No to Ghadir QOM, yes to Ghadir Khumm

An article unique in its kind. Let (first and foremost) the Ahl Al-Bayt themselves speak for themselves and see what they understood from the Ghadir incident. A call to abandon those who try to be holier than the pope, those who have started a circus-like event (including ‘Eid!) in the name of Ghadir and Ahl Al-Bait (رضوان الله علهم). A call to follow the actual understanding of the Ahl Al-Bait, of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (رضوان الله عليه) himself with regards to the sermon of the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) at the pond of Ghadir, instead of those who claim to follow and love them, yet have innovated in their names, a horrendous innovation. A call to believe in the incident of Ghadir Khumm, to adopt the understanding of the Ahl Al-Bait and the Sahaba and to disbelieve in the Ghadir Qom of the Rafidah (rejectionist Shias) who have fooled millions with their emotions, tricks and deceptions.

Ghadir Khumm … and what can make you know what is Ghadir khumm? A pond in the desert of Arabia where the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) once stopped at with his caravan and his beloved Sahaba and mentioned some important meretis of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and the Ahl Al-Bait, special merits that the Muslims (including the Sahaba who narrated the ‘Ghadir’ narration in the first place) never concealed, never attempted to conceal and never shied away from   proudly presenting the narrations including its proper explanation in their most authentic books (like in Sahih Muslim).

Blown out of proportion …

what the Rafidah have invented in the name of Ghadir khumm

If you haven’t read about or hear much about Ghadir Khumm then there is one thing no Muslim has really ever missed in his life, and it is the exaggeration of the (Twelver) Shias witj the Ahl Al-Bayt. As for the sermon at Ghadir (the most authentic version in Sahih Muslim) then of course the Shia have made a mountain out of a molehill in regards to this Hadith. Quoting dozens of sources (although most Sunni scholars testified the authenticity of the narrations before the Rafidah!) and rambling about it being a mass-narrated narration (which of course does not prove their point, i.e. THEIR understanding of the Hadith). In fact the sensationalization of the Rafidah Shia has reached new maximum levels of heresy, starting from their delirious and kufri claims that the day of Ghadir is actually  the greatest day and holiday in the sight of Allah (‘Eidullahi Al-Akbar) …

… and that ‘Once Ghadir is explained to all, Muslim unity will be achieved’ (Muslim unity = accepting Rafidi distortions and lies, just look at their arrogance, as if the Sunnah scholars are somehow ignorant of their Ghadir distortions).

Millions of deluded souls are annually been dragged to the tombs and shrines for the sake of this made-up ‘Eid …

… not to mention their bizarre masquerades where the Rafidah clergy lately encourage their followers to stage the event of Ghadir Qom in the city of polytheism of Qom (which has no religious significance in Islam whatsoever) in some Bollywood (rather Rafidiwood)-like theatre where Rafidis play the role of the Prophet (!) and Ali عليهما السلام:

Each year with different clownish costumes that look more like what some of those Mexican wrestlers wear.

Each year with new clownish costumes and new Mushriks in the desert of Qom

This ugly Iranian Mushrik represents the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم)!

Laughing stocks, as usual …

WOW! Ali took of his BOOTS at Ghadir QOM … Verily, the Rafidah are but a laughing stock.

Ghadir QOM boots prayer …

The Messenger of Allah (علبه الصلاة و السلام) and his noble Sahaba praying the hideous, ugly and invalid Rafidi prayer where a whole Elephant baby can be fit between each person …

Sahabiyat represented by Mushrik Iranian women with the hideous Iranian flag at Ghadir QOM …

Sahabiyat!

Now apart from their hideous and clownish innovations and heresies, the recent years have also provided us Muslims with with a few but strong rebuttals (particularly in English, for in Arabic there are loads of refutations available since ages) in regards to the Rafidi ‘understanding’ (in fact perverted distortion) of the Ghadir incident. Alhamdulillah, today these rebuttals alone by the Ahl Al-Sunnah leave no room for the sane to come to a conclusion other than the conclusion of the people of the Sunnah (we stronly advise you to take your time and read all the articles one by one, it will only strengthen your overall love for Ali and hate for the Rafidah Shia deceivers) after years of Rafidi propagation that flooded the net:

Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective]

Exposing the deception of religious deceivers regarding Hadeeth e Ghadeer

Wilayah is the last order from Allah?

The True Facts about Prophet Mohammad’s Last Sermon and Ghadir Al-Khumm

Authentic Shia hadeeth on Ghadeer is actually fabrication of Saba’ites.

Response to: Imam Sadiq (a.s) On Ghadeer

Once you have analysed these rebuttals (you don’t need to read them now, but to fully comprehend the Ghadir Hadith it is an essential read, especially the ‘A Sunni Perspective‘ one) you will realise that they cover nearly every point raised by the Shias, linguistical, historicals etc. everything is pretty much covered. Yet, there is a crucial questions, most Sunnis, and especially Shia articles in regards to the topic of Ghadir to not tackle, it is the following question that should be answered:

How did the Ahl Al-Bayt, particularly Ali himself understood the speech at Ghadir Khumm?! When, where and HOW did they employ it?!

This is a very vital question that needs to be addressed. Of course in Arabic this topic has been covered since ages, but to put the final nail in the coffin of the Rafidah in the English speaking world, let us analyse (for the first time in English language) how the Ahl Al-Bayt (and Sahaba) themselves understood the incident of Ghadir.

***Endless discussions about the meaning of the Prophet’s words at Ghadir …***

without referring to narrations where the Ahl Al-Bait themselves clarified the meaning of the Ghadir incident.

As you might have realised, may Allah have mercy upon you, Shia polemicists love to discuss hours (or write page over pages) about their interpretation and opinions of of the Ghadir Hadith. For instance, they will argue that the word “mawla” (مولى) that the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) used for Ali (رضي الله عنه) in Ghadir Khumm actually means ‘Caliph/leader’ because mawla in Arabic also stands for ‘master’, so the Prophet (عليه الصلاة و السلام) intended to make Ali the ‘master’ of all the believers. So the  Shias created a whole religion from one word i.e. mawla, which has more than a dozen meanings (It could mean a slave, a master of a slave, a leader, a friend, a patron, one who loves, one who follows, a companion etc.) in Arabic! Now if the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم)  was actually announcing his successor in Ghadir, then why did he (صل الله عليه و سلم) use such an ambiguous word that carries loads of meanings which could leave people in confusion?! To solve this problem Shias will spent endless times (especially with ignorant Sunni debaters) discussing the meaning of the wording “mawla”, that the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) used in the pond of Ghadir.

Here some (common) claims by the abna.ir Shia website:

” Surely the word “mawla”, in this context, has the same meaning as the word “awla: have more authority“.

After the declaration, the Prophet uttered the following prayer: “O Allah! Love him who loves ‘Ali, and be enemy of the enemy of ‘Ali; help him who helps ‘Ali, and forsake him who forsakes ‘Ali.” This prayer itself shows that ‘Ali, on that day, was being entrusted with a position that would make some people his enemies and that he would need supporters in carrying out his responsibilities. This could not be anything but the position of the mawla in the sense of ruler, master and lord. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a ‘friendship’?

Now these and all other arguments of them have been refuted and debunked a zillion times (check the links above), besides, mawla does NOT mean just ‘friend’, it is a word of praise that implies many meanings (ally, beloved friend etc.) , but since the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said it, then it became an ORDER, a prophetic order for every believer to take Ali as a BELOVED friend and ALLY. Everyone reading some Hadith about WHY the Prophet (صل الله عليه و سلم) addressed the people at Ghadir (and NOT at his last Hajj at ‘Arafa) will realise that he needed to address a group of people who seemed to be hostile towards Ali, this is why he needed to make clear that Ali (رضوان الله عليه) should be taken as a beloved friend (mawla) to all believers just as the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) should be taken as a beloved friend (certainly, the Prophet could not state that ‘Whomsoever’s CALIPH/RULER I am, Ali is (also) his CALIPH/RULER’, that doesn’t even make sense, there can’t be two rulers at the same time, the only thing that makes sense is a beloved friend and ally (there can be two and hundred at the same time). Now this is enough of an answer for those Shia polemicists who usually in a mocking tone say:

‘Prophet stopping his caravan in the middle of a desert, only to tell people that today Ali has become his and the believers “friend”seems a bit problematic since this implies that his friendship with the Messenger of Allah and the believers had just begun …’

As stated before (and we advise you to study the articles we have linked before), the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) did NOT just tell people that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه) is simply his ‘friend’. Friend means صديق (Sadeeq) زميل (Zameel) or رفيق (Rafeeq) in Arabic. مولى (mawla) is a beloved friend and ally and has  a much deeper meaning than the term ‘friend’ in Arabic. Also the Prophet (as been mentioned before) only mentioned that Ali is his and the beloved friend (mawla) of every believer  after found out that some people held grudges towards Ali (i.e. he did not just felt like saying ‘Ali is my friend’, but rather to make it clear once and for all that every believer should love Ali and be loyal to him as a believer).

But let us turn the tables for those Rafidi polemicists who have a problem to understand mawla as a BELOVED FRIEND, ALLY etc. and rather prefer ‘Imam/Caliph/ruler’.

From the basics of the bizarre Rafidi religion is that the Imamah of Ali (رضوان الله عليه) existed long before the event of Ghadir, in fact before the creation of all creation (except the Ahl Al-Bait!). Ali according to their hideous beliefs was an Imam even before Allah created the heavens and earth (he and the Ahl Al-Bait were lights/Nour buzzing around the throne of Allah!). All Prophets from Adam to the Khaatam (Muhammad عليه الصلاة و السلام) acknowledged the Imamah of Ali and were TESTED with it! Day and night they preached to their people to believe in the ‘Wilayah’ (in contradiction to the Quranic-Sunni belief concept that states that the Prophets preached TAWHID/monotheism), and the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) of Islam was also most of the time busy to proclaim and talk about the upcoming ‘divine leadership’ of Ali.

So Ali’s Caliphate and Imamate was a made deal from day ONE, no need for a declaration (why didn’t the Prophet actually order his Sahaba to actually PLEDGE an allegiance to Ali at Ghadir …) in front of a bunch of future ‘apostate’ Sahaba (companions). So what was the need on emphasising that Ali is the mawla (as in IMAM/CALIPH) in the middle of the desert and heat? Yes we know that certain complaints were levelled against Ali by some Sahabah but to say:

“Today you have become my “Imam” … seems a bit problematic since this implies that his Imamah had just begun

Anyways, arguing with the Rafidah on the meaning of the wording “mawla” is an exhausting and useless task (the Arabic term “mawla” has many meanings depending on the context in which the term is used. It could mean a slave, a master of a slave, a leader, a friend, a patron, one who loves, one who follows, a companion etc.), in fact a waste of time, for at the end of the day they will stick to THEIR secterian interpretation. It’s quite similar to the dilemma Muslims have with the Qadiyanis (so called ‘Ahmadis’). Some have hours of debates with them, arguing on the wording ‘Khaatim’ in the Qur’an. Qadiyani Kafirs can in fact prove that the wording ‘Khaatim’ (خاتم) in Arabic DOES have include the meaning of ‘ring’ and not just ‘seal’ (as the Muslims understand it, i.e. Muhammad is the seal of ALL Prophets, the FINAL one). They can easily quote you massive Arabic dictionaries proving this ‘point’, but is this going to  prove their heretical (kufr) belief that Ghulam Ahmad the Kafir was a Prophet?! Do we really need hours of debates and argue about a word that has different meanings in Arabic?! No, we actually don’t, and the solution is quite simple; let’s get back to the Messenger of Allah Muhammad himself and see how HE understood the word ‘Khaatim’ in relation to himself.

