Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Shi'ism: Imamate and Wilayat

By Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

Published by: Al-Ma'arif Books

PO Box 30507, Richmond Hill, Ontario

Canada L4C 3C7

First Edition 1420 / 1999

ISBN 0-920675-11-5

Reproduced with permission by the

Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project team

www.alhassanain.org/english

Table of Contents

Preface 4

Chapter 1: Origin of Shí'ism: Political or Religious? 5

1. Introduction 5

2. The Beginning of Islam 6

3. The Origin of Shí'ism 6

Chapter 2: Self-Censorship in Muslim History 10

A case study of Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira 10

1. Introduction 10

2. The First Open Call to Islam 10

3. Why Doesn't Ibn Hishãm Mention this Da'wat? 11

4. Self-Censorship by At-Tabari 12

5. Self-Censorship In Modern Times 13

6. The Isnãd of "Summoning the Family" 15

7. Conclusion 16

Chapter 3: Ghadir Khumm and the Orientalists 17

1. Introduction 17

2. Study of Shí'ism by the Orientalists 17

3. Ghadír Khumm: From Oblivion to Recognition 19

4. Shaban & His New Interpretation 22

5. The Meaning of "Mawla" 25

6. Conclusion 27

Chapter 4: Appointment of 'Ali: Explicit or Implicit? 29

1. Introduction 29

2. The Explicit vs Implicit 30

3. The First Explicit Appointment 31

4. Abu Sufyãn Knew But Others Didn't? 32

5. Why Didn't 'Ali Use These Arguments? 33

The Circumstances: 33

The Opponents: 34

Chapter 5: The Concept of Ahlul Bayt: Tribal or Islamic? 37

1. The Meaning of Ahlul Bayt 37

2. Who Are the "Ahlul Bayt"? 37

3. "Ahlul Bayt Not A Tribal Concept 39

Chapter 6: Wilãyat and Its Scope 42

1. What is Wilãyat? 42

The First Dimension: The Right of Love 42

The Second Dimension: The Spiritual Guidance 42

The Third & Fourth Dimensions: Socio-Political & Universal Authority 43

2. The Universal Wilãyat 44

3. Wilãyat: Spiritual vs Political 46

The Hadíth of 'Abdullãh bin Mas'ûd 48

4. Do Najaf & Qum Have Different Views on The Role of the Imams? 51

5. Is Not Wilãyat Part of the Faith? 53

6. The Final Correction 54

Chapter 7: Knowledge of the Ahlul Bayt 57

1. Introduction 57

2. The Qur'ãn & 'Ilmu 'l-Ghayb 57

3. 'Ilmu 'l-Ghayb of the Prophets 58

4. 'Ilmu 'l-Ghayb of the Imams 59

5. 'Ilmu 'l-Ghayb & Personal Life 63

6. The Concept of "al-Qur'ãn an-Nãtiq" 64

Chapter 8: Conclusion 66

Chapter 9: Bibliography 67

Notes 72

Preface

In the name of Allãh, the Beneficent, the Merciful

O Allãh, send Your blessings upon Muhammad & his Progeny

This treatise deals with some fundamental issues of the Shí'a Islamic faith. Although not all the chapters were written at the same time, they are inter-related and connected by the theme of imãmate and wilãyat of the Imams of Ahlul Bayt. Chapter 2 was written in 1998, chapter 3 in 1990, chapter 4 in 1997, while the first and last three chapters have been written this year. While revising chapter 3, I have added the section 'The Meaning of Mawla' in order to complete the discussion on Ghadír Khumm.

It is hoped that the reader will gain some insight into the Shí'a Islamic point of view on the most fundamental issue that has defined its existence in the past as well as in the present. This book also reflects some issues that are being discussed among some sections of the Shí'a community in North America. Such discussions and debates, at the least, provide the opportunity to further study and clarify the essential beliefs of Shí'a Islam.

May Allãh, subhãnahu wa ta'ãla, bestow upon us the ability to open our hearts to the Divine guidance, and may He lift the veils of academic arrogance and tribal solidarity from our hearts and minds when we see the truth. Amin.

Wa mã tawfíqí illa billãh.

Toronto Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

12 Rabi II 1420 / 26 July 1999

Chapter 1: Origin of Shí'ism: Political or Religious?

1. Introduction

In the polemical writings of the Sunnis, it is asserted that Sunni Islam is the "Orthodox Islam" whereas Shí'ism is a "heretical sect" that began with the purpose of subverting Islam from within. This idea is sometimes expressed by saying that Shí'ism began as a political movement and later on acquired religious emphasis.

