Imam Ali

Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (علي‎, translit. ʿAlī, 15 September 601 – 29 January 661) was the cousin and the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad (s). He is the first Imam of Shi'a Muslims and the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph of the Sunni Muslims. He was born on Rajab 13, 23 BH (March 17, 599 AD) inside the Holy Ka'ba in Mecca.

92509

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 weeks ago

This question deals with one of the issues which were fabricated to adjust a political agenda to justify the conspiracy of Saqeefah which was a big blunder immediately after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA). Even Omar ibn al-Khattab who was the partner of Abu Bakr in Saqeefah called the allegiance to Abu Bakr as a dangerous blunder from its evil Allah Has protected the Muslims, and any one tries to do like it must be killed. ( Saheeh al- Bukhari , Hadeeth 6830, and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal; 7:431 Hadeeth 37031 and 37032).

It is a well known fact that Imam Ali (AS) rejected the outcome of Saqeefah and refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr. ( Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim). Some narrations in Sunni books claim that imam Ali (AS) has given allegiance to Abu Bakr after six months. Such narrations are fabricated politically oriented. Imam Ali (AS) has never given allegiance to Abu Bakr despite the tremendous pressure and threatening which he faced from the group of Saqeefah which reached to burning the house on him and his wife Fatimah and all his family if he refuses to give allegiance to Abu Bakr. ( Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah;Hadeeth 36383, and Tareekh al-Tabari;V.2, P. 443, and Ansaari al-Ashraf by al-Balathuri; V.1, P.586 and al-Soyooti in Musnad Fatimah, page 36, and Ibn Qutaiba al-Dinori in Al-Imamah wal Siyaasah , V.1, P.19.and many other Sunni books.

Al-Shaikh al-Mufeed refuted the claim of the opponents that Imam Ali (AS) gave allegiance to Abu Bakr saying: The refusal of Imam Ali to give allegiance to Abu Bakr is undisputed fact among all the scholars, while the claim that he gave allegiance is disputed. His refusal was based on his responsibility to refuse wrong, and this responsibility remained with him always and there is no evidence that wrong has turned to be right. Al-Shaikh Al-Mufeed and our authentic great Ulama has stated that Imam Ali has never given allegiance to Abu Bakr. Obviously, the real leader of all the Faithful can never be a follower of Saqeefah imposed rulers.

Well known Sunni scholar Al-Dhahabi has stated : Ali did not attend any Friday prayer nor congregational prayer with any of the three Caliphs. ( Siyar A'laam al-Nubalaa' 9: 284).

Wassalam.

78091

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 weeks ago

When Prophet Haroon (AS) was alive, he was the deputy of Prophet Musa (AS),  and was the partner of Musa in his responsibility and real helper and supporter of Musa, but he passed away during the life of Musa (AS). Had he lived after the passing away of Musa, no one was entitled to succeed Musa but Haroon.

The status of Haroon from Musa is similar to the status of Ali (AS) from Muhammad (SAWA). (Saheeh al-Bukhari; Hadeeth numbers 3430 and 4064.) and Saheeh Muslim; Hadeeth numbers 4416, and 4419 and 4420 and 4421.

Thise understand Quran can obviously see the status Ali (AS) from the Prophet (SAWA) which is superior to all Muslim Ummah.

Wassalam.
 

78094

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 weeks ago

There are many similarities between Prophet Haroon (AS) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS).

1. Prophet Haroon (AS) was the brother of Prophet Musa (AS) while Ali (AS) was the cousin brother and spiritual brother of Prophet Muhammad ( (SAWA) who said to Ali : O Ali, You are my brother in this life (Dunham) and hereafter (Aakhirah). (Al-Mustadrak 'Ala al-Saheehain by al-Haakim al-Nisabori, Hadeeth number 4345).

2. Prophet Haroon (AS) was the partner of Prophet Musa (AS) وأشركه في أمري)( Make him my partner in my responsibilities) in conveying the message of Allah to people and facing the hardships from the enemies, while Ali (AS) was the partner of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) in his responsibilities in conveying the message and protecting it.

3. Prophet Haroon (AS) was the main helper of Prophet Musa ( AS) وزيرا, while Ali (AS) was the main helper of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA).

