TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: MuslimK on August 03, 2017, 05:45:55 PM

Title: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: MuslimK on August 03, 2017, 05:45:55 PM
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم

http://ghadirkhumm.com/


We are proud to announce the official launch of www.GhadirKhumm.com (http://www.ghadirkhumm.com) the first ever Sunni website that revolves around Hadith Al Ghadir. The site includes a full analysis of the texts and chains of narration. It also includes a section for refutations against the Shia scholar Al Amini the author of the Kitab Al-Ghadir (http://ghadirkhumm.com/refuting-kitab-al-ghadir/).
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Farid on August 03, 2017, 08:47:19 PM
Looks better than that ghadir786 site. ;)
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Ebn Hussein on August 03, 2017, 09:17:00 PM
In Majoosi Imami speak:

*Man konto mola fa haza Faridov molah. Allahomma vaali man vaalah va 3aadi man aadah, vansur man nasarah, vakhzol man khazalah*

salavat shahavat, great project ya Bakris, ya mukhalifeen, ya gheir movaleen.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on August 03, 2017, 11:16:43 PM
Cool, looking forward to reading the refutations, Amini's book as I recall was 90% poetry 10% relevant material.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Ebn Hussein on August 03, 2017, 11:36:37 PM
Cool, looking forward to reading the refutations, Amini's book as I recall was 90% poetry 10% relevant material.

On my daily TV show (between 2011-2014 on Wesal Farsi TV) we went through that book, wallahi what a con artist that Amini is, how gullible the Shias are to fall for his likes. They always introduce this charlatan as some next level 3Allaamah who compiled "volumes" proving the Shia narrative of Ghadir, what they don't mention is exactly what you mentioned i.e. is so called "evidences" are mostly poems and other text from Batini Sufis and other muta2akhirin, not secondary by 5 grade sources that can only impress Shias but not a serious seeker of knowledge (let alone a scholar).
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: AbbasQasimov on August 04, 2017, 12:55:01 AM
Salam can I used to for my upcoming book and if yes, what is your name so I can give you the credit
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on August 04, 2017, 03:01:03 AM
credit "twelvershia.net" since it's producing these special sites.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 21, 2017, 07:57:10 AM
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم

http://ghadirkhumm.com/ (http://ghadirkhumm.com/)


We are proud to announce the official launch of www.GhadirKhumm.com (http://www.ghadirkhumm.com) the first ever Sunni website that revolves around Hadith Al Ghadir. The site includes a full analysis of the texts and chains of narration. It also includes a section for refutations against the Shia scholar Al Amini the author of the Kitab Al-Ghadir (http://ghadirkhumm.com/refuting-kitab-al-ghadir/).

I understand that to take the time and effort to produce this site requires some level of sincerity. Perhaps, with the information you possess, you may feel that your position reflects the most rational understanding of what occur at Ghadeer Khumm.

It seems you have broken down your discussion into three main groups:

1. Context
2. What was spoken
3. The aftermath

We have addressed your points and claims here:

Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.

“I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar’s last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6830, Book 86, Hadith 57/ Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 ENG

The above tradition is so remarkably similar to the situation the Prophet [saw] was in. The caliph of the time, Umar ibn Al Khattab, wishes to make a declaration regarding successorship and warning people about an issue pertaining to it in the Hajj season itself. Rather than giving the speech at Hajj, he is advised by Abdur Rahman bin Auf that the Hajj will gather people from all around Arabia and the other conquered lands, and that rather, he should make this important statement in Medina, where the prophets traditions were preserved and were Islam had gain a true stronghold. Furthermore he warned that people at Hajj from different regions were far weaker with regards to understanding, comprehending, and upholding the true meanings and intentions of the Sunnah and putting statements in their proper place. Umar ibn Al Khattab seemed to accept and agree with this advice, and waited only until Medina to give his very important speech.

Abdur Rahman bin Auf was also correct in his assertion, given that the “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum’ who converted at the day of the conquest of Mecca and after had very little if at all any contribution to reporting from the Prophet [saw] and having the same role in the traditions of the Prophet and an understanding of the religion.

Furthermore one must also consider that by the time of Umar ibn Al Khattab, many of the apostate tribes of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, T’aif and other regions had been dealt with in the Ridda wars. Furthermore, Islam had been in these lands for at least a decade, if not more than this. Despite this, Umar ibn Al Khattab is still worried about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions in Arabia not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was far more grave at the time of the Prophet [saw] where Mecca had barely just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen,Ta’if and other such places had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would en-masse apostate.

If Umar Ibn Al Khattab and other senior companions such as Abdurahman Ibn Awf could recognise the problematic nature of making certain proclamations in Mecca during the Hajj season when all had gathered, pertaining to the issue of leadership itself, at a time when Islam had more time to grow in these lands and hypocrites had been generally dealt with, why could the Prophet [saw] also not desire and seek to do likewise, at a time when the situation was far graver? Although there is no doubt that there were hypocrites even among the people of Medina, but there were far more at Makkah.

In fact, we find in Saheeh Shia narrations that the Prophet [saw] indeed was worried about those who were hypocrites, or those who would claim he is lying, or turn away. Though this is of no value to sunni’s, it merely confirms that Shia’s have original and reliable sources which confirm rational sense, historical context, and the very same worry is echoed in Sahhih Bukhari by Abdurahman ibn Awf and agreed upon by Umar ibn Al Khattab. The following is from Al Kafi and is a Saheeh [Authentic] hadith:

“Allāh commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he explains to them al-Wilāyah like he has explained to them al-Salāh, al-Zakāh, al-Sawm, al-Hajj. So when this came to him from Allāh, He tightened with that the Messenger of Allāh’s (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) chest, and he became frightened that people will apostate from their religion and they would (accuse) him of lying, and his chest became tightened, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) returned to his Lord (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and Allāh (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) revealed (wahy) to him – ‘O Messenger, convey what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, it will be as though you have not conveyed My message. Allāh protects you from men.’ (5:67). So he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) executed the command of Allāh (تعالى), and he mentioned and established the wilāyah of `Alī (عليه السلام) on the day of Ghadīr, and he called for a congregational salāh and commanded the people to convey what they witnessed to the absentees (i.e. convey the news of Wilāyah of `Alī to those who are not present)”
Reference: Al Kafi [Volume 1, Usul Al Kafi]
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 21, 2017, 08:05:08 AM
.

Was Ghadeer Khumm an attempt merely to reiterate that people who loved the Prophet [saw] ought to also love Ali ibn Abi Talib, and hence put aside their grudge towards what he had done in Yemen?


One of the ways to explain why Muhammed [saw] would choose to specially deliver a speech at Ghadeer Khumm and use the words he did, as well as interpret ‘Mawla’ is that this was all to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib from rumours which had spread about him from discontent members of his battalion who had accompanied him to Yemen, shortly before he rejoined the Prophet [saw] for Hajj. It is stated that because some of these companions decided to speak out against him, and spread rumours about his usurpation of the Khums and unfair treatment, the Prophet [saw] opted to defend him after the Hajj.

Although there can be debate about particular details of this, it is accepted that some among the companions did show discontent against Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is written in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, as well as that of Ibn Hisham the following:

“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”
Reference: (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650 and Ibn Hisham in his Seeraah)

 

Important points to raise based on the above:

1. The evidence from the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Hisham should be clear evidence that the Prophet [saw] very quickly addressed the issue there and then, rising up to tell the army that Ali ibn Abi Talib is not one they should blame, but rather, he is so committed and fair in the way of Allah that he would never wrong anybody. This statement, if anyone respected the words of the Prophet [saw] should have sufficed there and then and he continued on with the Hajj after settling the matter. If these clear words had not, then they ought to have removed any ill-feelings after the final sermon, where the Prophet [saw] had stated “Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.” If the Prophet [saw] felt there was any need to add more to this to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib in this particular instance, he would have done so, but his words were clear and decisive to anyone who regarded the Prophet [saw] as Awla over them and their Mawla.

2. Is it not more logical that the Prophet [saw] would have opted to settle the issue immediately, rather than waiting almost two weeks until the 18th of Dhul-Hijjah which was the date of the declaration of Ghadeer?

3. If the Prophet [saw] had made his declaration of Ghadeer Khumm to stop rumours against Ali ibn Abi Talib which had begun to spread as well as reprimand some members of the Army, why did he not do it at Makkah, which would have been the opportune moment to close the issue without letting it grow as the Hajj carried on? Afterall, when he had left Hajj, rumours about Ali ibn Abi Talib may have remained among those who did not follow him on his way to Medina through Ghadeer Khumm.

4. It was well known that Ali ibn Abi Talib was a man loved by the Prophet [saw]. He was the hero of Badr, the hero of Khandaq, the Hero of Khaybar, the first male muslim, married to the daughter of the Prophet [saw], the one made his brother in the pact of brotherhood, the one whose relation to the Prophet [saw] was as Aron was to Moses. The one for whom love was faith and hatred was hypocrisy. Those from the army ought to have known that, considering that they themselves were of the people of Medina. They knew full well the close relation and the virtue and merit the Prophet [saw] had with Ali ibn abi talib. Their issue with him – those among the army- was how he handled the Khums and so it makes more sense for the Prophet [saw] rather than saying whosoever friend he is, Ali is also his friend, to clearly state what Ali ibn abi talib had done was not wrong. They already knew the relation he had to the Prophet [saw] and were more concerned with what the judgement of the Prophet [saw] was on a particular action of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This goes for a large cohort of those who has followed the Prophet [saw] and were from Medina and so returned with him – they knew full well the relationship enjoyed by Ali to the Prophet [saw].

 

The real aftermath of Yemen

 

 “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.”[/color]
Reference: Shaykh-Al-Mufeed [shia scholar] thus writes in Kitab Al Irshad:

The above is only brought to show that shia’s and the shia ulema are not ignorant of what happened in Yemen, but given the evidence it is quite clear that the matter had been addressed by the Prophet [saw] and resolved immediately.

 
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 21, 2017, 03:34:47 PM
Taken from your website on Ghadeer Khum.

"Does it make sense for the Prophet [saw] to appoint anyone, and is the timing of Ghadeer in coherence with this?

We ask everyone to consider this particular issue in as objective a manner as possible. The Prophet Muhammed [saw] was a man who had supreme religious, political, social, and spiritual rule and authority over all of the muslims. He was their focal point; his leadership was essential.

The Prophet [saw] knew full well that many tribes had not truly embraced Islam, many had not done so at all, and there were hypocrites in Mecca and even Medina itself who sought to use his death as an opportunity to rebel, apostate and cause rebellion. So much was the Prophet [saw] concerned about insuring there was always a system of order that he left Ali ibn Abi Talib behind in charge of Medina when he made for the battle of Tabouk at the very end of his life, so as to ensure there would be order and the hypocrites would not take advantage of the death of Muhammed [saw]. No-one can deny that Muhammed [saw] constantly grieved for his Ummah and pondered over how to solve the many issues that plagued it. He was so stringent in even neglecting small matters, that it is not befitting on him to claim he ignored one of the most pertinent issues of all – which is leadership after him. Would he not have thus been mindful of ensuring that he dealt with the matter of who would replace him?

For sake of argument, even if he did not need to appoint a person himself and rather wanted some among the muslims to do so under a Shurah, would it not make sense for him to set out the conditions for this consultation and possibly also have it done during his own life time, so that the muslims could choose and receive his blessing and know full well who would be the one to lead after him? Perhaps he could define the members to be allowed in the Shurah – as Umar ibn Al Khattab did, and set key conditions which Umar ibn Al Khattab had done.

In many political hierarchies, the position of President or leader is one that is highly protected. In America, if the president dies the one who will take charge is the Vice President. So much are they concerned with ensuring there is never a power gap , if both the president and the vice president die in a catastrophic accident, there is an individual named as the ‘Designated’ president who is never allowed to be in the some location as both the president and vice president, who will assume charge. We find that even Abu Bakr sought to appoint someone at his death, and Umar ibn Al Khattab sought to clearly define the conditions of the Shurah and what members are to be allowed in it.

It is pertinent here to note that the declaration of Ghadeer took place shortly before the death of the Prophet [saw]. If there was ever a time to make an absolute declaration of this manner pertaining to leadership and successorship, what better time then to do it before he was about to pass away?"


The argument is nothing new really. Trying to rationalize between appointing and not appointing a leader after him (saw).
                         
You tried to sound rationale at one incident (appointment of leader after Prophet (saw)) without realizing it might come back and bite you at another incident.

This is what I mean: Why don't you apply the same to your 12th imam? He leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. You even argued that Prophet (saw) left somebody behind to take charge of Madinah while he (saw) was TEMPORARILY away. It was the same situation like your 12th imam. TEMPORARILY away. But unfortunately, he leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. To quote what you wrote, seems like he didn't bother to "insuring there was always a system of order" like Prophet (saw). Ironic, isn't it?

In fact, it took Khumaini to realize 1,100 years later the need of a functional leader. I repeat, a functional leader. And interestingly, Khumaini employed fundamentally the same method like Umar in selecting those leaders. Another irony.

Note:
Prophet didn't leave Ali behind to take charge of Madinah when he went out to Tabuk. It was given to someone else. Ali was only in-charged of the Ahlul Bayt.

Please do the necessary correction.


"We ask everyone to consider this particular issue in as objective a manner as possible."

Agreed. Need to be objective and not selective as above.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 22, 2017, 09:24:16 AM
Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 22, 2017, 09:18:17 PM
Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?

Those who fought the Messenger of Allah did not submit to Islam, but were Mushriks and disbelievers. Those who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib did so despite being Muslims, praying, fasting, believing in Allah and knowing full well they were causing enormous Fitnah in the Ummah and challenging the rightful leader.

However, this does not mean there existed hypocrites among those of Mecca, and other regions. There is no doubt these individuals were worse, but what the Imam was saying was in an entirely different context and time period. One was when the Meccans had not submitted yet - but were in the period of the wars with the Prophet [saw].
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 22, 2017, 09:24:42 PM
Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?

Those who fought the Messenger of Allah did not submit to Islam, but were Mushriks and disbelievers. Those who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib did so despite being Muslims, praying, fasting, believing in Allah and knowing full well they were causing enormous Fitnah in the Ummah and challenging the rightful leader.

