All the Shia and Sunni ulema acknowledge that, in the 10th of
the Hijra year, the Prophet of Allah, returning from his last
pilgrimage, gathered together all his companions at Ghadir-e-Khum
on the 18th of Dhi'l-Hijja. Some of those who had gone ahead were
called back by order of the Holy Prophet and those who had lagged
behind were awaited. Most of your ulema and the historians and
the Shia sources give the figure of 70,000 people there, and some
of your other ulema, for instance Tha'labi in his Tafsir, Sibt
Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkirat'u- Khasa'isi'l-Umma fi Ma'rifati'l-A'imma
and others have written that there were 120,000 people gathered
there. The Holy Prophet ordered a pulpit to be prepared. He mounted
the pulpit and delivered a long sermon, a greater part of which
contained the virtues and merits of the Commander of the Faithful.
He recited most of the verses, which had been revealed in praise
of Ali and reminded the people of the holy rank of the vicegerency
of the Commander of the Faithful. Then the Holy Prophet said,
"O you people! Have I not the greater claim than you have
on your lives?" The reference is to the holy verse "The
Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on
The crowd with one voice shouted "Certainly, O messenger
of Allah!" Then the Holy Prophet declared: "Of whomsoever
I am the maula, (master) this Ali is his maula." After this
he raised his hand and prayed to Allah. "O Allah, be you
a friend to him who is a friend to him (that is, Ali) and be an
enemy to him who is an enemy to him (Ali). Help him who helps
him and forsake him who forsakes him.
Then a tent was pitched by order of the Holy Prophet who ordered
the Commander of the Faithful, Ali to sit in the tent. The whole
umma was commanded to offer bai'at (allegiance) to Ali. The Holy
Prophet said that he gave this instruction in compliance with
the command of Allah. The first one to offer allegiance on that
day was Umar. Then Abu Bakr, Uthman, Talha, and Zubair followed
suit, and all these people continued offering allegiance for three
days (i.e., while the Holy Prophet remained there).
Hafiz: Can you believe that
an event of such importance occurred as claimed by you and that
none of the prominent ulema have reported it?
Well-Wisher: I did not expect
such a statement from you. The Ghadir-e-Khum affair is as clear
as day and no one but a bigoted and obstinate person would invite
ignominy by denying such an event. This important matter has been
recorded by all your pious ulema in their authentic books. I should
like to mention here some of the names of the authors and their
books so that you may know that all your eminent ulema have relied
on this hadith.
1. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi - Tafsir-e-Kabir Mafatihu'l-Ghaib.
2. Imam Ahmad Tha'labi - Tafsir-e-Kashfu'l-Bayan.
3. Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti - Tafsir-e-Durru'l-Manthur.
4. Abu'l-Hasan Ali Bin Ahmad Wahidi Nishapuri - Asbabu'n-
5. Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari - Tafsiru'l-Kabir.
6. Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani - Ma Nazal Mina'l-Qur'an fi Ali and
7. Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari - Ta'rikh, Vol.1, p.375.
8. Muslim Bin Hajjaj Nishapuri - Sahih, Vol.2, p.325.
9. Abu Dawud Sijistani - Sunan.
11. Hafiz Ibnu'l-Iqda - Kitabu'l-Wilaya.
12. Ibn Kathir Shafi'i Damishqi - Ta'rikh.
13. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - Vol.4, pp.281&371.
14. Abu Hamid Muhammad Bin Muhammad Al-Ghazali - Sirru'l-Alamin.
15. Ibn Abdu'l-Birr - Isti'ab.
16. Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i - Matalibu's-Su'ul, p.16.
17. Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i - Manaqib.
