`Umar the Khalifah says: `Ali is my Mawla

[whoaretheshia]

The actual meaning of 'Mawla' and the public gathering/assembly and the planned and organised event of 'Ghadeer' is crystal clear. The purpose of Ghadeer and the meaning of Mawla has been undermined and under valued. Ghadeer was no unfortunate incident like Saqifa and the meaning of Mawla is not immature as the decision in Saqifa.

But people will continue to Mitigate the meaning of Mawla and the purpose of Ghadeer to give some kind of value and purpose to Saqifa. This is what it's exactly all about. The Prophet (s) didn't plan and organise such a mass gathering and a huge event as Ghadeer just for the reason to clear any misunderstanding about Ali or out of love and effection.

Have a look at our Ghadeer Khumm rebuttal:


Analysis of the declaration:

[VI-A Awla]:

[VI-B Mawla]:

[VI-C] A holistic assessment of ‘Munkuntum Mawla’: h


The true meaning of ‘Mawla’ within the context of Ghadeer Khumm is a topic of fierce debate. You find a number of Sunni scholars and individuals publishing refutations in books or online claiming that the word has well over a dozen meanings. They therefore state: ‘why would the Prophet ﷺ use a word that is so vast in meaning? After all, Mawla can even mean slave.’

To this we respond that anyone who uses such an argument is not being intellectually honest. When the Prophet ﷺ clearly states ‘Whomsoevers Mawla I am’ it obviously he does not mean slave, and the majority of the meanings of Mawla can automatically be discarded, leaving only a few main contenders. The two would either be Master/Authority over/More worthy over in authority,  or possibly ally, or friend.

Unfortunately, you find articles published online which seek to try to put forward he idea that Mawla in its root means beloved, or indicates closeness. This is another dishonest attempt at misinterpreting the real meaning of the word and we will demonstrate this by consulting well respected Arab grammarians in the Sunni world.

1. In the famous Lisan Al-Arab dictionary [1] it states: he author of Lisan ul-Arab says: “Sibawayh says, “Wilaya stands for the guardianship of someone; taking charge of his “affairs and fulfilling his needs. The mawla (guardian) of a woman is he who undertakes the responsibility of contracting marriage on her behalf; she cannot get married without his agreement. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says: (For women who got married without the permission of their guardians, their marriage is invalid.) Thus, the real meaning of this word (mawla) is to take charge of a matter and to carry it out. The various uses of the expression simply express this basic fact, such as saying the word ‘man’ for Zayd, Amr and Bakr. Allah is called Mawla because He is the ruler of the affairs of Man.

2. Az-Zajjaj and al-Farra’ said, as mentioned in al-Fakhr ar-Razi’s book At-Tafsir [2] that “Mawla means worthier.” It was mentioned that Abul-Abbas al- Mubarrid had said that Mawla means worthier and most deserving..

3. Some senior scholars have discussed this subject in their books. Abu Ubayda says in his book Ghareebul-Qur’an [3]: “Mawla means worthier.”

4. Abdul-Malik bin Marwan as his evidence: “Al-Anbari said in his book Tafsirul-Mushkil fil-Qur’an [4]: “Mawla means the worthier.”

5. And Zamakshari, the famous Sunni scholar, combines both meaning in the following: “Az-Zamakhshari said in his Tafsir [5]:  “In fact, Mawla means your place, where it would be better for you to be. [a worthier place]“

6. Al-Halabi, in his book At-Taqrib [6], said: “Mawla, in fact, means worthier and the other expressions are derived from it. The master is a mawla because he is worthier to manage his slaves’ affairs and to bear with their faults. The slave is a mawla because he is worthier to obey his master. So too are the freed slave,the helper who is more worthy of helping whom he helps, the ally to be more worthy of supporting his allies, the neighbour to be more worthy of helping his neighbour and defending him, the son-in-law to be more worthy of his relatives, the imam to be more worthy of whom he leads and the cousin to be more worthy of helping his cousins.” Since the word (Mawla) means worthier, there is no excuse to turn it away from its real meaning and seek other ones.

