Ghadir Khumm context response

[whoaretheshia]

In the name of Allah

Salam brothers and sisters,

This is a response to TSN and Youpuncturedtheark:

A number of polemicists claim that the declaration at Ghadeer Khumm was in response to an issue Ali b. Abi Talib had with some small battalions predominantly of sent to Yemen. They were sent there to take hold of the last few strongholds in Arabia who had not submitted to Islam, and the men sent comprised of small battalions of those from Medina numbering around 300. Initially Khalid bin Walid was put in charge of trying to call the people of Yemen towards Islam, but failed despite spending a lengthy period of time there. The Prophet (saw) at this point decided to send Ali b. Abi Talib, and Imam al-Tabari records in his Tarikh:

“The Messenger of God sent Khalid b. al-Walid to the people of the Yemen inviting them to Islam, and I was among those who went with him. He persisted in the matter for six months, but they did not respond, so the Messenger of God sent ‘Ali b. Abi Talib and ordered him that Khalid and those who were with him should return, but if any of them would like to follow him he should allow them. Al-Bara’ said, “I was one who followed ‘Ali, and as we reached the borders of the Yemen the people got the news. They gathered around him and ‘Ali led us in the morning prayer. When he had finished [the prayer], he lined us up in one row. Then he moved before us, praised and extolled God, then read to them the letter of the Messenger of God. All of Hamdan embraced Islam in one day, and he wrote to the Messenger of God about it. When the Prophet read ‘Ali’s letter he fell down, prostrating himself to God. Then he sat up and said, ‘Peace be upon Hamdan, Peace be upon Hamdan’ [After the conversion of Hamdan] the people of the Yemen followed in succession with their acceptance of Islam.” [Tarikh al-Tabari, The last years of the Prophet]

After the success of Ali b. Abi Talib, Khumms was given and Ali b. Abi Talib was to join the Prophet (saw) in Makkah for the Hajj. However, whilst doing so, he took a portion of the Khums, and Tirmidhi records:

Abdullah bin Abi Ziyad narrated to us: Al-Ahwas bin Jawab narrated to us, from Yunus bin Abi Ishaaq, from Abi Ishaaq, from Al-Baraa’ that he said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent two armies and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of one and Khalid bin Al-Waleed in charge of the other. He said, “If there is a battle, then Ali (shall lead).” He (Al-Baraa’) said: Ali then conquered a fort and took a slave-girl. Khalid then wrote to the Prophet (peace be upon him) a complaint. He (Al-Baraa’) said: I came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and read it. His face changed and he said, “What is your issue with a man that loves Allah and His prophet and is loved by Allah and His prophet?” I (Al-Baraa’) said: “I seek refuge by Allah from the anger of Allah and His messenger, and I am but a messenger.” He then became quiet. [Al-Tirmidhi narrated in his Sunan (3725)]

And Tirmidhi also records:

“Then, four of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) agreed and said, “When we go back to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) we will tell him about what Ali did.”[Al-Tirmidhi (3712)]

Bukhari also records:

The Prophet (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.” [Saheeh Bukhari]

Nasai’ Records:

“…When the above mentioned group of army return back they went to see the Prophet, one companion stood up among those four and he complained about Ali ibn Abi Talib. The Prophet turn his face on the other side then second companion stood up and also complained, then the third companion stood up and complained, the same thing to the Prophet then the forth one stood up and complain the same thing. The Prophet look towards then and we could see from the facial expression of the Holy Prophet that he was angry. The Prophet said “What made you to complain about Ali ibn Abi Talib, surely Ali is from me and I am from Ali and he is the Wali(Master) of all the believers after me.” [Khasa’is Ali]

The above traditions are indicate that some among the army question Ali’s judgement and approached the Prophet (saw). What is note-worthy is that at first, a few individuals approach him and write to him, and he addresses those individuals empathically and individually. The Prophet (saw) would not have left a matter like this unresolved to act as a distraction before the Hajj, only to allegedly address it nearly two weeks later at Ghadir Khumm.