This anti-Shí'a attitude is not limited to the writers of the past centuries, even some Sunni writers of the present century have the same views. Names like Abul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi, Manzûr Ahmad Nu'mãni (both of India), Ihsãn Ilãhi Zahír (of Pakistan), Muhibbu 'd-Dín al-Khatíb and Musa Jãr Allãh (both from Middle East) come to mind.[1] It is not restricted to the circle of those that graduated from religious seminaries and had not been in touch with the so-called academic world. Ahmad Amin (of Egypt) and Fazlur Rahman (of Pakistan) fall in this category.

Ahmad Amin, for example, writes:

"The truth is that Shí'ism is a refuge wherein which everyone who wishes to destroy Islam on account of enmity or envy takes shelter. As such, persons who wish to introduce into Islam the teachings of their Jewish, Christian or Zoroastrian ancestors achieve their nefarious ends under the shelter of this faith."[2]

Fazlur Rahman is an interesting case. After graduating from the Universities of Punjab and Oxford, and teaching at the Universities of Durham and McGill, he worked as the Director of the Central Institute of Islamic Research in Pakistan till 1968. He lost his position as the result of the controversy arising from his view of the Qur'ãn. Then he migrated to the United States and became Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Chicago. In his famous book, Islam, used as a textbook for undergraduate levels in Western universities, Dr. Fazlur Rahman presents the following interpretation about the origin of Shí'ism:

"After 'Ali's assassination, the Shí'a (party) of 'Ali in Kufa demanded that Caliphate be restored to the house of the ill-fated Caliph. This legitimist claim on behalf of the 'Ali's descendants is the beginning of the Shí'a political doctrine...

"This legitimism, i.e., the doctrine that headship of the Muslim Community rightfully belongs to 'Ali and his descendants, was the hallmark of the original Arab Shí'ism which was purely political...

"Thus, we see that Shí'ism became, in the early history of Islam, a cover for different forces of social and political discontent...But with the shift from the Arab hands to those of non-Arab origin, the original political motivation developed into a religious sect with its own dogma as its theological postulate...Upon this were engrafted old oriental beliefs about Divine light and the new metaphysical setting for this belief was provided by Christian Gnostic Neoplatonic ideas."[3]

He further comments: "This led to the formation of secret sects, and just as Shí'ism served the purposes of the politically ousted, so under its cloak the spiritually displaced began to introduce their old ideas into Islam."[4]

It is in this background that I find it extremely difficult to understand how a learned scholar, from Shí'í background, could echo somewhat similar ideas about the origin of Shí'ism by writing:

"Most of these early discussions on the Imamate took at first sight political form, but eventually the debate encompassed the religious implications of salvation. This is true of all Islamic concepts, since Islam as a religious phenomenon was subsequent to Islam as a political reality."[5]

"From the early days of the civil war in A.D. 656, some Muslims not only thought about the question of leadership in political terms, but also laid religious emphasis on it."[6]

Referring to the support of shi'a of Kufa for the claim of leaders for 'Alids, the learned author writes:

"This support for the leadership of the 'Alids, at least in the beginning, did not imply any religious underpinning...The claim of leadership of the 'Alids became an exaggerated belief expressed in pious terms of the traditions attributed to the Prophet, and only gradually became part of the cardinal doctrine of the Imamate, the pivot on which the complete Shí'ite creed rotates."[7]

After explaining the failures and the martyrdom of the religious leaders who rose against the authorities, he writes:

"This marked the beginnings of the development of a religious emphasis in the role of the 'Alid Imams..."[8]

2. The Beginning of Islam

The Sunnis as well as the Shí'as believe that Islam is primarily a religion whose teachings are not limited to the spiritual realm of human life but also encompass the political aspect of society. Inclusion of political ideals in the religion of Islam does not mean that Islam started or was basically a political movement. Look at the life of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.). The Prophet's mission began in Mecca. There is nothing in the pre-hijra program of the Prophet that looks similar to a political movement. It was primarily and fundamentally a religious movement.

Only after the hijra, when the majority of the people of Medina accepted Islam, the opportunity for implementation of Islamic social order arose and so Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) also assumed the position of the political leader of the society. He signed agreements with other tribes, sent ambassadors to kings and emperors, organized armies and led Muslim forces, sat in judgement, appointed governors, deputees, commanders, and judges, and he also collected and distributed taxes. Nonetheless, Islam was first a religious movement that later on encompassed political aspects of society. So to say that "Islam as a religious phenomenon was subsequent to Islam as a political reality" is historically an incorrect statement.