We find that in the following tradition narrated in Musnad Ahmad [7] , Ali ibn Abi Talib himself interpreted ‘Mawla’ to mean master, and this tradition and its implications will be discussed in the very next section, and we highly recommend all readers to see what we have to say about it:

Rabah bin al-Harith said: ‘A group of men passed by Ali in Rahba and they said: ‘Peace be upon you our master (Maula). ‘He (Ali) said: how can I be your master (Maula) and you are Arab?’ They replied: ‘We heard Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) state on the day of Ghadir: ‘Of whomsoever I am his master (Maula) then this (Ali) is his master (Maula)’. Rabah said: ‘When they left, I followed them and asked (people): ‘Who are they?’ They answered: ‘They are group from Ansar and Abu Ayub al-Ansari is among them”. Shu’aib al-Arnaoot said: ‘The chain is Sahih’

Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام  had been present in front of at least tens of thousands, if not an audience which neared the high five figures and would have clearly remembered Ghadir Khumm where he had been addressed as the Mawla over all of the believers. So it is worthy of note he immediately assumes the meaning of Mawla here means master and questions how he could be the Mawla if they were not slaves, but Arab (meaning free men). As we will discuss later on, this was an incredibly clever use of rhetoric by Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام to test the small group of Ansaar, among whom was Abu Ayub al-Ansari, who is respected as a righteous companion in Shia Islam. While we will discuss the full context and meaning of this tradition in a later segment, it suffices that we have demonstrated Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام  understanding the meaning as master – something of great significance.

 

References:

[1] Lisan Al-Arab.

[2] al-Fakhr ar-Razi At-Tafsir, vol. 29 p. 227, Egyptian edition.

[3] Abu Ubayda, Ghareebul-Qur’an.

[4] Al-Anbari , Tafsirul-Mushkil fil-Qur’an.

[5] Zamakshari, Tafsir, vol. 4 p. 66, Egyptian edition.

[6] Al-Halabi, At-Taqrib.

[7] Musnad Ahmad, Volume 38 page 54.

[whoaretheshia]

But if you believe this narration may have false attribution to Umar RA and was made up by shia to promote their imamah belief, that theory works against you, because it confirm what sunni scholars have been saying that shia made up lots of stuff and attribute it to anyone to promote shiism.

Dear brother, liars existed among both the Sunni and the Shia. There are those who lied in praise of the Khalifahs. There are those who exaggerated certain statements about the Aimmah, going into excess and being rightly condemned and weakened. The theory does not work against me because all i have said is common fact that can apply to all groups, and one we have acknowledged which is why you see so many of the Ghulat weakened and condemned in our books of Rijal.

[Hadrami]

But if you believe this narration may have false attribution to Umar RA and was made up by shia to promote their imamah belief, that theory works against you, because it confirm what sunni scholars have been saying that shia made up lots of stuff and attribute it to anyone to promote shiism.

Dear brother, liars existed among both the Sunni and the Shia. There are those who lied in praise of the Khalifahs. There are those who exaggerated certain statements about the Aimmah, going into excess and being rightly condemned and weakened. The theory does not work against me because all i have said is common fact that can apply to all groups, and one we have acknowledged which is why you see so many of the Ghulat weakened and condemned in our books of Rijal.

Yes, but whats the point of making it up when it is known what sunni believe what mawla is in this case? If there was an additional word like leadership or imamah in that narration then your theory maybe possible.

[whoaretheshia]

But if you believe this narration may have false attribution to Umar RA and was made up by shia to promote their imamah belief, that theory works against you, because it confirm what sunni scholars have been saying that shia made up lots of stuff and attribute it to anyone to promote shiism.

Dear brother, liars existed among both the Sunni and the Shia. There are those who lied in praise of the Khalifahs. There are those who exaggerated certain statements about the Aimmah, going into excess and being rightly condemned and weakened. The theory does not work against me because all i have said is common fact that can apply to all groups, and one we have acknowledged which is why you see so many of the Ghulat weakened and condemned in our books of Rijal.

Yes, but whats the point of making it up when it is known what sunni believe what mawla is in this case? If there was an additional word like leadership or imamah in that narration then your theory maybe possible.

But if you believe this narration may have false attribution to Umar RA and was made up by shia to promote their imamah belief, that theory works against you, because it confirm what sunni scholars have been saying that shia made up lots of stuff and attribute it to anyone to promote shiism.

Dear brother, liars existed among both the Sunni and the Shia. There are those who lied in praise of the Khalifahs. There are those who exaggerated certain statements about the Aimmah, going into excess and being rightly condemned and weakened. The theory does not work against me because all i have said is common fact that can apply to all groups, and one we have acknowledged which is why you see so many of the Ghulat weakened and condemned in our books of Rijal.