18. Nuru'-d-Din Bin Sabbagh Maliki - Fusulu'l-Muhimma.
19. Husain Bin Mas'ud Baghawi - Masabihu's-Sunna.
20. Abu'l-Mu'ayyid Muwafiq Bin Ahmad Khatib Khawarizmi - Manaqib.
21. Majdu'd-Din Bin Athir Muhammad Bin Muhammad Shaibani -am'u'l-Usul.
22. Hafiz Abu Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Bin Ali Nisa'i - Khasa'isu'l-Alawi and Sunan.
23. Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi - Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Ch. IV.
24. Shahabu'd-din Ahmad Bin Hajar Makki - Sawa'iq Muhriqa and Kitabu'l-Manhu'l-Malakiyya, particularly Sawa'iq, Part 1, p.25. In spite of his extreme fanaticism, he says: "This is a true hadith; its veracity cannot be doubted. Verily it has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nisa'i and Ahmad, and if studied, its sources are sound enough."
25. Muhammad Bin Yazid Hafiz Ibn Maja Qazwini - Sunan.
26. Hafiz Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri-Mustadrak.
27. Hafiz Sulayman Ibn Ahmad Tabrani - Ausat.
28. Ibn Athir Jazari - Usudu'l-Ghaiba.
29. Yusuf Sibt Ibn Jauzi - Tadhkiratu'l-Khasa'isu'l-Umma, p. 17.
30. Abu Umar Ahmad Bin Abd Rabbih - Iqdu'l-Farid.
31. Allama Samhudi - Jawahiru'l-Iqdain.
32. Ibn Taimiyya Ahmad Bin Abdu'l-Halim - Minhaju's-Sunna.
33. Ibn Hajar Asqalani - Fathu'l-Bari and Tahdhibu't-Tahdhib.
34. Abdu'l-Qasim Muhammad Bin Umar Jarullah Zamakhshari - Rabiu'l-Abrar.
35. Abu Sa'id Sijistani - Kitabu'd-Darayab Fi hadithi'l-Wilaya.
36. Ubaidullah Bin Abdullah Haskani - Du'atu'l-Huda Ila Ada Haqqi'l-Muwala.
37. Razin Bin Mu'awiya Al-Abdari - Jam Bainu's-Sahihi's-Sitta.
38. Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi says in Kitabu'l-Arba'in that the whole Community unanimously confirms this hadith.
39. Muqibili - hadithu'l-Mutawatira.
40. Suyuti - Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafa.
41. Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani - Mawaddatu'l-Qurba.
42. Abul Fath Nazari - Khasa'es'u'l-Alavi
43. Khwaja Parsa Bukhari - Faslu'l-Khitab
44. Jamaluddin Shirazi - Kitabu'l-Araba'in
45. Abdul Ra'ufu'l-Manavi - Faizu'l-Qadir fi Sharh-i-Jame'u's-Saghir
46. Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i - Kifayatu't-Talib, Part. 1
47. Yahya Bin Sharaf-Nauvi - Tehzibu'l-Asma wa'l-Lughat
48. Ibrahim bin Muhammad Hamwaini - Fara'adu's-Simtoun
49. Qazi Fazlullah bin Ruzhahan - Ibtalu'l-Batil
50. Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad Sharbini - Siraju'l-Munir
51. Abul Fath Shahristani Shafi'i - Milal wa'n-Nihal
52. Hafiz Abu Bakr Khatib Baghdadi - Tarikh
53. Hafiz Ibn Asakir abul Qasim Damishqi - Tarikh-i-Kabir
54. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mutazali - Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha
55. Ala'uddin Samnani -Urwatu'l-Wuthqah
56. Ibn Khaldun - Muqaddima
57. Molvi Ali Muttaqi Hindi - Kanzu'l-Ummal
58. Shamsuddin Abul Khair Damishqi - Asnu Matalib
59. Syed Sharif Hanafi Jurjani - Sharh-i-Mawaqit
60. Nizamuddin Nishapuri - Tafsir-i-Ghara'ibu'l-Qur'an
I have related the sources I could remember. But more than three
hundred of your prominent ulema have narrated the hadith of Ghadir,
the verses of baligh (preaching), kamalu'd-Din (perfection of
religion), and the talk in the courtyard of the mosque, on the
authority of more than one hundred companions of the Holy Prophet.
