Common Objections about Ghadeer
- Anonymous
- Aug 6
- 36 min read
Updated: Oct 30
« Previous Part: How did the Sahaba understand Ghadeer Khum? »
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Our series on Ghadir proved and established the declaration of Imam Ali’s (as) authority over the Ummah. However, some miscellaneous objections to this understanding were not mentioned. Below we shall cover some of the popular objections, which are as follows:
Objection 1: Why didn’t the Prophet ﷺ declare Ghadeer on ‘Arafah?
Objection:
If Ghadir was about the authority of ‘Ali (as), the Prophet ﷺ would have declared it on the day of ‘Arafah, because the audience at Hajj is bigger. But he didn’t, therefore Ghadir is not about authority.
Response 1: It was a divine order, which needs no questioning.
The Prophet (SAW) does not choose when and where to appoint his successor, rather his orders come from Allah. Allah says in Surah al-Najm Verse 3:
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى
Nor does he speak out of [his own] desire.
Thus, we affirm that if the Prophet (SAW) made the declaration at Khumm as opposed to ‘Arafah, then the Prophet (SAW) acted according to the will of Allah. We don’t agree that the Prophet ﷺ had to choose ‘Arafah over Ghadir, as Ghadir is sufficient and one doesn’t have to do anything beyond what’s sufficient.
Response 2: A single witness is sufficient according to our opponents.
The minor premise in this objection is correct: the audience at Ḥajj was indeed larger than that at Khumm. However, the major premise does not follow, for the Prophet (SAW) did not require the largest possible audience to establish Ghadīr as the declaration of the authority of ʿAli (AS). Rather, according to our Sunni opponents it is sufficient that the prominent men of the state pledge their allegiance.
Al-Taftazani also says in Sharh al-Maqasid, Vol. 5, pg. 232 - 233:
وتنعقد الإمامة بطرق: أحدها - بيعة أهل الحل والعقد من العلماء والرؤساء، ووجوه الناس الذين يتيسر حضورهم من غير اشتراط عدد، ولا اتفاق من في سائر البلاد بل لو تعلق الحل والعقد بواحد مطاع كفت بيعته.
The Imamate is established in several ways: First, by the pledge of allegiance from the people of authority and decision of scholars, leaders, and notable people who are able to attend—without requiring a specific number or agreement from those in other lands. Even if the authority rests with one obeyed person, his pledge alone is sufficient.
This was mentioned by Qadhi Abi Bakr al-Tayyib in Kitab Tamhid al-Awail, pg. 467:
فإن قال قائل: فبكم يتم عقد الإمامة عندكم؟
قيل له : تنعقد وتتم برجل واحد من أهل الحل والعقد إذا عقدها الرجل على صفة ما يجب أن يكون عليه الأئمة
If someone were to say: 'With how many is the contract of the Imamate completed, according to you?'
It is said to him: The Imamate is contracted and completed by one man from among the people of authority and decision if he contracts it upon the description of what the Imams are required to be upon.
Al-Qurtubi likewise says in al-Bayan wal-Tahsil, Vol. 18, pg. 217:
أن الإمامة تنعقد وتتم برجل واحد من أهل الحل والعقد إذا عقدها الرجل على صفة ما يجب أن يكون عليه الأئمة ، ويجب أن يحضر العقد له
"Indeed, the Imamate is established and completed by one man from among the people of authority and decision, if the man contracts it upon the description of what the Imams must be upon, and it is obligatory that the contract be present for him.
Therefore, the argument that the Prophet’s (SAW) announcement requires a large audience is flawed, for the recognition of Imam Ali (AS) by even a single prominent individual of the state suffices as evidence for his imamate per the conditions of our opponents.
Response 3: The Riff-raff and Rabble of Arabia may not have understood the announcement at Ghadeer Khumm and have have misinterpreted it
The argument that the Prophet (SAW) should have announced ‘Ali’s succession at Arafah also fails to take into account that the newer converts may not have understood the Prophet’s statement, nor communicated it properly when they headed back home.
The audience at Hajj would have included people of all walks of life from recent converts from all across the Arabian peninsula. Comparatively, the audience at Khumm consisted of the Muhajireen and Ansar who were the prominent men of the Islamic state.
This is not our opinion rather it is the opinion of the famous Companion ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf, who advised ʿUmar b. al-Khattāb, not to deliver a speech at Hajj explaining the principles of the Caliphate, but rather to do so at Medina. We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 3928:
`Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rabble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.'
This interpretation of the report can also be found in Fath al-Bari Vol. 17, pg. 593.
If ‘Umar can reserve a speech about caliphate to the people of the capital, why can’t the Prophet ﷺ so the same to the people of the capital and all the northbound pilgrims?
Response 4: The Tulaqa were irreligious and hostile to ‘Ali (AS)
The Tulaqa were not of the Ahl al-Ḥall wal-ʿAqd (those who have a say in religious decisions for the community). For this reason, their presence would not only have carried no benefit, but may have actually led to negative consequences for the Islamic state.
The fact that the Tulaqa were not prominent in the Islamic state is evidenced by Umar’s own testimony recorded in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Vol. 6, pg. 90:
قال: أخبرنا محمد بن عمر قال: حدّثني كثير بن زيد عن المطلب بن عبد الله بن حنطب قال:
قال لهم عمر إن هذا الأمر لا يصلح للطُّلَقَاء ولا لأبناء الطُّلَقَاء، فإن اختلفتم فلا تظنوا أن عبد الله بن أبي ربيعة عنكم غافلًا.
He said: Muhammad b. ‘Umar told us, he said: Kathir b. Zayd narrated to me from al-Muttalib b. ‘Abd Allah b. Hantab, who said: ‘Umar said to them:
“This matter is not suitable for the tulaqaa' nor for the sons of the tulaqaa'. And if you disagree, do not think that ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Rabi‘ah is unaware of you.”
This contrasts with the audience present at Ghadir, which included the Muhajirin and the Ansar, for they possessed the legitimate right to participate in the selection of the community leader, as acknowledged by ʿUmar himself in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Vol. 3, pg. 260:
قال: أخبرنا عفان بن مسلم قال: أخبرنا أبو عوانة عن حسين بن عمران عن شيخ عن عبد الرحمن بن أبزى عن عمر قال:
هذا الأمر في أهل بدر ما بقي منهم أحد. ثم في أهل أحد ما بقي منهم أحد. وفي كذا وكذا. وليس فيها لطليق ولا لولد طليق ولا لمسلمة الفتح شيء.
He said: ‘Affan b. Muslim told us, saying: Abu ‘Awanah told us, from Husayn b. ‘Imran, from a shaykh, from ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abza, from ‘Umar, who said:
“This authority is among the people of Badr as long as any of them remain; then among the people of Uhud as long as any of them remain; and then among such and such (after them). There is no share in it for a taleeq, nor for the son of a taleeq, nor for any of those who embraced Islam at the Conquest.”
Moreover, the Quraysh were not ones with firm faith in Islam. This is evidenced by a tradition Sahih al-Bukhari 126:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Kaaba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
This tradition highlights how the Prophet (SAW) treated the recently converted Quraysh in a political manner, as he knew that many of their hearts were still inclined against Islam. They likewise would not have accepted ‘Ali’s succession, as they harbored deep hostility toward ʿAlī (AS), and presenting them with the matter of wilāyah would have immediately provoked their resentment and maybe even led to apostasy, for they would not accept as leader one whom they despised.