Yes, but whats the point of making it up when it is known what sunni believe what mawla is in this case? If there was an additional word like leadership or imamah in that narration then your theory maybe possible.

I am not claiming it was made up. However, i just question how someone could regard a narration that is almost a dozen narrators long, with six Shia narrators making statements about Umar ibn al-Khattab glorifying Ali ibn Abi Talib as unquestionably accurate.   Someone could easily have put in 'Ali is the Mawla of every believer'.  Remember, you even find Shia's quoting the congratulations Umar ibn al-Khattab gave to Ali at Ghadeer which is weak due to Tadlis. You yourself regard it as good evidence, and those who used it from the Shia side thought likewise.

[Hadrami]

I am not claiming it was made up. However, i just question how someone could regard a narration that is almost a dozen narrators long, with six Shia narrators making statements about Umar ibn al-Khattab glorifying Ali ibn Abi Talib as unquestionably accurate.   Someone could easily have put in 'Ali is the Mawla of every believer'.  Remember, you even find Shia's quoting the congratulations Umar ibn al-Khattab gave to Ali at Ghadeer which is weak due to Tadlis. You yourself regard it as good evidence, and those who used it from the Shia side thought likewise.

OK, if thats not what you claim & it was just a question then be precise. Do you believe Umar RA congratulated Ali RA or not?

[whoaretheshia]

I am not claiming it was made up. However, i just question how someone could regard a narration that is almost a dozen narrators long, with six Shia narrators making statements about Umar ibn al-Khattab glorifying Ali ibn Abi Talib as unquestionably accurate.   Someone could easily have put in 'Ali is the Mawla of every believer'.  Remember, you even find Shia's quoting the congratulations Umar ibn al-Khattab gave to Ali at Ghadeer which is weak due to Tadlis. You yourself regard it as good evidence, and those who used it from the Shia side thought likewise.

OK, if thats not what you claim & it was just a question then be precise. Do you believe Umar RA congratulated Ali RA or not?

The tradition is weak from a Sunni standpoint and there is no way of authenticating it from a Shia standpoint. I say it does not matter whether he did or not.

However the proof Shia's tend to want to use that tradition , despite Sunni's claiming it supports their view is good evidence to suggest it may be that a Shia [one of the six in the chain] could have fabricated and interpolated the tradition , believing it would suit him, but in effect, may be used in an entirely different way.

Fabricators exist among the Sunni and the Shia, so this does not weaken any one group. It is just objectivity.  I don't think anyone should be claiming that Hadith [in the original post] is the best evidence we have as to how early Muslims understood the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm.

[Hadrami]

I am not claiming it was made up. However, i just question how someone could regard a narration that is almost a dozen narrators long, with six Shia narrators making statements about Umar ibn al-Khattab glorifying Ali ibn Abi Talib as unquestionably accurate.   Someone could easily have put in 'Ali is the Mawla of every believer'.  Remember, you even find Shia's quoting the congratulations Umar ibn al-Khattab gave to Ali at Ghadeer which is weak due to Tadlis. You yourself regard it as good evidence, and those who used it from the Shia side thought likewise.

OK, if thats not what you claim & it was just a question then be precise. Do you believe Umar RA congratulated Ali RA or not?

The tradition is weak from a Sunni standpoint and there is no way of authenticating it from a Shia standpoint. I say it does not matter whether he did or not.

However the proof Shia's tend to want to use that tradition , despite Sunni's claiming it supports their view is good evidence to suggest it may be that a Shia [one of the six in the chain] could have fabricated and interpolated the tradition , believing it would suit him, but in effect, may be used in an entirely different way.

Fabricators exist among the Sunni and the Shia, so this does not weaken any one group. It is just objectivity.  I don't think anyone should be claiming that Hadith [in the original post] is the best evidence we have as to how early Muslims understood the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm.

Its not just about this hadith, shia use other similar ahadith and assume it proves sahaba acknowledged divine imamah of Ali RA when instead it just show how they respected Ali RA, not a bunch of people who slander him, usurped him etc.

[iceman]

The actual meaning of 'Mawla' and the public gathering/assembly and the planned and organised event of 'Ghadeer' is crystal clear. The purpose of Ghadeer and the meaning of Mawla has been undermined and under valued. Ghadeer was no unfortunate incident like Saqifa and the meaning of Mawla is not immature as the decision in Saqifa.