After addressing individuals, and as more men of the small battalion began to ride into  densely packed Makkah, with pilgrims surrounding the Prophet (saw) and ready for the Hajj, the Messenger of Allah (saw) decided to deliver a Khutbah and address a larger group, among whom were many companions already in Makkah but in the vicinity where they were able to hear this sermon. In an authentic narration found in Ibn Ishaq, and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, Abu Said al-Khudri who was one of the many companions witnessing this sermon narrates:

اشتكى علي ا الناس، قال: فقام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فينا خطيبا، فسمعته يقول: أيها الناس لا تشكوا عليا، فوالله إنه لأخيشن في ذات الله أو فيسبيل الله.

“The people complained about ‘Ali. The Messenger of Allah stood up and delivered a khutbah (sermon). I heard him saying, “O people! Do not complain about ‘Ali. For, by Allah, he is scrupulous (i.e. he does not make concessions for anyone) regarding the matters of Allah’s (religion), or in the path of Allah.” [Ibn Ishaq, Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, declared authentic by al-Albani]

After the sermon of the Prophet (saw), there was a clear message and call sent out that the judgement of Ali b. Abi Talib was just. The very fact he stood up and delivered a sermon , heard even by people such as Abu Said al-Khudri who were not part of the battalion, adressing them as ” أيها الناس ” is compelling evidence he addressed a larger group.  As already stated, Makkah would have been packed with many Sahaba in close proximity to the Prophet (saw) and this sermon and call would likely have spread by many curious bystanders not least the men from the battalion who comprised of men from Medina and were already aware of the status of Ali. After all, he was the hero of Badr, Uhud, and  Khandaq, the one who conquered Khaybar, the son-in-law of the Prophet (saw) and one whose status, bravery, and justice according to authentic narrations were well known. They simply wanted the verdict of the prophet on the isolated issue of Khums, which they clearly received and the matter was over.

Thus, we find that after this sermon: “…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650). The Prophet (saw) was satisfied he had made a clear defence of Ali b. Abi Talib to now allow this issue to not distract from the pertinent task of performing the Hajj and delivering important sermons.

Shia scholars do not deny this event, nor do they even regard it as remotely a threat to our interpretation of Ghadir Khumm. Shaykh al-Mufid writes:

“The Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, said farewell to him and returned to his army. He met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He denounced them for that. “Shame on you!” he said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. “Whatever made you give them the breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of Allāh, may Allāh bless Him and His Family? I did not give you permission to do that.” “They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me,” he replied. The Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, became numerous [many complained, but this does not imply the whole army or most]. The Apostle of Allāh ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be on him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of Allāh, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion.” At this the people refrained from mentioning him and they realised the high position he enjoyed with the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, and his anger against anyone who wanted to find fault with him.” [al-Irshad]

 Thus, after the Messenger of Allah addressed individuals and then a larger group, among his general companions gathered in a densely packed Makkah for Hajj, anyone claiming the Prophet (saw) did not in his mind adequately address the matter to avoid it being a distraction before the very important final Hajj is lying upon Allah and lying upon his Messenger. During the Hajj as part of the sermon itself, the Prophet (saw) reminded the companions witnessing that they were brothers of one another, and to harbour that sense of mercy and forgiveness for one another and anyone who regarded the Prophet as Awla and Mawla and had even a shred of respect for him would have clearly understood the message.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I would prefer settling this never ending and fruitless arguments based on conjecture and speculation by the understanding of Sahaba for this event.

As has been done in this article :
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

Tips for Sunnis who are interested in discussing with Shias. For any matter you discuss try to back your claim along with the understanding of Sahaba , because that would cause a serious Damage to Shia arguments, and Shias know this fact. You will not find them agreeing to this rule.