This animosity that Quraysh held against ‘Ali (AS) can be evidenced from the following words of ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan in Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Vol. 1, pg. 86, Hadith # 338 by Abu Na’eem al-Asbahani:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ، وَأَبُو عَلِيٍّ الصَّوَّافُ، قَالَا: ثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يوسُفَ بْنِ الضَّحَّاكِ، ثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى الْفَزَارِيُّ، ثَنَا نُوحُ بْنُ دَرَّاجٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ: عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ:
قَالَ عُثْمَانُ، لِعَلِيٍّ رضي الله عنهما: «مَا ذَنْبِي إِنْ لَمْ تُحِبَّكَ قُرَيْشٌ، وَقَدْ قَتَلْتَ مِنْهُمْ سَبْعِينَ رَجُلًا كَأَنَّ وُجُوهَهُمْ سُيُوفُ الذَّهَبِ»
Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. Ja‘far and Abu Ali al-Sawwaf narrated to us; they said: Ahmad b. Yusuf b. al-Dahhak narrated to us, Isma‘il b. Musa al-Fazari narrated to us, Nuh b. Darrāj from Muhammad b. Ishaq from Ikrima from Ibn Abbas, who said:
Uthman said to Ali: “What is my fault if Quraysh does not love you, when you have killed seventy of their men whose faces were like plates of gold?”
This same animosity is attested to by the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) themselves, namely ‘Ali b. al-Husayn al-Sajjad (AS). We read in Ibn al-I’rabi in Mu'jam Shuyukh Vol 1, pg. 300, Hadith # 573:
حدثنا الغلابي، حدثنا إبراهيم بن بشار، حدثنا سفيان عن ابن طاووس عن أبيه قال:
قلت لعلي بن حسين بن علي: "ما بال قريش لا تحب عَليًا؟
قال: لأنَّه أورد أولهم النّار، وألزم آخرهم العار."
Al-Ghalabi narrated to us, Ibrahim b. Bishar narrated to us, Sufyan narrated from Ibn Tawus, from his father (Tawus b. Kaysan), who said:
I asked ‘Ali b. al-Husayn b. ‘Ali, "Why does Quraysh not like Ali?"
‘Ali b. al-Husayn replied: "Because he sent the first of them to hellfire, and imposed disgrace on the last of them."
However, this report has been weakened due to Muhammad b. Zakariya b. Dinar al-Ghalabi, who was declared a fabricator by our opponents for narrating reports that did not suit them. However, this is of no concern to us, as this man was certified by al-Najashi; see Mu'jam Rijal al-Hadith Vol. 17, pg. 94.
Thus we see that making this announcement at ‘Arafah would have been counterproductive, causing issues for the Prophet (SAW). In the same way that rebuilding the Ka’aba would have turned the newly converted Quraysh against the Prophet, likewise announcing ‘Ali’s succession to them would have needlessly given them a reason to revolt.
Response 5: Their own argument backfires at them!
Not only is their argument weak, but it also backfires on them. This is because if the Prophet (SAW) intended to indicate love or support– as they claim– then it would have been more appropriate to make this call at ‘Arafa, since the Meccans needed to hear this message more than the Medinans.
The reason for this is that the Meccans had more reason to hate ‘Ali (AS) because he fought against them and killed many of their relatives, while he fought for the Medinans. The Medinans witnessed many of his high and unique public virtues, such as him receiving the banner everyone desired at Khaybar after a miracle, the day of Mubahala, and countless acts of bravery on the battlefield.
Therefore, if the announcement was simply to indicate love and support, the Prophet (SAW) would have made it at ‘Arafah in front of the Meccans, who needed to hear it most. However, since it wasn’t then it shows that the meaning of Ghadir was primarily to convey something only those who loved or endorsed ‘Ali (AS) would have been able to handle, which is succession.
To show another aspect: if the announcement is about authority, clearly the Medinans needed to hear it more than the Meccans. The Meccans were Tulaqa’, lower class, and had no say in political decisions, while the Medinans were at the center of the politics of the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, those who most needed to hear about authority were present.
Therefore, their own argument entails that it makes far more sense for Ghadir to be about authority than love. If it was about love, those who needed to hear it most were absent; if it was about authority, those who needed to hear it most were present.
Objection 2: Is Hadith Ghadeer an ambiguous designation (Nass Khafi)?
Objection:
Al-Sharif al-Murtadha called Ghadeer as an “implicit proof” (nass khafi) instead of an “explicit proof” (nass jali). An implicit proof cannot be used to establish a foundational tenet of faith.
Response 1:
This objection simply misrepresents what Nass Khafi means, as the Sayyid (RH) did not say the hadith is ambiguous, but rather that the phrase requires context.
Let us quote the words of al-Sharif al-Murtadha (RH) in order to better understand his argument. We read in al-Shafi Fil Imamah, Vol. 2, pg. 67:
فأما النص بالقول دون الفعل ينقسم إلى قسمين:
أحدهما: ما علم سامعوه من الرسول صلى الله عليه وآله مراده منه باضطرار، وإن كنا الآن نعلم ثبوته والمراد منه استدلالا وهو النص الذي في ظاهره ولفظه الصريح بالإمامة والخلافة، ويسميه أصحابنا النص الجلي كقوله عليه السلام (سلموا على علي بإمرة المؤمنين) و (هذا خليفتي فيكم من بعدي فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا).
والقسم الآخر: لا نقطع على أن سامعيه من الرسول صلى الله عليه وآله علموا النص بالإمامة منه اضطرارا ولا يمتنع عندنا أن يكونوا علموه استدلالا من حيث اعتبار دلالة اللفظ، وما يحسن أن يكون المراد أو لا يحسن.
فأما نحن فلا نعلم ثبوته والمراد به إلا استدلالا كقوله صلى الله عليه وآله (أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبي بعدي) و (من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه) وهذا الضرب من النص هو الذي يسميه أصحابنا النص الخفي.
As for the explicit statement (Nass Khafi) without action, it is divided into two categories:
One: What the listeners understood from the Messenger (SAW) about his intention necessarily (without need for further context), even if we now know its authenticity and intended meaning through context. This is the text that is explicit in its apparent meaning and clear wording regarding the Imamate and Caliphate. Our scholars call this the ‘nass al-Jali,' such as his saying, 'Greet Ali with the title of Commander of the Faithful' and 'This is my successor among you after me, so listen to him and obey’.
The other category: [That which] we do not assert that the listeners of the Messenger (SAW) necessarily (i.e. without need for further context) understood the words regarding the Imamate from him. It is not impossible for us to think that they understood it through inference (context) by considering the implication of the wording and what would or would not be appropriate as the intended meaning.
Ayatullah Jawad Mughniyyah also states in al-Shi’a Fi al-Mizan, pg. 123 - 124:
والفرق بين النص الجلي والنص الخفي أن الأول يعلم منه المعنى بالضرورة ، وبدون حاجة إلى الاستدلال و المقدمات ، كما لو قلت : هذا أخي . فإنه يدل على الأخوة ابتداء وبلا واسطة ، والثاني يحتاج إلى الاستدلال وترتيب مقدمات كما لو قلت : أنا وأنت كالحسنين . والحسنان أخوان فنحن أخوان
The difference between Nass Jali and Nass Khafi is that the first conveys the meaning directly and necessarily, without the need for reasoning or premises. For example, when I say, “This is my brother,” it immediately indicates brotherhood without any intermediary. On the other hand, the second requires reasoning and arranging premises. For instance, when I say, “You and I are like Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn,” and knowing that Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn are brothers, we conclude that you and I are brothers.