However, this does not mean there existed hypocrites among those of Mecca, and other regions. There is no doubt these individuals were worse, but what the Imam was saying was in an entirely different context and time period. One was when the Meccans had not submitted yet - but were in the period of the wars with the Prophet [saw].
If this context & period is when the Meccan were in wars Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam, when did people of Medina whom the imam said were worse than Meccan ever in wars against Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 22, 2017, 09:26:05 PM
The argument is nothing new really. Trying to rationalize between appointing and not appointing a leader after him (saw). You tried to sound rationale at one incident (appointment of leader after Prophet (saw)) without realizing it might come back and bite you at another incident.

This is what I mean: Why don't you apply the same to your 12th imam? He leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. You even argued that Prophet (saw) left somebody behind to take charge of Madinah while he (saw) was TEMPORARILY away. It was the same situation like your 12th imam. TEMPORARILY away. But unfortunately, he leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. To quote what you wrote, seems like he didn't bother to "insuring there was always a system of order" like Prophet (saw). Ironic, isn't it?

These are two entirely different scenarios. Imam al-Mahdi was not in charge of an entire community , nor the political leader of any region or location. The ones ruling were an oppressive regime, such that he and his follower were often shunned into secrecy out fear of being murdered.

Muhammed[saw] on the other hand, presided over an Ummah that was barely in its infancy, with external enemies waiting to attack, several hypocrite tribes in every region. He was the one people turned  to for everything, and had far more power, influence and control over the Arabian Peninsula. If he were to pass away it would indeed have been an enormous power gap.

However, we do not find him -as per the Sunni view- stating that 'you choose amongst yourselves who your leader will be', nor appointing anyone himself. It was dead silence. For Imam al-Mahdi, after he appointed his representatives, he clearly stated no-one will be an official representative and that he is entering into the longer Ghaybah. He still remains the Imam of the time, mind, but circumstances are earth and sky between this, and what was the political scenario at the time of the Prophet [saw]. There was total silence [allegedly] on part of the Prophet [saw], but clear words from Imam Mahdi about the issue of succession.

Just to add, we also made a note that even if you do not believe he should have appointed anyone, surely he would have made a reference to the people that they must choose amongst themselves? He does not have to appoint like the first Caliph did, but he can organise a Shurah like the second one had done. Even if you claim he did not want to set the terms for the Shurah, he could have at least declared he was passing away, and it was of utmost importance for the Muslims to engage in consultation, and that leadership must to go the Q'uraysh and only they must be made candidates for leadership. Yet again - there is nothing but silence.

Quote
In fact, it took Khumaini to realize 1,100 years later the need of a functional leader. I repeat, a functional leader. And interestingly, Khumaini employed fundamentally the same method like Umar in selecting those leaders. Another irony.

Are you aware that most of our scholars believe in Wilayatul Faqih, and that is the guardianship of the Jurist to help control the affairs of the state? They only differ on how much power they should be given. The belief is that someone versed in the religion is better equipped at guiding the community to what is upright.

Quote
Note:
Prophet didn't leave Ali behind to take charge of Madinah when he went out to Tabuk. It was given to someone else. Ali was only in-charged of the Ahlul Bayt.

Please do the necessary correction.

There is a legitimate difference of opinion here between the two positions. We did not include it on error, but on our position and even the position of other Sunnis [though not all i concede]. We have amended our article to reflect on the fact differences of opinion occur, but it does not change the essence of the post - someone was left behind in charge.

Quote
Agreed. Need to be objective and not selective as above.

No such selectivity has occurred. They were two entirely different contexts.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 22, 2017, 09:29:56 PM
If this context & period is when the Meccan were in wars Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam, when did people of Medina whom the imam said were worse than Meccan ever in wars against Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam? It clearly shows that hadith refer to period after Prophet passed away.

Brother, what the Imam was trying to say is, while the Meccans were disbelievers, their rebellion against the Prophet, as bad as it was, comprised of those who did not affirm belief. However, those who fought Ali ibn abi Talib affirmed belief, should have known better, and yet still transgressed in the gravest sense by waging wars against him.

The Imam is not saying that after Mecca submitted and many outwardly declared Islam, as well as those of other tribes [some may have been genuine, others not], comprised of hypocrites who knew very little of Islam nor had an understanding of his Sunnah. We can all acknowledge that the only people who knew about the real way and path of the Prophet were those people in Medina. Many tribes who converted and were now muslims were still hypocrites.

Can i just add, many of those Meccans and non-muslims who fought the Prophet and converted to Islam actually joined the side of Umulmumineen Aisha when fighting Ali ibn Abi Talib, so this proves not to take a statement rigidly but appreciate it refers to different contexts.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 22, 2017, 09:37:35 PM
Just as a disclaimer, our Ghadeer article is undergoing major improvement. We considered it strong before, but we felt after feedback it was too long and wordy. We want our rebuttal to be accessible for all people, and so brevity without sacrificing the power of argumentation is pertinent.  We have updated the first two sections, and will conclude the third soon, inshAllah.

An example:


We arguably now come on to the most compelling evidence which every objective reader should ponder over when considering why the Prophet ﷺ may have felt hesitant to make the declaration in Mecca. On this occasion, we have no choice but to agree with the reasoning of Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf, and Umar ibn al-Khattab as narrated in Saheeh-al-Bukahri [1].
Quote
“I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar’s last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.“

There are significant parallels between what occurred with Umar ibn al-Khattab, and what occurred with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.  If we consider the case of Umar ibn al-Khattab first, he had an opportunity to make a very important statement and warning in front those who were residents of Mecca, Medina, tribes from Southern Arabia, Northern Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and other conquered lands, pertaining to the issue of succesorship after him. Yet, Abdurahman ibn Awf recognises that among the people of Mecca, and those who have gathered from all over the empire for the Hajj, are many hypocrites, as well as those who may not be able to truly appreciate and recognise the significance of certain statements and declarations, nor put them in their proper place.

Some may accuse Umar ibn al-Khattab of one thing or another, distort his words, or use it to cause discord among the people against him. He is advised to wait until he reaches Medina, when people have already dispersed and he is only in the company of those who had spent the most amount of time with the Prophet ﷺ and had the greatest role in preserving his traditions. It is these individuals who would be able to put statements of great importance in their proper place. Umar ibn al-Khattab is pleased with his logic and agrees to it at once, and postpones his statement until he reaches Medina. We have already clearly demonstrated the insignificant role of those Muslims who converted at the conquest of Mecca and after this period in transmitting from the Prophet ﷺ – and so Abdurahman ibn Awf is correct in his claim.

The Prophet ﷺ was in a similar position. The people of Mecca who had abused and opposed him for most of his life had only just succumbed. Many of the tribes around Arabia – particularly the southern regions- had succumbed but with great hostility. There existed hypocrites in their large numbers, who may have accused him of trying to keep rule within his clan, or our of jealousy claim he is favouring a member of his own family. We do not here rule out that hypocrites all existed among those in Medina, and those travelling north of Mecca, however the situation was far graver when everyone had gathered in one place.

One must also consider that by the time of Umar ibn Al Khattab, many of the apostate tribes of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, T’aif and other regions had been dealt with in the Ridda wars. Furthermore, Islam had been in these lands for at least a decade, if not more than this. Despite this, Umar ibn Al Khattab was concerned about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was graver at the time of the Prophet ﷺ whenMecca had only just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen, Ta’if and other regions had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would apostate during and after his death.

Indeed, we find from an authentic narration contained in al-Kafi [2] whereby the Prophet ﷺ is described as hesitating and being frightened he would be accused of lying – perhaps favouring his own cousin and wishing to procure rule for his own clan. No doubt it shows he was worried about people not putting his declaration and statement in its proper place, and assuming the Prophet ﷺ is essentially a man who has cunningly obtained power and now wants to ensure he has his own circle of blood-relatives share in that power, ruling over the others. Many people who had originally submitted to the Prophet ﷺ , apostated after his death, and the Ridda wars are evidence of this.

Quote
“Allāh commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he explains to them al-Wilāyah like he has explained to them al-Salāh, al-Zakāh, al-Sawm, al-Hajj. So when this came to him from Allāh, He tightened with that the Messenger of Allāh’s (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) chest, and he became frightened that people will apostate from their religion and they would (accuse) him of lying, and his chest became tightened, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) returned to his Lord (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and Allāh (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) revealed (wahy) to him – ‘O Messenger, convey what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, it will be as though you have not conveyed My message. Allāh protects you from men.’ (5:67). So he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) executed the command of Allāh (تعالى), and he mentioned and established the wilāyah of `Alī (عليه السلام) on the day of Ghadīr, and he called for a congregational salāh and commanded the people to convey what they witnessed to the absentees (i.e. convey the news of Wilāyah of `Alī to those who are not present)”


References:


[1] Sahih al-Bukhari 6830, Book 86, Hadith 57/ Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 ENG

[2] Al Kafi – Kulayni. Usul-al-Kafi, Volume 1.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 22, 2017, 09:39:00 PM
Updated:

The Messenger of Allah , Muhammed ﷺ was a man who held supreme religious, political, social, and spiritual authority over all of the muslims. He was the focal point of the entire  Arabian Peninsula; his leadership was of paramount importance. So engrossed was he in worrying about his nation, the Prophet ﷺ ensured that he maintained stability and was on the constant watch for any signs of external or internal threats. When he would embark on battles or travel away from Medina, he ensured a governor was left behind to be in maintain order in his place. 

As he was nearing his death, he was cognisant of the fact many tribes in the Arabian Peninsula had not truly embraced Islam and harboured great malice and hypocrisy.  Mecca had only recently succumbed after being long time enemies of the Muslims , having partaken in several wars against them, barred them from returning to their homes or from preforming – until the very end- pilgrimage. There is no doubt it had harboured hypocrites who only submitted after the eventual dominance of Islam had left them no choice. Even within Medina, Muhammed [saw] was often challenged by the hypocrites, who would attempt to torment discord in the community and at many times took advantage of his absence to do so ; as mentioned remedied by the Prophet ﷺ leaving behind a governor when he was absent.

Perhaps even more pertinent were the external enemies – the Byzantines and the Persians. When the Prophet ﷺ left for Tabouk upon hearing that the external enemies were mounting an attack, he left behind Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام in his place as narrated in the famous ‘Hadith al-Manzila [1] (حدیث المنزلة)’. Though opinions differ as to whether the Prophet ﷺ left him in charge of the city , or only his family members and appointed someone else to look after the city, what is pertinent here is that he ensured someone had been left behind to look after the city.  Could a man who gave this degree of attention in ensuring there were no power vacuums in his absence , die without giving any tangible attention with regards to who would succeed him?

One may claim that he had left his nation to choose amongst themselves through the means of Shūrā (شورى) , which is generally rendered to mean consultation. However, we do not find at any point the Prophet ﷺ clearly stating that when he passes away, the Muslims are to consult among themselves. It would only seem rational for a leader to either nominate one after him, as the first Caliph, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafa had sone so, or set the conditions to best facilitate others to consult among themselves as was done by Umar ibn al-Khattab in the Shūrā he had specifically defined as far as its members and upon what conditions they must abide by. If we were to accept the Sunni view, then Muhammed ﷺ never explicitly gave a speech detailing to his Ummah as to who should lead after him, or how to choose the leader after him. One would at least expect some reference to the fact he was going to return to his Lord, and that the Muslims should begin to choose themselves, even if he neither wanted to nominate , nor define the conditions by which the others nominated. We are therefore led to believe, if we were to take the Sunni position, there was abject and deafening silence by the Prophet ﷺ on arguably one of the most pertinent matters of all – leadership after him and the stability of his nation.

If we avert our attention away from seventh century Arabia and focus on many of the countries and study the manner in which they handle political succession and stability, America is one particularly powerful example. In many political hierarchies, the position of president or leader is one that is highly protected. If the president were to die or be unable to perform his duties, the the vice president would assume the position of president. If the vice president were to also coincidentally die or be unable to perform his role, then there is an individual known as the designated president. This individual is not allowed to be within the same building or area as the president and vice president.

This is seen a means of insurance, whereby there will always be someone who can take immediately power and authority and that the nation is never left without a leader. When the president is still in power, the next one is chosen as the president elect, and ready to soon take charge. Even in countries like the United Kingdom, when parliament is dissolved for elections, the prime minister still retains power until the next one is chosen and a smooth transition can be facilitated.

In light of this, are we really to believe that the Prophet ﷺ who had never left a city behind without appointing governor in his place, would not make it clear as to what protocol people ought to follow pertaining to leadership after him?

However, we find that he indeed make an announcement. If there was ever a time to officially declare and reaffirm your successor, it would be shortly before your death. At Ghadir Khumm, Muhammed ﷺ raised the hands of Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام  and declared him as his successor.  What better time to do this, than when he was just about to pass away? When studying and examining the words of the Prophet ﷺ, the context of Ghadir Khumm, and he aftermath, it leaves no room for doubt that indeed, he had not neglected addressing the crucial matter of leadership after him, but empathically did so. 
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 22, 2017, 10:12:00 PM
My objection is simple, its about your website claiming the reason it was not declared when southern region people were still around, because they have large proportion of hypocrites.

I explained that it is incorrect reasoning, because imam said meccan commited kufr openly & medinan were worst of people (worse than even christian & of course worse than southern region people etc)

You countered saying the context & period was when Meccan still fought Muslim

I said that is incorrect, because if it was about Meccan during that warring period then how come Medinan were considered worse than Meccan as well?

So that shia hadith confirms that Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam declared it to people who were worse disbelievers & hypocrites than southern region people. Your "large hypocrite" reasoning contradict what imam said. Thats all im saying.

Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: iceman on November 23, 2017, 12:37:58 AM
Al-Tirmithi narrated in his Sunan (3725):

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.

In another report, Al-Tirmithi (3712) proves greater clarity:

Qutaiba bin Sa’eed narrated to us: Ja’afar bin Sulaiman Al-Dhaba’ee narrated to us: From Yazeed Al-Rishk, from Mutarrif bin Abdullah, from Imran bin Husain, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent an army and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He then got a slave-girl and they condemned him. 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.”
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: iceman on November 23, 2017, 12:55:13 AM
Al-Tirmithi narrated in his Sunan (3725):

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.