[Shia not Rafidi]

Thus, we find that after this sermon: “…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650). The Prophet (saw) was satisfied he had made a clear defence of Ali b. Abi Talib to now allow this issue to not distract from the pertinent task of performing the Hajj and delivering important sermons.

....
so you're basically saying that it would make no sense that Prophet PBUH, making it clear to crowd that Ali RA was right in his judgment during the yemen expedition, proclaim the same thing again at Ghadir khumm after 2 weeks..
...
Yes, it would've made sense if the Prophet PBUH wouldn't have addressed the "Mawla" thing, because we see that in the first scenario, The Prophet PBUH is defending Ali RA only against the accusations made by some companions, He PBUH only addressed specific topic which was to refrain his companions from labeling Ali RA as dishonest..
..
while at Ghadir Khumm, He PBUH not specifically addressed Ali's cause but repeated several other aspects which He PBUH hae already delivered to his companions before.. He PBUH knew that He is going to depart this world very soon so He emphasised almost every important MESSAGE of Allah again and again at Ghadir khumm.. He PBUH stressed to keep good attitude towards his Ahlulbayt and specially Ali RA and that is why He PBUH didn't repeat what He said 2 weeks earlier, rather He chose a far different wordings having its own context and importance (For whom i am his Mawla, then Ali is also his Mawla), to let the people present know for the last time that never ever nurse a grudge against Ali RA because He holds the same position (to be loved and put him precedent over yourselves) as ProphetPBUH  himself and that He was sure that People would never hate me or have a grudge against me and ultimately love Ali RA and respect his judgements..
...
that's what i look at Ghadir khumm, sorry for excessive use of grammar but I'm sure I've conveyed what it is

[Abu Muhammad]

....
so you're basically saying that it would make no sense that Prophet PBUH, making it clear to crowd that Ali RA was right in his judgment during the yemen expedition, proclaim the same thing again at Ghadir khumm after 2 weeks..
...
Yes, it would've made sense if the Prophet PBUH wouldn't have addressed the "Mawla" thing, because we see that in the first scenario, The Prophet PBUH is defending Ali RA only against the accusations made by some companions, He PBUH only addressed specific topic which was to refrain his companions from labeling Ali RA as dishonest..
..
while at Ghadir Khumm, He PBUH not specifically addressed Ali's cause but repeated several other aspects which He PBUH hae already delivered to his companions before.. He PBUH knew that He is going to depart this world very soon so He emphasised almost every important MESSAGE of Allah again and again at Ghadir khumm.. He PBUH stressed to keep good attitude towards his Ahlulbayt and specially Ali RA and that is why He PBUH didn't repeat what He said 2 weeks earlier, rather He chose a far different wordings having its own context and importance (For whom i am his Mawla, then Ali is also his Mawla), to let the people present know for the last time that never ever nurse a grudge against Ali RA because He holds the same position (to be loved and put him precedent over yourselves) as ProphetPBUH  himself and that He was sure that People would never hate me or have a grudge against me and ultimately love Ali RA and respect his judgements..
...
that's what i look at Ghadir khumm, sorry for excessive use of grammar but I'm sure I've conveyed what it is

Ali r.a. (and Al-Abbas r.a. too) never ever understood the event of Ghadeer the same way 12ver Shias understood it. End of argument.

 عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عَبَّاسٍ أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ خَرَجَ مِنْ عِنْدِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي وَجَعِهِ الَّذِي تُوُفِّيَ فِيهِ فَقَالَ النَّاسُ يَا أَبَا حَسَنٍ كَيْفَ أَصْبَحَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَصْبَحَ بِحَمْدِ اللَّهِ بَارِئًا فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِهِ الْعَبَّاسُ فَقَالَ أَلاَ تَرَاهُ أَنْتَ وَاللَّهِ بَعْدَ الثَّلاَثِ عَبْدُ الْعَصَا وَاللَّهِ إِنِّي لأُرَى رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم سَيُتَوَفَّى فِي وَجَعِهِ، وَإِنِّي لأَعْرِفُ فِي وُجُوهِ بَنِي عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ الْمَوْتَ، فَاذْهَبْ بِنَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَنَسْأَلَهُ فِيمَنْ يَكُونُ الأَمْرُ فَإِنْ كَانَ فِينَا عَلِمْنَا ذَلِكَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي غَيْرِنَا أَمَرْنَاهُ فَأَوْصَى بِنَا‏.‏ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ وَاللَّهِ لَئِنْ سَأَلْنَاهَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَيَمْنَعُنَا لاَ يُعْطِينَاهَا النَّاسُ أَبَدًا، وَإِنِّي لاَ أَسْأَلُهَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَبَدًا‏.

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:

`Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of the Prophet (ﷺ) during his fatal ailment. The people asked (`Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) this morning?" `Ali said, "This morning he is better, with the grace of Allah." Al-`Abbas held `Ali by the hand and said, "Don't you see him (about to die)? By Allah, within three days you will be the slave of the stick (i.e., under the command of another ruler). By Allah, I think that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib. So let us go to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If the authority is given to us, we will know it, and if it is given to somebody else we will request him to recommend us to him." `Ali said, "By Allah! If we ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for it."

(See Sahih Al-Bukhari, Hadith No 728, Vol 5)
‏

[Soccer]

Wilayah in Quran with respect to God includes Worshiping him and so you can't have Awliya other then him.

Wilayah in Quran with respect to the Prophet, means, his life over ours, his commands over ours, his wish over ours, his happiness over ours, his will over ours, etc.....

Wilayah in Quran with believers with respect to believers, is that they are guardians of one another.

Wilayah in Quran with believers and Angels, is that, Angels protect us and help us, while we bless them and should be grateful towards them.

Wilayah sometimes refers to a different relationship, for example, inheritors, or the heir meaning.

Wilayah is contextual, you never guess at what it means. You see the context of what it means.

In Suratal Maeeda, not taking people of the book because some of them are that to each other, meant authorities. Don't let them represent Jesus or Moses or the original teachings of those.  Then God turns to believers after reminding they can turn on their backs and reminds them of a certain group that are in contrast Wali.

Wali here is clearly being defined in flow with respect to judging by what God revealed and so bani-Israel had Prophets who would be the means to judge for them and even the scholars/rabbis made use of them (the Prophets that is) and their judgment.

Authority is then clearly the context, but it's not about political authority, but purely about religious here.

So everything is contextual.


In Suratal Shura, God emphasizes on a Wilayah he has with his creatures, that no one else should have.

What does Wali mean here, no need to guess, look at the Surah, it defines the relationship.


In Ghadeer, it's clear, it's about the Wilayah Quran has over humanity, the same is true of Ahlulbayt or that their authority is one and the same by the singular "I'm leaving you with" it was not a grammar mistake, but rather it compliments what is said.


It's that simple, that clear.

[Abu Muhammad]

In Ghadeer, it's clear, it's about the Wilayah Quran has over humanity, the same is true of Ahlulbayt or that their authority is one and the same by the singular "I'm leaving you with" it was not a grammar mistake, but rather it compliments what is said.

It's that simple, that clear.

Could you please bring the authentic hadith that says "hold to the Quran and Ahlul Bayt" so that we can see the grammar? In arabic please.

And yes, I agree with you that "it was not a grammar mistake" as we shall see.

I'm waiting...

[Soccer]

Could you please bring the authentic hadith that says "hold to the Quran and Ahlul Bayt" so that we can see the grammar? In arabic please.

And yes, I agree with you that "it was not a grammar mistake" as we shall see.

I'm waiting...

Suppose the hadith is what Shiites say it means.  What merit does Sunni Rijaal system have at that point? None.

So it doesn't matter, I'm not getting into verification by your conjecture system of rijaal.