As a matter of fact the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) himself clearly EXPLAINED what the wording ‘Khaatim’ (خاتم) stands for (refer to a number of Hadiths where the Prophet explained that he is clearly the last of all Messengers and Prophets i.e. ‘Khaatim’ (خاتم) clearly stands for FINAL Messenger and not for ‘ring’ and other idiotic, biased and secterians interpretations.

Now we are going to use (In sha Allah) the same method with regards to the incident of Ghadir, we will concentrate on the evidence you normally BARELY going to find on Shia websites (except in distorted forms) i.e. sayings of the Ahl Al-Bait (and some Sahaba) in regards to the Ghadir Hadith and the usage of “mawla” and everything that is related to Ghadir. For once, let the Ahl Al-Bait themselves speak about this matter that the Shia made so big (‘greatest ‘Eid in the sight of Allah!), let’s see their understanding, the understanding of those who surrounded them and then everybody can judge for himself what Ghadir Khumm actually meant according to those who were addressed at Ghadir.

***Ali’s understanding from the incident of Ghadir***

at Kufa/Iraq while ALREADY being the Caliph of the Muslims …

It is quite common that the Rafidah propagandists (due to the sickness in their hearts) use narrations whom they believe to be in their favour, whereas in fact those narrations completely refute the entire foundation and understanding of their sect.

هكذا أهل البدع لا يكادون يحتجون بحجة سمعية، ولا عقلية، إلا وهي عند التأمل حجة عليهم، لا لهم‏.الكتب » مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية » العقيدة » كتاب الأسماء والصفات الجزء الثاني

[…] and this is how the people of innovation (Ahl Al-Bida’) are, they barely argue with a textual or a rational proof, except that after examination (of their ‘proof’) it turns out to be against them and not for them.”

(Majmoo’ Al-Fatawah of Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, Aqeedah, the Book of the Names and Attributes part two)

Same goes in regards to narrations Shias deceitfully quote from Sunni books to desperately prove their point of how Ali actually did use the Ghadir Hadith as an argument. Many Shia websites (such as al-Islam.org) gathered all their skills of Talbis (devilish deception) together to fool the reader into believing that Ali Ibn Abi Talib actually used the Ghadir Hadith as a proof for his ‘divine leadership’ (‘Wilayah/Imamah’! Nothing could be further from the truth. The mere fact that Ali (رضي الله عنه) mentioned the Ghadir incident seems to be enough for the desperate Shia polemicists to fool themselves and others that Ali (رضوان الله عليه) must have meant what the Twelver Imamite Shiite sect means.

The following narrations actually prove the whole point of the Ahl Al-Sunnah in regards to the Ghadir incident, they prove that Ali ALWAYS used the Ghadir Hadith just as the Ahl Al-Sunnah do, i.e. Ali’s understanding was the Sunni one and vice versa.

During the caliphate of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, two incidents happened which reveals how the truthful Sahaba and Ali himself understood the meaning of al-Ghadīr.

Narration 1

Narrated Riyah Ibn Al-Harath: ‘A Group of people came to Ali at al-Rahbah (near Kufa/Iraq) and said: “As-salamu alayka ( (Peace be upon you) ya mawlana (our mawla)”, He replied: “How am I your mawla while you are an Arab people?”. They replied: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying on the day of Ghadir Khumm: “Whosoever I am his mawla, verily this one (Ali) to is hi mawla”.

Riyah said: “When they left I followed them and asked whom they were, they said some folks from the Ansar and amongst them was Abu Ayub al-Ansari.

Source: Narrated Imam Ahmad in His Musnad 5/419, Shu’aib Al-Arna’out and Al-Albani both said the Isnad is Sahih, and it was mentioned in the Virtues of companions 2/570 #967.

There are some other details of what happened during the visit of Abu Ayub and his people to the Chief of the Believer Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Imam Aḥmad for instance records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أبو أحمد ثنا حنش عن رياح بن الحرث قال رأيت قوما من الأنصار قدموا على علي في الرحبة فقال من القوم قالوا مواليك يا أمير المؤمنين فذكر معناه

‘Abd Allāh – my father – Abū Aḥmad – Ḥanash – Riyāḥ b. al-Ḥarith:

I saw a group from the Anṣār when they arrived to ‘Alī. So, he asked, “Who are the people?” They replied, “(We are) your mawālī, O Amīr al-Mūminīn.” So he mentioned its meaning.

Source: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūt], vol. 5, p. 419, # 23610 who states that its chain is Sahih.

Comment:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه) himself did not understand the saying of Ansars “as-salam alaykum our mawla” as  “al-salam alaykum our CALIPH/Imam” (although Ali WAS the fourth Caliph at that time!) instead he understood it as a muwalat (loyalty) of “Al-Itq” meaning the ownership of a Slave or in other words “Freed slaves” (this is why he was perplexed when the Sahaba addressed him as such), then when they explained to him that it was the muwalat (loyalty) of lovers, supporters and allies (i.e. simply what the PROPHET meant, with mawla), only then Ali agreed with them (did not object anymore).

This narration alone alone is enough to debunk the perverted Shiite understanding of the Ghadir incident, nevertheless . Shia Rafidite Cyber-polemicists generally quote this Hadith on their websites and in their online debates to actually back up their perverted interpretation. In their view, the Sahaba (i.e. the Ansar who as a whole – except a very few exceptions – are nothing but a bunch of apostate Kuffar anyway!) actually believed like the Rafidah Shia and walked around addressing Ali with mawla as in terms of being the one and only legitimate leader after the Prophet (peace be upon him), the very same Ansar who not just accepted Abu Bakr’s (then Omar’s etc.) rulership, but also narrated Abu Bakr’s (and Omar’s) famous merits. the very merits whom the Rafidah love to dismiss in their pick-and-chose-what-our-whims-desire-approach.

It is more than clear that (unlike what Shiism preachers), the major Sahaba were not apostates and liars who have forgotten the message (let alone hiding it!) and instructions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), in fact it was them who reminded Ali of some of the sayings of the Prophet, such as the merit of Ali of being the mawla (close and beloved friend, ally) of all believers, the only dilemma for the Rafidah is that neither Ali nor the Sahaba ever held the view that the Ghadir incident stands for what the Rafidah Shia believe.

Ironically, the Shias refer to Ali as mawla (as in one and only leader and master after the Prophet) to this very day, something Ali himself would have rejected, just as he rejected it when he thought that the Sahaba addressed him with mawla as in master (in absolute sense, like as being their slave-master).

Also notice if it was such a great and important matter and if the word mawla was used between the Arabs of the time to imply what the Twelver Shia understand from (mawla = Imam/Caliph) then Ali (رضوان الله عليه) would not have replied to them in this strange way, as if he never heard of this event.

Shiite objections and our response:

gadhir786.com has this to say about the hadith:

As-Salāmu ‘Alaika, yā mawlānā (Peace be upon you, O our mawlā)”.

They accepted that he was their mawlā. Did they ever greet any other of the Ṣaḥābah with that phrase? Certainly, they never did. They never greeted Abū Bakr with “yā mawlānā”, nor ‘Umar, and nor ‘Uthmān – not even once, not even by a slip of the tongue! So, why did they limit that phrase to Amīr al-Mūminīn? This is the first leg of our investigation, and our question to the Ahl al-Sunnah.

Yes, they accepted that Ali is their mawla since they (the Sahaba) were truthful in narrating the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), the absolute majority of the Sahaba never even fought Ali (neither in Jamal nor Siffeen), they were his brothers and addressed him as the Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed him. How does this prove the Shia understanding? Of course they never greeted Abu Bakr or anyone else for that matter with “mawla” since it was a special virtue of Ali to be singled out as the mawla (beloved friend) of all believers. Yes, generally, according to the Qur’an, all believers are the “mawlas” (close friends, allies) to one another, yet Ali was explicitely mentioned and singled out, that is why the Sahaba only used it for him, not because they actually believed as the Rafidah do. Ghadir786.com ‘question’ which is supposed to be their argument against us is nothing but what is known as a straw man argument.

Ghadir786.com then argues:

Our second area of interest is their answer to Amīr al-Mūminīn’s question. He asked them their evidence for calling him their mawlā, and they replied with Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. It was their only proof. They did not tell him: “Are you not our friend, helper and supporter”?  They did not cite any of the Qur’ānic verses on the friendship of believers. In simple terms, if not for Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, they would not have called him their mawlā in the sense that they did.

Of course this was their only proof, since it was a special merit of Ali. Again, the merit is not to be a friend, helper and supporter of the believers in the GENERAL sense (since according to the Qur’an all believers are friends, helpers etc. to each other), rather in a special sense, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) singled Ali out. Similar to this Hadith here:

«لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ أَمِينٌ، وَأَمِينُ هذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ بْنُ الْجَرَّاح»

Every Ummah has a trustee (Ameen), and the trustee of this Ummah is Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah.

Source: al-Bukhari

Now was Abu `Ubayda bin Al-Jarrah the only trustee of this Ummah? Certainly not, but by him being SINGLED OUT by the Prophet (peace be upon him), shows his special status and rank. Same goes for Ali, he was not the only legitimate “mawla” (beloved friend, ally) of the believers, but him being singled out, mentioned by his name, by the Prophet (peace be upon him), shows that he is not just an ordinary friend of the believers, but a special one (just as Abu Ubayda was special of being the trustee of the Ummah, although he was not the only trustee).

Another point is, that it is linguistically absolutely correct to call Abu Bakr or Omar (or any other Caliph) the mawla (mawla as in term of Caliphs/leaders) of the believers. Let us quote a fatwa the Ghadir786 team themselves have quoted on their website:

…  the fatwa of Shaykh Ibn Bāz again:

المولى لها معان كثيرة، فتأتي بمعنى المالك ، ومعنى الناصر ، ومعنى القريب ، ومعنى المعتق ، ومعنى العتيق ، ومعنى الناصر، فكون الرسول مولانا، أو فلان مولاه، الإنسان إذا قاله للسيد فهو مولاه ، يعني مالكه ، مولى العبد سيده

The word mawlā has a lot of meanings. It has come with the meaning of “the sovereign master”, and the meaning of “the helper”, and the meaning of “the near one”, the meaning of “the emancipator”, the meaning of “the freed slave”, and the meaning of “the helper”. As such, the Messenger is our mawlā, or so-and-so is his mawlā. When a person says it to a master, then he (the master) is his mawlā, that is “his sovereign master”. The mawlā of the slave is his master.