3. The Origin of Shí'ism

The origin of Shí'ism is not separate from the origin of Islam since the Prophet himself sowed its seed by proclaiming the wisãya (successorship) and khilãfat (caliphate) of 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib in the first open call to Islam that he made in Mecca.

Islam began when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) became forty years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allãh revealed the verse "And warn thy nearest relations." (The Qur'ãn 26:214)

When this verse was revealed, the Prophet organized a feast that is known in history as "Summoning the Family - Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira". The Prophet invited about forty men from the Banu Hãshim and asked 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib to make arrangements for the dinner. After having served his guests with food and drinks, but the Prophet wanted to speak to them about Islam, Abu Lahab forestalled him and said, "Your host has long since bewitched you." All the guests dispersed before the Prophet could present his message to them.

The Prophet then invited them the next day. After the feast, he spoke to them, saying:

O Sons of 'Abdu 'l-Muttalib! By Allãh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhí), my successor (wasiyyí) and my caliph (khalifatí) among you?

This was the first time that the Prophet openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of Allãh; he also uses the words "akhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí- my brother, my successor, my caliph" for the person who will aid him in this mission. No one answered him; they all held back except the youngest of them - 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib. He stood up and said, "I will be your helper, O Prophet of God."

The Prophet put his hand on the back of 'Ali's neck and said:

"Inna hadhã akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma'û lahu wa atí'û - Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey."[9]

This was the first explicit statement because the audience understood the appointment of 'Ali very clearly. Some of them, including Abu Lahab, even joked with Abu Tãlib that your nephew, Muhammad, has ordered you to listen to your son and obey him! At the least, this shows that the appointment of 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib was clear and explicit, not just implied.

After that, the Prophet at various places emphasized the issue of loving his Ahlul Bayt, seeking guidance from them, and drew the attention of the people to the special status that they had in the eyes of God and His Messenger.

Finally, just two months before his death, the Prophet clearly appointed 'Ali in Ghadir Khumm as the leader (religious as well as political) of the Muslims. He said, "Whomsoever's Master I am, this 'Ali is his Master." He also said, "I am leaving two precious things behind, as long as you hold on to them both you will never go astray: the Book of Allãh and my progeny."[10]

A lot has been discussed and written on these events. The reader may refer to the following works in English:

•A Study on the Question of Al-Wilaya by Sayyid Muhammad Bãqir as-Sadr, translated by Dr. P. Haseltine. (This treatise was first translated in India under the appropriate title: "Shí'ism: the Natural Product of Islam".)

•The Origin of Shí'a and Its Principles by Muhammad Husayn Kãshiful Ghitã'.

•Imamate: the Vicegerency of the Prophet by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi.

•Origins and Early Development of Shí'a Islam by S. Hussain M. Jafri.

•The Right Path by Syed 'Abdulhussein Sharafuddin al-Musawi.

•"The Meaning & Origin of Shí'ism" by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in The Right Path, vol.1 (Jan-Mar 1993) # 3.[11]

Anyone who reads these materials will see that the beginning of Islam and Shí'ism was at the same time and that, just like Islam, Shí'ism was a religious movement that also encompassed social and political aspects of society. As Dr. Jafri writes,

"When we analyse different possible relations which the religious beliefs and the political constitution in Islam bear to one another, we find the claims and the doctrinal trends of the supporters of 'Ali more inclined towards the religious aspects than the political ones; thus it seems paradoxical that the party whose claims were based chiefly on spiritual and religious considerations, as we shall examine in detail presently, should be traditionally labelled as political in origin."[12]

It is indeed unthinkable that the famous companions of the Prophet like Salmãn al-Fãrsi and Abu Dharr al-Ghifãri thought of 'Ali primarily as a political leader, and only later on started thinking of him as a religious leader also.

In his academic work, Islamic Messianism, the learned scholar counts the civil war as the beginning of "religious Shí'ism": "From the early days of the civil war in A.D. 656, some Muslims not only thought about the question of leadership in political terms, but also laid religious emphasis on it."[13] But in his article that was presented in a community gathering and published by one of the religious centers, he places the beginning of Shí'ism from the time of Ghadir Khumm. He writes, "The proclamation by the Prophet on that occasion gave rise to the tension between the ideal leadership promoted through the wilaya of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the real one precipitated by human forces to suppress the purposes of Allãh on earth."[14]

This dichotomy between "the academician" and "the believer" is indeed disturbing. May Almighty Allãh grant all workers of the faith the confidence to stand for their faith in all gatherings, of insiders as well as outsiders (fis sirri wa 'l-'alãniyya).

