Hadith Ghadir: Explicit designation?

Reposted

---

Assalamulakm,

JazakAllah for answering my questions from last time. Here's are some hadiths that I want to show you and get your opinion on. These are sunni references. JazakAllah:

Hasan ibn Al-Hasan:
فقال له الرافضي ألم يقل رسول الله عليه السلام لعلي من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه؟ فقال أما والله أن لو يعني بذلك الامرة والسلطان لأفصح لهم بذلك كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت ولقال لهم أيها الناس هذا وليكم من بعدي
The Rafidhi said: ‘Did not the Messenger of Allah (saw) say to Alee (a.s): “Whomever I am his Master (Mawla) then Alee is his Master (Mawla)?”‘ He said: ‘By Allah (swt), if he meant by that the leadership, then he should have clarified that, like he clarified the issue of Salat and Zakat and fasting in Ramadan and the Hajj of the House. He should have rather said: “O people this is your Master (Wali) after me”‘.
Source: Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d. Vol. 7, Pg. # 314.

“Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali: ‘If i am Mawla of someone, Ali is his Mawla?’” He (Al Hasan) replied, “By Allah, if he meant by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the Salah, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, ‘Oh people! This is your leader after me.’ The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people (i.e. clear in meaning). “If it is like what you say, that Ali was chosen for this after the Prophet (pbuh), then he would be the most flawed from all the people, because he didn't do as the Prophet (pbuh) commanded.”
(Source: Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Volume 5) Similar is present in Ibn `Asakir (volume 4, page 166) and (awaasim min qawaasim page 115).

---

As salaamu alaykum!

Part of our aqeeda is to affirm that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, made every aspect of the religion clear for all Muslims—then and now. We therefore reject any claim that Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, left any matter ambiguous. Furthermore, we say that if any matter was left obscure in the matters of faith, the Prophet was at fault and the religion was not completed. This is based upon the ayaat of Qur’aan such as Q. 5:3 {Today, We have perfected your religion…}. Also, in Hajj al-Wada’, the Prophet asked all of the Muslims ((Have I not faithfully conveyed to you all that is needed in your religion?)) or something to that effect, and all of the Muslims said: “Indeed, O Messenger of Allah.” No one asked him to clarify anything related to usury, kelala, successorship or the like. Therefore, the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, exculpated himself from any charge that he left any matter unexplained.

That being the case, one of our imams, Imam al-Qaasim bin Ibrahim ar-Rassi (as) posed the question in his treatise The Imamate of Those who Preceded ‘Ali: “Is the Imamate/Caliphate a part of the religion or not?” If you say yes then that means the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, did indeed clarify it. If you say no, then you have to admit that what happened at Saqeefa and subsequently was outside of the religion and illegitimate.

Given that the Prophet clarified everything in the religion, we say that the hadith of Ghadir ((Whoever I am his authority Ali is his authority…)) was clear in designating ‘Ali as his successor. We discuss this in great detail in our book The Establishment of Clear Exposition.

For the sake of brevity, we will simply say that there is an explicit hadith in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, DID say regarding ‘Ali: ((He is your leader (waliyukum) after me)). It is narrated in the Sunan of at-Tirmirdhi and other books on the authority of Imran bin Husayn that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said: ((What do you want from ‘Ali?! ‘Ali is from me and I am from him! Verily, ‘Ali is the guardian/leader (wali) of every believer after me)). This hadith was authenticated by Sheikh Nasrudeen al-Albani in his Šahīh wa Ða’īf Sunan at-Tirmidhi.

In another narration in Musnad Ahmed, Khasā`is Amīr al-Muminīn of an-Nisā`i, As-Sunan al-Kubra of an-Nisā`i, and Fađa’il as-Sahāba by Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal on the authority of Burayda, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, is also narrated to have said regarding ‘Ali ((He is your leader (waliyukum) after me)).

Here is a very explicit hadith designating Ali as leader. It used the exact wording (waliyukum) of the narration in Tabaqaat as- Sa’d! He, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said wali. The problem is that there will be those who say that he should have used mawla to mean leader. When he said mawla, they say “Why didn’t he say the word wali”?! These same people are quite comfortable saying that Abu Bakr was the leader after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, when he is referred to as the “Wali of Allah’s Messenger” by Umar in Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. But when ‘Ali is called Wali by the blessed tongue of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, it doesn’t mean leader, it means ‘friend’?!

All such attempts point to the fact that there are those who tried to obfuscate the clear designation of Amir al-Mumineen, Ali bin Abi Taalib (as) as leader of the Muslims after the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. We ask Allah to lift the blinders of sectarianism so that we can see the truth! Ameen!

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Reposted

---

Asalamulakym,

JazakAllah brother. From my understanding, I thought the issue of succession in Zaydism was mainly a implied one as opposed to a explicit belief..perhaps you can explain a bit more. And 5:3 was revealed at Arafat, so how can this be about succession or wilayat of Imam Ali (as)? JazakAllah,

Wsalam

---

wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi!

Regarding the Succession, Zaydi doctrine holds that it was explicit. All of our imams, including Imam Zayd (as), held to the authenticity of hadith al-Ghadir and its explicit designation of Imam 'Ali (as) as the Prophet's successor. It is a fundamental of our belief. The implicit doctrine was something that came along later--probably from the Mu'tazila who would have no problem accepting it. That is, it is something that would acknowledge the primacy of Imam 'Ali (as) but excuse the actions of those that preceded him in Imamate. After all, they say, implication is subject to various interpretations. As we said in the previous email, the belief that the Prophet (sawas) explicitly conveyed everything necessary for the religion is an Islamic belief--regardless of sectarian adherence. therefore, the implicit designation doctrine holds no weight.

Regarding the verse 5:3, the completion of the religion (whether revealed on Arafat or Ghadeer or both) implies that there is nothing else left for the Prophet (sawas) to teach or convey. Although there are narrations that state that certain laws were revealed after the revelation of this verse, they are rejected due to the explicitness of this verse. If we were to believe the reports in which the Jew approached Umar and said that if this verse was revealed to them they wouldve celebrated it as an Eid, this would mean that the religion was indeed completed. Otherwise, why would one celebrate something that was incomplete? Eid al-Fitr is the completion of the fast, Eid al-Adha is the completion of the sacrifice.

That being the case, the successorship of Ali is the completion of the religion. There would be no further need to emphasise any laws of halal or haram after appointing the successor. It only makes sense. Therefore, it is probable that the Prophet (sawas) mentioned Ali's Guardianship at Arafat when all the hajjis gathered and at Ghadeer before they all separated and went back to their homes and villages. And thus, the verse of completion was revealed at both occasions. That shouldnt be too difficult to accept because tradition maintains that Fatiha was revealed in more than one occasion.

And Allah knows best!

IRS