Another Salafī ‘ālim, Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn, also says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 10, p. 250:

لا وجه لاستنكار بعض الناس لمن خاطب ملكا بقوله : مولاي، لأن المراد بمولاي أي متولي أمري، ولا شك أن رئيس الدولة يتولى أمورها

There is no reason for the opposition of some people to someone who addresses a king saying “mawlāya (my mawlā)”, because the meaning of mawlāya (my mawlā) is my ruler, and there is no doubt that the head of the state is its ruler.

As you can see it is linguistically correct to address any ruler (Caliph) with “mawla”, but no Muslim who has the slightest clue about Islamic history (and Arab culture) deny that it was not common for the Muslim Caliphs to be addressed with “mawla” (although it’s linguistically correct). Even Ali was perplexed (as a Caliph back then!), he only accepted it when the Sahaba reminded him of his special status (being the mawla of the believers in the sense of being a special ally and beloved friend). Ali would have never objected in the first place if it was his sole right to be the mawla of the believer as the Rafidah understand it (i.e. being the one and only legitimate direct successor of the Prophet!).Ghadir786 then sees it “appropriate ” to quote some kafir Arabist:

At this point, it is appropriate to quote Hans Wehr:

mawlāya and mawlānā: form of address to a sovereign.[2]

Mawlāya (O my mawlā) and mawlānā (O our mawlā) are two forms of addressing a “sovereign”.  A sovereign is NOT someone who operates only on the people’s mandate. Rather, whether the people vote for him or not, he becomes their ruler. Whether they want him or not, he remains their ruler. This is why every hereditary executive king is a sovereign.

Another straw man argument (as usual). Hans Wehr is right (although he did not chose precise wordings), Mawlāya (O my mawlā) and mawlānā (O our mawlā) are linguistically two forms of addressing a “sovereign”, yet according to the same Arabic language this sovereign is NOT limited of being a ruler only. Ghadir786 in their deceptional scheme have forgotten that in another article they themselves have quoted Shaykh Bin Baz who correctly stated:

Let us read the fatwa of Shaykh Ibn Bāz again:

المولى لها معان كثيرة، فتأتي بمعنى المالك ، ومعنى الناصر ، ومعنى القريب ، ومعنى المعتق ، ومعنى العتيق ، ومعنى الناصر، فكون الرسول مولانا، أو فلان مولاه، الإنسان إذا قاله للسيد فهو مولاه ، يعني مالكه ، مولى العبد سيده

The word mawlā has a lot of meanings. It has come with the meaning of “the sovereign master”, and the meaning of “the helper”, and the meaning of “the near one”, the meaning of “the emancipator”, the meaning of “the freed slave”, and the meaning of “the helper”. As such, the Messenger is our mawlā, or so-and-so is his mawlā. When a person says it to a master, then he (the master) is his mawlā, that is “his sovereign master”. The mawlā of the slave is his master.

We hope you are getting the WHOLE picture now, the picture that Ghadir786.com wanted to distort to support their bias secterian view. Nevertheless, Ghadir786.com insist that “my mawla” can only stand for “my master” (as in ruler or caliph), to support their alien view they quote (again) the Fatwa of Shaykh Ibn Othaymeen and by it next to the explanation of the the Kafir Hans wehr.

The Salafī ‘ālim, Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn, also says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 10, p. 250:

لا وجه لاستنكار بعض الناس لمن خاطب ملكا بقوله : مولاي، لأن المراد بمولاي أي متولي أمري، ولا شك أن رئيس الدولة يتولى أمورها

There is no reason for the opposition of some people to someone who addresses a king saying “mawlāya (my mawlā)”, because the meaning of mawlāya (my mawlā) is my ruler, and there is no doubt that the head of the state is its ruler.

Note that neither Hans Wehr nor al-‘Uthaymīn has given any other meaning for mawlāya or mawlānā. It is an address to a sovereign, in most cases a king, and it means “my ruler” or “our ruler” as the case may be. This is the primary meaning in cases of greeting or address. What modern Muslims do, where they address their scholars with titles as “maulana” (a localized re-spelling of mawlānā), is only a case of borrowed usage. In the same vein, slaves address their masters as mawlāya or mawlānā because the latter are literally their rulers too. So, the phrases are used in their case as well in a secondary, derived sense.

This reminds of of a famous (Sahih) report of Ali where he said to the (Khawarij when they argued against him):

كلمة حق يريد بها باطل

“A word of truth where falshood is aimed”.

Just because Shaykh Al-Othaymeen (and for that matter even the kafir Hans Wehr) haven’t given another meaning doesn’t mean that “mawlāya or mawlānā” stands for “my caliph/ruler/king” only! What sort of biased understanding is this? Both (Al-Othaymeen and Wehr) have given ONE correct meaning of the wording “mawlāya or mawlānā”,

Ibn Othaymeen never restriced its meaning and we challenge Ghadir786 to show us a single Arabic linguist who claims that “mawlāya or mawlānā” sovereign in the sense of caliph/ruler/king ONLY.

Ghadir786 clutching at straws and ‘arguing’:

Before proceeding further, we must also mention that Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal – who recorded the adīth – believed that it supports the Shī’ī ‘aqīdah! Shaykh Bashīr ‘Alī ‘Umar, in his book Manhaj al-Imām Amad fī I’lāl al-adīth, vol. 1, pp. 252-253, says:

قال الأثرم: “وحدثنا أبو عبد الله بحديث جسر كذا، عن رباح كذا، عن أبي أيوب أنه جاء إلى عليّ ومعه رهط من الأنصار فقالوا: السلام عليك يا مولانا فلما فرغ منه قال: الكوفيون يجيئون بالعجائب”…. وأشار الإمام أحمد إلى استنكاره، فإن قوله: يجيئون بالعجائب إشارة إلى أنه منكر. وأشار إلى أن علة النكارة كونه من رواية الكوفيين وهم معروفون بالتشيّع، وهذا الحديث مما يقوي مذهبهم.

Al-Athram said: Abū ‘Abd Allāh (i.e. Imām Aḥmad) narrated a adīth to us through so-and-so, from Ribāḥ so-and-so, concerning Abū Ayūb that he went with a group from the Anṣār to ‘Alī and they said, “As-Salāmu ‘Alaika yā mawlānā”. When he finished narrating it, he said: “The Kūfīs come with strange reports”…. Imām Aḥmad indicated his denial of it (i.e. the adīth), because his statement “they come with strange reports” points to the fact that it (i.e. the adīth) is munkar (repugnant). It also indicates that fault of nakārah (repugnancy) is because its narrators are Kūfīs, and they were known with Shī’īsm. And this adīth is part of what STRENGTHENS their sect.

Apparently, Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal does not understand “our mawlā” in the adīth to mean “our friend, helper and supporter”! Otherwise, why did he reject the adīth, blaming the people of Kūfā – who were, and are still predominantly Shī’ī – for it? Why did Imām Aḥmad consider the adīth “strange”? Of course, he attacked its matn only because he was helpless against its chain. Nonetheless, in spite of his bitter anger, the adīth is aī, and unassailable.

This is by far their weakest ‘argument’. The simply response is: Imam Ahmad did not understand “our mawla” in the hadith to mean “our friend, helper and supporter” because it was narrated by SHIITES. That’s the whole point ghadir786 are missing (in their rant). It could strengthen the Shia point if the wording is distorted (ghadir786 are a living example). Shiites can use this hadith with their bias and secterian understanding (even forcing this understanding upon the ‘apostate’ Sahaba!) and distort its whole meaning, nevertheless, according to the majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah this hadith (despite being narrated by classical Shiites who by the way were no Rawafidh, the majority at least) is absolutely Sahih (and Imam Ahmad would have never rejected it if it haven’t been narrated by Shiites!) and an argument against and not for the Rafidah.

Ghadir786 concludes:

A question comes to mind. Why did Amīr al-Mūminīn reply them with this:

كيف أكون مولاكم وأنتم قوم عرب

How am I your mawlā while you are an ‘Arab people?

Was he not their ruler already, being the political khalīfah?

Yes, he was their ruler already, but as stated before, it was and is not common amongst Arabs (although it is correct linguistically) to address a caliph with “mawla”, the Ansari Sahaba (amongst them Abu Ayyub al-Ansari who was also a staunch supporter of Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman’s caliphate!) had to explain themselves i.e. make it clear that all they intended was what the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Ghadir meant i.e. Ali being a special and beloved friend and supporter (mawla) of the believers. There is no proof whatsoever that Ali believed to be the one and only rightly successor of the Prophet (peace be upon him) based on the Ghadir narration (on the contrary, a number of Sahih narrations prove that Ali never believed in such alien concept) this is why Ghadir786 are left to fill their conclusion with their own biased, esoterically and philosphical understanding of the caliphate and Imamte system, nothing but wild fancies to the hadith.

A last point worth of responding to:

Where did Amīr al-Mūminīn say or indicate that he understood their greeting as indicating “ownership of slaves”?

For Allah’s sake, that’s not the Sunni interpretation, that’s what Ali himself says! Let us remind ghadir786 with Ali’s words:

“How am I your mawlā while you are an ‘Arab people?”

Was Ali a racist? No, of course not. It was simply COMMON for slave owners to be called mawla. And since MOST non-Arabs (especially Persians) where Mushriks (just like today), they were also slaves by default (it was uncommon for an Arab to be a slave back then).

Besides, him being perplexed of being called mawla is indication enough, especially if one takes into consideration that it is absolutely common that SLAVES used to call their masters as “mawla” and not free Muslim man their caliphs.

Were there no Arab slaves in those times? Was Zayd b. Ḥārithah al-Kalbī, for instance, not an Arab? Of course, he was! Yet, he was a slave, and was only freed by the Messenger of Allāh.

Very deceptive. Although it is true that Zayd was a slave and an Arab at the same time, yet what ghadir786 fails to mention is that after the Caliphs had conquered many non-Muslim lands (i.e. during a gigantic Islamic empire), it was very uncommon for an Arab to be a slave. It was in fact common to call the `ajams (non-Arabs, mostly Persian) mawalis (plural of mawla), due to them being mostly non-Muslims and slaves. Remember, mawla can stand for slave as it can stand for slave-master.

Moreover, where did the Anṣārīs “explain” to him that they only meant “lover, supporter and ally” by their word “mawlā”? Where has islamistruth gotten this? There is no demand for explanation in the adīth, and none is given. Only the proof was asked for, and it was provided without commentary.

Simply by referring to the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm which stand for nothing but that (Ali being a “lover, supporter and ally” etc.). It’s quite funny how ghadir786 constantly contradicting themselves. They say that there is “no demand for explanation in the hadith”, yet at the same time they argue and say:

As for (كيف), it only asks about the how. The whole sentence is like saying this: You say I am your mawlā despite that you are Arabs; could you explain how I became your mawlā?

Lies have short legs, that’s all we can say. Ali did indicate that he demanded an explanation, him being perplexed was rather a sign and not just an indication.