Simply put, Nass Khafi is a designation which without any context or outside information is not necessarily going to be understood by the listener. In this case, Sharif al-Radhi (RH) is saying that the phrase “Man Kuntu Mawla Fa ‘Aliyyun Mawla” (not the entire event of Ghadeer) without any other context is not necessarily going to be understood as a designation of succession.
We have already explained in depth how the context of the event of Ghadeer leaves no doubt that the announcement of the Prophet ﷺ was about authority, and this is confirmed by Ahmad b. Hanbal as reported by al-Khalal in Kitab al-Sunnah Vol. 2, pg. 346 - 348, Hadith # 458 - 461:
وَأَخْبَرَنِي زَكَرِيَّا بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَنَّ أَبَا طَالِبٍ حَدَّثَهُمْ، أَنَّهُ سَأَلَ أبا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لِعَلِيٍّ: «مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ» ، مَا وَجْهُهُ؟ قَالَ : «لَا تَكَلَّمْ فِي هَذَا، دَعِ الْحَدِيثَ كَمَا جَاءَ»
وَأَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَطر، أَن أَبَا طَالِبٍ حَدَّثَهُمْ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لِعَلِيٍّ: «مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلَيُّ مَوْلَاهُ» ، مَا وَجْهُهُ؟ قَالَ: «لَا تَكَلَّمْ فِي هَذَا، دَعِ الْحَدِيثَ كَمَا جَاءَ»
Zakariya b. Yahya reported that Abu Talib told them that he asked Abu Abd Allah about the Prophet’s statement to Ali: “Whoever I am the mawla of, Ali is his mawla.” He said: “Do not discuss this, leave the hadith as it is.”
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Matr reported that Abu Talib told them: I asked Abu Abdillah about the Prophet’s saying to Ali, “Whoever I am mawla of, Ali is also mawla” — what is its meaning? He said: “Do not speak about this, leave the hadith as it came.”
We see here that Ibn Hanbal feared the context of Hadith al-Ghadeer and understood that without context it did not pose much of a threat. This is precisely what the Sayyid (RH) alluded to, and this fact does not benefit our opponents at all as now they are forced to either give context for the announcement to Ghadeer, or admit they follow Ahmad’s method of maintaining silence on the matter in which case our narrative is clearly better than no narrative at all.
Furthermore, al-Sharif al-Murtada himself believed Ghadir is an unquestionable proof for imamate. This was mentioned in his al-Rasa'il wal-Masa'il, Vol. 3, pg. 320 - 321:
قال الأجل المرتضى علم الهدى (قدس الله روحه) : ان كلامه عليهالسلام في يوم الغدير تصريح في النص بالإمامة، والاستخلاف على الأمة ، وأنه لا يحتمل سوى هذا المعنى ولا يليق بخلاف هذا
وأنه ان حمل على غيره كان خطلا من القول ثبت ما قصدناه واعتمدناه ، فصار من الزامنا أن يعدل عن هذا اللفظ الى غيره من الألفاظ مبسطاً في الاقتراح معنا ، لأن اللفاظ إذا دلت على معنى واحد فان المتكلم مخير بينهما ، ولا لفظ الا ويجوز أن تقع الشبهة فيه للمتأمل ، وأن لا يوفي النظر حقه.
ألا ترى أنه عليهالسلام لو قال فيه : أنت الإمام من بعدي والخليفة على أمتي. وذلك أصرح الألفاظ ، جاز أن تدخل شبهة على مبطل ، فيقول انه عليهالسلام انما أراد بلفظه «بعدي» بعد عثمان. أو يقول : أنت الخليفة ان اختارتك الأمة واجتمعت عليك.
فإذا قيل : ان هذا خلاف ظاهر الكلام.
قلنا : وكذلك حمل لفظ الغدير على غير النص بالإمامة ، عدول عن ظاهر الكلام ، وسنبين ذلك.
فأما دخول الشبهة في لفظ خبر الغدير ، فإنما أتى فيها من دخلت عليه من قلة تبصره وقلة تأمله ، كما دخلته على قوم في قوله تعالى (لا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصارَ).
The statement of the Prophet on the Day of Ghadir is an explicit declaration, a clear textual designation (nass) of Imamate and succession over the Ummah. It bears no meaning other than this, nor is any alternative interpretation appropriate. If it is interpreted otherwise, then that would be a baseless and flawed interpretation.
Thus, what we intended and relied upon has been established. And whoever obliges us to abandon this wording in favor of other terms is being arbitrary in suggestion and mistaken in reasoning, because when different expressions all indicate the same meaning, the speaker has the freedom to use any of them.
And there is no wording that is entirely free from the possibility of confusion to one who reflects carelessly or does not give full due to proper investigation.
Do you not see that if the Prophet ﷺ had said: ‘You are the Imam after me and the Caliph over my nation,’—which are among the clearest expressions—it would still have been possible for some to introduce doubts? They could claim that by ‘after me,’ he meant after ‘Uthman, or that ‘You are the Caliph’ was conditional upon the ummah choosing and agreeing upon him.
If one were to object that this contradicts the apparent meaning of the words, we would respond: Likewise, interpreting the wording of Ghadir as anything other than explicit designation to the Imamate is a deviation from the apparent meaning, as we will clarify.
As for the doubt that has been raised concerning the wording of the Ghadir narration, it arises only due to the lack of insight and contemplation on the part of those who fall into it—just as some have misunderstood Allah’s statement: ‘Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives all vision…’.
Response 2: It is the Sunnis who believe in ambiguous proofs for the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
The irony is that it is fact our opponents who have no clear unambiguous proof for the caliphate of Abu Bakr. We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7218:
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
It was said to `Umar, "Will you appoint your successor?" `Umar said, "If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)) did so." On this, the people praised him. `Umar said, "People are of two kinds: Either one who is keen to take over the Caliphate or one who is afraid of assuming such a responsibility. I wish I could be free from its responsibility in that I would receive neither reward nor retribution I won't bear the burden of the caliphate in my death as I do in my life."
Here ‘Umar clearly admits that the Prophet did not appoint Abu Bakr, thus our opponents are forced to rely on ambiguous reports to prove the validity of Abu Bakr’s caliphate. We read in Huqbatun Min al-Tarikh pg, 221 by the infamous wahabi scholar 'Uthman al-Khamees:
هل خلافة أبي بكر و كانت بالنص أو بالشورى
خلافة أبي بكر الصديق على ثلاثة أقوال
القول الأول : أنها بالنص الجلي الواضح من الرسول الله
القول الثاني : أنها بالنص الخفي كقوله للمرأة لما قالت : إذا لم أجدك ،
قال : ( فأتى أبا بكر ، ، قالوا : هذا نص خفي ليس بصريح
القول الثالث : بالشورى
والذي يظهر أنها بالنص الخفي وليست بالصريح والعلم عند الله
Was the caliphate of Abu Bakr established by explicit designation (nass) or through consultation (shura)?
The caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq is subject to three opinions:
The first opinion: That it was by a clear and explicit nass (designation) from the Messenger of Allah.