But people will continue to Mitigate the meaning of Mawla and the purpose of Ghadeer to give some kind of value and purpose to Saqifa. This is what it's exactly all about. The Prophet (s) didn't plan and organise such a mass gathering and a huge event as Ghadeer just for the reason to clear any misunderstanding about Ali or out of love and effection.

Mass gathering? LOL! Yeah right. Mass gathering was at Arafat, when the Prophet (SAW) reminded the people of the fundamentals of the Deen. Most of the Ummah were present, and was the perfect setting to nominate his successor!

Keep deluding yourself ice-dude!

I'm sure you can give me a better response then that. Why are you always looking at perfect settings, why does Allah and his Messenger need perfect settings or standards according to your desire? But there is a very important point you've touched on here, the point you've made about mass gathering and Arafat and you call it a perfect setting to nominate a successor, my question to you is, well what about Saqifa? Where exactly was the PERFECT SETTING AND STANDARD there? You don't need mass gathering or a perfect setting when it comes to Saqifa [choosing a successor to Muhammad and a leader for the Ummah].

You don't question about mass gathering and perfect setting and standard when it comes to Saqifa. Here it is all about protecting and defending. But when it comes to Ghadeer, suspicion is raised and you cast doubt by various questions. When it comes to the Shaykhain or where they are invoved, that's fine. But when it comes to the Messenger , we suddenly have ifs and buts. What exactly was the gathering at Ghadeer? Why and how was this event staged? Give me this rather than "keep deluding yourself ice dude". You sound like a teenager or childish. I'm sure you can do better.

Saqifa was an incident and Ghadeer was an event. What exactly was the gathering/assembly in Saqifa compared to Ghadeer? Lets see the % and the difference. We believe that a leader for the Ummah and a successor to the Prophet was chosen at the event of Ghadeer and by the Prophet himself. You believe that a leader for the Ummah and a successor to the Prophet was choosen at the incident of Saqifa. Compare the facts on them.

Perfect setting because everyone was doing Haj, and were in Ihram, and were on sacred soil, and the entire Ummah was there. So unquestionably it was the perfect setting yet the Prophet (SAW) was silent on his successor - go figure! Try to apply your mind for a change, and you must just comprende!

Comparing the incident Ghadir and Saqifah is retarded, and nonsensical. Saqifah was spur of the moment, where as Ghadir was planned by the Prophet (SAW). No one is denying that Ghadhir was an event, but your understanding of the event is upside down.

If thousands of people were gathered there, that means those Muslims not from Madinah & Makkah had to venture south from Makkah to a small pond to listen to the Prophet (SAW) make an announcement, and then do a u-turn all the way back from which they came, and then make their way back home. Basically doing extra mileage to hear an announcement, that could have been made in one of grandest of all places on Earth. The fact you consider the Prophet (SAW) would people through such hardship is an insult to the Prophet (SAW) himself. This shaitaani rationalising is Islamically unacceptable, and can only come from a Shia.
 
You believe whatever you want. Here are the facts:

- 'Ali was never appointed.
- 'Ali wasn't deserving to be appointed, as his superiors were alive.
- 'Ali was not worthy, or qualified to be appointed, as his superiors were still alive.

Start thinking with an open mind for a change and try to shake off that anti Shia mentality which refrains you from the truth. You think and speak as the disbelievers did or the way they raised suspicion and cast doubt on what Messengers/Prophets revealed and delivered. The Mushriks argued with the Prophet (s) that if there is a God, if Allah exists then why can't we see him? Ask your Lord to reveal himself.

You speak about Allah that if he wanted people to believe in divine guidance (Imamah) then why didn't he mention it in the Qoran in black and white. You speak about Muhammad (s) in a similar thought and manner that if he appointed a successor then why at the place of Ghadeer, why not select a perfect location. And you speak about Ali just with the same attitude and tone that if he was the true Imam then why did he fight for it by taking out the sword.

Excuses one after the other but no research, no looking into things. Believe me you have no understanding about Tawheed or Risalat, so how are you going to understand Imamah. Rather than discussing and then you boys throwing in ifs and buts, then bringing in other subjects and materials and things and threads going awol, I will post according to thread and subject then you can refute it.