If I were to relate the names of all these chroniclers, it would
form a complete book. This much, however, is sufficient to prove
that the hadith is unanimously accepted as true.
Some of your great ulema have written books on this topic. For
instance, the well known commentator and historian of the fourth
century hijri, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari (died 310
A.H.), gives complete details of the hadith of Ghadir in his book
Kitabu'l-Wilaya and has narrated it through seventy five chains
Hafiz Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad Bin Sa'id Abdu'r-Rahman Al-Kufi, popularly
known as Ibn Iqda (died 333 A.H.), narrated this holy hadith in
his book Kitabu'l-Wilaya through 125 chains on the authority of
125 companions of the Holy Prophet.
Ibn Haddad Hafiz Abu'l-Qasim Haskani (died 492 A.H.), in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya,
has narrated in detail the event of Ghadir along with the revelation
of the verses of the Qur'an. In short, all your accredited scholars
and high-ranking ulema (except a small number of fanatical opponents),
quote the origin of this hadith from the Holy Prophet, who declared
Ali his vicegerent on the 18th of Dhu'l-Hijja in the year of his
last pilgrimage. It is also a fact that the Caliph Umar was the
first among the companions to express his pleasure on this occasion.
Seizing Ali by the hand, he said: "Congratulations to you,
Ali! This morning has brought you a great blessing. You have become
my maula (master) and the maula (master) of all believing men
and believing women."
The Shafi'i jurist, Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani of the eighth-century
hijri, one of the reliable scholars of your sect, writes in his
book Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda V, that a large number of the
companions have quoted Caliph Umar in different places as having
said: "The Prophet of Allah had made Ali the master, the
chief and the leader of the nation. He announced in a public gathering
that he (Ali) was our maula (master). After praying for his friends
and cursing his enemies, he said O Allah! You are my witness.
(That is, 'I have completed my duty of prophethood.') On this
occasion a handsome and sweet smelling youth was sitting beside
me. He said to me, 'Verily, the Prophet of Allah has bound with
a covenant which none but a hypocrite would break. So Umar! Eschew
breaking it.' I told the Prophet of Allah that when he was speaking
to the crowd, a handsome, sweet smelling youth was sitting beside
me and that he told me such a thing. The Holy Prophet said, '
He was not of the progeny of Adam, but was Gabriel, (who had appeared
in that form). He wanted to stress the point which I had announced
Now I should like to seek justice from you, was it proper for
them to break the firm covenant with the Prophet of Allah within
two months, to go back on their pledge of sacramental allegiance
to Ali, to set fire to his house, to draw swords against him,
to insult him, to drag him to the mosque to force his allegiance?
Hafiz: I did not expect that
a respectable and cultured Seyyed like you would attribute worldliness
to the companions of the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet declared
them the source of guidance for the Community when he said: "My
companions are like stars; if you follow any one of them, you
will be guided."
Well-Wisher: First I should
like you not to repeat the same thing time and again. You have
just argued from the same hadith and I have given you its reply.
The companions, like all others, were fallible. So when it is
proved that they were not infallible, why should one wonder if,
with proper evidence, worldliness is attributed to them? Second,
in order to clear your mind, I will again give you a reply, so
that you may not rely on such hadith in the future. According
to the research of your own eminent ulema, this hadith is not
reliable, as I have stated earlier. Qazi Ayaz Maliki quotes from
your own prominent ulema that since the narrators of this hadith
include the names of the ignorant and uninformed Harith Bin Qazwin
and Hamza Bin Abi Hamza Nasibi, who have been found to be liars,
this hadith is not worth reporting.
Also, Qazi Ayaz, in his Sharh-e-Shifa and Baihaqi in his Kitab,
have declared that this hadith is forged and have regarded its
source as unreliable.