 

Narration 2:

Ali () used the incident of Ghadir ONLY to gain support and loyality from the Ummah, this is why it took over 25 years till Ali himself used the narration in favour for himself (

[…] Abu Ishaq reported on the authority of Zaid bin Yuthay’, who said: ‘I heard Ali bin Abi Talib say on the pulpit of Al-Kufa: “I am addressing, by Allah, a man, and I am not addressing but the companions of Muhammad. Who has heard the Messenger of Allah say on the day of Ghadir Khumm: “Whoever I am his mawla, then Ali is his mawla, O Allah befriend the one who befriends him, and be hostile to the one that is hostile to him?” Then six people from the side of the pulpit stood up, and six from another side, and they testified that they heard the Messenger of Allah say that.” Shareek said: Then I said to Abi-Ishaaq: “Have you heard Al-Bara’ bin ‘Azib tell this of the Messenger of Allah (saw)?” He said: “Yes!'”

Source: Kitab al-Sunan al-Kubra, Abi-Abdul-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu’ayb al-Nasa’i Volume 7, Page 439, Hadeeth # 8419

A similar narration with some additions:

هدتُّ عليًّا رضي اللهُ عنه في الرَحَبَةِ ينشُدُ الناسَ: أَنشُدُ اللهَ مَن سمِعَ رسول َالله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم يقول ُيوم غَدِيرِ خُمٍّ: مَن كنتُ مولاهُ فعليٌّ مولاهُ لمَّا قامَ فشَهِدَ قال عبدُ الرحمنِ: فقامَ اثنا عَشَرَ بَدْرِيًّا كأَنِّي أنظرُ إلى أحدِهِم فقالُوا: نشهدُ أنَّا سمِعْنَا رسولَ الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم يقولُ يوم غديرِ خمٍّ: ألستُ أولَى بالمؤمنينَ من أنفسِهِم وأزواجِي أمهاتُهُم فقلنَا: بلَى يا رسولَ اللهِ قال: فمَن كنتُ مولاه ُفعليٌّ مولاهُ اللهمَّ والِ من والاُه وعادِ مَن عادَاهُ

الراوي: عبدالرحمن بن أبي ليلى المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/199
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Ali addressed the people at ‘Al-Rahaba (at Kufa/Iraq, where he was already the Caliph over the Muslims) and said: I adjure those of you in the name of Allah who heard the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir saying “Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla” The narrator said: ‘Thereupon twelve amongst the Badri Sahaba stood up and said: “We testify that we heard the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه  و سلم) saying on the day of Ghadir “Am I not nearer to the believers than their own selves and my wives are their mothers?” We said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah! He said: “Whomsoever’s beloved friend (Mawlaa) I am, Ali is (also) his beloved friend (mawla), O Allah befriend the one who befriends him, and be hostile to the one that is hostile to him.’

Source: Musnad Imam Ahmad, 2/199 – The chain of narration has been authenticated by Ahmad Shakir (which doesn’t neccassary mean that the Hadith is Sahih, nevertheless it is absolutely in favour for the Ahl Al-Sunnah)

few other versions:

Imām Aḥmad records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبة عن أبي إسحاق قال سمعت سعيد بن وهب قال نشد على الناس فقام خمسة أو ستة من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فشهدوا ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه

‘Abd Allāh – my father – Muḥammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – Abū Isḥāq – Sa’īd b. Wahb:

‘Alī implored the people. Therefore, five or six of the Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, stood up and testified that the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said, “Whosoever I am his mawlā, ‘Alī too is his mawlā.”

(Abū ‘Abd Allāh Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūṭ], vol. 5, p. 366, # 23156. Shaykh al-Arnāūṭ states: Its chain is ṣaḥīḥ.)

By al-Haythami:

وعن عمير بن سعد أن عليا جمع الناس في الرحبة وأنا شاهد فقال : أنشد الله رجلا سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول : ” من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه ” ؟ . فقام ثمانية عشر رجلا فشهدوا أنهم سمعوا النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول ذلك

Narrated ‘Umayr b. Sa’d:

‘Alī gathered the people at al-Raḥbah, and I was present (there), and he said, “I implore by Allāh anyone who heard the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, saying ‘Whosoever I am his mawlā, ‘Alī too is his mawlā’ (to testify)”? Then twelve men stood up and testified that they heard the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying that.

(Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī b. Abī Bakr al-Haythamī, Majma’ al-Zawāid (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr; 1412 H), vol. 9, p. 136, # 14634. Al-Haythamī comments: ‘Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Awsat, and its chain is ḥasan.)

Comment:

A beautiful narration not only supporting the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah in regards to Ghadir Khumm, but also the truthfulness of the Sahabah. A few points to ponder over:

1. Ali used the Ghadir narration in the days of his Caliphate (over 25 years after the so called ‘usurpation’ of his caliphate) where he was confronted with political opponents, amongst them the Kharijites who actually  made Takfir on Ali (and Muawiyah and other Sahaba), so it was neccassary to remind everyone of being loyal and supportive toward him, i.e. to show loyalty.

2. Ali did not use the Ghadir Hadith as evidence like the secterian Rafidah Shias do i.e. he did not claim that the incident of Ghadir is a proof for his “divine leadership’ i.e. ‘Wilayah/Imamah”, something the Shias do day and night (trying to be ‘holier than the pope’ …).

3. Interestingly, in the above cited narration, Ali uses the Ghadir incident with an addition (which is not authentic according to some scholars such Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, but authentic according to many other scholars, classical and contemporary ones like Al-Albani) which clearly explains the whole meaning of the wording ‘mawla‘. Ali says in the above narration that the Prophet said “O Allah befriend (Waali/والي) the one who befriends him, and be hostile (‘Aadi/عادي) to the one that is hostile to him.” And from the basics of the Arabic (and every other language) is to take a look at what precedes and follows a word/sentence to get a clear meaning of the intended message. The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) has clearly explained what he meant with the wording (mawla) that carries more than a dozen meanings in the language of the Arabs. He meant nothing but Muwalat (loyalty i.e. “O Allah befriend (Waali/والي) the one who befriends him …”).

Muwalat (loyality, love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word “mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.” So Ali says that the Prophet talked about Muwalat  of lovers, supporters and allies and NOT leadershid/Caliphate/Imamah over Muslims (which as mentioned before doesn’t even make sense, for how can the Prophet who is still alive and thus by default the leader of ALL the believers say that “‘Whomsoever’s CALIPH/RULER I am, Ali is (also) his CALIPH/RULER”?! There can’t be two rulers at the same time, period.

4. This narration proves the IMAN (sound belief) of the Sahaba who according to the Shia religion are all (except a tiny minority) apostated thieves who ‘hid’ the merits of the Ahl Al-Bait, distorted them or tried to underestimate them. The truth is, Ali (رضي الله عنه) the Sahabi and his brothers the rest of the Sahaba (رضوان الله عليهم) never understood the Ghadir incident as the secterian Twelver Shias do. The Sahaba were well aware of the merits of Ali (it’s the Sahaba like Abu Hurayrah etc. who narrated the mertics of Ali, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein!), including the Ghadir Hadith, its  wording AND its meaning, hence they testified to it even after 25 years after the demise of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم).

5. A very important point to ponder over; Ali never used the Ghadir incident as an argument against those who allegedly usurped his right (i.e. his political caliphate which is part of his alleged unique right of ‘Wilayah’ over all believers after the Prophet). There is not a single authentic narration that Ali used the Ghadir incident against the usurpers of his right, for instance at the Shura of Abu Bakr, Omar or Othman, never, not even once (instead he was busy participating in those ‘taghooti-man-made-election-shuras’!).

It is more than obvious that by employing the narration of Ghadir during a time where he was ALREADY the caliph, during a regin where the first CIVIL wars in Islamic history started off, Ali intended nothing but to deliver and remind everyone of the message of Ghadir which is:

[…] ‘Whosoever I am his mawla (beloved and close friend and ally), Ali too is his mawla  “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.” […]

Ali certainly did NOT intend to tell the people (over 25 years after the so called usurpation of his caliphate!) that he is the sole rightful heir to the leadership role (he was their caliph already when addressing them!), suggesting something like that is sheer madness, doesn’t make sense at all and an insult to Ali Ibn Abi Talib ().

Shia counter argument

(those Shias who admit that Ali did not argue with the Ghadir hadith based on its true meanings, the apologist Rafidah):

One argument you will hear from some Shia apologists is that there was actually no point for Ali to argue with the Ghadir hadith based on its ‘true’ meaning i.e. that he is the ‘one and only God-chosen (through the Qur’an and Sunnah!) infallible Imam and immediate successor of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم)’. The ‘evil Sahaba’ had forsaken the Prophet’s (عليه الصلاة و السلام) sermon at Ghadir, so why should they suddenly listen to Ali?

Response:

1. If that’s the case then Shias should stop using the aforecited narrations altogether! Don’t they use them on various major Shia websites and blogs (in a deceitful way) to somehow ‘prove’ that Ali DID argue for his ‘Wilayah/Imamah’ when citing the Ghadir Hadith (like at Rahaba/Kufa etc.)?

2. If the Shias backtrack and suddenly change their argumentation by claiming that Ali only mentioned the Ghadir hadith without emphasising on its so called ‘true meaning’ (i.e. the Shia Twelver belief of Ali being an infallible Imam and direct successor of the Prophet) then this will only worsen their case. This would be their last desperate attempt to somehow explain the DILEMMA of how Ali could have missed to use the Ghadir Hadith (as a proper argument) against Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman (so called usurpers of his caliphate!) and the Sahaba in general during 25 years of their their caliphate (Abu Bakr 2 years, Omar 11 years, Othman 11years).

3. Most Sahabah () were not alive during Ali’s (ra) caliphate and even if they were alive, Ali had the best opportunity (as a caliph over a large Islamic empire after all!) to remind the living Sahabah and the new generation about the Ghadir incident and its alleged ‘true meaning’ i.e. that is and always was the only rightful successor of the Prophet (). Problem is (for the Shias), he never did so, neither during Abu Bakr’s reign, nor Omar’s, nor Othman’s, not even during his own reign!

Shias are advised to better leave those pathetic excuses. Ali, instead of using such an important Hadith (like Ghadir in a proper way (that according to the Shias proves the superitority of Ali over all Prophets and his immediate successorship after the Prophet) waits for 25 years – i.e. from Abu Bakr till the end of Othman’s Caliphate – to actually mentioning the narration in public, in front of the Sahaba, his so called opponents?! He waits for 24 year after the Ghadir declaration by the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), to mention the Ghadir Hadith in Kufa/Iraq, where he was already been chosen a Caliph (remember, he only used the narration in the SUNNI sense i.e. to ask people to be LOYAL to him and to support and love him, NOTHING about ‘Wilayah/Imamah’ whatsoever)?!

Does this make sense to a straight thinking, intelligent and non-biased person? What makes it worse is that Ali participated in ALL three Shuraa’s of the Caliphs, heck he was amongst the very first to give Bay’ah to Othman (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه):

The people of consultation (Shuraa) made Abdul-Rahman the one responsible of doing an Ijtihad to pick the best of the Muslims and give him the leadership. it is mentioned that he asked as many as he could from amongst the people of consultation and others and they all pointed to Othman Ibn Affan, he even told Ali Ibn Abi Talib: If I do not nominate you then who do you suggest for me? Ali said: Othman, And then he told Uthman: If I do not nominate you then who do you suggest for me? He replied: Ali ibn abi Talib.

[Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya 7/159-161]

more ..

The first to give allegiance to Othman was Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf then after him was Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[Tabqat ibn saad vol3. pg 42.]

So instead of rebuking the Sahaba in their shura, he actually actively participated in them (no weak and fabricated narration will help Shias, narrations that state that he rebuked the Sahaba and used the Ghadir Hadith) and never (not even once) used the Ghadir Hadith in a SINGLE Sahih narrations against them in the most important and crucial times of Islamic history (after Saqifah, Shuraa of Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman …)?! Instead of wiping the floor with his ‘ultimate-Ghadir-Daleel/evidence’ (AT LEAST as a Hujjah/argument and reminder for all those ‘evil’ Sahaba who elected and were satisfied with Abu Bakr as their new caliph, particularly those who haven’t witnessed Ghadir from the younger generation) Ali did not just participate in an alleged taghooti-kufri election Shuraa, but also ‘missed’ to mention anything about his ‘God-given-divine-right of authority over the Ummah’ i.e. Imamah/Wilayah?!

No pathetic excuse will work anymore, enough of these cheap excuses to somehow save the Shia beliefs full of contradictions. If the biggest proof for Ali’s so called divine-leadership (‘Imamah/Wilayah’)  in the Sunnah (as Twelver Shias claim) is the Hadith of Ghadir (remember, they invented a whole ‘EID for this day!), then Ali must have used the narration of Ghadir as a proof  (for his ‘divine-leadership’) against his opponents. He was the so called living infallible Imam and Hujjah (‘proof of God on earth’), so why couldn’t he emphasise on something the Prophet (صل الله عليه  و سلم) had allegedly proclaimed before? Was he less than the truthful Muhajiroon amongst Sahaba (like Abu Bakr and Omar) who convinced the (truthful) Ansar amongt the Sahaba to forget about the idea of becoming caliphs themselves? Abu Bakr convinced the Ansar with a SINGLE Hadith of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم):

The Ansars and Muhajirs fell into argumentation, and then Abu Bakr (رضوان الله عليه) said: ‘O Saad (Ibn Ubadah)! You know very well that the Prophet (صل الله عليه  و سلم) had said in your presence that the Quraish shall be given the Caliphate because the noble among the Arab (masses) follow their (Quraish) nobles and their ignobles follow their (Quraish) ignobles.’

(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, p.5)

See the reaction of the Ansar whom the Rafidah call Munafiqoon (hypocrites):

Finally, the Ansar assented and said: ‘What you say is correct: we are your advisors and you are our rulers.”

(Musnad Ahmad, Vol.1, p.5)

Was Ali less brave than these great man? Would have Islam be ‘destroyed’ if he simply argued for his case?! Wasn’t he capable to even mention the so called ‘rock-solid proof’ for his ‘divine-leadership’ (‘Wilayah/Imamah’) in the Sunnah, i.e. the Ghadir Hadith?! After all the mighty Ansar of Madinah left their DEMAND for a SINGLE Sahih Hadith, if the Ghadir Hadith was about Ali’s leadership, they would certainly support Ali (رضوان الله عليه) and follow the Prophet’s order just as they listened to the Prophet’s (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) order when Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (عليه رضوان الله تعالى) reminded them (about the Quraish Hadith).

Was Ali not as ‘smart’ as the Twelver Shias who even dared to invent an whole ‘Eid (!) in the name of Ghadir to the religion of Islam?! Ali was busy with the Prophet’s burial?! What about after the burial?! What about the Shuraa of Abu Bakr? Shuraa of Omar? Shuraa of Othman? Where was Ali and the Ghadir Hadith?!

The truth is, neither Ali nor the rest of the Sahaba ever heard of the Rafidi fairy-tale called the ‘Imamah/Wilayah’ of Ali and 11 of his descandants. Othwerwise, Ali would have argued against the Sahaba (after Saqifah) with the Ghadir Hadith and the truthful Sahaba (like the Ansar) wouldn’t even go to Saqifah to elect a leader in the first place, knowing that there is such a thing as an ‘infallible, already by Allah and his Messenger elected Imam and Caliph!

The bullet proof for that is that the very same Ansar Sahaba who wrere THE people of Madinah (the natives and powerful tribes) dropped ALL their demands after hearing a SINGLE Sahih narration from the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) by Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه)! They were refuted by the MINORITY (Abu Bakr and Omar etc. who were Muhajir Sahabis, i.e. a minority in Madina and from the WEAKEST tribes), convinced by a single Sahih narration (that the Caliphate should stay with the Muhajiroon NOT with the Ansar, non-Qurashis of Madinah), so how can one claim that such sincere students (Sahaba) of the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) have forgotten (or even worse, broke their promises) the appointment of Ali by the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم)?No sane and unbiased person can accuse them of hypocracy. The plain facts are all against Shiism and their made up and hateful beliefs towards the Sahaba, be it the beliefs they made up against the Sahaba in general or those they made up for the Ahl Al-Bayt amongst the Sahaba (such as Ali).

Will any sane mind accept the Taqiyyah excuses and other Shiite nonsense? When will they simply accept that Ali (at BEST) just believed he had a share in the caliphate as others had, he never believed in a divine-right, let alone a divine-right of eleven of his descendants, this is why he NEVER used the Ghadir Hadith as the Twelver Shias use it and ironically employed it in the very same way as the Ahl Al-Sunnah do.

More Shia counter argumenst and our response

(those Shias argue that Ali actually did intend the alleged true meaning of the Ghadir incident when he implored the people in Kufa/Iraq):

As mind-boggling as it is even to imagine, some Shia polemicists really have the audacity and use the above analysed narration (which completely refutes their understanding of Ghadir, straight from Ali’s way of employing it, just as the Sunnis do!) to support their case.

In their delusion they have gone so far to use evidence which is actually AGAINST them and not FOR them. It is befitting to quote the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah again who put it perfectly:

هكذا أهل البدع لا يكادون يحتجون بحجة سمعية، ولا عقلية، إلا وهي عند التأمل حجة عليهم، لا لهم‏.الكتب » مجموع فتاوى ابن تيمية » العقيدة » كتاب الأسماء والصفات الجزء الثاني

[…] and this is how the people of innovation (Ahl Al-Bida’) are, they barely argue with a textual or a rational proof, except that after examination (of their ‘proof’) it turns out to be against them and not for them.”

(Majmoo’ Al-Fatawah of Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, Aqeedah, the Book of the Names and Attributes part two)

ghadir786.com published an article attempting to ‘prove’ that Ali actually reminded the people of Kufa of the alien Rafidi belief of ‘Wilayah’ i.e. his sole right of being the divinely elected Imam over the Ummah after its Prophet (). Their only evidence is a mixture of philosophical ranting + disregarding of the political situation during Ali’s () caliphate.

Imām Aḥmad records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن جعفر ثنا شعبة عن أبي إسحاق قال سمعت سعيد بن وهب قال نشد على الناس فقام خمسة أو ستة من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فشهدوا ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه

‘Abd Allāh – my father – Muḥammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – Abū Isḥāq – Sa’īd b. Wahb:

‘Alī implored the people. Therefore, five or six of the Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, stood up and testified that the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said, “Whosoever I am his mawlā, ‘Alī too is his mawlā.”[1]

Shaykh al-Arnāūṭ states:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain is aī.[2]

Very little details are known from the above report about the time and venue of the incident.

Their deception starts right there (red marked text), they disregard crucial historical facts, such as the first civil wars ever (!) that occured during Ali’s caliphate. Not even ONCE you will find them mentioning anything about the civil wars and the opposition Ali was faced with. There is good reason for them of not reminding their readers with these vital informations, for this is the only way they can poison the minds of the readers with their own biased and far fetched interpretation.

However, it is clear that it occurred while there were still many Ṣaḥābah alive. We also can deduce that Amīr al-Mūminīn literally implored the people, everyone present, to testify about the event of al-Ghadīr. This is obvious from its context. Apparently, his plea was directed specifically towards the Ṣaḥābah.

This is not true, it is a historical fact that most of the Sahaba were not alive during Ali’s caliphate. Remember, Ali was one of the youngest Sahabah, he became the caliphe around 25 years after the demise of the Prophet (). Also, there is no proof WHATSOEVER that Ali’s plea was directed to the Sahabah, in fact out of (at least) thousands of people only a small number of the Sahabah were living in Kufa and present at the speech of Ali (most Sahabah who were alive lived in Madinah, these are historical facts Shias should study before writing articles).

Ghadir786.com have some big blunders in their articles, and as it is with the case of most Shias, they basically refute themselves. Above they claim that Ali’s plea was directed specifically towards the Sahabah. Of course this is nothing but a lie, there is not a shred of evidence for that, on the contrary, there is evidence that Ali directed the generality of the muslim masses back then, ironically (without realising), Ghadir786 provides the evidence for OUR claim in the very same article:

وعن زياد بن أبي زياد قال : سمعت علي بن أبي طالب ينشد الناس فقال : أنشد الله رجلا مسلما سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول يوم غدير خم ما قال لما قام . فقام اثنا عشر بدريا فشهدوا

Narrated Ziyād b. Abī Ziyād:

I heard ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib imploring the people and he said, “I implore every Muslim person who heard the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, saying what he said on the Day of Ghadīr Khumm to stand up (to testify).” So, twelve Badr warriors stood up and testified.

(al-Haythamī, Majma’ al-Zawāid (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr; 1412 H), vol. 9, p. 133, # 14624. Al-Haythamī submits that is is narrated by Ahmad and the chain is Sahih)

There you go, Ghadir786 refuting themselves. Ali never intended to particularly address the noble Sahabah, his close brothers (they were after all the FIRST to witness anyway), rather the muslim people in general (including Kharijites and other deviants and political opponents who were all Muslims to Ali, even the Khawarij!).

He did not command or advise them. He implored them. He begged them. Moreover, he was not imploring them to simply narrate adīth al-Ghadīr. He was begging them to testify about it. Testimonies are normally given in support of a particular point. Therefore, Amīr al-Mūminīn was using their testimonies to buttress an argument of his. What was it? Besides, why did he feel the need to implore, rather than merely ask or order, the attendees?

Ali begged? Ali is not a begger, Rafidi Ali maybe, the Muslim Ali is not. And what shall Ali ‘command’ them for Allah’s sake?! He IS their caliph already. Kufa was (and is) full of treacherous people (the Shia who let Ali’s son Al-Hussein alone to be massacred!), the most evil sects emerged from there (Kharijism, Rafidism etc.), from the VERY beginning Ali was confronted with opponents, political ones such as the Bani Umayyah and even theological ones such as the Kharijites (who made Takfir on him!), of course it was a dire need to remind everyone, to implore everyone, to adjure everyone about the MESSAGE of Ghadir which was not that I (Ali) am your Imam and caliph, I have fully ‘Wilayah’ over you, rather it was:

[…] ‘Whosoever I am his mawla (beloved and close friend and ally), Ali too is his mawla  “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.” […]

It was about loyality and hostility and not about being the caliph OR the Imam who has ‘Wilayah’ over all the believers in ALL matters since the demise of the Prophet ().