In another report, Al-Tirmithi (3712) proves greater clarity:

Qutaiba bin Sa’eed narrated to us: Ja’afar bin Sulaiman Al-Dhaba’ee narrated to us: From Yazeed Al-Rishk, from Mutarrif bin Abdullah, from Imran bin Husain, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent an army and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He then got a slave-girl and they condemned him. 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.”

These narrations above are the ones you have mentioned. We do not believe in such narrations, why? Because they go against Ali's character and nature. Those who are familiar with Ali's character and nature which you will find throughout history know that this is absolute nonsense. Slave girl? Do you believe such nonsense about Ali but are quick to defend Khalid bin Waleed when he killed a companion of the Prophet (s) along with others and then married his wife instantly and slept with her overnight.

What a cheap stunt pulled by the Ummayd dynasty to mitigate the event of Saqifa. And look at the damage it's done to the Ummah. The Ummayds have really done a good job by taking their anger of the Prophet (s) out on Islam and the progeny. Do you honestly believe that such narrations fit the character and personality of Ali.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: iceman on November 23, 2017, 01:00:12 AM
And to mention that the Prophet (s) went and put the people through so much effort and trouble just to clear a silly misunderstanding? At Ghadeer, straight after Hajj? Come on.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: iceman on November 23, 2017, 01:15:02 AM
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

Malik's death penalty and marrying his wife Layla without fulfilling Sharia Law created a controversy. It should be noted that, according to Islamic Sharia, one permitted to marry a widow only after her Iddah and it was 4 months 10 days for Layla.
Apparently, it seems to everyone that Khalid killed Malik to take his beautiful wife.

Thus, some officers of khalid's army—including a prominent companion of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Qatada al-Ansari, confused. It is written in Kanz ul Ummal- ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayra had become a Murtad according to the information he had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’

Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Omar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin al-Auzwar to behead him. Then Khalid took his wife. -[Mullah Muttaqi Hindi (d. 975 H), Kanz ul Ummal. Vol- 5, p- 619, No. 1409:I]

And it is written in Sunan al-Bayhaqi that this Dharar bin al-Auzwar was a rapist, He raped a captured woman when he served under Khalid- Narrated by Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan that is said to be came through a chain from Harun bin al-Asam: Omar bin al-Khattab sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Banu Asad.

They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: ‘I permit you and made it lawful to you.’
He said: ‘No, not until you write a message to Omar’.

Then they sent a message to Omar, and Omar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Omar’s message was delivered, Dharar was dead. Khalid said: ‘Allah didn’t want to disgrace Dharar’-[Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 2, p. 365, No. 18685]

And in al-Musanaf,- Narrated by Abdul Razaq that is said to be came through a chain from Aba Qutada: During Ridda, we marched to Ahl al-Bya't and reached there at sunset, then we raised our spears, hence they asked: ‘Who are you?’

And when it was morning Khalid ordered their beheading. Then I said: ‘Oh Khalid! Fear Allah, this is not allowed for you.’

Then Abu Qutada swore by Allah never to march with Khalid for any war, and he said: ‘The desert Arabs encouraged him (Khalid) on killing them for the sake of booties and that was Malik bin Nuwayra’s case.’ -[al-Musanaf, Vol. 10, p. 174, No. 18721]

Abu Qutada then back to Medina, as he failed to justify the execution of Malik and  for his oath. As he was among them who believe Malik was a Muslim. It may be because he may know such an event as described in al-Fadael, we find-
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 02:27:28 AM
And to mention that the Prophet (s) went and put the people through so much effort and trouble just to clear a silly misunderstanding? At Ghadeer, straight after Hajj? Come on.

He didn't put them through any effort, in fact they were taking a break at Ghadir.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 02:28:27 AM
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

etc..etc...


This is a thread about Ghadir, why are you discussing Khalid? Whatever you copied seems to be quoting Kanz-ul-`Ummal a lot, pretty unreliable stuff.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 02:37:52 AM
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم

http://ghadirkhumm.com/


We are proud to announce the official launch of www.GhadirKhumm.com (http://www.ghadirkhumm.com) the first ever Sunni website that revolves around Hadith Al Ghadir. The site includes a full analysis of the texts and chains of narration. It also includes a section for refutations against the Shia scholar Al Amini the author of the Kitab Al-Ghadir (http://ghadirkhumm.com/refuting-kitab-al-ghadir/).

I understand that to take the time and effort to produce this site requires some level of sincerity. Perhaps, with the information you possess, you may feel that your position reflects the most rational understanding of what occur at Ghadeer Khumm.

It seems you have broken down your discussion into three main groups:

1. Context
2. What was spoken
3. The aftermath

We have addressed your points and claims here: https://Forbidden_Link/ghadeer-response/

Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.

“I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar’s last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6830, Book 86, Hadith 57/ Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 ENG

The above tradition is so remarkably similar to the situation the Prophet [saw] was in. The caliph of the time, Umar ibn Al Khattab, wishes to make a declaration regarding successorship and warning people about an issue pertaining to it in the Hajj season itself. Rather than giving the speech at Hajj, he is advised by Abdur Rahman bin Auf that the Hajj will gather people from all around Arabia and the other conquered lands, and that rather, he should make this important statement in Medina, where the prophets traditions were preserved and were Islam had gain a true stronghold. Furthermore he warned that people at Hajj from different regions were far weaker with regards to understanding, comprehending, and upholding the true meanings and intentions of the Sunnah and putting statements in their proper place. Umar ibn Al Khattab seemed to accept and agree with this advice, and waited only until Medina to give his very important speech.

Abdur Rahman bin Auf was also correct in his assertion, given that the “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum’ who converted at the day of the conquest of Mecca and after had very little if at all any contribution to reporting from the Prophet [saw] and having the same role in the traditions of the Prophet and an understanding of the religion.

Furthermore one must also consider that by the time of Umar ibn Al Khattab, many of the apostate tribes of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, T’aif and other regions had been dealt with in the Ridda wars. Furthermore, Islam had been in these lands for at least a decade, if not more than this. Despite this, Umar ibn Al Khattab is still worried about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions in Arabia not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was far more grave at the time of the Prophet [saw] where Mecca had barely just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen,Ta’if and other such places had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would en-masse apostate.

If Umar Ibn Al Khattab and other senior companions such as Abdurahman Ibn Awf could recognise the problematic nature of making certain proclamations in Mecca during the Hajj season when all had gathered, pertaining to the issue of leadership itself, at a time when Islam had more time to grow in these lands and hypocrites had been generally dealt with, why could the Prophet [saw] also not desire and seek to do likewise, at a time when the situation was far graver? Although there is no doubt that there were hypocrites even among the people of Medina, but there were far more at Makkah.

In fact, we find in Saheeh Shia narrations that the Prophet [saw] indeed was worried about those who were hypocrites, or those who would claim he is lying, or turn away. Though this is of no value to sunni’s, it merely confirms that Shia’s have original and reliable sources which confirm rational sense, historical context, and the very same worry is echoed in Sahhih Bukhari by Abdurahman ibn Awf and agreed upon by Umar ibn Al Khattab. The following is from Al Kafi and is a Saheeh [Authentic] hadith:

“Allāh commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he explains to them al-Wilāyah like he has explained to them al-Salāh, al-Zakāh, al-Sawm, al-Hajj. So when this came to him from Allāh, He tightened with that the Messenger of Allāh’s (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) chest, and he became frightened that people will apostate from their religion and they would (accuse) him of lying, and his chest became tightened, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) returned to his Lord (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and Allāh (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) revealed (wahy) to him – ‘O Messenger, convey what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, it will be as though you have not conveyed My message. Allāh protects you from men.’ (5:67). So he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) executed the command of Allāh (تعالى), and he mentioned and established the wilāyah of `Alī (عليه السلام) on the day of Ghadīr, and he called for a congregational salāh and commanded the people to convey what they witnessed to the absentees (i.e. convey the news of Wilāyah of `Alī to those who are not present)”
Reference: Al Kafi [Volume 1, Usul Al Kafi]

Weak argument, the following are the issues:

A- First issue is you're saying `Umar avoided making a declaration at Makkah MEANWHILEWHILE the Prophet (saw) did in fact make a VERY LENGTHY declaration in Makkah and he announced his farewell sermon which had a great amount of sensitive and serious requests. Therefore your objection does not apply.

B- By `Umar's time the nation grew considerably and many ignorant folks embraced Islam and he feared reproaching those people (i.e Zubayr/`Ammar who wanted to appoint `Ali) on the Mimbar that they may misunderstand, possibly even harm those people. In the time of the Prophet (saw) the Muslim community was in better shape and the ratio of foreigners was not as large as in the time of `Umar.

C- Makkah was a more important location and the timing at `Arafah was a more suitable time, an intelligent man would not miss that chance and replace it with a location in the middle of nowhere.

D- If the "riff-raff" at Makkah are what's scaring him, he could have announced upon his return to Madinah in his own mosque which would have been a better location and a better timing. Instead, complete silence and he (saw) acted like nothing happened.

E- It's not possible that he (saw) held-off from revelation out of fear of the people since when he first announced his message he (saw) was in a much more vulnerable condition. Your Kafi story makes no sense since it was a Shia invention.

F- Just to add, what `Umar wished to say was VERY different then the so called prophetic declaration you speak of. `Umar was very upset and wanted to literally directly criticize and rebuke the individuals he heard about, it's a good thing he waited since he seems to have had time to cool off and revise his speech. That's why it wasn't a good idea for him to do this in Makkah according to Ibn `Awf as it may lead to more issues. The Ghadir declaration was nothing of this nature, the Prophet (saw) simply reminded them of `Ali's closeness and relation.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 02:54:19 AM
.

Was Ghadeer Khumm an attempt merely to reiterate that people who loved the Prophet [saw] ought to also love Ali ibn Abi Talib, and hence put aside their grudge towards what he had done in Yemen?


One of the ways to explain why Muhammed [saw] would choose to specially deliver a speech at Ghadeer Khumm and use the words he did, as well as interpret ‘Mawla’ is that this was all to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib from rumours which had spread about him from discontent members of his battalion who had accompanied him to Yemen, shortly before he rejoined the Prophet [saw] for Hajj. It is stated that because some of these companions decided to speak out against him, and spread rumours about his usurpation of the Khums and unfair treatment, the Prophet [saw] opted to defend him after the Hajj.

Although there can be debate about particular details of this, it is accepted that some among the companions did show discontent against Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is written in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, as well as that of Ibn Hisham the following:

“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”
Reference: (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650 and Ibn Hisham in his Seeraah)

 

Important points to raise based on the above:

1. The evidence from the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Hisham should be clear evidence that the Prophet [saw] very quickly addressed the issue there and then, rising up to tell the army that Ali ibn Abi Talib is not one they should blame, but rather, he is so committed and fair in the way of Allah that he would never wrong anybody. This statement, if anyone respected the words of the Prophet [saw] should have sufficed there and then and he continued on with the Hajj after settling the matter. If these clear words had not, then they ought to have removed any ill-feelings after the final sermon, where the Prophet [saw] had stated “Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.” If the Prophet [saw] felt there was any need to add more to this to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib in this particular instance, he would have done so, but his words were clear and decisive to anyone who regarded the Prophet [saw] as Awla over them and their Mawla.

2. Is it not more logical that the Prophet [saw] would have opted to settle the issue immediately, rather than waiting almost two weeks until the 18th of Dhul-Hijjah which was the date of the declaration of Ghadeer?

3. If the Prophet [saw] had made his declaration of Ghadeer Khumm to stop rumours against Ali ibn Abi Talib which had begun to spread as well as reprimand some members of the Army, why did he not do it at Makkah, which would have been the opportune moment to close the issue without letting it grow as the Hajj carried on? Afterall, when he had left Hajj, rumours about Ali ibn Abi Talib may have remained among those who did not follow him on his way to Medina through Ghadeer Khumm.

4. It was well known that Ali ibn Abi Talib was a man loved by the Prophet [saw]. He was the hero of Badr, the hero of Khandaq, the Hero of Khaybar, the first male muslim, married to the daughter of the Prophet [saw], the one made his brother in the pact of brotherhood, the one whose relation to the Prophet [saw] was as Aron was to Moses. The one for whom love was faith and hatred was hypocrisy. Those from the army ought to have known that, considering that they themselves were of the people of Medina. They knew full well the close relation and the virtue and merit the Prophet [saw] had with Ali ibn abi talib. Their issue with him – those among the army- was how he handled the Khums and so it makes more sense for the Prophet [saw] rather than saying whosoever friend he is, Ali is also his friend, to clearly state what Ali ibn abi talib had done was not wrong. They already knew the relation he had to the Prophet [saw] and were more concerned with what the judgement of the Prophet [saw] was on a particular action of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This goes for a large cohort of those who has followed the Prophet [saw] and were from Medina and so returned with him – they knew full well the relationship enjoyed by Ali to the Prophet [saw].

 

The real aftermath of Yemen

 

 “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.”[/color]
Reference: Shaykh-Al-Mufeed [shia scholar] thus writes in Kitab Al Irshad:

The above is only brought to show that shia’s and the shia ulema are not ignorant of what happened in Yemen, but given the evidence it is quite clear that the matter had been addressed by the Prophet [saw] and resolved immediately.

 

Weaker arguments due to your following of desires and lack of reading.

Firstly, what you read in Ibn Ishaq is regarding the narration of Buraydah, the Prophet (saw) did not address the entire army then, he address those individuals who walked into his tent to complain. Therefore, NO the entire issue was not addressed at the time.

As for your other four arguments respectively,

1- You argue that the Prophet (saw) said general words at `Arafah that were sufficient thus there was no need to repeat at Ghadir. Well, There are verses in the Qur'an saying the same concerning love and brotherhood, in that case we can say his (saw) speech at the final Hajj was useless because the Qur'an also said we Muslims are brother and we're supposed to love eachother.

2- He (saw) addressed those individuals directly when they complained, then addressed the rest of the army at Ghadir. Two weeks time is nothing as he (saw) had more important things to share with people concerning the rights of women etc... at Hajj rather than an issue like that between `Ali and his soldiers. So no, it wasn't at the top of his priorities list.