Third, I never said anything rude, I say only what your own ulema
have written. I advise you to read Fazil Taftazani's Sharh-e-Maqasid,
in which he states clearly that there are many instances of hostility
among the Companions, which shows that some of them had become
sinners and tyrants. So we see that people are not to be honored
merely because they were companions of the Prophet. Real honor
lies in their deeds and character. If they did not belong to the
hypocrites but were obedient and faithful to the Holy Prophet
they are certainly to be revered and respected. We would apply
the dust of their feet to our eyes.
So, you men of justice, do you claim that the many hadith in your own reliable books concerning fighting against Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali (such as the Holy Prophet saying: "fighting against Ali is fighting against me," are all baseless? Or do you admit that these hadith are perfectly authentic?
Are they not recorded with reliable sources in the books of your
own distinguished ulema. We need not mention that these hadith
are recorded by Shia ulema with perfect unanimity of opinion in
all their books. If you accept these hadith, you must acknowledge
that many of the companions were transgressors and sinners, as
was Mu'awiya. Umar Ibn As, Abu Huraira, Samra Bin Jundab, Talha,
Zubair all of whom rose to fight against Ali in fact rose against
the Holy Prophet himself.
And since they fought against the Prophet, they certainly deviated
from the right path. So, if we said that some of the companions
were slaves to their desires, we were not wrong, because what
we said was true. Besides this, we are not alone in holding that
some of the companions were sinners, tyrants, and transgressors.
We base our stand on the authority of your own great ulema.
If you study Sirru'l-Alamin, compiled by Abu Hamid Muhammad Bin
Muhammad Ghazali Tusi, you would never object to what I say. I
am, however, compelled to quote a portion of his fourth treatise
in support of my statement. He says: "Proof and reasoning
became brighter, and there is unanimous accord among Muslims concerning
the text of the address on the day of 'Ghadir-e-Khum' that the
Holy prophet said: 'Of whomsoever I am maula (master), Ali is
his maula (master).' Then Umar immediately said, 'Congratulations
to you, congratulations to you, O Abu'l-Hasan! You are my master
and also the master of all faithful men and women.'"
This sort of congratulation clearly indicates the acknowledgment of the Holy Prophet's order, and acceptance of the leadership and caliphate of Ali. But later on they were overpowered by their worldly desires. Love for power and authority deprived them of compassion. They took it upon themselves to appoint a caliph at Saqifa-e-Bani Sa'dat. They wanted to raise the flag of their own ascendancy and to conquer territory so that their names might be preserved in history. They were intoxicated with lust for power. They ignored the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, and the orders of the Holy Prophet. They sold their religion for this world. What a bad bargain they made with Allah! When the Holy Prophet was on his death bed he asked for pen and ink so that he could clarify the issue of succession. (May God forgive my saying it), But Umar said: "Leave this man. He is talking nonsense." So when the Holy Qur'an and the hadith
could not help them, they relied upon Ijma (consensus). But this
is also void because Abbas, his descendants, Ali, his wife and
their descendants did not associate themselves with those who
offered allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Similarly, the Saqifa men also refused allegiance to the Khazraji, and the
Ansars rejected them also.
Respected people! please remember, the Shias do not claim anything
except what your own fair ulema claim. But since you hate us,
you find fault with what we say, however reasonable it might be.
But you never criticize your own ulema as to why they have written
such things although they have in fact revealed the truth and
have stamped these realities on the pages of history.
Sheikh: Sirru'l-Alamin was not
written by Imam Ghazali. His position was too lofty for him to
write such a book, and notable ulema do not believe that this
book was written by him.
Well-Wisher: Many of your own
ulema have admitted that this book was written by Imam Ghazali.
Yusuf Sibt Ibn Jauzi was careful in his references to other scholars
(and was also a fanatic in his religion). In his Tadhkira Khawasu'l-Umma,
p. 36, he argues from the same statement of Imam Ghazali in his
Sirru'l-Alamin and quotes the same passage which I have quoted.