That said, I saw a whole debate about this in this forum, and there was nothing wrong isnad wise but rather the criticism was two fold:

1. The version in Sahih Muslim is more authentic.
2. That the singular usage of what he was leaving us rendered it grammar wise wrong.

That said, even the version in Sahih Muslim, is to be properly be seen what he is leaving us with. He mentioned Quran there as a guidance right, so it's about guidance, then emphasizes on his Ahlulbayt and reminds with God about them 3 times.

To mention Ahlulbayt a long side with Quran is not ambiguous, but give it more context, he reminds of his own Wilayah "Whoever I am their Mawla", which reminds in the way his leadership and authority complimented the Quran, and then says "Then Ali is his Mawla".

That is obviously linked to the issue of Ahlulbayt and their legacy, and then emphasize a particular instance of a member of Ahlulbayt.

We can by looking at all the versions conclude:


1. They wouldn't separate till day of judgment, when Quran ceases to have it's role as guidance anymore, the witnesses however are still used by God then and forever in heaven as leaders of people of paradise. This means there is a unity with Quran and Ahlulbayt, you can't approach one over the other, but rather they compliment each other in a way.
2. Because of that, the versions with "I leave that which if you hold on to, you will never go astray" - gain eloquence words wise, and compliment that they won't be separated.
3. The Wilayah of Ali flows with that, and to emphasize why Ahlulbayt is a unity, the Prophet reminds of his own role as authority and guidance with respect to Quran, "whoever I am the Mawla of".
4. Wilayah is contextual, the emphasis on Mohammad's own Wilayah and what he is leaving us as Quran and his family, it's clear.
5. I'm leaving you with....  is in terms of legacy of guidance.  The context is guidance, because he mentioned Quran.  The pairing and mentioning with Quran gives context and leaves question, what role then does his Ahlulbayt have with it. And Prophet to emphasize on that talks about his own Wilayah.
6. In many versions it is mentioned that he also asked the people "Am I not awla to believers then themselves?", and so this gives clear context to what he means by Mawla, and exact example of part of the relationship he has over believers, and so the Wilayah again is clearly not about friendship.

[Soccer]

When it comes to the word "Mawla", it can never be stated without context. This is because it has infinite meanings, all it is a relationship, so the relationship has to be properly defined by context.

I argue the following give's it context:

1. Pairing his Ahlulbayt with Quran in terms of legacy of guidance.
2. The pairing of Ahlulbayt with Quran (just mentioning them together) is enough, but further more he emphasized on their unity (even Farid said them remaining together is mentioned in authentic chains).
3. Prophet's Wilayah and reminding of it in Quran in 33:6 for example, give's context.
4. Singling out Ali shows that Ahlulbayt is not a general meaning but is about leadership here, that he's talking about.
5. The atmosphere, that is it's obviously something of dire importance that has to be heard here.

That said, there is nothing in the speech that give's alternative meaning to the context of Wilayah here.

That said, it should be at the very least, a starting point to look into Quran and try to see if Ahlulbayt authority are there, because the hadith clearly shows they would be.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

When it comes to the word "Mawla", it can never be stated without context. This is because it has infinite meanings, all it is a relationship, so the relationship has to be properly defined by context.

I argue the following give's it context:

1. Pairing his Ahlulbayt with Quran in terms of legacy of guidance.
2. The pairing of Ahlulbayt with Quran (just mentioning them together) is enough, but further more he emphasized on their unity (even Farid said them remaining together is mentioned in authentic chains).
3. Prophet's Wilayah and reminding of it in Quran in 33:6 for example, give's context.
4. Singling out Ali shows that Ahlulbayt is not a general meaning but is about leadership here, that he's talking about.
5. The atmosphere, that is it's obviously something of dire importance that has to be heard here.

That said, there is nothing in the speech that give's alternative meaning to the context of Wilayah here.

That said, it should be at the very least, a starting point to look into Quran and try to see if Ahlulbayt authority are there, because the hadith clearly shows they would be.