The second opinion: That it was by an implicit nass, such as his statement to the woman who asked, "If I do not find you [i.e., after your death]?" He replied, "Then go to Abu Bakr." They say this is an implicit text, not an explicit one.
The third opinion: That it was established through shura (consultation).
What appears to be the case is that it was through an implicit nass and not an explicit one—and Allah knows best.
Here ‘Uthman al-Khamees admits that for our opponents Nass Khafi means an ambiguous proof and not an explicit one. It is for this reason that whenever the Sunnis discuss the caliphate of Abu Bakr they rely on strange reports such as Jubayr b. Mut’im’s story regarding an old lady asking the Prophet ﷺ for help, or Aisha claiming the Prophet would have appointed Abu Bakr to prove his caliphate, as they have no clear indication of his succession whatsoever. This is unlike the Shia who have clear proofs for ‘Ali’s caliphate such as Hadith al-Ghadeer among others.
Objection 3: Did al-Hasan al-Muthana reject Ghadeer’s interpretation?
Objection:
If Ghadir is about Wilayah, why did al-Hasan Al-Muthana not understand it that way? It is reported in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, Vol. 5, pg. 245:
أخبرنا شبابة بن سوار الفزاري قال: أخبرني الفضيل بن مرزوق قال: سمعت الحسن بن الحسن يقول لرجل ممن يغلو فيهم:
ويحكم أحبونا لله فإن أطعنا الله فأحبونا وإن عصينا الله فأبغضونا.
قال فقال له رجل: إنكم قرابة رسول الله وأهل بيته.
فقال:ويحك لو كان الله مانعا بقرابة من رسول الله أحدا بغير طاعة الله لنفع بذلك من هو أقرب إليه منا أبا وأما، والله إني لأخاف أن يضاعف للعاصي منا العذاب ضعفين وإني لأرجو أن يؤتى المحسن منا أجره مرتين. ويلكم اتقوا الله وقولوا فينا الحق فإنه أبلغ فيما تريدون ونحن نرضى به منكم.
ثم قال: لقد أساء بنا آباؤنا إن كان هذا الذي تقولون من دين الله ثم لم يطلعونا عليه ولم يرغبونا فيه.
قال فقال له الرافضي: ألم يقل رسول الله، عليه السلام، لعلي من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه؟
فقال: أما والله أن لو يعني بذلك الإمرة والسلطان لأفصح لهم بذلك كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت ولقال لهم أيها الناس هذا وليكم من بعدي فإن أنصح الناس كان للناس رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولو كان الأمر كما تقولون إن الله ورسوله اختارا عليا لهذا الأمر والقيام بعد النبي، عليه السلام، إن كان لأعظم الناس في ذلك خطئة وجرما إذ ترك ما أمره به رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، أن يقوم فيه كما أمره أو يعذر فيه إلى الناس.
Shababa b. Sawwar al-Fazari narrated to us, saying: al-Fudayl b. Marzuq informed me, saying: I heard al-Hasan b. al-Hasan say to a man among those who exaggerate about them:
“Woe to you! Love us for the sake of Allah. If we obey Allah, then love us; and if we disobey Allah, then hate us.”
The man replied, “But you are the relatives of the Messenger of Allah and his household.”
He said: “Woe to you! If kinship to the Messenger of Allah could protect someone without obedience to Allah, then it would have benefited those closer to him in lineage than us by father and mother. By Allah, I fear that the sinner among us will have his punishment doubled, and I hope that the doer of good among us will have his reward multiplied twice. Woe to you! Fear Allah and speak the truth about us. That is more effective for what you seek, and we will be satisfied with that from you.”
Then he said: “Our forefathers have done badly by us if what you say is part of the religion of Allah, yet they neither informed us of it nor encouraged us toward it.”
The Rafidi (extremist Shi’a) then said to him: “Did not the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say to ‘Ali: Whomsoever I am his master, then ‘Ali is his master?”
He replied: “By Allah, if he meant by that command and authority (imārah wa sulṭān), he would have made it clear to them just as he made prayer, zakāt, fasting of Ramadan, and pilgrimage to the House clear. He would have said to them: O people, this is your guardian after me. For indeed, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was the most sincere adviser to the people. And if the matter is as you claim that Allah and His Messenger chose ‘Ali for this affair and succession—then the most erroneous and guilty of people would be ‘Ali himself for not fulfilling what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded him to do, nor did he excuse himself to the people.”
Response:
The individual has mistaken al-Hasan b. al-Hasan al-Muthalith for al-Hasan b. al-Hasan al-Muthana (ra). The one stating this was not al-Muthena, and this is evidenced by the following report in Juzu’ Muhammad b. ‘Asim al-Thaqafi, pg. 125 - 126:
حدثنا محمد بن عاصم حدثنا شبابة حدثنا الفضيل بن مرزوق قال
سمعت الحسن بن الحسن أخا عبدالله بن الحسن وهو يقول لرجل ممن يغلو فيهم
Muhammad b. ‘Asim narrated to us, Shabbabah narrated to us, al-Fudayl b. Marzūq narrated:
I heard al-Hasan b. al-Hasan, the brother of ‘Abd Allah b. al-Hasan, saying to a man from those who exaggerate about them: [...]
Abdullah b. Hasan here is Abdullah b. al-Hasan b. al-Hasan b. Ali (AS), as he was contemporary to Fudhayl b. Mazruq’s time. Furthermore, al-Hasan al-Muthalith’s words carry no significance as we have hadiths condemning him.
For example, in an authentic report from Rijal al-Kashi, Vol. 2, pg. 363:
حمدويه، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى، قال: حدثني يونس، عن ابن مسكان عن سليمان بن خالد، قال:
لقيت الحسن بن الحسن، فقال: أما لنا حق ؟ أما لنا حرمه ؟ إذا اخترتم منا رجلاً واحداً كفاكم. فلم يكن له عندي جواب، فلقيت أبا عبد الله الله ، فأخبرتــه بــما كان من قوله لي، فقال لي: «ألقه فقل له: أتيناكم فقلنا: هل عندكم ما ليس عند غيركم؟ فقلتم : لا ، فصدقناكم وكنتم أهل ذلك، وأتينا بني عمكم، فقلنا: هل عندكم ما ليس عند الناس ؟ فقالوا: نعم، فصدقناهم وكانوا أهل ذلك». قال: فلقيته فقلت له ما قال لي، فقال لي الحسن : فإنَّ عندنا ما ليس عند الناس، فلم يكن عندي شيء، فأتيت أبا عبد الله عليلا ، فأخبرته، فقال لي: «ألقه وقل: إنَّ الله لا يقول في كتابه : ائْتُونِي بِكِتَابٍ مِنْ قَبْلِ هَذا أَوْ أَثَارَةٍ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ (١) ، فاقعدوا لنا حتى نسألكم». قال: فلقيته، فحاججته بذلك، فقال لي: أفما عندكم شيء؟ ألا تعيبونا" أن كــان فلان تفرغ (۳) وشغلنا؟ فذاك الذي يذهب بحقنا.
Hamdawayh said: Muhammad b. Isa narrated to us, saying: Yunus narrated to me, from b. Maskan, from Sulayman b. Khalid, who said:
I met al-Hasan b. al-Hasan, and he said, “Do we not have a right? Do we not have sanctity? If you chose one man from among us, would that suffice you?”