4. Prophet Haroon was the leader of the followers of Musa when used to leave them, اخلفني في قومي ( Be my deputy in my followers) while Ali (AS) was the deputy of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) who declared : من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه For whom so ever I am the leader, Ali is his leader (al-Tareekh al-Kabeer by al-Bukhari, V. 1, P. 375 and V. 4, P. 193) also ( Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Musnad al-Asharah al-Mubashshareen, Hadeeth numbers 606 and 633 and 906 and 915 and 918 and 1242.

5. Prophet Haroon (AS) suffered from deviation of many of the community of Prophet Musa (AS) when he left them, while Imam Ali (AS) suffered the same and more from those Muslims who deviated from the teachings of the Prophet (SAWA) immediately after him.

6. Prophet Haroon had three sons; Shubbar, Shabbir and Mushabbar while Ali ( AS) had from Lady Fatimah (AS) three sons; Hasan, Husain and Mohsin. These names is similar in Arabic to the names of the sons of Prophet Haroon.

7. Prophet Haroon was tortured by some of the community of Prophet Musa (AS) وكادوا يقتلونني while Imam Ali (AS) was tortured and was near to be killed  by the Saqeefa gang to force him to give allegiance to them. He was ultimately killed by Ibn Muljam.

'Wassalam.

78097

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 weeks ago

Imam Ali (AS) did not help any of three caliphs in their deeds which was not according to the Quran and the real teachings  of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him and his Holy Progeny). 

He rectified dangerous mistakes and wrong rulings which they wanted to do against the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah because of their lack of knowledge.

His rectification saved victims from wrong punishments and the caliphs said that without Ali we would have been doomed.

Abu Bakr said: Without Ali, Abu Bakr would have been doomed.
This is narrated in Sunni book  Faydh Al Qadir. 

فيض القدير Volume 4 page 357.

Omar also said: Without Ali, Omar would have been doomed.
This is narrated in many Sunni books including al Mustadrak by Al-Hakim al-Nisaboori, Volume 2 page 429.

Othman also said: Without Ali, Othman would have been doomed. This is narrated in Zaynul Fata fi soorati hal ata, Volume 1 page 317.

Imam Ali (AS) did not approve the government of any of the three caliphs but his responsibility was to guide those who asked him for guidance. And when the three caliphs asked him in spec4fic cases, he replied to them and by replying to them he saved the Muslims from wrong punishment, as three of them wanted to punish people in the wrong way. The three Caliphs admitted that without the guidance of Ali they would have been doomed.

That does not mean at all that Ali (AS) approved the government of any of the three caliphs. He was very clear that the three caliphs of Saqifah have taken his own right, his own status as the real successor of the Prophet (SAWA) but he kept his patience for the sake of the Ummah and for the sake of Islam. 

Those who want to know the real stand of Amirul Momineen Ali (as) regarding the three caliphs should read the famous and authentic sermon called Shaqshaqiya which is mentioned in Nahjul Balagha and in many other books. 

In Shaqshaqiya sermon Imam Ali (AS) made it very clear that Abu Bakr, then Umar and then Othman were not entitled to take the post which they have taken, but for reasons they took what they have taken, he kept patient only for the sake of the safety of Islam and the Muslim Ummah.      
In Saheeh Muslim, (volume 5, page 153), Omar admitted to Ibn Abbas, that Ali believe that Abu Bakr are Umar were wrong in claiming caliphate after the Prophet. 

Wassalam.

92510

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answer updated 3 weeks ago

I did not see in our authentic books any narration supporting this claim. I discussed the claim with respected Ulama from Afghanistan who have done research on this matter. None of them confirmed this claim
'Wassalam.

92525

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 3 weeks ago

It is an established fact that the status of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) is higher than the status of all the previous prophets. The status of Ameerul Mo'mineen Ali (AS) is from the status of the Prophet Muhammad, despite the fact that Imam Ali (AS) is not a prophet but he was described in Quran like the self of the Prophet but not a prophet (وأنفسنا وأنفسكم). 
The Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) said: Alivis from me and I am from Ali ( إنه مني وأنا منه) 

Prophetic Hadeeth says: O Ali, Allah has granted you whatever He granted me except the Prophet hood.

The status of Ameerul Mo'mineen Ali (AS) is part and parcel from the status of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) and obviously it is higher than the status of all the previous prophets (AS).

Wassalam.