3- Because the people going back to Madinah were his army and they are `Ali's neighbors and community. The Prophet (saw) did not need to open a topic about a matter that did not concern other Muslims who lived in distant lands and almost never interacted with `Ali except during Hajj season.

4- You'd be surprised that most of those people in Madinah did not know those specific narrations you're mentioning since the Prophet (saw) never went around praising his cousin. Whatever you mentioned above were certain reports heard by a very limited number of people and they only surfaced during the Fitnah to inform people of `Ali's status especially the new Muslims. Of course most knew that `Ali was close to the Prophet (saw) but jealousy is jealousy.

To conclude, the Prophet (saw) reminded them specifically of `Ali's status during their break in Ghadir.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 03:01:50 AM
If this context & period is when the Meccan were in wars Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam, when did people of Medina whom the imam said were worse than Meccan ever in wars against Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam? It clearly shows that hadith refer to period after Prophet passed away.

Brother, what the Imam was trying to say is, while the Meccans were disbelievers, their rebellion against the Prophet, as bad as it was, comprised of those who did not affirm belief. However, those who fought Ali ibn abi Talib affirmed belief, should have known better, and yet still transgressed in the gravest sense by waging wars against him.

The Imam is not saying that after Mecca submitted and many outwardly declared Islam, as well as those of other tribes [some may have been genuine, others not], comprised of hypocrites who knew very little of Islam nor had an understanding of his Sunnah. We can all acknowledge that the only people who knew about the real way and path of the Prophet were those people in Medina. Many tribes who converted and were now muslims were still hypocrites.

Can i just add, many of those Meccans and non-muslims who fought the Prophet and converted to Islam actually joined the side of Umulmumineen Aisha when fighting Ali ibn Abi Talib, so this proves not to take a statement rigidly but appreciate it refers to different contexts.

What a weak excuse, basically saying "The fact that the messenger (Saw) never declared `Ali's appointment in front of the majority of Muslims was because they were all hypocrites." You guys are the most desperate sect I've seen. SO they submitted to his prophet-hood and religion, but they were going to throw a fit if he said his cousin succeeds him? What about the enormous tribe of Thaqif who NEVER apostated after the death of the Prophet (saw)? I don't recall Quraysh and the people of Makkah apostating either, let's just label them all hypocrites because we're Shia slanderers no?

Secondly, hypocrites are to be treated as Muslims, so he (saw) had NO EXCUSE not to inform them of `Ali's Imamah eitherway. Hypocrites would have listened and not done anything, since hypocrites show outward belief but internally are not believers. So they would have listened to his sermon and declaration just like they listened to all his other sermons and declaration, what harm would it have caused them?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 03:07:45 AM

These narrations above are the ones you have mentioned. We do not believe in such narrations, why? Because they go against Ali's character and nature. Those who are familiar with Ali's character and nature which you will find throughout history know that this is absolute nonsense. Slave girl? Do you believe such nonsense about Ali but are quick to defend Khalid bin Waleed when he killed a companion of the Prophet (s) along with others and then married his wife instantly and slept with her overnight.

What a cheap stunt pulled by the Ummayd dynasty to mitigate the event of Saqifa. And look at the damage it's done to the Ummah. The Ummayds have really done a good job by taking their anger of the Prophet (s) out on Islam and the progeny. Do you honestly believe that such narrations fit the character and personality of Ali.

Bro, you're a textbook ignorant. This material is in your most authentic book al-Kafi, `Ali's entire will at the time of death is in al-Kafi and it's not just ONE slave girl he had, he had like 16 slave girls some of which were pregnant with his children. So these are your Imams' words in al-Kafi, if you must object, object to your Imam.

PS. we can say the same, how can you believe in the narrations accusing Khalid of wrongdoings? WHy not dismiss those narrations too since they oppose the character of Khalid.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 09:39:59 AM
I have seen you produce some good works brother Hani, but this was a poor response.

Weaker arguments due to your following of desires and lack of reading.

Firstly, what you read in Ibn Ishaq is regarding the narration of Buraydah, the Prophet (saw) did not address the entire army then, he address those individuals who walked into his tent to complain. Therefore, NO the entire issue was not addressed at the time.

This has been covered in the entire piece if you were to read it holistically brother. When men began to come to the Prophet ﷺ, we see different narrations where he addresses individual people, like Buraida, and others. And then we see the tradition in Ibn Ishaq where it clearly states, when a number began to come the Prophet ﷺ rose to address them. Unless someone claims the two are referring to the same incident which is not plausible, clearly demonstrates he addressed individuals first and then decided to emphatically give a call out and rose up and stated (Ibn Ishaq): "when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” 

I must ask you, if the Prophet ﷺ gave out such am emphatic reply, and then as you can see after having done so decided to continue the rites, it is a clear indication he felt that the call he gave out would naturally have spread and people would have been aware of the anger of the Prophet ﷺ against anyone who accused Ali. 

You also keep using the word 'Army'. Are you aware Ali ibn Abi Talib was only in charge of a small battalion of 300? This was not a Tabouk sized army, not even a Hunayn sized army. This was a small localised force. One may claim Khalid also had another battalion, but you are not talking big numbers here.

The people who were sent with him were from Medina. They would have known he was the made who single-handedly lifted the gate of Khaybar and that not only does the Prophet ﷺ love him , but Allah loves him and has used him in famous victories when the situation was dire for the Muslims. They knew of his close position to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Their only issue [some among the small battalion] was whether he handed to Khums in a justifiable way.

 Once the Prophet ﷺ addressed a few of the companions as is reported in traditions here and there using direct wordings to direct companions, we then see him rising to address a group, whatever size, and making sure the call was to be given out that there was no way in which Ali was unjust, and that he forbids them for blaming Ali, for he is a man who is so dedicated in equity and justice in the way of Allah and can not be blamed. This message would have been heard by others surrounding the Prophet ﷺ, because he was not in a sound chamber, but out in the open, and the most rational understanding of it is by Shayk-al-Mufid when he says [in his al-Irshad]:

"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.”

Notice how al-Mufid accepts the cries against Ali became numerous? This does not mean the whole group of the small battalion complained, but only a contingent among them, perhaps a fair number. The fact a number complained clearly denotes - as Ibn Ishaq also implies- that he was addressing a larger group and the call was given out to desist in their criticism and that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has passed judgement emphatically in favour of Ali. We will expand on this when we touch on your counter points, inshAllah.

Quote
As for your other four arguments respectively,

1- You argue that the Prophet (saw) said general words at `Arafah that were sufficient thus there was no need to repeat at Ghadir. Well, There are verses in the Qur'an saying the same concerning love and brotherhood, in that case we can say his (saw) speech at the final Hajj was useless because the Qur'an also said we Muslims are brother and we're supposed to love eachother.

This is , with due respect, not a valid point at all. I can see why you would bring this example, but the fact that there is something in the Quran does not mean the Messenger of Allah can not reiterate on the general points he wishes to emphasise, particularly when the entire community is there and he wished to say that which promoted tolerance and harmony, so that people do not divide , fight, and dislike each other. The Quran at many times orders us to be kind of our parents, yet, the Prophet ﷺ repeated this often.

I did not claim his words were sufficient such that there are no points that can ever be repeated. Rather, after addressing individuals like Buraidah, and then seeing voices rising against what had occurred in Yemen, he called out and also ordered the call to be given out to stop anyone criticising Ali, and we have discussed this previously. He qualifies this by then discussing the fact that all Muslims are brothers to one another, and must love and respect one another, forgive each other and unite. My argument was, that even after addressing individuals, and then even after rising up and addressing a larger contingent and giving the order for the call to be given out that Ali was in the right, and a man of justice and can never be blamed, this should have been sufficient for anyone who respects the words of the Prophet to recognise Ali was in the right ﷺ.

The people who heard this and were also in the crowded area where the Prophet ﷺ was and where many pilgrims had gathered are likely to have spread this declaration by the Prophet ﷺ. However, if there was anyone who kept any malice, when the Prophet ﷺ gave the emotional speech about brotherhood and forgiveness, any remaining grudge should have been quashed.


Quote
2- He (saw) addressed those individuals directly when they complained, then addressed the rest of the army at Ghadir. Two weeks time is nothing as he (saw) had more important things to share with people concerning the rights of women etc... at Hajj rather than an issue like that between `Ali and his soldiers. So no, it wasn't at the top of his priorities list.

Do you think that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not want harmony to be in place before Hajj? At one point, articles written by TSN and other rebuttal websites claim there was a larger proportion of the small battalion complaining about Ali. Would he have felt it was wiser to allow people to nurse a grudge and feel wronged, and perhaps spread rumours against Ali when all the muslims had gathered, or to really give the call to make a simple statement - 'I, the Prophet of Allah, declare Ali was in the right, do not blame him, for he acted justly, and he is far too cognisant of Allah to ever deal in matters wrongly. '

The reality is, it would not have taken much energy at all to address the issue. The only reason there is still stubbornness among our Sunni brothers to accept his is because this narrative is absolutely essential for them to justify what occurred about two weeks later at Ghadir Khumm.


Quote
3- Because the people going back to Madinah were his army and they are `Ali's neighbors and community. The Prophet (saw) did not need to open a topic about a matter that did not concern other Muslims who lived in distant lands and almost never interacted with `Ali except during Hajj season.

The reality is, there were tens of thousands, if not more gathered near or around the Prophet ﷺ at this time, from Mecca and from around Arabia. The Prophet was actually waiting for the small battalion to arrive from Yemen with Ali ibn abi Talib, because most of the others had already reached. If one man comes into the mosques and begins to shout, does not the entire mosque of hundreds become aware there is something going on? It is quite clear that now if voices rise from the small battalion, as Ibn Ishaq clearly says they had, and implies it was far more than a few individuals before the Prophet ﷺ decided to rise to address them, there will be disturbance. People will be wondering as to what is going on and many might even start to gather around and see what the discord is about.

Do you believe the Prophet ﷺ knowing many have become aware of this from Mecca, of the others from Medina, of the tribes who gathered from other regions of Arabia, would not want the issue resolved immediately? Would he want rumours being spread against Ali ibn Abi Talib by people who had heard the discord?

Rather, we find traditions from Saheeh al-Bukhari where Buraida is addressed individually, and then where other individual companions are addressed. The tradition of ibn Ishaq is clearly when voices raise above those of a few individuals, but larger a larger group. It is here where the Prophet ﷺ makes his emphatic and deviant defence of Ali. Those among the small battalion with problems would have heard it, and heard it from others. People who were surrounding the Prophet ﷺ who at the time would have had thousands of pilgrims in ear shot of him would have also heard it and recognised the just character of Ali, the order of the Prophet ﷺ against anyone who blamed him, and the position he held with the Prophet ﷺ.

Quote
4- You'd be surprised that most of those people in Madinah did not know those specific narrations you're mentioning since the Prophet (saw) never went around praising his cousin. Whatever you mentioned above were certain reports heard by a very limited number of people and they only surfaced during the Fitnah to inform people of `Ali's status especially the new Muslims. Of course most knew that `Ali was close to the Prophet (saw) but jealousy is jealousy.

Brother, i am surprised someone as learned as you can make such statement. Are you forgetting that in Khaybar, the entire army were not able to take the last remaining fort. The Muslims had camped for weeks and there was no victory. The Prophet then made a call out to the general masses that tomorrow he would give a banner to a Man who loves Allah and his Messenger ﷺ and who loves Allah and his Messenger ﷺ love. What was even more powerful,  is that he was chosen to bring victory to the Muslims when others had failed, despite nursing an eye infection and no-one thinking it could possibly be him. So many had longed to be chosen and whispers began to spread each man hoping it would be them. And in the morning the Prophet ﷺ calls out ' Where is Ali? Bring me Ali!'. The people en-masse see him defeat Harith, Marhab, and then lift the gate of Khaybar which was a feat of superhuman strength, making a bridge for the other Sahaba to cross.

Do you not think this itself was enormous praise on Ali, such that people would have known he is one of the best in their communities, enjoys the closest [or one of the closest] positions to the Prophet  ﷺ and one through whom Allah brings victory? Would the emphatic and miraculous stand of Ali not have been spread when they returned home with the riches of Fadak and people wished to know how it happened? You have to be intellectually honest and recognise most of the praise regarding Ali were not mere words here and there isolated from people, but they were said en-masse when he had performed incredible feats.

Let us ignore his heroics in Badar, his heroics killing a man everyone feared in Khaybar, being the man the Prophet ﷺ chose as his brother in Medina when no other Muhajir was paired with another Muhajir. Let us ignore he was the husband of Fatima. Let us not conceder that shortly before the Pilgrimage he was the one chosen to represent 'ourselves 'of the Prophet in the Mubahila.

There can not be a shadow of doubt he was a man whose closeness to the Prophet ﷺ, whose position among the most righteous Muslims, and a man who people knew full well was famous for being the one who though him Allah brought them victory in the most desperate moments.

Quote
To conclude, the Prophet (saw) reminded them specifically of `Ali's status during their break in Ghadir.

I feel no such conclusion can be warranted.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 10:16:21 AM
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

وعليكم السلام


Quote
Weak argument, the following are the issues:

A- First issue is you're saying `Umar avoided making a declaration at Makkah MEANWHILEWHILE the Prophet (saw) did in fact make a VERY LENGTHY declaration in Makkah and he announced his farewell sermon which had a great amount of sensitive and serious requests. Therefore your objection does not apply. 

This is not an adequate response in any way. It also ignores one of the most fundamental points: the problem is not making any kind of speech in front of the mass of people at Mecca/Makkah, but rather one that is of a more specific and sensitive nature pertaining to rule and leadership. No-one is going to spread rumours about not wronging women, or about being brothers of one another, or about giving charity and up keeping the prayer. These are so general and topics which are very neutral.

Historically when you study the psychology of human beings and how this sociologically manifests within society, you will clearly see that matters pertaining to leadership are a fare more sensitive issue. Power, authority, and control arouse emotions from people. This why Umar ibn al-Khattab did not want to make the declaration at Hajj. He knew that the specific declaration was as to how people should be choosing a leader, and what truly ought to take blame - and to forbid people from declaring 'such and such' the leader after he dies. 