I had no answer for him. Then I met Aba Abd Allah and informed him of what he had said to me. He said to me: “Meet him and say to him: We came to you and asked, ‘Do you have something others do not?’ and you said, ‘No.’ So we believed you, and you were truthful and worthy of that. Then we went to your cousins and asked them, ‘Do you have what others do not?’ and they said, ‘Yes.’ So we believed them, and they were truthful and worthy of that.”
He said: So I met him and told him what he (al-Sadiq) had said to me. Al-Hasan said: “Indeed, we do have what others do not.”
I had no response. I then went to Aba Abd Allah, who was ill, and informed him. He said to me: “Meet him and say: Does God not say in His Book: Bring a Book before this or some trace of knowledge, if you are truthful? So sit for us, that we may question you.”
He said: I met him and argued with him using this. He said to me: “Do you not have anything? Will you blame us if so-and-so was free while we were occupied? That is what took away our rights.”
We also read in al-Tabrisi’s al-Ihtijaj, pg. 120 - 121:
عن أبي يعقوب قال : لقيت أنا ومعلى بن خنيس الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب فقال : يا يهودي فأخبرنا بما قال فينا جعفر بن محمد.
فقال : «هو والله أولى باليهودية منكما ، إنّ اليهودي من شرب الخمر» .
وبهذا الإسناد قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله يقول : لو توفّي الحسن بن الحسن على الزنا والربا وشرب الخمر ، كان خيراً له مما توفّي عليه.
From Abu Yaqub who said: I, along with Mualla b. Khunays, met al-Hasan b. al-Hasan b. Ali b. Abi Talib. He said, “O Jew, inform us of what Ja‘far b. Muhammad has said about us.”
He replied, “By Allah, he is more deserving of Judaism than you two. A Jew is one who drinks wine.”
And through this same chain, he said: I heard Aba Abd Allah say: “If al-Hasan b. al-Hasan had died committing adultery, usury, and drinking wine, it would have been better for him than what he died upon.”
Furthermore, some variants say Ali (as) is the weli after him. This will be mentioned more in other articles.
Objection 4: Why did the Sahaba Ignore Ghadir?
Objection:
If Ghadir is about authority, the Sahaba would have taken ‘Ali (AS) as Imam over Abu Bakr, but they didn’t, showing Ghadir is not about authority.
Response 1: This is a false premise
The claim presupposes a false assumption that the Sahaba would always obey the Prophet ﷺ or are upright. The position for power was available, and some companions sacrificed their religion to maintain it. The opponent needs to disprove that Ghadir is not about authority using the context itself. As for the companions, they’re not infallible, so their disobedience to the Prophet ﷺ in this regard is baseless.
Response 2: The Sahaba disobeyed the Prophet ﷺ while he was their Imam
Allah says in Surah Ale ‘Imran Verse 144:
وَ ما مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَ فَإِنْ ماتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلى أَعْقابِكُمْ وَ مَنْ يَنْقَلِبْ عَلى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَنْ يَضُرَّ اللَّـهَ شَيْئاً وَ سَيَجْزِي اللَّـهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ
Muhammad is but an apostle; [other] apostles have passed before him. If he dies or is slain, will you turn back on your heels? Anyone who turns back on his heels, will not harm Allah in the least, and soon Allah will reward the grateful.
Interestingly, there are many reports which indicate that the indeed sahaba turned on their heels and disobeyed the Prophet ﷺ even during his life. We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 6593:
Narrated Asma 'bint Abu Bakr:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I will be standing at the Lake-Fount so that I will see whom among you will come to me; and some people will be taken away from me, and I will say, 'O Lord, (they are) from me and from my followers.' Then it will be said, 'Did you notice what they did after you? By Allah, they kept on turning on their heels (turned as renegades).' " The sub-narrator, Ibn Abi Mulaika said, "O Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels, or being put to trial in our religion."
We further read in Musnad al-Shamiyyin Vol 2, pg. 100, Hadith # 987:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ شُعَيب السِّمْسَارُ، ثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ خِدَاشٍ، ثَنَا صَالِحُ بْنُ نَصْرِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، ثَنَا عَبَّادُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ الْقَصِيرُ، عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ رَاشِدِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ،
عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنِ الْيَمَانِ، [قَالَ] : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «لَتَرْكَبُنَّ سُنَّة أهل الْكِتَابِ قَبْلَكُمْ حَذْوَ النَّعْلِ بِالنَّعْل لَا تُخْطِئُونَ وَلَا يُخْطَأُ لَكُمْ» ،
فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ حَتَّى يَعْبُدُوا عَجِلَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ؟
فَقَالَ: «نَعَمْ وَعِجْلُ أُمَّتِي فُلَانٌ» , قَدْ سَمَّاهُ صَالِحٌ
Muhammad b. Ali b. Shu'ayb al-Simsar narrated to us, Khalid b. Khaddash narrated to us, Salih b. Nasr b. Malik narrated to us, ‘Abbad b. Yusuf al-Qasir narrated to us, from Safwan b. ‘Amr, from Rashid b. Sa'd,
from Hudhayfah b. al-Yaman, [who] said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "You will surely follow the ways of the People of the Book before you, step by step, so precisely that you will not deviate, nor will they deviate for you."
A man from among the people asked: "O Messenger of Allah, even to the extent of worshipping the calf of Banu Israel?"
He replied: "Yes, and the calf of my nation is so-and-so." (Salih named him.)
The Ummah following the Sunnah of Bani Isra’eel also applies to the Sahabah. We read in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol 36, pg. 231, Hadith # 21900:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سِنَانِ بْنِ أَبِي سِنَانٍ الدِّيلِيِّ ، عَنْ أَبِي وَاقِدٍ اللَّيْثِيِّ، قَالَ:
خَرَجَنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قِبَلَ حُنَيْنٍ، فَمَرَرْنَا بِسِدْرَةٍ، فَقُلْتُ: يَا نَبِيَّ اللهِ، اجْعَلْ لَنَا هَذِهِ ذَاتَ أَنْوَاطٍ كَمَا لِلْكُفَّارِ ذَاتُ أَنْوَاطٍ، وَكَانَ الْكُفَّارُ يَنُوطُونَ سِلَاحَهُمْ بِسِدْرَةٍ، وَيَعْكُفُونَ حَوْلَهَا، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم: " اللهُ أَكْبَرُ، هَذَا كَمَا قَالَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لِمُوسَى: {اجْعَلْ لَنَا إِلَهًا كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةً} [الأعراف: 138]. إِنَّكُمْ تَرْكَبُونَ سَنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ " (2).
‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, Ma‘mar informed us, from al-Zuhri, from Sinan b. Abi Sinan al-Dili, from Abu Waqid al-Laythi, who said:
We set out with the Messenger of God ﷺ toward Hunayn. We passed by a lote tree, and I said, "O Prophet of God, make for us a ‘Dhat Anwat’ just like the idolaters have a ‘Dhat Anwat’." The idolaters used to hang their weapons on a lote tree and gather around it in devotion. The Prophet ﷺ said:
"God is the Greatest! This is just like what the Children of Israel said to Moses: {Make for us a god just as they have gods} [al-A‘raf: 138]. Indeed, you are following the ways of those who came before you."
