Ghadir Khumm
in the Qur'an, Hadith, History

al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Mahmud b. `Abd Allah, Shihab al-Din Abu al-Thana al-Husayni al-Alusi al-Shafi`i
(d. 1270 AH/1854 CE)

Display narrations from:
All books
Published editions only
Unpublished Manuscripts only
Sources where online image is available

Enable Transliteration
Viewing Guidelines for Transliteration and Arabic text

Close this window

Narrations

by al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Mahmud b. `Abd Allah, Shihab al-Din Abu al-Thana al-Husayni al-Alusi al-Shafi`i
(d. 1270 AH/1854 CE)

Key to symbols

Chains of Transmission
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
S338 al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Mahmud b. `Abd Allah, Shihab al-Din Abu al-Thana al-Husayni al-Alusi al-Shafi`i Reliability of this narrator Chains of narration (Isnad) with this narrator
Ruh al-Ma`ani  
Unidentified edition,   vol. 2, p. 249   
 

C49 Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Sa`d b. Malik al-Ansari
(d. 74 AH/693 CE)
Reliability of this narrator Chains of narration (Isnad) with this narrator
L21


The Shi’a quoted Abu Sa`id al-Khudri as saying: “This verse was sent down on the day of Ghadir Khumm after the Prophet had said to 'Ali - may Allah honor him - earlier: ‘For whoever I am his master (mawla), 'Ali is his master (mawla)’. After receiving it the Prophet [s] said: ‘ Glory be to Allah for the perfection of the religion, the completion of the favor, His satisfaction with my mission and for choosing 'Ali ibn Abi Talib as my successor.’ Obviously, this is one of their lies. The poorness of the story is an initial attestation of that.”

[Al-Amini said: It is inconceivable that al-Alusi did not come to know the chains of transmission of the tradition and its relaters, but it was his ignorance that instigated him to ascribe relating it to the Shi’a alone. His motives, rather, were behind his attempt to falsify that established fact not thinking that there are people who will hold him responsible after studying Sunni resources and traditions. Having learned about who related it from the masters of Tradition, the leading commentators, the guardians of history and others, isn’t there anyone who holds this man responsible for restricting this tradition to Shi’a? This also applies to his restricting its relaters to Abu Sa`id despite the presence of the versions related by Abu Hurayra, Jabir, Mujahid and both Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq (s). Is the 'poorness' he imagined in the narration - which he claimed to be a testimony to it being among the lies of the Shi’a - in the wording? It is the same as the other traditions: It is plain, its style is not weak, its manner is not unnatural, it is not incongruous and it is analogous to pure Arabic. Or, is the 'poorness' in its meaning? It has none, unless he claims that all traditions mentioning the superiority of the merits of Imam 'Ali are poor just because they speak of his superiority! This is the kind of enmity that will ruin its doer! The nasib (one who manifests enmity to Ahl ul-Bayt) is nevertheless proud of exceeding the proper limits and he insists on stubbornness saying what he said about that tradition. All the Shi’a did wrong is relate an authentic tradition backed by versions related by Sunni scholars. I can mention to you right here the poor traditions he filled his book with and let the just critic judge which one of them is poor and which one is not, but I prefer to overlook them generously. -- "Nay, this surely is an admonition: Let any who will, keep it in remembrance! But none will keep it in remembrance except as Allah wills: He is the Lord of Righteousness, and the Lord of Forgiveness. 74: 54,55,56"]


Presented by the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project team