Even though the context proves the Sunni understanding, as explained in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

What clearly settles the issue is that Ali(ra) himself never understood it to mean authority, as found in Sahih Bukhari and other books. Moreover the Sahaba to whom Prophet(S) addressed it, didn't understand in such fashion, take example of those Ansar who went to Saqifa to appoint caliph from amongst them it wasn't an act of disobedience to Prophet(S), since they gave up their right because they were reminded that Prophet(S) said Caliph will be from Quraysh. And absolutely no mention of event of Ghadeer, which Shias try to create a mountain out of it.

[Soccer]

By context, I mean the sentences themselves. Language has to contextualize what is meant.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

By context, I mean the sentences themselves. Language has to contextualize what is meant.

Proper way is to look at all possible factors that would help in understanding a particular report and I was referring to that.

[Soccer]

Proper way is to look at all possible factors that would help in understanding a particular report and I was referring to that.

What you said would make sense if we assume the Prophet (s) didn't give context to the world Mawla, but the word only makes sense to use when giving it context either before or after otherwise it's meaningless.

Given the Prophet (s) understands the contextual way and impression it would give by:

1] Putting his family with Quran in in terms of his legacy to humanity.
2] Emphasizing on their unity, togetherness and non-separation
3] Emphasizing on his own role (man kuntu Mawla)
4] Specifying Ali (a) to show what is meant by the legacy of Ahlulbayt (a)
5] given what Quran has said about Ahlulbayts of the past knew this would give impression there is a chosen ahlulbayt now.

We can safely conclude that what you state is but conjecture.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

What you said would make sense if we assume the Prophet (s) didn't give context to the world Mawla, but the word only makes sense to use when giving it context either before or after otherwise it's meaningless.

The context of the hadeeth also states, O Allah love those who love him... a context which refutes your whole conjecture.

1] Putting his family with Quran in in terms of his legacy to humanity.

Family was mentioned to be taken care of. And family as understood by witness was all those upon whom acceptance of charity was forbidden. No scope for conjectures.

2] Emphasizing on their unity, togetherness and non-separation.

In the sense that their responsibility will always remain on people.

3] Emphasizing on his own role (man kuntu Mawla).

Means friend, which befits the wording that O Allah love those who love him, interestingly the Sahabi to whom it was addressed stated that, Ali(ra) was beloved to him after that. Again a clear sign, no scope of conjecture.

4] Specifying Ali (a) to show what is meant by the legacy of Ahlulbayt (a)

It was Ali(ra) to whom people objected over his actions during expedition in yemen. That's why.

[Soccer]

The context of the hadeeth also states, O Allah love those who love him... a context which refutes your whole conjecture.

It does not. If the context is already given before that, it means "O God befriend who gives the Wilayah due to him and be an enemy of who is his enemy" but you can't ignore everything else and just focus on these words. 

Family was mentioned to be taken care of. And family as understood by witness was all those upon whom acceptance of charity was forbidden. No scope for conjectures.

No it was paired up with Quran, he is talking about how he is leaving his family in the same way he is leaving Quran which is terms of his legacy of guidance.

In the sense that their responsibility will always remain on people.

Their is responsibility of humans to all humans in Quran, it establishes a relationship we ought to have. This is doesn't mean anything then, it would be a useless statement.  Every human would not separate from Quran if this was the case, but he is talking in terms of his legacy of guidance, and paired up Quran and Ahlulbayt and emphasize on their unity. To continue to give context to that, emphasized on his own role "Man kuntu Mawla" then connected that with Ali (a).

The language games you guys go to - nothing but hell suffices for it.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

It does not. If the context is already given before that, it means "O God befriend who gives the Wilayah due to him and be an enemy of who is his enemy" but you can't ignore everything else and just focus on these words.

  I can, and it just to refute your foolish argument, Sunnis have many other evidences to believe that it wasn't an appointment of authority.