We see from these reports that the Muslim community will experience the same missteps as Bani Israel. With this in mind it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Sahaba who were disobeying the Prophet ﷺ in his lifetime as well as beginning to fall into the same problems as Bani Israel would falter regarding the issue of the prophet’s succession.
Response 3: The Ansar disobeyed the Prophet ﷺ regarding the caliphate
The Sahaba, specifically the Ansar, attempted to appoint a caliph from among themselves at Saqifa; our opponents believe that the Prophet clearly indicated that the Caliph must be from Quraysh we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7140:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "This matter (caliphate) will remain with the Quraish even if only two of them were still existing."
Also in Sahih Muslim 1822a:
The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 3667:
Abu Bakr said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler."
We also read the account of ‘Umar in Sahih al-Bukhari 6830:
After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.' When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home…
Thus we conclude that this objection is baseless, as a large group of the companions deliberately went against the Prophets orders regarding the caliphate being restricted to Quraysh, so it is perfectly reasonable that they would do so with the Prophet’s announcement at Khumm regarding ‘Ali as well.
Response 4: The Sahaba abandoned the caliph ‘Uthman
حدثنا علي بن حمشاذ العدل، ثنا إسماعيل بن إسحاق القاضي، ثنا مسلم بن إبراهيم، ثنا وهيب بن خالد، ثنا موسى، ومحمد، وإبراهيم، بنو عقبة، قالوا: ثنا أبو أمنا أبو حسنة قال:
شهدت أبا هريرة وعثمان محصور في الدار، واستأذنته في الكلام، فقال أبو هريرة: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: «إنها ستكون فتنة، واختلاف - أو اختلاف - وفتنة» ، قال: قلنا: يا رسول الله، فما تأمرنا؟ قال: «عليكم بالأمير وأصحابه» وأشار إلى عثمان
Narrated by Ali b. Hamshadh al-Adl, Ismail b. Ishaq al-Qadhi, Muslim b. Ibrahim, Wahib b. Khalid, Musa, Muhammad, and Ibrahim b. Uqba: They said: Abu Umana Abu Hasana said:
“I witnessed Abu Huraira while Uthman was besieged in his house, and I sought permission to speak. Abu Huraira said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “There will be a trial and differences— or differences and a trial.”’
We asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what do you command us?’
He said: ‘Stick to the leader and his companions,’ and he pointed towards Uthman.
According to this tradition, the Prophet ordered the sahaba to stick to ‘Uthman, however the Sahaba not only did not stick to ‘Uthman, rather they either abandoned him or helped to besiege him. We read in Ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani’s Kitab al-Masahif pg. 45 - 46:
حَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ هِشَامِ بْنِ دَلْهَمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ الْخَلِيلِ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ قَالَ:
لَمَّا نَزَلَ أَهْلُ مِصْرَ الْجُحْفَةَ يُعَاتِبُونَ عُثْمَانَ رضي الله عنه، صَعِدَ عُثْمَانُ الْمِنْبَرَ فَقَالَ: "جَزَاكُمُ اللَّهُ يَا أَصْحَابَ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِّي شَرًّا أَذَعْتُمُ السَّيِّئَةَ، وَكَتَمْتُمُ الْحَسَنَةَ، وَأَغْرَيْتُمْ بِي سُفَهَاءَ النَّاسِ،
When the people of Egypt arrived at al-Juhfa to reproach ‘Uthman, ‘Uthman ascended the minbar and said:
“May God reward you, O companions of Muhammad, with evil on my behalf — you publicized the bad and concealed the good, and you incited the foolish among the people against me.”
Not only were the sahaba in Medina when ‘Uthman was killed, but ‘Uthman would often address them directly. We read in Sunan an-Nasa'i 3609 and Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol. 1, pg. 478 - 480, Report # 420:
It was narrated from Abu Salamah b. 'Abdur-Rahman that 'Uthman looked out over them when they besieged him and said:
"By Allah, I adjure a man who heard the Messenger of Allah, on the day when the mountain shook with him, and he kicked it with his foot and said: 'Be still, for there is no one upon you but a Prophet or a Siddiq or two martyrs,' and I was with him." Some men responded and affirmed that. Then he said: "By Allah, I adjure a man who witnessed the Messenger of Allah, on the day of Bai'at Al-Ridwan, say: 'This is the Hand of Allah and this is the hand of 'Uthman.'" Some men responded and affirmed that. He said: "By Allah, I adjure a man who heard the Messenger of Allah say, on the day of the army of Al-'Usrah (i.e. Tabuk): 'Who will spend it and it will be accepted?' And I equipped half of the army from my own wealth." Some men responded and affirmed that. Then he said: "By Allah, I adjure a man who heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Who will add to this Masjid in return for a house in Paradise,' and I bought it with my own wealth." Some men responded and affirmed that. Then he said: "By Allah, I adjure a man who witness Rumah being sold, and I bought it from my own wealth and allowed wayfarers to use it." Some men responded and affirmed that.
These traditions indicate that the men who besieged ‘Uthman had heard from the Prophet ﷺ, making them sahaba. It is for this reason that Ibn Hajar testified in al-Isaba, Vol 4 pg. 378 Bio # 5452 (Uthman’s biography)
وجاء من طرق كثيرة شهيرة صحيحة عن عثمان لما أن أحصروه أنتشد الصحابة في أشياء
“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when Uthman was besieged, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
This fact was not lost on the tabi’in (second generation of Muslims), as even they noted that the Caliph was abandoned by the Sahaba. We read in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol 3, pg. 31, Hadith # 1414:
حدثنا أبو سعيد مولى بني هاشم، حدثنا شداد - يعني ابن سعيد -، حدثنا غَيْلانُ بنُ جَرِيرٍ، عن مُطَرِّفٍ، قال:
قلنا للزبير: يا أبا عبد الله، ما جاء بكم؟ ضيَّعتم الخليفة حتى قُتِل، ثم جئتم تطلبون بدَمِهِ؟
فقال الزبير: إنا قرأناها على عهد رسول الله ﷺ، وأبي بكر، وعمر، وعثمان: ﴿وَاتَّقُوا فِتْنَةً لَا تُصِيبَنَّ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْكُمْ خَاصَّةً﴾ [الأنفال: ٢٥]، لم نكن نحسب أنا أهلها حتى وقعت منا حيث وقعت.
Abu Sa’id, the freed slave of Banu Hashim, narrated to us, saying: Shaddad (meaning Ibn Sa’id) narrated to us, who said: Ghaylan b. Jarir narrated to us, from Mutarrif, who said:
“We said to al-Zubayr: ‘O Abu Abdullah, what brought you here? You neglected the caliph until he was killed, and now you have come seeking to avenge his blood?’
He (al-Zubayr) replied: ‘We recited the verse during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman: {And fear a trial which will not only strike those who have wronged among you exclusively} [Surah Al-Anfal: 25].
We never thought that we would be its people until it occurred among us, as it has occurred.’