91802

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 1 month ago

The opponents of Shia Muslims put this allegation on Imam Ali (AS) trying to justify their claim that Imam Ali (AS) was friendly with the three Caliphs of Saqeefah. Imam Ali (AS) never gave any of his children any name of his opponents. It is authentic that he gave the name Othman to one of his sons and clearly said: I am giving him the name of my brother Othman Ibn Madh'oon عثمان بن مظعون who was a pious follower of Imam Ali (AS) and passed away during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) and he was the first companion who was burried in the Baqee'.

Imam Ali (AS) never gave the name of Abu Bakr nor Omar to any of his children. He gave the name of Amro عمرو which is written in Arabic like عمر but it was not Omar.

Many of our scholars say the these names where not confined to the three rulers of Saqeefah but usual names used by people in general.

The stand of Imam Ali (AS) from the three rulers of Saqeefa is very clear in manybtexts e.g. his sermon known as Al-Shaqshaqiyyah and what is narrated in Saheeh Muslim ( Volume 5, page 153 from Omar Ibn al-Khattab who said that Ali believed that Abu Bakr and Omar are liars, sinners, betrayers, and dishonest.

Wassalam.

91803

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 1 month ago

Imam Ali (AS) did not use his authority as the head of the state for his own benefit or the benefit of his family, that is why he did not take back Fadak during his government. It is narrated that he was asked: Why don't you take back Fadak? He replied: The oppressor and the victim have left this life and Allah has given the victim her reward and the oppressor his punishment, so, I do not want to take it back.

Imam Ali (AS) spent the income of Fadak on the poor and needy despite of the fact that Fadak was the property of the inheritors of Fatimah (AS). Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (AS) was asked same question about Imam Ali (AS) not taking back Fadak for him and his children from Fatimah? He replied: We are Ahlul Bayt, take the right of people and give it to them, and do not take our own right and leave it to the Justice of Allah (SWT).

Keep in mind that one of the main objections of Muslims on Uthman ibn Affan that he used to give state properties to his relatives. If Imam Ali (AS) took Fadak , which was under the state properties since 25 years, and gave it to his children from Fatimah, the Munafiqeen will say that he is doing like Uthman. After all, he will give the income of it to the poor and needy, whether it is under his children ownership or state's ownership. He did not take it back during his government and left his right and his children's rights to Allah (SWT).

Wassalam.

89923

I had written a detailed response on Quora analysing this explanation that is advanced to explain the event of Ghadir Khumm. It is reproduced below.

For this response I’d like to examine the favourite context that is used to explain away the importance of Ghadir Khumm as simply a way to respond to unhappy soldiers from the Yemen expedition who were upset with ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.

I consider it a pseudo-context and so would like to title the rest of my analysis as:

THE CASE OF THE YEMENI RED HERRING

My assertion, that I shall try and prove below, is that Yemeni Unhappiness and Ghadir Khumm were two entirely different matters that have been conflated to create this pseudo-context.

I’d like to bring forth some case studies of Companion unhappiness, the way the Prophet (s) dealt with it, and then draw a comparison and some conclusions.

Unhappiness Case Study 1

Narrated Anas bin Malik: When Allah favored His Apostle with the properties of Hawazin tribe as Fai (booty), he started giving to some Quarries men even up to one-hundred camels each, whereupon some Ansari men said about Allah's Apostle, "May Allah forgive His Apostle! He is giving to (men of) Quraish and leaves us, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dropping blood (of the infidels)"

When Allah's Apostle was informed of what they had said, he called the Ansar and gathered them in a leather tent and did not call anybody else along with them.

When they gathered, Allah's Apostle came to them and said, "What is the statement which, I have been informed, and that which you have said?" The learned ones among them replied,"

O Allah's Apostle! The wise ones amongst us did not say anything, but the youngsters amongst us said, 'May Allah forgive His Apostle; he gives the Quarish and leaves the Ansar, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dribbling (wet) with the blood of the infidels.' "

Allah's Apostle replied, I give to such people as are still close to the period of Infidelity (i.e. they have recently embraced Islam and Faith is still weak in their hearts). Won't you be pleased to see people go with fortune, while you return with Allah's Apostle to your houses? By Allah, what you will return with, is better than what they are returning with."