4. The Name "Shí'a"

A follower of Islam is known as "Muslim" whereas a Muslim who believes in Imam 'Ali as the immediate successor and caliph of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) is known as "Shí'a". The term "Shí'a" is a short form of Shí'atu 'Ali - follower of 'Ali".

Muslims take great pride in being affiliated to Prophet Ibrãhím (a.s.), and rightly so. It is also a known fact among Muslims that Prophet Ibrãhím was himself named as a "Muslim" by Almighty Allãh.

"Ibrãhim was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was a sincere 'Muslim' (one who submits to Allãh), and he was not one of the polytheists." (3:67)

What the people do not notice is that Almighty Allãh has named Prophet Ibrãhím as a "Shí'a" also; of course, not "Shí'a of 'Ali" but "Shí'a of Nûh". He says:

"Peace and salutation be to Nûh in the worlds...and most surely among his followers ('shí'a') is Ibrãhím..." (37:79-83)

So those who call themselves as "Muslims" and "Shí'as" are actually following the tradition established by Almighty Allãh in being called as "followers" of pious believers just as Prophet Ibrãhím has been described as a follower of Prophet Nûh.

* * *

Chapter 2: Self-Censorship in Muslim History

A case study of Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira

1. Introduction

Many students of Islamic history begin with the assumption that if an event or a statement has not been reported in the earliest sources of Muslim history or hadith like as-Sirah an-Nabawiyya of Ibn Hishãm or Sahíh of al-Bukhãri, it must be a later fabrication and therefore not credible. They tend to ignore the biases and limitations that are imposed on the writer by the ruling powers as well as by self-inclination. Biases are not only relevant in fabrication of mythical persons, events and statements, they are equally relevant in ignoring and silently bypassing certain historical figures and stories.

This paper intends to examine the way Muslim historians have dealt with the first open call to Islam known as Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira.

2. The First Open Call to Islam

Islam began when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) became forty years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allãh revealed the verse "And warn thy nearest relations." (26:214)

When this verse was revealed, the Prophet organized a feast that is known in history as "Summoning the Family - Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira". The Prophet invited around forty men from the Banu Hãshim and asked 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib to make arrangements for the dinner. After having served his guests with food and drinks, when the Prophet wanted to speak to them about Islam, Abu Lahab forestalled him and said, "Your host has long since bewitched you." All the guests dispersed before the Prophet could present his message to them.

The Prophet then invited them the next day. After the feast, he spoke to them, saying:

O Sons of 'Abdu 'l-Muttalib! By Allãh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhí), my successor (wasiyyí) and my caliph (khalifatí) among you?

This was the first time that the Prophet openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of Allãh; he also uses the words "akhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí- my brother, my successor, my caliph" for the person who will aid him in this mission. No one answered him; they all held back except the youngest of them - 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib. He stood up and said, "I will be your helper, O Prophet of God."

The Prophet put his hand on the back of 'Ali's neck and said:

"Inna hadhã akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma'û lahu wa atí'û - Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey."[15]

This was a very explicit statement because the audience understood the appointment of 'Ali very clearly. Some of them, including Abu Lahab, even joked with Abu Tãlib that your nephew, Muhammad, has ordered you to listen to your son and obey him! At the least, this shows that the appointment of 'Ali bin Abí Tãlib was clear and explicit, not just implied.

3. Why Doesn't Ibn Hishãm Mention this Da'wat?

One of the questions raised in relation to this issue is why 'Abdu 'l-Malik Ibn Hishãm (d. 213 AH) does not mention this event in his as-Sirah an-Nabawiyya - The Biography of the Prophet? After all, he is the earliest of all historians.

What is known as the Sirah of Ibn Hishãm is actually the summary of the book of Muhammad Ibn Ishãq (born in 85 AH in Medina and died in 151 AH in Baghdad). The unabriged version of Ibn Ishãq's history book does not exist anymore. So the question has to be reformulated: "Did Ibn Ishãq mention the Summoning of the Family event?"

The political considerations that influenced Ibn Hishãm in deleting certain events and maintaining others is clear from his own statement. While listing the items that he has omitted, Ibn Hishãm writes, "...things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people...all these things I have omitted."[16] Editors of the 1955 Egyptian edition of the Sirah write that Ibn Ishãq had quoted events that would not have pleased the 'Abbãsids "like the participation of al-'Abbãs with the infidels in the battle of Badr and his capture by the Muslims-the narration that Ibn Hishãm later on omitted out of the fear of the 'Abbãsids."[17]

Praises of Imam 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib, especially the traditon of dãr, were among the items that Ibn Hishãm has deleted in summarizing the Sirah of Ibn Ishãq. "The tradition of dãr" is about the Summoning of the Family event mentioned above.