We have covered this in greater depth, but it is pretty clear - even from our own authentic traditions - Muhammed ﷺ feared hypocrites and those who would have called him a liar. He knew that while  many can go along with fasting, prayer, charity, as soon as you talk about issues pertaining to rule, authority, and leadership it becomes a more controversial issue. Power can make even the best of men turn against being righteous. Arrogance is something that even made Iblis, a devout worshipper of God, raised as a Jinn to the assembly of Angels, astray. He could not concede a man he regarded as inferior being put over him and one he should submit to.

There are many reasons why those of tribes would have accused the Prophet. Many of them may not have known the true virtues of Ali, as they were not present in most of the battles - particularly those in the surrounding regions. Many had only just converted after having no other option when the Prophet was victorious and recognising they were better off doing so, now that their decades of oppressing the Prophet did not bring them victory, and that he had power over them. You had various tribes in and around Arabia who would have felt the Prophet was merely retaining leadership in his own clan.

Let us not ignore the fact the Banu Ummayah had long been advisories to the Banu Hashim. They were major instigators of the battle of Jamal [though did not really fight], but joined against Ali in Narhawan and Siffin. Many of the governors placed by M'uawiyah cursed Ali on the very pulpit of the Messenger of Allah. Hatred against him and members of the Banu Hashim is clear for all historians, and it was brutal. When looking at Arabia one must look at the influence tribal feuds had.

I have not even scratched the surface here, but it is clear that any speech or statement pertaining to leadership is a far more sensitive issue and far more pertinent.



Quote
B- By `Umar's time the nation grew considerably and many ignorant folks embraced Islam and he feared reproaching those people (i.e Zubayr/`Ammar who wanted to appoint `Ali) on the Mimbar that they may misunderstand, possibly even harm those people. In the time of the Prophet (saw) the Muslim community was in better shape and the ratio of foreigners was not as large as in the time of `Umar.

Actually, at the time of the Prophet ﷺ it was far more dire, and anyone with an objective lens would agree with this. Makkah had only recently submitted after decades of warring against the Prophet ﷺ and having no other choice when he was the victor and entered into it. While he did not force anyone , it was clearly advantageous to convert at this stage. There may have been genuine converts but among them were certainly hypocrites who recognised it would be for their own interest. He was the leader, and he had power. It is just a shame they did not recognise the truth when oppressing him for 13 years when he was in Makkah, fighting war after war against him in Medina up until the last two years of his life. 

Most of the tribes in and around Arabia had only recently succumbed, and Islam was still weak in those lands. T'aif for instance did not truly submit , after running from Hunayn. Yemen resisted Khalid ibn Walid and only succumbed to Ali but comprised of large contingents of hypocrites who rebelled within and after the life of the Prophet. You can find many examples of this. Most of them knew little of Islam as it had only just touched their lands. Arabia was a far more unstable place, and there is no doubt Umar ibn al-Khattab had more security, power and control over it than did Muhammed ﷺ. I would go so far as to saying it was even more unstable at the time of Uthman, and then far more at the time of Ali. Umar probably had it best out of all of the them.


Quote
C- Makkah was a more important location and the timing at `Arafah was a more suitable time, an intelligent man would not miss that chance and replace it with a location in the middle of nowhere.

The entire purpose of this discussion or debate is to prove that making a basic inference like this will lead one to error if they do not look at the context of the situation. Repeating your main argument again - which in the course of the debate you have to prove and substantiate- does nothing to add to your claim brother, with respect. We are debating on this issue and i am proving it is not the case.   Umar ibn al-Khattab certainly didn't consider Makkah a place to make an important declaration regarding leadership after him, for the sake of the stability of the Ummah.

Quote
D- If the "riff-raff" at Makkah are what's scaring him, he could have announced upon his return to Madinah in his own mosque which would have been a better location and a better timing. Instead, complete silence and he (saw) acted like nothing happened.

This would have made sense if the Prophet ﷺ said nothing at all. But are we forgetting he held up the hand of Ali in front of what i would say would probably be at least thirty or forty thousand ? I would hardly call that silence. I never claimed that fearing hypocrites solely in Makkah are what caused him to hesitate, but only that historical analysis proves this was a valid concern. There were hypocrites among those in Medina, and travelling north away from Makkah - but it was certainly more problematic when still in Makkah.


Quote
E- It's not possible that he (saw) held-off from revelation out of fear of the people since when he first announced his message he (saw) was in a much more vulnerable condition. Your Kafi story makes no sense since it was a Shia invention.

He did not hold off from revelation. He knew he had to declare Ali, but hesitated until the command came down to declare it immediately - and he obliged. He could have done so before needing to be reassured. The Prophet announced his message in a more vulnerable position when Islam was in its infancy. However, things were already dire and he was given the promise of victory by Allah. However, when he had already overcome his enemies and Islam had spread, he hated with all his heart that people begin to turn back, after the favours Allah had placed over them, granting them victory over the other polytheists, and the non-muslims, and choosing for them Islam.

When you're being slaughtered and forced to flee from your home is one thing, because the enemy is external. However, when the enemy is internal it often causes far more concern and regret.

Quote
F- Just to add, what `Umar wished to say was VERY different then the so called prophetic declaration you speak of. `Umar was very upset and wanted to literally directly criticize and rebuke the individuals he heard about, it's a good thing he waited since he seems to have had time to cool off and revise his speech. That's why it wasn't a good idea for him to do this in Makkah according to Ibn `Awf as it may lead to more issues. The Ghadir declaration was nothing of this nature, the Prophet (saw) simply reminded them of `Ali's closeness and relation.

I did not claim they wanted to say the exact same things - or that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished to declare a successor. Rather, the parallel made was both men wanted to make a very important point concerning leadership after them. Umar wanted to command the people not to select those whom rumours are being spread about, without consulting the Muslim, and anyone doing so should be killed. However, even he feared people would rebel, cause trouble, and use that against him - because discussing pertinent issues of leadership is incredibly sensitive.

However, Umar recognises that he does not need to give a declaration in front of the people gathered in Makkah. If he puts his point across to the people who have historically kept leadership or been involved in deciding the leader i.e the Muhajirin and Ansaar, once they obeyed his commands, the rest of the people would follow suit - or should follow suit.

Umar was not intending to merely rebuke anyone. He was giving out clear instructions: Do not appoint who you want as Caliph , and it is an order that leadership after him must be done in the form of Shurah.

I am actually surprised that no-one was vying for power after the death of Muhammed ﷺ, but we can see people vying for it after the death of Umar, and that he cared so much about leadership that he not only rebuked those wanting to cause instability, he made sure to declare a Shurah, dictate the men in the Shurah, the conditions of the Shurah itself. But our Prophet ﷺ is allegedly one who remained absolutely silent?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 10:24:15 AM

Bro, you're a textbook ignorant. This material is in your most authentic book al-Kafi, `Ali's entire will at the time of death is in al-Kafi and it's not just ONE slave girl he had, he had like 16 slave girls some of which were pregnant with his children. So these are your Imams' words in al-Kafi, if you must object, object to your Imam.

PS. we can say the same, how can you believe in the narrations accusing Khalid of wrongdoings? WHy not dismiss those narrations too since they oppose the character of Khalid.

The consensus among the Shia scholars and the learned is that Ali ibn abi Talib had slave girls. Many of our Aimmah are children of slave girls - freed of course. You can address weak points like this brother, but i would say the time for that has long gone and i would not occupy myself addressing points made which a good number of Sunni scholars do not accept either way. It is a moot point, he did had a slave girl, it proves nothing, Islam allows it, many of our Imams did it. Al-Mahdi is the son of black-bondswoman. There is no pure race on Islam, we are all human beings and our piety separates us.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 10:30:39 AM
What a weak excuse, basically saying "The fact that the messenger (Saw) never declared `Ali's appointment in front of the majority of Muslims was because they were all hypocrites." You guys are the most desperate sect I've seen. SO they submitted to his prophet-hood and religion, but they were going to throw a fit if he said his cousin succeeds him? What about the enormous tribe of Thaqif who NEVER apostated after the death of the Prophet (saw)? I don't recall Quraysh and the people of Makkah apostating either, let's just label them all hypocrites because we're Shia slanderers no?

This is a straw man. I have never even made an argument like this. All i have stated is, that the Prophet  ﷺ was aware that for the majority of his life, Makkah had been an enemy to him. It has driven him out, forced him into exile, refused him to return, and fought him and helped others fight him in several wars up until the last two years of his life. It harboured many hypocrites, and no doubt among them many who might have believed. But i argue that a land like this undoubtedly would on average have harboured more hypocrites than not, and more ignorant about the Sunnah, than not, and more who would have taken statements of the Prophet ﷺ out of its proper place, and accused him, than not.

Quote
Secondly, hypocrites are to be treated as Muslims, so he (saw) had NO EXCUSE not to inform them of `Ali's Imamah eitherway. Hypocrites would have listened and not done anything, since hypocrites show outward belief but internally are not believers.

Are you aware of what hypocrites do ? They submit outwardly, and their words please you , and their behaviour pleases you, but when you give them a chance to ferment discord that is when the hypocrisy comes out.  Claiming they would no 'nothing' is not valid. The Prophet ﷺ did not declare them non-muslims, he only wanted a declaration on a pertinent matter not to be used to cause Fitnah and corruption. Much the same way as Umar ibn al-Khattab did not want to occur either. The message of Ali at Ghadir would have certainly got out to them, just as the fact the people of Medina are the ones who transmitted the majority of the sayings of the Prophet ﷺ many of which are mutawattir - which those in Makkah would have not been able to know, but should have submitted to.

Quote
So they would have listened to his sermon and declaration just like they listened to all his other sermons and declaration, what harm would it have caused them?

There's a difference between giving a general sermon on treating women well, being kind to each other, giving to charity, and then discussing the issue of leadership - and i have covered this in a previous post i have only just submitted. Refer to that inshAllah.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 10:36:17 AM
My objection is simple, its about your website claiming the reason it was not declared when southern region people were still around, because they have large proportion of hypocrites.

I explained that it is incorrect reasoning, because imam said meccan commited kufr openly & medinan were worst of people (worse than even christian & of course worse than southern region people etc)

Brother, i said that the Imam was referring to two entirely different time periods. His issue was not of geography, but of belief. Those who had attacked the Prophet while they were non-muslims were not really hypocrites on the whole, but just polytheists. They had never submitted to Islam and their crime on he whole, was not Nifaq. However those who had submitted to Islam and attacked the one left behind by the Prophet ﷺ at Jamal, Siffin, Narhwan [how many wrong 'Ijtihads' i daresay],  accepted Islam but went against what Islam had commanded.  There were ex-polytheists who had joined in some of these battles can i just remind you, so we have to put the statement in its proper place.

Quote
You countered saying the context & period was when Meccan still fought Muslim
I said that is incorrect, because if it was about Meccan during that warring period then how come Medinan were considered worse than Meccan as well?

Two entirely different time periods are being referred to, and not when the Prophet was giving the farewell sermon when they were mostly generally outwardly muslim.

Quote
So that shia hadith confirms that Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam declared it to people who were worse disbelievers & hypocrites than southern region people. Your "large hypocrite" reasoning contradict what imam said. Thats all im saying.

There is no doubt hypocrites existed among the people of Medina, but the reality is, the situation was more dire in Makkah for rational and clear historical reasons. The Imam i repeat, is making reference to two entirely different time periods - when Makkah had not been taken and when they were mostly polytheists.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 11:36:56 AM
Could i also just comment , for some reason when i had typed empathetically on the document i had used before posting it onto here, it may have auto-corrected to 'emphatically' which means something else. I can't seem to edit some of my posts, so just bear this in mind when reading my responses.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 23, 2017, 01:02:48 PM
There is no doubt hypocrites existed among the people of Medina, but the reality is, the situation was more dire in Makkah for rational and clear historical reasons. The Imam i repeat, is making reference to two entirely different time periods - when Makkah had not been taken and when they were mostly polytheists.
You still dont get it do you? Shia believe imam knew whats in people's heart whether they are believers or not. Are you saying shia dont believe Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam knew as well? So regardless of which period it was, Prophet knew Medinan is worse than Meccan and yet here you are claiming he didnt declare it to southern region people due to large hypocrites among them. Then how come he declared it to the worst or the worst people, Medinan? You cant escape from that by using period excuse. Prophet would have known Medinan were the worst just like imam did according to shia
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 23, 2017, 04:25:57 PM
I hate discussing with people who write newspapers, in this sense you're another "Link".

1- You say there are narrations where he addresses individuals and other were he addresses a group of men. I say both are pretty much referring to the same thing. The entire army was not addressed, it was simply Buraidah and maybe a few individuals who had come in with him or after him. Therefore, you hadn't refuted my point and you saying "It's not plausible" means absolutly nothing because in fact it is most clearly VERY plausible and in fact the case.

2- You assuming the call would spread after being announced to a couple of individuals does not mean he (saw) wouldn't make sure to announce it again at Ghadir to make sure it is resolved before getting back home and dealing with other more important matters. The size of `Ali's army doesn't matter, 300 is a big number of people. Then you desperately quote al-Mufid again, a man who gets his history from his local grocer.

3- You say because it's in the QUr'an doesn't mean the Prophet (saw) cannot reitirate, I say even if it's in the Sunnah the Prophet (Saw) is known to repeat and remind so there falls your argument. A couple of individuals came in and complained about `Ali, the Prophet (saw) got angry, stood up and addressed those individuals. Still the entire army as well as the community in Madinah (their neighbors) was not addressed. The Mawla Hadith was a part of a sermon given about his (saw) family (Thaqalayn) at that location to request that people be good to his family members after his passing.

4- You claim the Prophet (saw) wasn't wise to not address the entire army right away, I say you're not wise for claiming a Prophet of God isn't wise. He did address those who spoke to him directly and then went the extra mile at Ghadir. No harm done and the world doesn't revolve around `Ali and his sensitive feelings.