Far-fretched and delusional batini interpretations start now, brace yourselves!

Imām ‘Alī really felt strongly about a particular point in that adīth, and was very passionate about getting that message across to the world.

‘Alī, may Allāh the Most High be pleased with him, gathered the people at al-Raḥbah, (and) then said, to them, “I implore with Allāh every Muslim who heard the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, saying what he said on the Day of Ghadīr Khumm to stand up”. Therefore, thirty of the people stood up – and Abū Na’īm said: a lot of people stood up – and testified that when he (the Prophet) held his (‘Alī’s) hand, he said, “Do you not know that I have more authority over the believers than themselves?” They replied, “Yes, O Messenger of Allaah.” He said, “Whosoever I am his mawlā, this one too is his mawlā. O Allāh, be the friend of whosoever is his friend and be the enemy of whosoever is his enemy.”

He (Abū al-Ṭufayl) said: So, I left and it was like there was something in my heart (lit: in me). I met Zayd b. Arqam and said to him, “I heard ‘Alī, may Allāh the Most High, saying such-and-such.” He replied, “As such, do NOT deny. I heard the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, saying that.”

It is apparent from the conversation of Abū al-Ṭufayl with Zayd b. Arqam that Amīr al-Mūminīn had claimed to be the mawlā of all believers, like the Messenger of Allāh. The word mawlā, of course, is completely different from the term khalīfah. Amīr al-Mūminīn was already the mawlā of all believers even during the lifetime of the Prophet, especially since the Day of Ghadīr Khumm. However, the Sunnī masses accepted him as their khalīfah only after ‘Uthmān. So, when Imām ‘Alī claimed to be the mawlā of all believers since the lifetime of the Messenger, the people of Kūfah were too dumbfounded to believe it!

Look how they suggest that Ali () begged people to believe in the Rafidi belief of ‘Wilayah’ (in the sense of being the absolute authority over all muslims since the demise of the Prophet!). Something Ali himself never claimed and never intended as it is clear from his wordings and the time and circumstances he chose to use the Ghadir hadith! As for the drama about Abu Tufayl, it is nothing but blown out of proportion, other Rafidis before Ghadir786 went even so far to claim that Abu Tufayl turned a full-blooded Rafidi, a lie and deception. Abu Tufayl was a kid when the Prophet () died, he did not know about this amazing hadith of Ghadir (no Sahaba hid it or concealed him, how if it is MASS-NARRATED?!), so obviously he is quite impressed about its content, especially in a time of trial and civil war where Ali has quite a few opponents (and that hadith proving him to be definately close to the truth).

“I went out as if there was something inside me.”

Meaning he (Abu al-Tufayl) was thinking, he had heard something new, now Ghadir786 tries to imply by this that Abu al-Tufayl learned the hidden truth of `Ali’s () Imamah. This however is not stated in the narration, it’s just what Ghadir786.com wants to understand from it (based on their secterian view).

What abu al-Tufayl (ra) was most probably thinking of is: “If the Prophet (SAWS) ordered us to love and support `Ali (ra), then how come a team of the Muslims is fighting against him?” So abu al-Tufayl (ra) tried to verify this from one of the older senior companions Zayd ibn Arqam (ra). Anyway, Ghadir786 have basically copied and recycled (or they are one and the same) the refuted rants of revisitingthesalaf.com:

Response to: Rafidi Companion Of The Prophet (saw).

One is tempted to ask a rush of questions at this stage. Why was Abū al-Ṭufayl, a Ṣaḥābī, completely ignorant of adīth al-Ghadīr? Obviously, he was absent at Ghadīr. But, how come no-one ever narrated the adīth to him until during the khilāfah of Amīr al-Mūminīn?! Besides, why was there so much disbelief on the part of the masses of Kūfah? They apparently had never heard the adīth. The question is: why? What was it that stopped the Ṣaḥābah from narrating adīth al-Ghadīr until the khilāfah of Amīr al-Mūminīn? Moreover, why were the Ṣaḥābah so reluctant to narrate the adīth that Imām ‘Alī had to literally beg them with Allāh to do so? Most importantly, why was Abū al-Ṭufayl in disbelief over the adīth, despite his love of Amīr al-Mūminīn and acceptance of the latter’s khilāfah?

It was not the fault of the Sahabah, after all Shias love to brag about the fact that the Ghadir hadith is MASS-NARRATED (mutawatir). Abu al-Tufayl not being aware of it was Abu al-Tufayl’s problem, no one elses. Also, the Sahabah never stopped narrating the hadith, Ali did not beg THE SAHABAH, the reminded the people in general, and for Allah’s sake, ya Rafidah, it was the trutful Sahaba (before anyone else) who testified that the Ghadir hadith is true (they and Ali just did not believe in the perverted Rafidi understanding of the hadith). How were the Sahabah relucant if the hadith is MUTAWATIR and the Sahabah were the first to testify that the narration is true?! See how the hatred that you hold against the companions of the Messenger of Allah () has made you blind.

In their second part of their ‘al-Rahba’ article, Ghadir786 refute themselves (again), another embarrassing blunder that makes our job easier and proves how weak their argument is (if they refute themselves in two short articles). First we’d like to show you how Ghadir786 dedicated a whole article to prove the authenticity of the Ghadir hadith (even in there, there are many lies against Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah).

Al-Ḥāfiz Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī even takes the matter ahead by revealing an heavier fact:

ذكر حديث الموالاة عن نفر سماهم فقط وقد جمعه ابن جرير الطبري في مؤلف فيه اضعاف من ذكر وصححه واعتنى بجمع طرقه أبو العباس بن عقدة فأخرجه من حديث سبعين صحابيا أو أكثر

He mentioned adīth al-Muwālāt (i.e. the alternative name of adīth al-Ghadīr) from only a group that he named. Meanwhile, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī had compiled it in a book. In it are many times more of those (narrators) mentioned. Abū al-‘Abbās b. ‘Uqdah made efforts to compile its chains and recorded it from the adīth of SEVENTY AĀBAH OR MORE.[7]

Seventy?!! Although the book of Ibn ‘Uqdah is no longer available, this truth has been preserved, wa al-amd lillāh. So, there was evidence – with the full chains – that seventy or more of the Ṣaḥābah had transmitted adīth al-Ghadīr! This places the adīth, in terms of authenticity, above over 99% of authentic aādīth in human history!

Yes, seventy Sahaba (at least) narrated this hadith THROUGHOUT generations, it is MASS-NARRATED, for something to be mass-narrated it must be narrated by a number of people, with connected chains. Now let’s go to their second part of their al-Rahbah article and look how they forget the seventy Sahabah and accuse them of deception and concealment (something their imaginary fallibles are guilty of)!

When they mentioned adīth al-Ghadīr, he knew immediately that the Ummah was now ready for the adīth once more. The Ṣaḥābah had been refusing to narrate it for more than three decades, and a new generation – who never witnessed the lifetime of the Prophet – had emerged. The adīth was dying, and Amīr al-Mūminīn must have secretly been praying for Allāh’s Assistance. Even a Ṣaḥābī like Abū al-Ṭufayl had never heard it! Soon after the Messenger’s death, everyone seemed to have decided not to let others hear about the adīth. If Amīr al-Mūminīn alone, or with his family members and his close Ṣaḥābah only, had been narrating adīth al-Ghadīr to revive it, the people would not have believed them.

The Ummah was ‘ready’? ‘The Sahabah had been refusing to narrate it for more than THREE decades’? Do we need to comment much on these lies? On one hand they claim (righfully) the tawatur status of the hadith, and here (for the sake of championing their alien Rafidi belief) they attack the very same Sahabah of concealment of the truth! The very Sahaba who MASS-NARRATED it and stood up FIRST in Kufa and testified that the Ghadir hadith is true. According to fabricated Rafidi narration Fatimah () knocked the door of all the Mujahir and Ansar Sahaba after the demise of the Sahabah, reminding them of the Ghadir hadith, why didn’t Ali do so?! Why didn’t Ali reminded the Ummah at Abu Bakr’s shura? What about Omar’s?! Othman’s?! He waited 25 years (!) for a ‘new generation’ in the middle of a civil war, to use the Ghadir hadith for the first time ever?!

The hadith was narrated by over 70 Sahabah yet Ghadir786 and other Shia polemicists have no decensy and claim that the Sahabah decided not to let other hear about the hadith! What a great unjustice against the Sahabah and Ali, Shias should know that there is a day of Judgement where they have to answer for all these lies and accusations.

Narration 3:

at the battle of Jamal while ALREADY being the Caliph of the Muslim …

There is another narration that is ironically also being (mis)used by Shia polemicists in favour for their corrupted Ghadir understanding (note how all the narrations are actually AGAINST them and not FOR them). In the following case the narration is not even authentic, but as we all know, it’s an ancient trait of the Rafidah and their ‘scholars’ to use every garbage against the people of the Sunnah, like in the following case where ‘Ayatullah’ Milani (no, he’s not Italian, he’s Iranian, and he just got recently caught when he (قبحه الله) said in a tape that the Mother of the Believers Aisha (رضوان الله عليها), fornicated with Talha (رضي الله عنه) after the Prophet’s (صل الله عليه و سلم) death!) quotes a narrations about Ali and Talha and Al-Zubair (رضي الله عنهم) in order to prove that Ali (رضي الله عنه) made Iqamah Al-Hujjah (which means to establish the proof against) against Talha and Al-Zubair (رضوان الله عليهما) with the Ghadir Hadith as in how the Rafidah understand it (i.e. indicating that Ali used the Ghadir Hadith against the two Sahabis as the Twelver Shia do!)! Here a screenshot:

وروى الخوارزمي (الفضائل ج1 حديث 137.) باسناده عن رفاعة بن أياس الضبي عن أبيه عن جدّه قال: «كنا مع علي عليه السّلام يوم الجمل فبعث إلى طلحة بن عبيد الله أن ألقني فأتاه فقال: أنشدتك الله هل سمعت رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم يقول: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه، اللّهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه، واخذل من خذله، وانصر من نصره؟ قال: نعم، قال: فلم تقاتلني؟ قال: فانصرف طلحة ولم يرد جواباً»

(Ali’s adjuration (Munashida) with Talhah b. ‘Ubaydallah during the Battle of Jamal)

And Kawarizmi narrated with a chain of narration from Rifa’ah Ibn Ayas Al-Dhabbi who narrated to us from his father, from his grandfather who said [needless to say that this chain proves the weakness of the narration, to say the least]:

We were with `Ali on the day of al-Jamal when he sent word to Talha b. `Ubaydallah: Come and meet me! Talha came to him and he (Ali) said: “I adjure you by Allah, did you hear the Messenger of Allah say: “Of whomsoever I am his mawla, `Ali is his Mawlaa. O Allah, befriend the one who befriends him and be at enmity with one who is at enmity with him?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Then why do you fight against me?” He (the narrator) said: Then Talha departed.