The Ansar replied, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle, we are satisfied' Then the Prophet said to them." You will find after me, others being preferred to you. Then be patient till you meet Allah and meet His Apostle at Al-Kauthar (i.e. a fount in Paradise)." (Anas added:) But we did not remain patient.

Source - Sahih al-Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 53, Number 375

Here are the key take-aways from this example:

  • It is also about dispute over war booty where some Ansari Companions openly challenged the Prophet (s) accusing him of nepotism
  • When the Prophet (s) hears about it,
    • He gathers them privately in a tent
    • He does not call anybody else along with them
    • He then allows them to have their say, and he listens to them
    • After hearing that, he gives his own explanation

Unhappiness Case Study 2

"Az-Zubair told me that he quarrelled with an Ansari man who had participated in (the battle of) Badr in front of Allah's Apostle about a water stream which both of them used for irrigation. Allah's Apostle said to Az-Zubair, "O Zubair! Irrigate (your garden) first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor." The Ansari became angry and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Is it because he is your cousin?"

On that the complexion of Allah's Apostle changed (because of anger) and said (to Az-Zubair), "Irrigate (your garden) and then with-hold the water till it reaches the walls (surrounding the palms)." So, Allah's Apostle gave Az-Zubair his full right. Before that Allah's Apostle had given a generous judgment beneficial for Az-Zubair and the Ansari, but when the Ansari irritated Allah's Apostle he gave Az-Zubair his full right according to the evident law. Az-Zubair said, "By Allah ! I think the following Verse was revealed concerning that case: "But no by your Lord They can have No faith Until they make you judge In all disputes between them." (4.65)"

Source - Sahih al-Bukhari (English translation), volume 3, book 49, number 871

Let’s see what happened in this example:

  • Al-Zubayr b. 'Awwam is a cousin of the Prophet (s), just like 'Ali. An Ansari Badri, i.e. very senior Companion, has a conflict with al-Zubayr. They come to the Prophet (s) for resolution and the Prophet (s) gives a ruling.
  • The Ansari Companion is not happy, and accuses the Prophet (s) of nepotism by saying "Is it because he is your cousin?"
  • The complexion of the Prophet's face changes, due to anger.
  • In this conflict resolution, we notice that the Prophet (s)
    • Talks to them privately as the only parties to the conflict
    • He does not call anybody else along with them
    • He allows them to have their say, and he listens to them
    • After hearing that, he gives his ruling that directly correlated to the issue at hand

Unhappiness Case Study 3

Narrated Burayda:

The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Burayda! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."

Source - Sahih Bukhari - Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637

Can you see the consistency of the Prophet (s)? A private meeting with just the concerned person(s) and his (s) words clarified the context of complaint and responded to it.

From other narrations in Sahih Bukhari and al-Tabari etc. we know that Khalid b. al-Walid had earlier been sent to Yemen in 9 AH and then ‘Ali was sent to replace him a few months before the hajj in the month of Ramadan. And ‘Ali then joined the hajj directly from Yemen in Dhu’l hijja of 10 AH.

This narration shows that Burayda accompanied Khalid back to Medina. Notice the “When we reached the Prophet” in the narration. Clearly he didn't like to stay on under the command of someone he hated.

So this meeting of Burayda with the Prophet (s) was most likely in Madina before he even set out for the hajj journey and probably many months before it.

Was There A Burayda Meeting At Ghadir Khumm?

However, there exist another set of narrations from Burayda, where he is again complaining about ‘Ali, but this time the Prophet (s) responds differently.

From Ibn Abbas, who in turn reported Burayda as saying:

‘I was together with Ali in the invasion of Yemen wherein he once treated me harshly. So when I got back to the Messenger of Allah - peace and salutation of Allah be upon him - I mentioned 'Ali and diminished his personality. Accordingly, I observed a change in the expression of the Messenger of Allah - peace and salutation of Allah be upon him - and he thus remarked:

‘O' Burayda! Have I not a greater claim [mastery] on the believers than they have on themselves?

I responded: Yes, indeed, O Messenger of Allah. He then asserted: ‘Of whosoever I am the master (mawla) then Ali is his master (master).’

Source - Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 5, p. 347

But this one seems very relevant to Ghadir Khumm since it contains the man kuntu mawlahu fa ‘Ali mawlahu statement. So let’s examine it some more.