Since no comments have been made regarding it, it shows first
that he acknowledges this book to be written by Imam Ghazali.
Second, he also agrees with his views, which I have briefly cited,
although he himself cited them in detail. If he had not agreed
with them he would have commented on them. But of course your
fanatical ulema when they come across such statements of prominent
scholars and find themselves unable to reject them logically,
either say that the book was not written by that author, or that
it was an invention of the Shias. Or they sometimes even go so
far as to say that these just men were all sinners and infidels.
There is evidence that many of your distinguished ulema were persecuted
simply because they spoke the truth. Fanatical ulema and uninformed
people of your sect considered it unlawful to read nonconformist
books. The authors of such works were even put to death as was
Hafiz Ibn Iqda Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad Bin Sa'id Hamadani
who died 303 A.H. He was one of your prominent ulema. Many notable
scholars of your own sect, like Dhahabi and Yafi'i, have acknowledged
him and said that he had learned 300,000 hadith with their sources
and that he was a man of great piety.
At public gatherings in Kufa and Baghdad in the third century
A.H., he openly narrated the failings of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr
and Umar.) People therefore called him Rafizi and refrained from
quoting hadith from him. Ibn Kathir Dhahabi and Yafi'i write about
him: "Sheikh Ibn Iqda sat in the Basra Mosque (a famous Mosque
between Baghdad and Kazimain) and narrated the defects and shortcomings
of the Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) to the people. For this reason
the hadith reported by him have been rejected. Otherwise there
is no doubt about his being a true and pious man." Al-Khatib
Baghdadi also has praised him in his Ta'rikh but in the end he
says: "Since he described the defects and failings of the
Sheikhs, he was a Rafizi."
So you people should not be under the impression that it is only
the Shias who expose the truth of these issues. Your own great
ulema like Imam Ghazali and Ibn Iqda used to point out the flaws
in the chief companions.
In every era of history there have been many instances of ulema
who have been tortured or persecuted on account of their speaking
or writing the truth. For instance the well known commentator
and historian Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, who was the pride of
your ulema, died in 310 A.H. in Baghdad. But because the authorities
feared a civil disturbance, they refused to allow his coffin to
be taken out during the day. Perforce he was laid to rest in his
own house during the night.
Another instance of persecution was Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Ahmad Ibn
Ali Nisa'i's murder. He was a dignified man and is regarded as
one of the Imams of Sahih Sitta (Six Authentic Books). He belonged
to the high-ranking ulema of your sect in the 3rd century A.H.
When he reached Damascus in 303 A.H., he saw that, because of
the Bani Umayya, the residents of that place openly abused the
name of Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali Bin Abi Talib after every ritual
prayer, particularly in the address of congregational prayers.
He was much grieved to see this and he decided to collect all
the hadith of the Holy Prophet in praise of Amiru'l-Mu'minin with
the chain of their sources, all of which he remembered. Accordingly,
he wrote a book, Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, in support of the exalted
position and virtues of Ali. He used to read to the people from
the pulpit the hadith from his book the praises of the Holy Imam.
One day when he was narrating the high merits of Ali, a rowdy
group of fanatics dragged him from the pulpit and beat him. They
punched his testicles and, catching hold of his penis, dragged
him out of the mosque and threw him into the street. As a result
of these injuries he died after a few days. His body was taken
to Mecca where he was laid to rest. These events are the consequence
of enmity and ignorance.
Now I beg your pardon that I have been driven a little far from
my point. What I meant was that the position of Wilaya (Vicegerency)
of Amiru'l-Mu'minin was not recorded by the Shia ulema alone.
Your own prominent ulema have also narrated that the Holy Prophet
in the presence of 70,000 or 120,000 people, raised Ali's hands
and introduced him as Imam (leader and guide) of the people.