5- It's not up to you (who were not present nor did you witness) to decide that the situation was so chaotic and serious that it HAD to be dealt with on the spot by calling a major meeting of thousands of Muslims who are worshipping at Hajj to talk about `Ali's problem. Maybe nobody was in on it except the few individuals mentioned (who could be three, not sure why you're imagining a dramatic scene). Did the Prophet (saw) use a microphone or megaphone to announce perhaps and everyone heard? Was he standing on a tall Mimbar where everyone heard? Please enough of your baseless speculations. Heck if five men came around him, surrounding him and complaining, that is sufficient for anyone else to not have even heard or completely understood what they were talking about.

6- As for `Ali's praise, it's sufficient that some of his closest companions and soldiers (who lived in Madinah) never even heard of Ghadir until `Ali mentioned it a hundred days after Jamal. I think you assume too much about how news spreads and what kind of news spreads, of course people knew he was close to him but not all details were necessarily known except by those who witnessed them. It could be most of the 300 battalion were not aware of this or they heard it at the time and forgot.

7- Again with the hypocrites talk, I don't know if you read your own narrations but the people of Madinah are the worst hypocrites according to some Shia traditions. Heck they're the same people who ignored `Ali and accepted Abu Bakr's Caliphate. When `Ali as well as Fatimah at a later point asked them for help (acc to your narrations) they all abandonned them turned a blind eye. On top of it you have the narrations of the nation's apostasy except for 5-7 individuals that are quite explicit in your main books. So you're saying hypocrites are OK with actively spending their own money and giving their wealth to the Prophet (saw) as regular Zakat and Sadaqat BUT if `Ali was appointed as successor they'd be terribly upset? How would that change anything in the equation if they're planning on rebelling and apostating after his death (saw)?

8- `Umar's speech was not simply about the mode of how to choose a leader, he hadn't even decided on a specific way at the time. His speech was supposed to be a refutation and a criticism of the individuals who wanted to rush and appoint `Ali. This would have created misundertsaindg and possibly caused those individuals harm if hooligans heard of it.

9- Your point that you keep repeating, accusing the entire nation of lack of faith and hypocricy except Madanis is still useless, that won't change if you keep repeating it. According to your fabricated religion, Imamah is an essential tenet of Islamic faith, it is inexcusable to keep the majority of Muslims oblivious to this major matter simply because there were hypocrites among them. His job is to announce the religion, not be afraid of pagans and hypocrites, the QUr;an says "Whoever wishes can believe and whoever wishes can disbelieve". This narration of yours on how the people would have apostated upon `Ali's appointment was stupid to say the least and is probably invented by a simple Iraqi in the desert that managed to fool you and your society to this day.

10- You say he (saw) didn't hold-off, I say according to your narrations he did in fact do that and he did it for the most nonsensical reason that does not fit his character. I like to ask is there a precedent to this? Please inform me of any precedents when the Prophet (saw) ignored an important religious law until he was threatened by his Lord out of fear that people may accuse him of being a liar. Heck, the story of Isra' wal-Mi`raj itself refutes this when he went and told PAGANS and new Muslims that he traveled on a heavenly creature in one night and back, he didn't care about being called a liar nor did he care that some people apostated as a result.



Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: iceman on November 23, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

etc..etc...


This is a thread about Ghadir, why are you discussing Khalid? Whatever you copied seems to be quoting Kanz-ul-`Ummal a lot, pretty unreliable stuff.

Because Khalid bin Waleed has been mentioned in the narrations you've put forward on  your Ghadeer site. It's obvious anything that doesn't suit you would be considered unreliable. The narrations you've mentioned about Ali and a slave girl and mentioning Ali's character and  behaviour we don't accept such narrations either and consider them unreliable. Don't mitigate and insult such an important event as Ghadeer and then go on to justify a coincidental incident as Saqifa. I thought you really had something on that site but it turned out to be ridiculous narrations.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 07:12:40 PM

Because Khalid bin Waleed has been mentioned in the narrations you've put forward on  your Ghadeer site. It's obvious anything that doesn't suit you would be considered unreliable. The narrations you've mentioned about Ali and a slave girl and mentioning Ali's character and  behaviour we don't accept such narrations either and consider them unreliable. Don't mitigate and insult such an important event as Ghadeer and then go on to justify a coincidental incident as Saqifa. I thought you really had something on that site but it turned out to be ridiculous narrations.

Brother, i understand that with all the negativity about Shias and twisting our sources that it we do suspect certain things, but the reality is Ali deed indeed procure a slave girl and it is halal and permitted.  The didn't mind about the slave girl, but that he took from the Khums while he made them remove what they wore of the Khums. Many of our Imams had bondswomen as mothers, including Imam al-Mahdi.  If we deny this, it makes it  easy for them to prove it occurred. The truth is, it happened but it has absolutely nothing to do with Ghadir.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 07:20:56 PM
I hate discussing with people who write newspapers, in this sense you're another "Link".

I understand from your signature that you view islam as something simple. And i would agree. However, simplicity does not mean it is basic and there is no depth. It is essential at times to elaborate on a concept. Leaving it half way or keeping it too brief will only open the doors for doubt and misunderstanding. It would be easy to write a Shia-Pen style article and walk into the trap of relying on too many sources which you can just weaken and find Jarh of narrators which is easy to do, but the only way to ascertain the truth is to hold onto what is clear, and use intellectually rigorous and consistent argumentation.
 
Quote
1- You say there are narrations where he addresses individuals and other were he addresses a group of men. I say both are pretty much referring to the same thing. The entire army was not addressed, it was simply Buraidah and maybe a few individuals who had come in with him or after him. Therefore, you hadn't refuted my point and you saying "It's not plausible" means absolutly nothing because in fact it is most clearly VERY plausible and in fact the case.


Quote
2- You assuming the call would spread after being announced to a couple of individuals does not man he (saw)


Now i understand why you have misunderstood it. Also dear brother, i wrote a lengthy response to this very issue , and i did not just reply with 'It's not plausible'. What you have done is assumed that the tradition of Ibn Ishaq referring to the Prophet ﷺ rising up to address the men is for the same one or two, or even four individuals who complained individually about the Prophet ﷺ. You then say it might have been one or two after the Prophet ﷺ, but this is a massive assumption on your part, and is not faithful to the text - and i will demonstrate how.


Let us bring the traditions to examine if they are referring to the very same event.


Buraidah:

Quote
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]

Where in Ibn Ishaq do you find him replying with that? In this instance, he already directly responds to one individual. There is no 'rising up to address them' , nor the same words. This proves that the Prophet ﷺ rebuked some who came individually to him, and when complaints began to grow he decided to make a definitive statement in favour of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and thus conclude the matter.

So what is different with the tradition in Ibn Ishaq?


“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” 

Points:

A. The wording used against Buraidah is entirely different to that narrated in Ibn Ishaq. You can not claim he said two different things, because the truth is they are variants of the very same message. What was said individually to Buraidah was enough to make him reconsider the error of his ways. It is quite clear that the rebuke in Ibn Ishaq is after Buraidah and when a group came. Why? Because we also see him responding to individuals with a rebuke directly.


B. You are going out of your way to try and prove as little people as possible heard the Prophet ﷺ, and that only one or two men , or maybe three were there to hear him respond only to a very small number of individuals. However, the text in Ibn Ishaq is clear in denoting the fact the Prophet ﷺ arose to address men. Abu Said-al-Khudri, who heard what he had said, clearly first states the army showed resentment, meaning it was observable that there was wide discontent, and that the men then complained to the Prophet ﷺ. He did not say ‘when two of the men complained’, and what is clearly implied is that a group complained. What you have done is try to ignore the apparent meaning, and purport that the fewest number of people you could possibly class in plurality [two] were the ones he rose up to address. He did not say ‘one or two showed complained’. He could tell that the a fair number in the battalion showed resentment, and that the men complained to the Prophet ﷺ. The very word ‘arose’ indicates the Prophet ﷺ physically situated himself in a manner whereby he could address a group.

C . The Prophet ﷺ was not in an isolated gas chamber. He had many companions around him, and thousands of Pilgrims too, who had gathered. If the Prophet ﷺ arose to address a group of men, it does not mean the men and the Prophet ﷺ were in an isolated region where sound could not penetrate. Clearly, not only would members of the small battalion who also had grievances gathered around the spokes people who complained to hear the verdict of the Prophet ﷺ , but you would have also had people who were not even in the small battalion, nor who complained about Ali, but rather were in the surrounding area densely filled with  scores of pilgrims. Abu Saed al-Khudri for instance, being witness to it is proof of this.

It is clear that after addressing individuals with one reply, he decided to rise up and address a larger body, with words that were empathetically in favour of Ali and his judgement. Not only did the members of the small battalion of 300 [and maybe Khalids] hear this, but you are not giving any importance to the thousands of Pilgrims who must have been around the Prophet ﷺ at the time, many of whom would have heard it. Do you not think brother, given how curious we humans are, men riding back from Yemen would arouse interest? Especially when some of those men are upset, and complaining? Many may have gathered to see what was going on, and would have heard the Prophets ﷺ response, or heard it from someone who had heard it.



Quote
wouldn’t make sure to announce it again at Ghadir to make sure it is resolved before getting back home and dealing with other more important matters. The size of `Ali's army doesn't matter, 300 is a big number of people.

You are assuming all 300 complained. The fact is, a proportion of that 300 complained. Maybe a proportion of Khalid battalion. The Prophet ﷺ would have been very well aware of this, and would have absolutely disliked any attack on the integrity of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and as proven would not and did not wait for two weeks before giving a response, but arose to address the group and firmly defended Ali ibn Abi Talib and the call was also spread. After feeling his words on the matter were clear, authoritative and did not leave room for doubt, he continued the Hajj. The issue there and then was closed, and finished [for anyone who respected the Prophet].

Quote
Then you desperately quote al-Mufid again, a man who gets his history from his local grocer.


al-Mufid relied on earlier historical works. You proudly have promoted the ’12 reasons to leave Shia Islam’ one of which claims our later scholars relied heavily on earlier historical works of he ‘Sunni’ historians. Shaykh al-Mufid again said  [Yes i’ll quote him, because he is just confirming the Shia understanding of the event, which conforms to rational sense] “… 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].

Let’s not get sidetracked nonetheless. I don’t engage in discussions of finding niche points here and there and all the subjective Jarh and Tadil.




Quote
3- You say because it's in the QUr'an doesn't mean the Prophet (saw) cannot reitirate, I say even if it's in the Sunnah the Prophet (Saw) is known to repeat and remind so there falls your argument. A couple of individuals came in and complained about `Ali, the Prophet (saw) got angry, stood up and addressed those individuals.

It has been proven that it was not ‘ a couple of individuals’ and that this is wishful thinking and a complete distortion of the text. At first he rebuked individuals with entirely unique comments, before arising to address a group of men, who did not live in a gas chamber and obviously would have had other men gathered around them, and some of many of the pilgrims who numbered in their tens of thousands to hear the judgement of the Prophet ﷺ on the matter. I did not say tens of thousand heard it, but that it was a densely packed location at the time, and that it is not rational to claim that people who were around the Prophet ﷺ did not witness him making this declaration.

If it is in the Quran, or the Sunnah, the Prophet ﷺ can obviously reiterate and explain it. However, you assume he needed to reiterate because he only addressed two people, i say the text and any honest reading of it would show after addressing people individually, he addressed a group of men,  and empathetically judge his judgement and the case was closed. There was no need to ‘repeat’ anything.

If we are to talk of repeating, for his whole Prophethood ﷺ, the Prophet ﷺ had already repeated the virtues of Ali in far more powerful terms than ‘friend’ or ‘beloved’.  Their problem was not they they doubted the high position of Ali, or his closeness to the Prophet ﷺ. They wanted to know if Ali had been unjust in his ijtihad on how to handle the Khums. The Prophet ﷺ in ibn Ishaq is said to have emphatically rebutted this issue head on.

In fact, the Sunni position would be substantiated if the Prophet ﷺ had said: “What do you have to say about a man who loves Allah and his apostle, and Allah and his apostle love him?”

Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 07:34:49 PM
4- You claim the Prophet (saw) wasn't wise to not address the entire army right away, I say you're not wise for claiming a Prophet of God isn't wise. He did address those who spoke to him directly and then went the extra mile at Ghadir. No harm done and the world doesn't revolve around `Ali and his sensitive feelings.

Brother you have taken my words wholly out of context. I did not claim the Prophet ﷺ was not wise. It claimed that it would not be wise for the Prophet to have seen thirty, fourty, let us say even a hundred men complaining about Ali, ignore their concerns, address one or two, and wait for two weeks before referring to it again. Rational sense dictates he would have addressed it to settle the matter, and so the minds of the people can focus on the Hajj. And we have demonstrated he addressed individuals, and then a group, and thus closed any room for doubt.

As for ‘Ali and his sensitive feelings’ this is a man who never allowed his anger to get in the way of his decision making , or his fear to ever overwhelm him. This is a man who was spat at by Amr at the battle of Khandaq, and instead of finishing him, decided to walk away, calm down, so he could return to kill him only when he knew it was not out of his ‘feelings’ but for the sake of Allah. We also find in another tradition the Prophet ﷺ was incensed and furious at those who made these claims about Ali supporting the argument [which already had a clear textual basis] that he found it pertinent to deal with the matter immediately, rather than two weeks later.

“The Prophet (ﷺ) dispatched two armies and put ‘Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of one of them, and Khalid bin Al-Walid in charge of the other. He said: “When there is fighting, then (the leader is) ‘Ali.” He said: “So ‘Ali conquered a fortress and took a slave girl. So Khalid sent me with a letter to the Prophet (ﷺ) complaining about him. So I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he read the letter and his color changed, then he said: ‘What is your view concerning one who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him.'” He said: “I said: ‘I seek refuge in Allah from the wrath of Allah and the anger of His Messenger, and I am but a Messenger.’ So he became silent.” [Tirmidhi, and yes i know there is a weakness the chain]


Quote
5- It's not up to you (who were not present nor did you witness) to decide that the situation was so chaotic and serious that it HAD to be dealt with on the spot by calling a major meeting of thousands of Muslims who are worshipping at Hajj to talk about `Ali's problem.