Source: Al-Khawarizmi in his ‘Al-Fadhail’, vol. 1, Hadith 137 with a BROKEN chain.

This narration can be found in other sources as well (with the same broken chain) and of course other (deceptive) major Shia websites copied it and propagated it:

Now this joke of a narration (with a corrupted and borken chain) is of course like oxygen to the Shia ‘miracles/signs’ (‘Ayatullahs’!) and the Shia polemicists, they advocate it everywhere, including on their infamous (rotting) Internet presence al-Islam.org. The smart observer will not fall for their deception, for this narration is actually a proof against the whole Shia religion from two angles (remember, Shias only quote such narrations due to their desperation of collecting ANY narration where Ali mentioned the Ghadir incident, completely ignoring WHERE, WHEN and HOW Ali used the Ghadir Hadith):

1. It proves the Iman (belief) of Talhah, although he was involved in a massive fitnah, yet Ali (رضي الله عنه) knew better that Talha (and Zubair, Aisha etc.) were not enemies of Ali (رضوان الله عليه), rather it was a big fitnah where they felt betrayed and thought that Ali (عليه رضوان الله) couldn’t handle the situation (with the murderers of Othman hiding in Ali’s army), this is why the true Ali (رضي الله عنه ) had never been a Takfiri-Rafidi, he looked for excuses for his Muslim brothers, the Sahaba:
Abu Ja’far (Al-Baqir):

37774 – حدثنا أبو أسامة عن خالد بن أبي كريمة عن أبي جعفر قال جلس علي وأصحابه يوم الجمل يبكون على طلحة والزبير

[…] Abu Ja’far (Al-Baqir) said: ‘Ali and his companions sat down on the day of Jamal and cried upon Talha and Zubair’.

(Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah Al-Kufi)

Not to mention that the narration quoted by the ‘Ayatullah’ mentions how Talha LEFT after Ali (رضي الله عنه) reminded him of the Ghadir incident, this reminds one of the sincerity of Zubair who did similar:

During the fight Ali reminded Talha and Zubair of the words of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم): ‘One day you (Talha and Zubair) will fight Ali wrongly.’ Recalling this saying of Prophet Mohammad (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), Zubair left the battlefield and was killed during prayers by one of the soldier of Ali’s army who was chasing him. On hearing the news of Zubair’s assasination, Ali is reported to have said to the killer of Zubair: “May you burn in hell“.

Ali said: “Give the news of Hellfire to the one who killed Ibn Safiya ( Al-Zubair ) because I heard the Prophet saying: “Every prophet used to have a Hawari (i.e. disciple), and my Hawari is Az-Zubair bin Al-’Awwam”.

[Mustadrak al-Hakim], Al-Dhahabi authenticated this Hadith and said it’s a SAHIH Hadith]

2. It proves like the previous narrations that Ali ONLY used the Ghadir Hadith/incident when he wanted to remind people to be loyal to him, to love and support him and not to prove that he is ‘the true and only successor of the Prophet, the infallible Imam that was declared as such on the day of Ghadir’.

Narration 4:

Omar’s love for Ali and his understanding from the incident of Ghadir

Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Makki in his al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah (a classical book written in refutation of the Rafidi Shia religion) 1/110 states about Omar:

الدارقطني و أخرج أيضا أنه قيل لعمر إنك تصنع بعلي شيئا لا تصنعه بأحد من أصحاب النبي فقال إنه مولاي

Daraqutni has narrated that someone said to Omar: “Why do you treat Ali differently from the other Sahabah of the Prophet?”. He said:  ‘Because Ali is my mawla’.

We find in these reports that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه) EVEN during his own caliphate called Ali (رضوان الله عليه) his mawla. The Wise and unbiased reader will realise that here Omar (عليه الرحمة) certainly didn’t mean to say that Ali (رحمة الله عليه) was his Master/Caliph! That doesn’t make sense whatsoever (especially not for an ‘evil tyrant’ who has just recently ‘snatched way’ the caliphate of Ali), it is sheer stupidity to even suggest that Omar meant mawla as in ‘Caliph/Imam/leader’ (i.e. the Shia understanding) since Omar Al-Farooq (رضوان الله عليه) said that WHILE he himself was the Chief of the Believers, all believers, including of Ali (رضي الله عنه).

A similar narration about Omar’s love and understanding (and usage) of the wording mawla (which is the same as Ali’s understanding) can be even found in Shia books:

عن سالم قال: قيل (للخليفة) عمر: نراك تصنع بعلي شيئاً لا تصنعه بأحد من أصحاب رسول الله؟ فقال: إنه مولاي.وعن الباقر قال: جاء أعرابيان إلى (الخليفة) عمر يختصمان، فقال عمر: يا أبا الحسن، اقض بينهما. فقضى على أحدهما، فقال المقضي عليه: يا أمير المؤمنين، هذا يقضي بيننا؟ فوثب إليه عمر فأخذ بتلبيبه ولبّبه، ثم قال: ويحك ما تدري من هذا؟! هذا مولاي ومولى كل مؤمن، ومن لم يكن مولاه فليس بمؤمنالمصدر:البحار: ص 124 ج 40

Narrated Salem: ‘They said to caliph Omar: “We see you treating Ali like you treat no other of the Companions of the Prophet? He said: “He is my mawla. Imam al-Baqir said: “Once two wondering Arabs came to the caliph Omar so that he may Judge between them, So Omar said to Ali: “O Abu Al-Hassan why don’t you Judge between them two?.” So he made his ruling on one of the two, Then that wondering Arab said: “O Chief of the Believers (Omar)! Do you let this (man, Ali) judge between us!?” So Omar quickly stood up and shouted at the Man: “How dare you! Do you not know who this is?” He is my mawla and the mawla of every believer and if he’s not your mawla then you’re not a believer.

[Shia Source: bihar al Anwar 40/124.]

Now only a madman would believe and argue that Omar (who was THE Caliph back then) was shouting at someone who disrespected Ali and telling  him that Ali is in fact the mawla (Shia understanding of mawla = Imam/Caliph/leader) of Omar and all the believers.

Narration 5:

The progeny of Ali and their understanding from the incident of Ghadir

The Ahl Al-Bait refuting the Rafidah!

al-Ḥasan III – al-Hassan  b. al-Hassan b. al-Hassan b. Ali b. Abi Talib (great grandson of Ali). Let us quote a Shia website (ghadir786) to prove from the horse’s mouth the trustworthines of al-Hassan bin al-Hassan bin al-Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib (before we get to the sub-narrator):

 Imām Ibn Ḥibbān states:

الحسن بن الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب رضى الله يروى عن أبيه روى عنه أهل بلده أمه فاطمة بنت الحسين بن علي مات في الحبس بالهاشمية مع أخيه عبد الله بن الحسن

Al-asan b. al-asan b. al-asan b. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, may Allāh be pleased with him. He narrated from his father, and the people of his town narrated from him. His mother was Fāṭimah b. al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī. He died in prison at al-Hāshimiyyah with his brother, ‘Abd Allāh b. al-asan.[Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān b. Aḥmad al-Tamīmī al-Bustī, Kitāb al-Thiqāt (1st edition, 1393 H),  vol. 6, p. 159]

Āyatullāh Sayyid al-Khūī also submits:

الحسن بن الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب عليهم السلام، المدني تابعي، روى عن جابر بن عبد الله، وهو أخو عبد الله بن الحسن

Al-asan b. al-asan b. al-asan b. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be upon them: al-Madanī, a Tābi’ī. He narrated from Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh, and he was the brother of ‘Abd Allāh b. al-asan. [Abū al-Qāsim Mūsawī al-Khūī, Mu’jam Rijāl al-adīth (5th edition, 1413 H), vol. 5, P. 288, # 2769]

Now let’s see what this great grandson of Ali has narrated and how the Ahl al-Bayt themselves refuted the Rafidah on their perverted Ghadir understanding

قال البيهقي ورواه شبابة بن سوار عن الفضيل بن مرزوق قال سمعت الحسن بن الحسن أخا عبد الله بن الحسن وهو يقول لرجل ممن يتولاهم فذكر قصة ….قال فقال له الرافضي ألم يقل رسول اللهصلى الله عليه وسلم من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فقال أما والله إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لو كان يعني ب ذلك الإمرة والسلطان والقيام على الناس بعده لأفصح لهم بذلك كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت ولقال لهم إن هذا ولي أمركم من بعدي فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا

al-Bayhaqi said: Shubabah b. Siwar narrated from al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq who said: “I heard al-assan bin al-assan, the brother of ‘Abd Allāh b. al-assan while he was saying to a man who was among their lovers” and he mentioned the story…. He said: “The Rafidi said to him, “Didn’t the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, say, ‘Whosoever I am his mawla, Ali too is his mawla’?” So, he (al-Ḥassan) replied, “I swear by Allāh, if the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, had intended with that authority and government over the people after him, he would have stated it more clearly, as he stated to them clearly about alāt, Zakāt, the fast of Ramaḍān, and the ajj of the House. He would have said to them, ‘Verily, this one is your walī al-amr after me. Therefore, listen to him and obey him.

Source: Abū al-Qāsim b. Asākir, Tārīkh Madīnah Dimashq (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 13, pp. 69-70

Similar narration:

Al-Hassan ibn Al-Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib (رضوان الله عليهم) was asked, “Hadn’t the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said, “Whoever’s mawla I am, then Ali is his mawla”? He said, “Yes, but by Allah, the Messenger did not intend by that the position of leadership and power. If he wanted that, he would have said it outright. Allah’s messenger was more straightforward and the best adviser to the Muslims, if he wanted to say this, he would have said, “This is the one who will administer your affairs and look after you after me, so listen to him and obey.” By Allah, if Allah and His messenger had picked Ali, Allah would have facilitated his position for him. If Ali did not step up to that position, Ali would have been the first one to disobey Allah and His messenger”

Source: Al-Awaasim, pg. 187

Another version:

أخبرنا شبابة بن سوار الفزاري قال أخبرني الفضيل بن مرزوق قال سمعت الحسن بن الحسن يقول لرجل ممن يغلو فيهم …. فقال له الرافضي ألم يقل رسول الله عليه السلام لعلي من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فقال أما والله أن لو يعني بذلك الامرة والسلطان لأفصح لهم بذلك كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت ولقال لهم أيها الناس هذا وليكم من بعدي فإن أنصح الناس

Shubābah b. Siwār al-Fazārī narrated to us: he said: al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq said: I heard al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan saying to a man among those who exaggerate about them…. The Rāfiḍī said to him (Ḥassan b. Ḥassan b. ‘Alī), “Didn’t the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, say to ‘Alī, ‘Whosoever I am his mawlā, ‘Alī is his mawlā?’ So, he (Ḥasan b. Ḥasan b. ‘Alī) replied, ‘I swear by Allāh, if he had meant government and authority by that, he would have stated that to them IN A CLEAR MANNER, as he was clear to them about Ṣalāh, Zakāt, the fast of Ramaḍān and the Ḥajj to the House. He would have said to them, “O PEOPLE! THIS ONE IS YOUR WALĪ AFTER ME.” This is because he (the Prophet) was the best in counsel to mankind.’”