We read in Tarikh Dimashq Vol. 26, pg. 116:
قرأت بخط أبي الحسن رشأ بن نظيف وأنبأنيه أبو القاسم علي بن إبراهيم وأبو الوحش سبيع بن سيبخت نا محمد بن أحمد بن إبراهيم من قريش الحكيمي الكاتب نا أبو العباس أحمد بن يحيى ثعلب نا عبد الله بن شبيب عن الزبير حدثني محمد بن سلام الجمحي عن عبد الرحمن الهمداني قال:
دخل أبو الطفيل عامر بن واثلة الكناني على معاوية فقال له معاوية أبا الطفيل
قال نعم
قال ألست من قتلة عثمان
قال لا ولكني ممن حضره فلم ينصره
قال وما منعك من نصره
قال لم ينصره المهاجرون والأنصار
I read this in the handwriting of Abu al-Hasan Rasha b. Nazif, and it was narrated to me by Abu al-Qasim Ali b. Ibrahim and Abu al-Wahsh Sabi b. Saybakht. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Ibrahim from Quraysh al-Hakimi the scribe narrated to us, who said: Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Yahya Thalab narrated to us, who said: Abdullah b. Shabib narrated from al-Zubayr, who said: Muhammad b. Sallam al-Jumahi narrated to me from Abdurrahman al-Hamdani, who said:
Abu al-Tufayl ‘Amir b. Wathila al-Kinani entered upon Mu’awiya, who said to him:
"O Abu al-Tufayl?"
He said: "Yes."
Muawiya said: "Were you not among those who killed Uthman?"
He said: "No, but I was among those who were present and did not support him."
Mu’awiya said: "And what stopped you from supporting him?"
He replied: "The Muhajirun and Ansar did not support him."
We see from these reports that the Sahaba not only abandoned ‘Uthman and refused to support him, but also that they were in fact the ones that helped to foment opposition to him and finally bring him down. For our opponents to suggest that it is impossible that the sahaba would not follow the Prophet’s instructions regarding the matter of caliphate is laughable as we see that they did just that.
You could also see our other articles
Response 5: The Sahaba were Fasiqs
The fact is that the companions would openly commit acts of disobedience without care for the shari’a. If they were going to disobey the Prophet ﷺ and Allah (swt) in these matters, what would stop them from disobeying them in major matters such as the caliphate?
Ibn Uthaymeen says in Sharh Aqidat al-Tahawiyyah, Vol. 2, pg. 292:
ولا شك أنه حصل من بعضهم سرقة وشرب خمر وقذف وزنى بإحصان وزنى بغير إحصان، لكن كل هذه الأشياء تكون مغمورة في جنب فضائل القوم ومحاسنهم، وبعضها أقيم فيه الحدود، فيكون كفارة.
There is no doubting that some of them stole, drank alcohol, launched a charge against chaste women, performed adultery whilst being married and performed adultery whilst being single, but all these are forgivable on account of their virtues and good deeds, and some of them were punished so as to purify them.
Below we shall mention a few examples of their fisq.
Samura b. Jundub used to sell alcohol
حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ طَاوُوسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ:
ذُكِرَ لِعُمَرَ أَنَّ سَمُرَةَ - وَقَالَ مَرَّةً: بَلَغَ عُمَرَ أَنَّ سَمُرَةَ - بَاعَ خَمْرًا، قَالَ: قَاتَلَ اللهُ سَمُرَةَ، إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، قَالَ: " لَعَنَ اللهُ الْيَهُودَ، حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّحُومُ، فَجَمَلُوهَا فَبَاعُوهَا ".
Sufyan narrated to us from ‘Amr, from Tawus, from Ibn Abbas:
It was mentioned to ‘Umar—or he said: news reached ‘Umar—that Samura had sold wine. He said: "May God fight Samura! The Messenger of God said:
‘God cursed the Jews—fat was forbidden to them, so they melted it down and sold it.’”
Footnote: Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut certified this tradition.
Mu’awiya used to import alcohol
We read in al-Isbahani’s Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Vol. 4 pg. 1828, Report # 4616:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَمْدَانَ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ، ثنا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى السُّدِّيُّ، ثنا أَبُو تُمَيْلَةَ يَحْيَى بْنُ وَاضِحٍ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ بُرْدَةَ بْنِ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ، قَالَ:
"غَزَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ فِي زَمَانِ عُثْمَانَ، وَمُعَاوِيَةُ أَمِيرٌ عَلَى الشَّامِ، فَمَرَّتْ بِهِ رَوَايَا خَمْرٍ تُحْمَلُ لِمُعَاوِيَةَ، وَبُرٌّ فَقَامَ إِلَيْهَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بِرُمْحِهِ، فَنَقَرَ كُلَّ رَاوِيَةٍ مِنْهَا، فَنَاوَشَهُ غِلْمَانُهُ حَتَّى بَلَغَ مَثْأَنَةَ مُعَاوِيَةَ، فَقَالَ: دَعُوهُ فَإِنَّهُ شَيْخٌ قَدْ ذَهَبَ عَقْلُهُ، فَقَالَ: كَذَبَ وَاللهِ، مَا ذَهَبَ عَقْلِي، وَلَكِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَانَا أَنْ نُدْخِلَ بُطُونَنَا، وَأَسْقِيَتَنَا، وَأَحْلِفُ بِاللهِ لَئِنْ أَنَا بَقِيَتُ حَتَّى أَرَى فِي مُعَاوِيَةَ مَا سَمِعْتُ مِنَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، لَأَبْقُرَنَّ بَطْنَهُ وَلَأَمُوتَنُّ دُونَهُ "
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Hamdan narrated to us, al-Hasan b. Sufyan narrated to us, Isma‘il b. Musa al-Suddi narrated to us, Abu Tumayla Yahya b. Wadih narrated to us, from Muhammad b. Ishaq, from Burda b. Sufyan, from Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Qurazi, who said:
"‘Abd al-Rahman b. Sahl al-Ansari went on campaign during the time of ‘Uthman, while Mu‘awiya was governor over al-Sham. A convoy of wine and wheat passed by him, being transported for Mu‘awiya. So ‘Abd al-Rahman went up to them with his spear and pierced every container. His servants confronted him until the commotion reached Mu‘awiya. He said: 'Leave him alone; he is an old man who has lost his mind.'
‘Abd al-Rahman said: 'By God, he lies! My mind is intact. But the Messenger of God forbade us from putting this into our bellies and vessels. And by God, if I live to see in Mu‘awiya what I heard from the Messenger of God, I will rip open his belly and die before I let it pass.'"
Ruwayshid al-Thaqafi ran a bar
حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد، عن عبيد الله، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر، قال:
وجد عمر في بيت رجل من ثقيف شرابا، فأمر به فأحرق، وكان يقال له: رويشد، فقال: أنت فويسق
Yahya b. Sa‘id narrated to us, from ‘Ubaydullah, from Nāfi‘, from Ibn ‘Umar, who said:
‘Umar [b. al-Khattab] found some alcohol in the house of a man from [the tribe of] Thaqīf, so he ordered it to be burned. The man was called Ruwayshid, and ‘Umar said to him:
"You are a little evildoer (fuwaysiq).
أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ. وَمَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ ابْنَةِ أَبِي عُبَيْدٍ قَالَتْ:
وَجَدَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فِي بَيْتِ رُوَيْشِدٍ الثَّقَفِيِّ خَمْرًا، وَقَدْ كَانَ جُلِدَ فِي الْخَمْرِ، فَحَرَّقَ بَيْتَه، وَقَالَ: مَا اسْمُهُ؟ قَالَ: رُوَيْشِدٌ، قَالَ: بَلْ فُوَيْسِقٌ.