No it was paired up with Quran, he is talking about how he is leaving his family in the same way he is leaving Quran which is terms of his legacy of guidance.

That's your view, our not, because the legacy of Quran alone being the source of guidance was mentioned at Arafah. So coming to Ghadeer it didn't add up, it remained same, and it's evident from the correct version of thaqalayn. Again the witness stating that family mentioned were all those on whom acceptance of charity was forbidden, throws your silly conjectures out of the window.
 

The language games you guys go to - nothing but hell suffices for it.

Its not language games, its taking away you people from your own conjectures and bringing you closer to how it was understood by Ali(ra) himself  his progeny and the eye witnesses in reliable reports, that does shatter your conjectures.

[Soccer]

Needing to build a case for what it means by other sources is assuming the word was not given clear context by the words themselves.

The words themselves surrounding it, give clear context to what it means. 

If he wanted to talk about Quran as guidance but not confused Ahlulbayt in being that, he shouldn't mention them with Quran and talk about their unity and emphasize on his own role with respect to it then emphasize on his role to believers with Ali (a) role to them.

He should've mentioned Ahlulbayt alone. Not brought Quran side by side, and talk about their unity.

Given what Quran has emphasized on Ahlulbayts of the past, like the Ahlulbayt of Ibrahim,  he should've taken care not to give this concept.

But he did the opposite, he said everything to give impression that his Ahlulbayt are chosen by God just like Ahlulbayt of Ibrahim was chosen by God.

[Abu Muhammad]

Ali r.a. (and Al-Abbas r.a. too) never ever understood the event of Ghadeer the same way 12ver Shias understood it. End of argument.

In Ghadeer, it's clear, it's about the Wilayah Quran has over humanity, the same is true of Ahlulbayt or that their authority is one and the same by the singular "I'm leaving you with" it was not a grammar mistake, but rather it compliments what is said.

It's that simple, that clear.

If Ghadeer was about Wilayah as you claimed and not about rulership, why throughout the history that 12ver Shias have issues with Abu Bakar and Umar? Did they claim Wilayah as described by you?

[Abu Muhammad]

Suppose the hadith is what Shiites say it means.  What merit does Sunni Rijaal system have at that point? None.

LOL... does that statement of yours above conjectural too?

So it doesn't matter, I'm not getting into verification by your conjecture system of rijaal.

Please tell me what system that 12ver Shi'ism use then that is conjecture-free. I would love to know.

With all the viral news spreading nowadays, the advice that you consistently get is always verify the source of that news. Don't straightaway believe in it even though it makes sense to you.

That's what isnad is trying to achieve. A system with the aim to differentiate between reliable and unreliable information based on the source of information. That isn't that hard to grasp.

That said, I saw a whole debate about this in this forum, and there was nothing wrong isnad wise but rather the criticism was two fold:

1. The version in Sahih Muslim is more authentic.
2. That the singular usage of what he was leaving us rendered it grammar wise wrong.

That said, even the version in Sahih Muslim, is to be properly be seen what he is leaving us with. He mentioned Quran there as a guidance right, so it's about guidance, then emphasizes on his Ahlulbayt and reminds with God about them 3 times.

In version of Sahih Muslim clearly says the family of Jaafar, Aqil, etc are part of Ahlul Bayt and you conveniently exclude them. Why?

[GreatChineseFall]

In version of Sahih Muslim clearly says the family of Jaafar, Aqil, etc are part of Ahlul Bayt and you conveniently exclude them. Why?

The mention of other members is problematic for Shia, also tried to show that here:
https://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/where-does-a-sayyid-get-his-status-from/

Since Soccer is Link, I am upping that thread for Soccer again

[Soccer]

If Ghadeer was about Wilayah as you claimed and not about rulership, why throughout the history that 12ver Shias have issues with Abu Bakar and Umar? Did they claim Wilayah as described by you?

The Authority of the Prophet and Quran is inclusive of political Authority.