Here are the facts gleaned from examining all the narrations from Burayda b. Husayb that mention the man kuntu mawlahu declaration of the Prophet (s):

  • Burayda b. Husayb is one out of 110 Companions who narrated the man kuntu mawlahu narration in Sunni sources.
  • None of these narrations, on Burayda’s authority, mention Ghadir Khumm (or al-Juhfa) as the location.
  • None of the man kuntu mawlahu narrations from the any of the other 109 Companions mention Yemen at all.
  • None of the man kuntu mawlahu narrations from the any of the other 109 Companions mention any unhappiness of anyone whatsoever on any topic whatsoever.

So it seems that this second instance of Burayda’s backbiting of ‘Ali in the presence of the Prophet (s) was not at Ghadir Khumm but was a separate event, most likely in Medina but this time after his return from the hajj. This is because the Prophet (s) was repeating something he had already mentioned at Ghadir Khumm as a reminder of ‘Ali’s position.

He also got agitated with Burayda, unlike the first time when he had complained months ago.

Recall, from earlier above, that Burayda had already complained once to the Prophet (s) about ‘Ali on his return from Yemen along with Khalid b. al-Walid in 9 AH, and the Prophet (s) had given a different response then without signs of anger.

What About Those Other Unhappy Yemeni Soldiers?

There is no clarity in any of the sources on how many people were unhappy with ‘Ali in the matter of the Yemeni spoils.

So let’s try and do an estimate.

  • The total number of soldiers sent with 'Ali, from Medina, was probably around 300 as mentioned in al-Sirah al-Halabiyya, Nur al-Din al-Halabi al-Shafi’i, under the section Expedition of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib towards the land of Manhaj
  • Some of the Companions returned to Medina along with Khalid b. al-Walid whom 'Ali was replacing.
  • If Yemen was largely converted by the time 'Ali left to join the hajj (as confirmed by historical sources), it stands to reason that there would also be Yemeni soldiers amongst the Muslim army. After all, why would you not allow local soldiers with local knowledge to join your own forces, when they have adopted Islam? And with the vast area of Yemen under Islam, you would need to have local Yemeni soldiers who will also join you in any skirmishes with the remaining Yemeni's who refuse jizya and fight the Muslims.
  • In any case, the unhappy soldiers were in all likelihood very few in number, a handful.

Could some of these Yemeni soldiers have been amongst the unhappy soldiers? It is quite possible, as we do not know for a fact that it was only Medinan soldiers.

Even if the Yemeni soldiers were not involved, if a scene had been created by the complainers in front of them, based on booty arising in Yemen, it would stand to reason that the issue resolution also involved them so that there were no misunderstandings later.

So what happened next?

Timing Of Ghadir Khumm And The Yemeni Red Herring

The perfect time for giving an address to deal with Yemeni unhappiness would have been during the hajj days.

Narrated Abu Ayyub Al-Ansari : Allah's Apostle said, "It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first."

Source - Sahih Al Bukhari - Book of Good Manners And Form (Al-Adab) Volume 008, Book 073, Hadith Number 100

If we assume that the Sunni narrative is true, why would the Prophet (s) wait for 18th Dhu’l hijja, the date of the Ghadir Khumm event, before clarifying this major misunderstanding about 'Ali, a major Companion of the Prophet (s)? Surely he found out about it as soon as 'Ali and his troops arrived from Yemen for the hajj.

The best time to resolve the conflict would have been as soon as the complaints were made, and in Makka itself.

In light of the hadith quoted just above, how could the Prophet (s) have happily continued with the rites of hajj knowing that some of his Companions festered ill-will against 'Ali, and not try and resolve it as soon as possible?

Location Of Ghadir Khumm And The Yemeni Red Herring

There is this misconception that the Shi’a say that everyone continued to Ghadir Khumm before going their own way. Well, I have never said that for the same logical reason that it is simply silly.

You cannot expect hujjaj from areas south of Makka to travel quite a distance the wrong direction towards Ghadir Khumm and then turn back. At least I have never accepted that and seen no evidence of that in the sources.

So here’s the thing.

Yemen is south of Makka!

Any affected soldiers from Yemen would have already returned to their hometown directly from the hajj.

Furthermore, the crowd at Ghadir Khumm that had around 100-120,000 people, whilst missing the Yemenis, included many people who were from towns nearby to Medina. They were not just purely Medinan people as this narration from Sahih Muslim shows.