Source: Muḥammad b. Sa’d, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā (Beirut: Dār al-Sādir), vol. 5, p. 319-320

Yet another version:

وقال شبابة بن سوار حدثنا الفضيل بن مرزوق، قال سمعت الحسن بن الحسن أخا عبد الله بن الحسن وهو يقول لرجل ممن يغلو فيهم:  ….فقال له الرافضي: ألم يقل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعلي: ” من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه “؟ قال: أما والله، ان لو يعني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك الامرة والسلطان والقيام على الناس لأفصح لهم بذلك، كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت، ولقال لهم: أيها الناس إن هذا ولي أمركم من بعدي، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا، فما كان من وراء هذا شئ، فإن أنصح الناس كان للمسلمين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.

I heard al-Ḥassan b. al-Ḥassan, the brother of Abullah Ibn al-Hassan, while he was saying to a man from those who exaggerated about them…. So the Rafidi said, “Didn’t the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, say to ‘Ali: “Whosoever I am his mawla, Ali too is his mawla”? He (Hassan b. Hassan b. Alī) replied, “I swear by Allāh, if the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, had intended government and authority and leadership over the people, he would have stated that to them clearly, as he clearly stated to them about prayer, Zakat, fast of Ramadan, and the Hajj of the House. And he would have said to them: “O people! Verily, this one is your Wali al-Amr after me. Therefore, listen to him and obey him.” There is nothing else after this, because the most eloquent of mankind to the Muslims was the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.

Source: ال المزي في تهذيب الكمال (6|88): «وهذا من أصح الأسانيد وأعلاها».
al-Mizzi said in Tahtheeb al-Kamal 6/88: “And this is from the highest and most authentic Isnads“.

Comment:

– The grandchildren of Ali (just as the Sahaba and Ali himself) also did not understood the wording mawla as leader i.e. they had the same understanding of the Ghadir Khumm incident as the Ahl Al-Sunnah.

– They rebuked the Rafidah in their time (yes, exaggerating with Ali started even before they were born)

– Interestingly they even argued that the Ahl Al-Bait are NOT ‘infallible’, rebuking those who carry such extremist beliefs. This is why we find other SIMILAR narrations from the same grandchild of Ali who said:

It is reported that Al-Hasan b. Al-Hasan b. ‘Alî b. Abî Tâlib – Allâh have mercy on him – said to a person from the Râfidah:

Love us, but if we disobey Allâh, then hate us; for if Allâh was going to benefit anyone because of his relation to the Messenger of Allâh – peace and blessings be upon him, without obedience [to Allâh], He would have benefitted the mother and father [of the Prophet].

Al-Dhahabî, Siyar A’lâm Al-Nubalâ` 4:486.

Shiite objections:

“There are actually authentic Sunni narrations stating that the Prophet (SAWAS) said that Ali is the wali of every believer after him. Based on that the narration of Imam Al-Hassan’s (AS) son must be dismissed”.

Response:

They attack its matn only because they are helpless against its chain. Nonetheless, in spite of their bitter anger, the narration is rock-solid, providing an authentic chain and its narrator is the son of al-Hassan Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib, yet the Shias prefer to clutch at straws i.e. flimsy narrations even at the cost of rejecting authentic narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt themselves. Anyways, here  a refutation of those straws the Shias like to clutch at:

Response to: Alee (a.s) The Master Of Every Believer

Some more objections:

Ghadir786.com rants over a mistake of Ibn al-Hashimi:

The main narrator of the riwāyah is al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq. Ibn al-Hāshimī himself says about him:

We have seen “Answering-Ansar” and other anti-Sunni sites use reports from someone named “Fudayl ibn Marzooq” and yet we find that he is not a Sunni authority but rather he is considered A LIAR AND A FABRICATOR by the Ahlus Sunnah!

We have very serious questions about the accuracy of what Ibn al-Hāshimī has attributed to the Ahl al-Sunnah concerning al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq. For instance, there are a number of reports by al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq in aī Muslim! Does this mean aī Muslim contains narrations of liars and fabricators? We leave the answer to our Sunnī brothers. They should judge whether Ibn al-Hāshimī has presented the correct position of the Ahl al-Sunnah about al-Fuḍayl or not.

Is Ibn al-Hashimi a Hujjah in the Deen?! As a matter of fact, al-Fudayl is a thiqah (trustworthy) narrator by some giant Rijalists such as Yahya Ibn Maeen and Sufyan Ibn Uyayna. Neverthless, he is a has been weakened by some and his narrations in Sahih Muslim are mainly mutabi’aat (i.e. Imam Muslim used him only for supportive narrations), and this is because he was a Shiite! Yes, the narration is reported by one of the classical Shiites themselves, this makes the narration even more Sahih since a Shiite is narrating something which opposes the foundation of (extreme) Shiism (Ali being the only rightful successor of the Prophet). Ibn al-Hashimi was wrong in the sense of calling him (Ibn Marzooq) a liar, rather he was a Shiite who was criticised.

Al-Hasan bin Al-Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib’s denial (narrated by a Shiite!) of the addition “after me” is perhaps the strongest evidence that no such thing was mentioned by the Prophet, for if the very great grandson of Ali himself denied such a thing, then who are the Rafidah Shias to claim otherwise?!

The Final nail in the Ghadir QOM coffin from Ali’s words:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib and his uncle Al-Abbas both did not know who the one in authority after the demise of the Messenger of Allah would be

In Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Abbas tells Ali (رضوان الله عليهما):

أنت والله بعد ثلاث عبد العصا، وإني والله لأرى رسول الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم سوف يتوفى من وجعه هذا، إني لأعرف وجوه بني عبد المطلب عِندَ الموت، اذهب بنا إلى رسول الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم فلنسأله فيمن هذا الأمر، إن كان فينا علمنا ذلك، وإن كان في غيرنا علمناه، فأوصى بنا . فقال علي : إنا والله لئن سألناها رسول الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم فمنعناها لا يعطيناها الناس بعده، وإني والله لا أسألها رسول الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم .

‘By Allah, after three days you will be a servant to the one in authority, And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of Abdul-Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will be in position of authority. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.”
Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.’

Comment:

Another SAHIH narration (of course one that Shias will love to overlook/ignore in their selective approach) that completely destroys the myth of Ali being an preappointed (by Allah and His Messenger!) Imam and immediate successor of the final Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) who interestingly stated in an authentic report:

The Prophet said, “We do not assign the authority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it.”

[Sahih Bukhari, book of judgments]

This greatly strengthens the understanding of Ahl Al-Sunnah and shows that this matter was not known by the heads of Ahl Al-Bait during the life of the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم), and had Ali (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه) been appointed or declared as Caliph this entire conversation would not happen nor do they appear to believe in any divinely appointed rulers or any Quranic verses revealed in this domain. In fact Ali said that the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) left this world without appointing a successor to lead. And this has been authentically attributed to Ali (رضوان الله عليه) in several narrations such as this one:
قيل لعلي ألا تستخلف قال ما استخلف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأستخلف عليكم وإن يرد الله تبارك وتعالى بالناس خيرا فسيجمعهم على خيرهم كما جمعهم بعد نبيهم على خيرهم

They said to Ali (رضي الله عنه): Will you not appoint a successor? He said: The Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه  و سلم) did not appoint a successor so that I may do so, If Allah wishes that something good happens to you then he will make you all gather around the best (Man) amongst you just like he made them gather around the best Man (i.e Abu Bakr) after their Prophet (صل الله عليه  و سلم).

Narrator: Shaqiq.
Source: al-Haythami in Majama’a Al-Zawa’id.
Rank: All narrators are that of the SAHIH except Ismail bin Abi al Harith and he is Trustworthy

Interestingly the same has been reported from the friend of Ali, Omar bin al-Khattab (رضوان الله عليهما) when he had been asked the same question:

قيلَ لعُمرَ : ألا تَسْتَخْلِفْ ؟ قال : إنْ أسْتَخْلِفْ فقد اسْتَخْلِفْ مَن هو خيرٌ مِنِّي أبو بكرٍ ، وإنْ أترُكْ فقد ترَكَ مَن هو خيرٌ مِنِّي رسول الله صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّم

They said to Omar (رضي الله عنه و أرضاه): “Will you not appoint your successor?” he said: “If I did then surely someone who is better than I had done so Abu Bakr, and if I did not the surely someone who is better than I didn’t the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه  و سلم).’

NOTE: Omar (رضوان الله عليه) did not appoint any member from his family (nor did Abu Bakr, nor Othman) nor did he include them in the Shuraa that was going to elect the Caliph after him. Though he included Ali (رضوان الله عليه) in it and Ali ACCEPTED (to be part of a ‘taghooti-despotic-usurping Shuraa system’!) This is proof enough for the ultimate friendship and brotherhood of the Sahaba and Ahl Al-Bait (despite all quarrels the Sahaba/Ahl Al-Bait might HAD during their lifes) and the faleshood of the Shia myth of ‘Wilayah/Imamah’ (Ali’s divine leadership) for people who are unbiased and rational.

CONCLUSION

The truthful Sahaba (over a dozen who were alive in Iraq, during Ali’s reign), the grandchild of Ali and most importantly Ali himself, NONE of them understood the Hadith of Ghadir as the ‘divine appointment of Ali Ibn Abi Talib as the leader of the Ummah’, none of them. In fact, they rebuked those who held such (alien Rafidi) beliefs, but unfortunately the heretics of the past are no different from the heretics of today, so in the name of ‘following and loving Ali and the Ahl Al-Bait’ they will keep OPPOSING them by sticking to their ‘holier than the pope’ understanding of the Ghadir incident. The Shia clergy have already invented a whole ‘Eid (even declaring it the greatest ‘Eid!) in the name of Ghadir, so Allah knows what deviations and innovations the world has to expect from them in the future. What’s for sure is that the true followers and lovers of the Ahl Al-Bait (the Ahl Al-Sunnah) have exactly followed the Ahl Al-Bait’s footstep in their understanding of the Ghadir incident, so until when will the Rafidah ignorants keep explaining the incident of Ghadir and the word mawla that was uttered there as Caliph and Ruler?! Lastly …

Ponder over some important facts in regards to Ali’s usage of the Ghadir incident:

But be assured that the journey of the heretics will continue, their made up beilefs about the Ahl Al-Bait and their hatred towards the Sahaba whom the accuse of having neglected this Rafidi version of Ghadir Khumm i.e. Ghadir Qom. What should concern us as Muslims, the Ahl Al-Sunnah, is to actually truly FOLLOW the Ahl Al-Bait in these crucial matters such as the Ghadir understanding, where the Shia only pay a lip service when it comes to follow the Ahl Al-Bait, they CLAIM to be following them, but in reality oppose them, so we as Muslims should oppose the Rafidah till the day of Judgement and say in regards to Ghadir:

NO to Ghadir QOM, and yes to Ghadir Khumm!

Al-Haythamī comments:رواه الطبراني في الأوسط وإسناده حسنAl-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Awsat, and its chain is ḥasan.[4]