources, because that will be misleading inappropriate of a writer that is read by a wide audience. I ask Allah, in His infinite Mercy, to guard us from falling into the wrong track and make those who find themselves in that direction to revert to the true teachings of our noble Messenger, the teachings of the Ahl al-Bait and the teachings of the Sahabah.

Dr. Abubakar Muhammad Sani

Birnin Kudu, Jigawa State

absani@gmail.com