Abd al-Razzaq informed us, he said: Ubayd Allah b. Umar informed us, from Nafi. And Ma'mar, from Ayyub, from Nafi, from Safiyyah daughter of Abi Ubayd, she said:
Umar b. al-Khattab found wine in the house of Ruwayshid al-Thaqafi, and he had previously been flogged for wine, so he burned his house, and asked: “What is his name?”
They said: “Ruwayshid.”
He said: “Rather, he is a transgressor.”
Both of these traditions were certified by al-Albani in Tahdir al-Sajid, pg. 42. Ibn Hajar recorded Ruwayshid’s bio in al-Isaba fi Tamyeez al-Sahaba, Vol. 2, pg. 415 - 416, Bio # 2703 and commented that Ruwayshid was a sahabi.
Al-Mughira b. Shu’ba committed adultery
حدثنا أبو بكر قال: حدثنا ابن علية عن التيمي عن أبي عثمان قال:
لما (شهد) أبو بكرة وصاحباه على المغيرة، جاء زياد فقال له عمر:
رجل لن يشهد إن شاء اللَّه إلا بحق،
قال: رأيت انبهارًا ومجلسًا سيئًا
فقال عمر: هل رأيت المرود دخل المُكْحُلَة؟
قال: لا،
قال: فأمر بهم فجلدوا.
Abu Bakr narrated to us, saying: Ibn 'Ulayya narrated to us from al-Taymi from Abu 'Uthman, who said:
When Abu Bakrah and his two companions testified against al-Mughira, Ziyad came forward (as a witness), and 'Umar said to him: "A man who will not testify, God willing, except truthfully."
He (Ziyad) said: "I saw something suspicious and a disgraceful gathering"
'Umar said: "Did you see the stick enter the kohl container?"
He replied: "No."
So 'Umar ordered them to be flogged.
We further read in Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq Vol 7 pg. 326, Hadith # 14490:
عبد الرزاق، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي عُثْمَانَ النَّهْدِيِّ قَالَ:
شَهِدَ أَبُو بَكْرَةَ، وَنَافِعٌ، وَشِبْلُ بْنُ مَعْبَدٍ عَلَى الْمُغِيرَةِ بْنِ شُعْبَةَ، أَنَّهُمْ نَظَرُوا إِلَيْهِ كَمَا يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَى الْمِرْوَدِ فِي الْمُكْحُلَةِ، قَالَ: فَجَاءَ زِيَادٌ، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: جَاءَ رَجُلٌ لَا يَشْهَدُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ، قَالَ:
رَأَيْتُ مَجْلِسًا قَبِيحًا وَانْبِهَارًا،
قَالَ: فَجَلَدَهُمْ عُمَرُ الْحَدَّ.
‘Abd al-Razzaq, from al-Thawri, from Sulayman al-Taymi, from Abu ‘Uthman al-Nahdi who said:
Abu Bakrah, Nafi‘, and Shibl b. Ma‘bad testified against al-Mughira b. Shu‘ba that they saw him as clearly as one sees the kohl-stick in the kohl container. Then Ziyad came, and ‘Umar said: “A man has come who testifies only to the truth.”
He said: “I saw an ugly situation and confusion.”
So ‘Umar administered the legal punishment on them.
Abu Bakrah, Nafi’ and Shibl b. Ma’bad are all sahaba. This tradition was transmitted by al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir Vol. 6, pg. 1864 - 1865, Hadith # 7227, and the narrators of the tradition were certified by al-Haythami in Majma' al-Zawa'id, Vol. 6, p. 314, Hadith #10687 while Ibn Hajar affirmed that the tradition is Sahih in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 8, pg. 309 - 310.
We also read the full incident in Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 13, pg. 110 - 114, where Abu Bakrah, Nafi’, Shibl b. Ma’bad, as well as Ziyad all testified to having witnessed Mughira committing zina, as is evident from their statements. Umar was fully aware that Mughira was guilty, yet he had no intention of having him stoned and instead sought his acquittal. Since the punishment for adultery requires four upright male witnesses who saw the act, and three had already provided such testimony. Umar deliberately intervened to influence the outcome. As recorded in al-Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 10, pg. 386 - 388, when Ziyad came forth as the fourth witness, Umar looked at him and said: “Indeed, I see the face of a man through whom I hope no Companion of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ will be stoned because of his testimony.” Umar covertly coached Ziyad to deliver a legally invalid testimony, thereby preventing the conviction of a “Sahabi” and instead subjecting the three truthful Sahabis to the punishment for false accusation.
Al-Mughira b. Shu’ba used to engage in bribery
We read in al-Fasawi’s Kitab al-Ma'rifa wal-Tarikh, Vol. 1, pg. 459:
الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ: أَنَا أَوَّلُ مَنْ رَشَا فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، كُنْتُ آتِي فَأَجْلِسُ بِالْبَابِ فَأَنْتَظِرُ الدُّخُولَ عَلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ فَقُلْتُ لِيَرْفَأَ حَاجِبُهُ: خُذْ هَذِهِ الْعِمَامَةَ فَإِنَّ عِنْدِي أُخْتًا لَهَا لِتَلْبِسَهَا، فَكَانَ يُدْخِلُنِي حَتَّى أَجْلِسَ وَرَاءَ الْبَابِ فَمَنْ رَآنِي قَالَ إِنَّهُ لَيَدْخُلُ عَلَى عُمَرَ فِي سَاعَةٍ مَا يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهِ فِيهَا أَحَدٌ.
Ibrahim b. al-Mundhir narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to me, from Hamza, from Kathir, from al-Muttalib b. Abd Allah who said:
al-Mughira b. Shu‘ba said: “I was the first to offer a bribe in Islam. I used to come and sit at the door waiting to be admitted to ‘Umar b. al-Khattab. So I said to Yarfa’, his doorman: ‘Take this turban — I have a sister who wants it to wear.’ So he would admit me until I sat behind the door, and whoever saw me said: ‘He enters upon ‘Umar at a time when no one else is allowed in.’”
Al-Ash’ath b. Qays apostated
We read in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, (the fourth generation) Vol 2 pg. 812, Report # 390: that Al-Ash’ath b. Qays, a Companion who had embraced Islam in the presence of the Holy Prophet ﷺ , later apostatized.
أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ الْحُمَيْدِيُّ ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ قَالَا: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا قَيْسٌ قَالَ:
"شَهِدْتُ الْأَشْعَثَ وَجَرِيرًا حَضَرَا جِنَازَةً، فَقَدَّمَ الْأَشْعَثُ جَرِيرًا، ثُمَّ الْتَفَتَ إِلَى النَّاسِ ، فَقَالَ: «إِنِّي ارْتَدَدْتُ، وَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَرْتَدَّ»
Abdullah b. al-Zubayr al-Humaydi and ‘Ali b. ‘Abd Allah b. Ja‘far said: Sufyan told us, Isma‘il told us, Qays said:
“I witnessed al-Ash‘ath and Jarir attending a funeral. Al-Ash‘ath let Jarir lead, then turned to the people and said: Indeed, I apostatized, but he did not apostatize.”
The editor affirmed that the isnad is Sahih.
Conclusion
In this series we have covered all the main objections and contexts surrounding Ghadir Khumm to firmly establish it as a clear textual designation of Imam Ali (AS) being the successor of Rasulullah (SAW).
« Previous Part: How did the Sahaba understand Ghadeer Khum? »