"As the caravan moved on the number of participants swelled till, according to some of the narrators, it reached more than one lakh and thirty thousands. The Farewell Pilgrimage is one of the most important occasions in the sacred life of Muhammad (May peace be upon him)."

Source - Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2802

Why would the Prophet (s) choose to stop all those 110-120k people, with no relevance to the episode of unhappiness, as a belated reaction to the complaints of a handful of soldiers?

Why would you stop a hajj caravan of that magnitude, who are tired after days of a very physically demanding 'ibada, who have just heard several sermons by the Prophet (s) during the days of hajj, including his major Arafa address, and give them yet another sermon - just because a handful of pathetic people developed rancour in their hearts for 'Ali?

And why does that sermon - in narrations that specify Ghadir Khumm or the area of al-Juhfa as the location and on the authority of 109 Companions of the Prophet (s) - make no mention of that bitterness whatsoever? Every other conflict resolution, as we saw, involved a mention of the problem.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, this would be completely against the established method of dealing with complaints as practiced by the Prophet (s).

Sermon At Ghadir Khumm

Having discussed the Yemeni Red Herring, I’d like to end my response with one narration of the Ghadir Khumm event that is confirmed sahih according to Bukhari and Muslim.

Read it and tell me if you still honestly think this was about unhappy Yemeni soldiers!

[Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi says:] ... from Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, who said:

"The Messenger of Allah (s) while returning from his Last Hajj came down at Ghadir Khumm and ordered (us) towards the big trees, and the ground underneath them was swept.

"Then he said, 'I am about to answer the call (of death).

Verily, I have left behind two precious things amongst you, one of which is greater than the other. The Book of Allah, the Exalted, and my 'itrah (i.e. Ahl al-bayt). So watch out how you treat these two after me, for verily they will not separate from each other until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.'

Then he said 'Verily, Allah, the Almighty and the Glorious, is my master (mawla) and I am the master (mawla) of every believer.'

Then he took 'Ali, may God be pleased with him, by the hand and said, 'This ('Ali) is the master of whomever I am his master. O God, love whoever loves him and be the enemy of his enemy.'"

[Al­-Hakim adds:] "This hadith is sahih in accordance with the conditions of sihhah laid down by the Shaykhayn (al­-Bukhari and Muslim), although they have not recorded it in its full length.

Source - al-Mustadrak `ala al-Sahihayn, Haydarabad: Da'irat al-ma`arif al-nizamiyyah (4 vols), 1334-42 AH vol. 3, p. 109

87801

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 months ago

We have in our books that Lady Umm Kulthoum Bint Ameerul Mo'mineen was married to Aon son of Abdullah ibn Jafar Tayyar. There is fabricated still famous narration that she was married to Umar ibn al-Khattab. This narration was fabricated and the narrator of it is Zubair ibn Bakkar who was an open enemy of Ahlul Bayt (AS). Many books are available refuting this false story including إفحام الاعداء والخصوم بتكذيب زواج سيدتنا أم كلثوم by Allamah Sayyed Nasir Hussain of Lucknow.

Wassalam.

77821

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 2 months ago

Not true. 

The Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) never forced any one to become a Muslim. Allah says in Quran (The is no compulsion in faith لا اكراه في الدين)

The battle of Thaat al-Salasil ذات السلاسل was against enemies who decided to attack Madina. The Prophet sent Abu Bakr to counter them, but Abu Bakr failed, then Umar was sent, who failed as well, then Khalid Ibn al-Waleed was sent, who failed again, then Amr Ibn al-'Aass was sent who failed as well. The Prophet then sent Ali (AS) who attacked the enemies in the early morning and defeated them. Allah (SWT) in Quran mentioned this victory in Sura Al-'Aadiyat العاديات

Wassalam.

86014

Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi, Sayyed Mohammad al-Musawi is originally from Iraq and heads up the World Ahlul Bayt Islamic League in London. Other than being involved in various humanitarian projects, he frequently responds to... Answered 3 months ago

Umme Farwa was wife of Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (AS) . Her real name was Fatima Bint Al-Qasim and wshe was known by Umme Farwa. She was the mother of Imam Jafar Al-Sadiq (AS).

What you heard is not true.

Wassalam.