This is distortion about what i have said. The Prophet ﷺ does not need to ‘stop the worshippers’ to call them and address them. All he needs to do is when the men in horses come riding into Makkah , and we see voices against Ali start to be numerous, for him to rise up and address them, firmly supporting Ali - which he did as proven. The tradition in Ibn Ishaq from Abu Sa'id clearly states that Abu Sa'id saw that the army entered showing discontent, and that the men then complained to the Prophet ﷺ. The the discontent was so visible and obvious which is why Abu Sa'id noticed it.

 
Quote
Maybe nobody was in on it except the few individuals mentioned (who could be three, not sure why you're imagining a dramatic scene). Did the Prophet (saw) use a microphone or megaphone to announce perhaps and everyone heard? Was he standing on a tall Mimbar where everyone heard? Please enough of your baseless speculations. Heck if five men came around him, surrounding him and complaining, that is sufficient for anyone else to not have even heard or completely understood what they were talking about.

It has been proven this idea that ‘only few individuals’ were in on it is not rational nor supported by text. The Prophet ﷺ does not need to be on a Mimbar, or have a microphone for his voice to be elevated. I remember sitting in lecture theatres and there was no microphone whatsoever, and we could hear the speaker if he wished to boldly and loudly make a point. I don’t know why you’ve opted to raise points like this at all. You have assumed it was only a few individuals, and i have proven this is in fact, a baseless assertion which clearly goes against text and rational sense. The very fact the arose implies he physically positioned himself to talk to a group of people.


Quote
6- As for `Ali's praise, it's sufficient that some of his closest companions and soldiers (who lived in Madinah) never even heard of Ghadir until `Ali mentioned it a hundred days after Jamal. I think you assume too much about how news spreads and what kind of news spreads, of course people knew he was close to him but not all details were necessarily known except by those who witnessed them. It could be most of the 300 battalion were not aware of this or they heard it at the time and forgot.

Many of his closest companions were not even present during the declaration at Ghadir. Kumayl, Malik ibn Ashtar, Maytham, et al. Many of the companions by the time of Jamal which was almost three decades after Ghadir Khumm either died in the many wars, of old age, or were not present and may have been young or  forgot it. The very fact twelve men stood up right away [and remember, Ali ibn Abi Talib only asks for those who had seen and heard the Prophet ﷺ say it, and not heard it from someone else] it a pretty respectable number. The sheer number of chains for this event are an indication as to how it spread. There were at least thirty or forty thousand present.

As for the argument that many may not have been aware of the special position of Ali ibn Abi Talib this is not logical. If you imagine the fact the Muslims [of Medina] had heard Muhammed ﷺ say that the banner will be given to a man who loves Allah and his Prophet, and the Prophet ﷺ and Allah love him, and that victory will be granted through him - those are statements that would have spread across the army. We know that everyone in the army was hoping it would be them, because it would have been a significant honour. Then seeing him slaughter Hartih, slaughter Marhab who was a ferocious warrior, and lift the gate of Khaybar which forty men could not lift, are not just isolated events. They are rather feats of superhuman power, and not only did the army witness them, but when they got back home, there is no doubts the extraordinary feats of Ali ibn Abi Talib would have been a topic of much discussion.

We are not talking isolated praise and mediocre incidents. Rather, we are talking about acts of Ali which were so mesmerising, it would have been the talk of the town. Killing a man who was well known to be one of the fiercest warriors in Arabia - Amr bin Abdi Wud, being the one chosen to be given the banner, killing Harith and Marhab, lifting the gate of Khaybar with his own hands. Put aside the fact he was the husband of the daughter of the Prophet , people knew he was from his family, people had heard his praises and seen his acts and his status and closeness to the Prophet ﷺ should have been known to the vast majority.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 08:01:06 PM
Quote
7- Again with the hypocrites talk, I don't know if you read your own narrations but the people of Madinah are the worst hypocrites according to some Shia traditions. Heck they're the same people who ignored `Ali and accepted Abu Bakr's Caliphate. When `Ali as well as Fatimah at a later point asked them for help (acc to your narrations) they all abandonned them turned a blind eye. On top of it you have the narrations of the nation's apostasy except for 5-7 individuals that are quite explicit in your main books.

I am very aware of what is in our books and i have debated this particular point many times. You are taking two entirely different time periods and contexts and then juxtaposing them together. When the Imam said that those who fought Ali were worse than those who fought the Prophet ﷺ , he was making a few things clear:

1. When Makkah was still under the power of the polytheists such as Abu Sufiyan, and the others , before they converted at the very end, all those wars they fought the Prophet ﷺ were done by people who never accepted the Shahadah.

2. However, those who fought Ali had accepted the Shahadah, yet still disobeyed the Allah and his Prophet ﷺ.

3. You have confused the statement of the Imam claiming that the hypocrites of Makkah were better than those Medina after they had all accepted Islam, whereas the Imam is referring to before the Makkans had accepted Islam.

4. A number of those who were originally from Makkah were the ones who fought Ali as well! How can this be ? This is after they renounced their polytheism and recited the Shahdatayn.

On the alleged apostasy, i highly recommend you read the works of Islamic Salvation, who has addressed this issue in great depth. It is the best assessment of the traditions i have ever read, and a work of profound insight: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/blogs/entry/233-did-the-sahaba-become-kafir/

Let us try to limit how many topics we are going to debate in depth so i would rather discuss this in full depth at another time, but i have responded sufficiently.



Quote
So you're saying hypocrites are OK with actively spending their own money and giving their wealth to the Prophet (saw) as regular Zakat and Sadaqat BUT if `Ali was appointed as successor they'd be terribly upset? How would that change anything in the equation if they're planning on rebelling and apostating after his death (saw)?

I am claiming that Hypocrites will wait often wait for favourable circumstances before showing their hypocrisy. Someone can gladly give Zakat, and pray, and their words may please you, and they may recite the Quran beautifully, but as soon as you begin to talk about leadership, rule and authority, this can create opportunities for people to begin to spread rumours, accuse you of favouritism or keeping rule to your own family among other things. One of the very distinguishing factors about the Khawarij are that while they were happy to pray, fast, recite the Quran, the issue pertaining over leadership was of fundamental importance to them as well as accepting anyone other than the Prophet ﷺ.

On one hand, you had the Banu Ummayah who were sworn enemies of the Banu Hashim. They loathed them so much so, Ali was cursed on the Pulpits when M'uawiyah was the Caliph. Before M'uawiyah became Caliph, he fought Ali in two civil wars, refused to give the rightful Caliph ownership and control of Sham, which in those days was a massive amount of land encompassing four or five countries today. He then forced Hasan ibn Ali into a peace treaty, threatened Hussain ibn Ali into giving Bayah [which he and some others refused], and this was concluded by Yazid ibn M'uawiyah being the root cause for the slaughter of Hussain ibn Ali. One must not underestimate tribal schisms and jealousy.  Let us put aside Ali ibn Abi Talib was responsible for slaughtering many of their family members at several of the battles.

You then had men even within Medina who looked at Ali and saw they were older, or more experienced, or had a Jealousy of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Jealousy turned even Shaytan, who was an ardent worshipper of Allah, the Almighty, into one of the most wicked. Imagine, Iblis was a Jinn who worshipped and was exalted to the assembly of angels.  All he was asked was to submit to the authority and superiority of Adam over him, and jealousy and pride caused him to turn away.

Others may have felt the Prophet ﷺ was trying to keep rule and power in his own family, by favouring his cousin. How many times do we find in many countries today , when one family member decides their brother should be the ruler, it outrages people.

The seat of the Prophet ﷺ was a powerful one, and power can turn even the best men into something else. We have seen this occur a countless number of times in history. Saqifah demonstrated the chaotic power struggle and vying for power. Yes, i am aware you have written a book, but i don't think anyone who is honest can deny what it really was. And yes, i know some of the traditions in Tabari about the Ansaar wanting to make Ali the leader are weak.

There were also clearly many who became apostate in the Ridda wars, who accepted the rule and authority of the Prophet ﷺ, gave Zakat, but were under the impression that once he died, that was the end of their pact with him. The Ridda wars were brutal and people were apostatising from Yemen, T'aif, Oman, and many other places.

I really could go on and on, but i don't want to overwhelm you with sheer volume and to keep my posts to what i deem concise.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 08:28:35 PM
8- `Umar's speech was not simply about the mode of how to choose a leader, he hadn't even decided on a specific way at the time. His speech was supposed to be a refutation and a criticism of the individuals who wanted to rush and appoint `Ali. This would have created misundertsaindg and possibly caused those individuals harm if hooligans heard of it.

The reality of the matter is, Umar ibn al Khattab wanted to make an important declaration about the fact people after him must elect people via Shurah. He wanted to warn the people about rushing to choose others without doing so, and that whoever does so will be killed. This is a very important message, but he realised that at Hajj , in Makkah, people can hear his statement and start to spread lies about it, assumptions he did not make, misconceptions, or accuse him of certain things. He knew that the people who would best understand and implement his message at the people of Medina.

Similarly, the Prophet ﷺ was in a position whereby he knew that at Makkah, there were many hypocrites, people who may not have recognised the true Status of Ali, and those who would have accused him and lied upon him. He saw people from around Arabia, and those in Makkah, and no doubt there existed hypocrites from Medina. This is what made his chest tighten and made him concerned. So we find he declared it to a crowd i can concede would have comprised mainly of the Muslims of Medina, and some of those also travelling north of Makkah.

We know that the only group who has ever elected the first group of successors after the Prophet ﷺ actually comprised of people from the Muhajirun and Ansaar, and then after that, the rest of the nation had to obey was was decided. So if the Prophet ﷺ declared Ali infant of a  crowd of the Muhajirun and Ansar, who he knew would be the most influential group in Arabia for time to come, that was sufficient. If they knew his message, and heard it, and conveyed it to those absent, there would not be doubt. However, the reality is there existed hypocrites even from among those in Medina, but the situation was more grave in Makkah.

Quote
9- Your point that you keep repeating, accusing the entire nation of lack of faith and hypocricy except Madanis is still useless, that won't change if you keep repeating it. 

I adjure you by Allah to take this statement back, for i have never made it. What i said was there existed a greater proportion of hypocrites and trouble makers among the people of Makkah, and some of the surrounding regions, than those of Medina. Not only that, there existed people who would not have properly known of the virtues of Ali, were only freshly Muslims and would not have appreciated the declaration and assumed one thing or another. I have also been clear that among the people of Medina existed hypocrites. However, the people most likely who would have distorted, twisted and misunderstood his message - as well as understood it but rebelled out of hypocrisy, were in Makkah , and gathered from regions in and around Arabia.

Quote
According to your fabricated religion, Imamah is an essential tenet of Islamic faith, it is inexcusable to keep the majority of Muslims oblivious to this major matter simply because there were hypocrites among them.

If you had studied our 'fabricated' religion you would have known our official position is Wilayah and Imamah are in the Quran. The Prophet ﷺ is the one who expounds on them and tells who the designated leaders are.  Furthermore, the Prophet not making a statement in front of a group does not mean it will not reach them. Are you aware that  the vast majority of the Sunnah for people living in Makkah, in and around Arabia and other locations in the empire was obtained from the primary narrators in Medina? They took almost all of their religion from them, while the Prophet had never directly and verbally told them anything. So this idea the Prophet has to tell you something directly for him to have done his job is weak, and can not be used.


Quote
His job is to announce the religion, not be afraid of pagans and hypocrites, the QUr;an says "Whoever wishes can believe and whoever wishes can disbelieve". This narration of yours on how the people would have apostated upon `Ali's appointment was stupid to say the least and is probably invented by a simple Iraqi in the desert that managed to fool you and your society to this day.

I have mentioned this before. The Prophet ﷺ for the vast majority of his life, dealt with the non-muslims. While he was faced with hypocrites in his own nation, the biggest threat for most if his prophethood were external enemies. However, when he realised that the very sensitive, and highly divisive issue of leadership after him would cause great internal friction, this worried him.

Why ? Because it is one thing when your enemy is external, but when the enemy becomes internal, it causes far more worry and concern. He was not scared of delivering the message, he would have done so, and he only hesitated. He was not ordered to do it, but knew he had to. When the verse came down to proclaim it, he obliged right away.

By the way, the majority of the companions had barely seen the Prophet ﷺ, and converted only at the very end. Many of them were ignorant of the truth, and we do not pass judgement on the bulk of them.  Many had freshly converted and returned to their lands. Many were women and children , and elderly, and those with no real power or influence.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 23, 2017, 08:33:02 PM
Quote
You say he (saw) didn't hold-off, I say according to your narrations he did in fact do that and he did it for the most nonsensical reason that does not fit his character. I like to ask is there a precedent to this? Please inform me of any precedents when the Prophet (saw) ignored an important religious law until he was threatened by his Lord out of fear that people may accuse him of being a liar. Heck, the story of Isra' wal-Mi`raj itself refutes this when he went and told PAGANS and new Muslims that he traveled on a heavenly creature in one night and back, he didn't care about being called a liar nor did he care that some people apostated as a result.

The Prophet ﷺ never ignored an important religious law. He knew he had to deliver it, but the choice of when was up to him. After seeing the worry in his heart and concern, the verses were revealed to give him confidence, strength and a firm time to deliver the message and he obliged.  There is a big difference between polytheists accusing you of lying - the enemy that is external which saddened him, and  your own community breaking up and the enemy now being internal. By attacking the enemy, the Ummah can still remain intact. But by knowing something may cause friction in your own community, this causes much more concern.

There's an African proverb which says : "If there's no enemy within, the enemy outside can do us no harm"
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: MuslimK on November 24, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
The Shia as usual make lots of assumptions that there were many hypocrites and that etc instead of providing academic evidence and response - as if he knows what was in the heart of large number of people while the Prophet (saw) had no clue.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: MuslimK on November 24, 2017, 12:42:53 AM
Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:24:49 AM
The Shia as usual make lots of assumptions that there were many hypocrites and that etc instead of providing academic evidence and response - as if he knows what was in the heart of large number of people while the Prophet (saw) had no clue.

I provided an incredible amount of evidence, narrations, and clear and rational logic. If you read brother Hanis arguments against me, i will not put him down in any way, but any objective reader can clearly see they have been addressed robustly. I give credit where it is due, and there are some articles on here that make me question and do make me think harder , but everything i have been met with so far has been addressed.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:33:34 AM
Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?

Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?

Imam Shafie' estimated half of all of the companions by the end of the life of the Prophet ﷺ were from Medina. We know how many there had been at the farewell Hajj [90-120 thousand] and so i placed my estimate on the lower end of that, just to allow margin for error. While Imam Shafie' underestimated the total number of companions, i agree with how he has divided the proportion of the companions. I have not even factored in for the many who were not from Medina but also travelling north.

Here is my source brother:  [al-Dhahabi’s Tajrid Asmaa al-Sahaba and Ibn Kathir’s Ikhtisar ‘Uloum al-Hadith] where they cite Imam Shafi' claiming half of the companions at the time of the passing away of the Prophet ﷺ were from Medina, and half from outside of it.

Tens of thousands can also refer to forty or fifty thousand.  Realistically if you take into account the people of Medina and those going North in the same direction, there is an argument it could even have been sixty or seventy thousand.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: MuslimK on November 24, 2017, 11:32:19 AM
I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 24, 2017, 12:23:59 PM
This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 01:57:17 PM
This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

Would you like a debate on Ghadeer Khumm?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 24, 2017, 02:07:13 PM
This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

Would you like a debate on Ghadeer Khumm?

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:11:25 PM
I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.

Brother, it is not questionable at all. Reliable sources tell us that around 100,000 or more were present at the farewell Hajj. Instead of claiming that number were present to witness the proclamation of the Prophet, all i have said is that we know from a number of sources Medinans at the time comprised of half of those Muslims and half of the representation at Hajj. Imam Shafi'e, one of the main four Imams, believed this. Furthermore, it was not only the Medinians, who travelled North, but also those in Northern tribes. We can assume safely that the number would have been around 40,0000 or 50,0000. Unless you have sources that prove otherwise, which i would be happy to accept and concede.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:13:48 PM

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?

From the beginning. Let us make a debate thread on this forum , and have a one on one debate so others do not dilute our conversation. Not only have i read that article several times, i have read variants of it , and i have spent years reflecting on it.

I will leave the ball in your court dear brother, if you would like a robust debate on this issue. It will be respectful, and maybe you will convince me or maybe i will convince you. Or perhaps, we may both leave with a better understanding of the view of the other.

What do you say?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 24, 2017, 02:19:48 PM

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?

From the beginning. Let us make a debate thread on this forum , and have a one on one debate so others do not dilute our conversation. Not only have i read that article several times, i have read variants of it , and i have spent years reflecting on it.

I will leave the ball in your court dear brother, if you would like a robust debate on this issue. It will be respectful, and maybe you will convince me or maybe i will convince you. Or perhaps, we may both leave with a better understanding of the view of the other.

What do you say?

You haven't answered my other questions. Please answer them, because it's hard these days for me to indulge in a debate due to lack of free time.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:23:15 PM


You haven't answered my other questions. Please answer them, because it's hard these days for me to indulge in a debate due to lack of free time.

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

I understand real life can sometimes be busy, and it should take priority. However, any debate we have can be over a few months. You can post once a week, and i can reply and wait for you until you are ready. I will ultimately respect your wish however.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:32:33 PM
I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.

If brother Noor does not wish to debate me, then as the owner of the first Sunni website dedicated to Ghadir Khumm, i challenge you to a respectful debate on the matter. What do you have to say regarding this brother?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 24, 2017, 02:33:47 PM

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on November 24, 2017, 02:38:28 PM

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

I understand what you are asking brother. What i essentially am saying is, given we have published a rebuttal on our website [] , and have been debated Hani and others on the contents of the website, and broken down that article and the classical Sunni response, rather than repeating myself again, it would be easier to either refer you to read the debate i have had on here , and refer to the rebuttal on the website. You could also engage in a debate or dialogue , and it could be over a week, four weeks , months or any time period that is most suitable for you. We could go point by point through that article. I need to assist with some real life matters, i will be publishing the full response on TSN soon, and summarise the main points for you as well, InshAllah.

However, most of what is in that article is highly suspect and questionable. The one part i will accept is that those from Makkah and from southern Arabia probably did not accompany the Prophet ﷺ up to Ghadir Khumm. This has little bearing on the issue however.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hani on November 24, 2017, 02:42:30 PM
There we go again with the newspapers, ok either you write ONE post and summarize your points or someone else can bother reading and responding.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on November 24, 2017, 02:45:40 PM

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

I understand what you are asking brother. What i essentially am saying is, given we have published a rebuttal on our website [] , and have been debated Hani and others on the contents of the website, and broken down that article and the classical Sunni response, rather than repeating myself again, it would be easier to either refer you to read the debate i have had on here , and refer to the rebuttal on the website. You could also engage in a debate or dialogue , and it could be over a week, four weeks , months or any time period that is most suitable for you. We could go point by point through that article. I need to assist with some real life matters, i will be publishing the full response on TSN soon, and summarise the main points for you as well, InshAllah.

However, most of what is in that article is highly suspect and questionable. The one part i will accept is that those from Makkah and from southern Arabia probably did not accompany the Prophet ﷺ up to Ghadir Khumm. This has little bearing on the issue however.

I don't think you discussed with hani regarding the article of youpuncturedtheark. It's a different article. And I'm not convinced with your response.

So again, I ask a simple question, which I'm interested in discussing.

[quoteI like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 25, 2017, 01:39:39 PM
These are two entirely different scenarios. Imam al-Mahdi was not in charge of an entire community , nor the political leader of any region or location.

As expected, your answer would be "two different scenarios". However, how does the "diffrent scenario" your 12th imam lived in do not require anybody be a leader while he is away? What an irony since you claimed Prophet (saw) left Ali behind to lead "not-an-entire-community"* in Madinah while he (saw) was TEMPORARILY away.

*"Not-an-entire-community" since tens-of-thousands others followed Prophet (saw) to Tabuk.

You know what. Surely your 12th imam did not in charge of an entire community. But he certainly in-charged of his own followers. It was still a group that need someone to lead. Ironically, leaving behind his group with no leader is perfectly make sense from his perspective and in contrary to your claim about Prophet (saw).

The ones ruling were an oppressive regime, such that he and his follower were often shunned into secrecy out fear of being murdered.

Being in secrecy does not require a leader to lead the followers? Another logical fallacy here. By the way, do not say that the 12th Imam is the leader because he, in reality, does not lead.

Muhammed[saw] on the other hand, presided over an Ummah that was barely in its infancy, with external enemies waiting to attack, several hypocrite tribes in every region. He was the one people turned  to for everything, and had far more power, influence and control over the Arabian Peninsula. If he were to pass away it would indeed have been an enormous power gap.

Unfortunately for you, history has shown that there was no power gap happened. Not more than 24 hours after the death of Prophet (saw), a leader was selected. And that leader (and the one after him) brought Islam to next level unparallel to the human history i.e. "steamrolling" the 2 superpowers of that time and brought Islam beyond to the world. Hence, your "hypothesis" with regard to so-called concerns of Prophet (saw) above is truly baseless and unfounded.

However, we do not find him -as per the Sunni view- stating that 'you choose amongst yourselves who your leader will be', nor appointing anyone himself. It was dead silence. For Imam al-Mahdi, after he appointed his representatives, he clearly stated no-one will be an official representative and that he is entering into the longer Ghaybah. He still remains the Imam of the time, mind, but circumstances are earth and sky between this, and what was the political scenario at the time of the Prophet [saw]. There was total silence [allegedly] on part of the Prophet [saw], but clear words from Imam Mahdi about the issue of succession.

Thank you, Sir. You are just refuting yourself here. The whole point of your argument in that article was that "it make more sense for a leader leaving his followers behind with somebody in-charged of them". You argued that the current leader should either:
1) pointed out who should be in charged; or
2) the least, tell his followers how to select a leader.

And by you to say that the mahdi "clearly stated no-one will be an official representative and that he is entering into the longer Ghaybah" shows it does make sense for a leader to leave behind his followers without anybody in-charged of them.

What an irony!

Just to add, we also made a note that even if you do not believe he should have appointed anyone, surely he would have made a reference to the people that they must choose amongst themselves? He does not have to appoint like the first Caliph did, but he can organise a Shurah like the second one had done. Even if you claim he did not want to set the terms for the Shurah, he could have at least declared he was passing away, and it was of utmost importance for the Muslims to engage in consultation, and that leadership must to go the Q'uraysh and only they must be made candidates for leadership. Yet again - there is nothing but silence.

Silence from Prophet (saw) was not ok but silence from 12th imam was ok, really?

I stress this point again. Prophet (saw) was silent but the ummah had a new leader in less than 24 hours. A proper leader who took Islam to the world and left nothing for himself. Whereas 12th Imam clearly stated no one should lead after him. No wonder Sunnis became a world power whereas Shias have to wait for Khumaini to wake them up from dream.

Note: We believe that Prophet (saw) did not totally silent with regard to leadership after him. He (saw) did give hints who should the ummah choose after him and that hint led to Abu Bakr.

Please remember, your article was about logical argument on the premise that "it makes more sense for a leader having someone in-charged after him". Your 12th imam is an antithesis of your own argument.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 27, 2017, 12:43:03 PM
Please remember, your article was about logical argument on the premise that "it makes more sense for a leader having someone in-charged after him". Your 12th imam is an antithesis of your own argument.
Thats why i love shia imamah & ghayba, because shia early belief contradicts the latter. Let shia talks eventually he will refutes himself 😂
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 27, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
@whoaretheshia

You forgot to put the following hadith inside your article entitled "How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic Sunni traditions?" This is the strongest proof of how Ali understood Ghadeer as not meant for leadership:

Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

'Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of the Prophet during his fatal ailment. The people asked ('Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Apostle 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 Apostle 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 Apostle 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 Apostle for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Apostle for it."

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 282 (see also Hadith No 728, Volume 5, Book 59)


The above conversation happened just a few days before the death of Prophet (saw) and definitely after the event of Ghadeer itself.

As clearly seen from the hadith, without any shadow of doubt, neither Ali [in red] nor Abbas [in blue] understood that the event in Ghadeer was about Ali's appointment as the leader after Prophet (saw). Hence, it makes more sense that at Ghadeer, Prophet (saw) was addressing the issue of hateful speech against Ali by his soldiers who dissatisfied with Ali's action in Yemen.

You can now close your poorly written article forever.

CASE CLOSED.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Hadrami on November 29, 2017, 09:27:19 AM
smackdown 😂
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 29, 2017, 11:44:45 AM
His response will be the same as always:

Such narrations are not hujah on me. Any narration that supports the Kufr narrative (Shia), then they'll be in full agreement with us.

I genuinely ask the question, if they're not going to comment, or refute opposing narrations, then how do they expect us to take them seriously?
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 29, 2017, 04:18:29 PM
His response will be the same as always:

Such narrations are not hujah on me. Any narration that supports the Kufr narrative (Shia), then they'll be in full agreement with us.

No, he couldn't do that since I was referring to his article entitled:

"How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic Sunni traditions?"

He also claimed in his website of the following:

"This page is dedicated to providing quality, highly researched*, and academic responses to refutations against Shia Islam and Shia beliefs. We understand the need to be honest about what sources we use, because it is essential not to be disingenuous, nor twist traditions or force meaning where there is not any. We are not intending to convert Sunni muslims into Shia muslims. Our aim is to present to you the fundamental aspects of our beliefs and to defend our creed. You the reader, are thus armed with accurate information about what we believe and can make your own informed judgement."

If he is true to those many claims, he should have included that hadith in his article since it is from the most authentic book of Sunni traditions i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari.


*highly researched - I doubted it very much since it just needs nobody like me to point out how terrible his research is.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Optimus Prime on November 29, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
No, he couldn't do that since I was referring to his article entitled:

"How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic Sunni traditions?"

He also claimed in his website of the following:

"This page is dedicated to providing quality, highly researched*, and academic responses to refutations against Shia Islam and Shia beliefs. We understand the need to be honest about what sources we use, because it is essential not to be disingenuous, nor twist traditions or force meaning where there is not any. We are not intending to convert Sunni muslims into Shia muslims. Our aim is to present to you the fundamental aspects of our beliefs and to defend our creed. You the reader, are thus armed with accurate information about what we believe and can make your own informed judgement."

If he is true to those many claims, he should have included that hadith in his article since it is from the most authentic book of Sunni traditions i.e. Sahih Al-Bukhari.


*highly researched - I doubted it very much since it just needs nobody like me to point out how terrible his research is.

Let's watch this space...
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: whoaretheshia on June 11, 2019, 01:44:02 PM
@whoaretheshia

You forgot to put the following hadith inside your article entitled "How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic Sunni traditions?" This is the strongest proof of how Ali understood Ghadeer as not meant for leadership:

Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

'Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of the Prophet during his fatal ailment. The people asked ('Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Apostle 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 Apostle 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 Apostle 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 Apostle for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Apostle for it."

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 282 (see also Hadith No 728, Volume 5, Book 59)


The above conversation happened just a few days before the death of Prophet (saw) and definitely after the event of Ghadeer itself.

As clearly seen from the hadith, without any shadow of doubt, neither Ali [in red] nor Abbas [in blue] understood that the event in Ghadeer was about Ali's appointment as the leader after Prophet (saw). Hence, it makes more sense that at Ghadeer, Prophet (saw) was addressing the issue of hateful speech against Ali by his soldiers who dissatisfied with Ali's action in Yemen.

You can now close your poorly written article forever.

CASE CLOSED.

Salam,

If engaging in dialogue was as easy as just quoting ones own traditions, TSN itself would be run out of business. There is a principle when you engage with your interlocutor in that you demonstrate their sources are inconsistent and in that inconsistency some truth has been retained which should be clear.

When TSN engages with Jafferi Muslims, they use our own sources to try to show inconsistency and demonstrate how part of our works preserved the truth, supports their position, whereas others have not.

When we Muslims engage with non-Muslims, such as Christians, we seek to use their own scriptures to show flavours of truth which have remained and are clear, despite the further interpolations.

It is a well established principle of debating and dialogue.
Title: Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
Post by: Soccer on June 22, 2021, 09:25:15 PM
I read the thread. Oh, and you got beat here too. No wonder you guys well all silent mode HAHA.