The fact that Ibn Ishãq had mentioned the Summoning of the Family can be seen through those who have narrated events from Ibn Ishãq by sources other than Ibn Hishãm. For example, at-Tabari (d. 310 AH) narrates the same event through Ibn Ishãq. Shaykh Abu Ja'far at-Tûsi (d. 460 AH) also narrates the same event through two different chains of narrators: one of those two is on the authority of Ibn Ishãq through at-Tabari.[18]

This clearly shows that what has come to be recognized as the earliest and the most authentic historical account is not free from bias in ignoring certain events and in narrating others.

Ibn Ishãq himself has been accused of having Shí'ite leanings. If true, this could be one of the considerations that prompted Ibn Hishãm to omit the items that he thought supported the Shí'ite cause. However, al-Khatíb al-Baghdãdi in Ta'ríkh Baghdãd and Ibn Sayyidi 'n-Nãs in 'Uyûnu 'l-Athar, both Sunni historians, have defended Ibn Ishãq against all kinds of accusations including that of having Shí'ite leanings.[19]

4. Self-Censorship by At-Tabari

The case of Muhammad bin Jarír at-Tabari (d. 310 AH) is even more interesting. The event of Da'wat dhi 'l-'Ashira given above is based on the version of at-Tabari's monumental work in history: Ta'ríkhu 'l-Umam wa 'l-Mulûk. At-Tabari has also authored a famous commentary of the Qur'ãn: Jãmi'u 'l-Bayãn 'an Ta'wíl Ãyai 'l-Qur'ãn. It is interesting to compare the history of at-Tabari with his Qur'ãnic commentary in relation to the present topic.

In his Ta'ríkh, at-Tabari has quoted the words used by the Prophet for 'Ali in the Feast in its entirety:

"akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí:

my brother, my successor, my caliph."[20]

But in his at-Ta'wíl (vol. 19, p. 74), while discussing the relevant verse in which the Prophet was ordered to call his relations to Islam, at-Tabari exercises self-censorship and has concealed the clear and the explicit impact of the Prophet's words by recording it as follows:

"akhhi wa kadha wa kadha:

my brother, and so-and-so, and so-and-so."

Ibn Kathír, another famous Damascene author of al-Bidãyah wa an-Nihãyah (vol. 3, p. 40), has used the Ta'ríkh of at-Tabari as his main reference. However, when he comes to the event of the Feast, he abandons the Ta'ríkh of at-Tabari and uses the altered version of Jãmi'u 'l-Bayãn of at-Tabari! This is not surprising since it is known that Ibn Kathír had anti-Shí'a sentiments.

5. Self-Censorship In Modern Times

A modern writer of Egypt, Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, wrote a famous book on the Prophet's biography known as Hayãt Muhammad. Haykal had first published the Prophet's biography in his weekly paper as-Siyãsa. The event of the Feast was published in the supplement of issue # 2751 (12 Dhu 'l-Qa'dah 1350) p. 5, column 2. One of his critics wrote a letter to the paper accusing Haykal of using Shí'ite sources for that statement about Imam 'Ali. Haykal responds to this accusation in the supplement of issue # 2758, p. 6, column 4, by denying that he used a Shí'ite source "since all traditions do speak of this behaviour of 'Ali;" and quotes the hadith from Sahíh of Muslim, Musnad of Ahmad and others.[21]

Haykal resisted the pressure to omit the Prophet's statement about 'Ali when the biography was finally printed in a book form. In the first edition of Hayãt Muhammad, Haykal narrates the event of the Feast as follows:

"...When they had finished eating, he [the Prophet] said to them, 'I do not know any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with something better than what I have come to you; I have come to you with the best of this world and the hereafter. My Lord has ordered me to call you unto him.

"'So who among you will help me in this matter, so that he may be my brother, my successor, and my caliph among you?'

"All of them turned away from him and wanted to leave him but 'Alí stood up although he was still a child who had not reached maturity and said, 'O Messenger of Allãh, I shall be your helper! I will help you against whomsoever you fight.' The Banu Hãshim smiled, some of them laughed, and their eyes moved from Abu Tãlib to his son; and then they left in the state of ridicule."[22]

Haykal has quoted the important words in the initial statement of the Prophet asking for support; but conveniently left out the Prophet's entire response to 'Ali's readiness to help him!

In the second edition, Haykal seems to have given into the pressure of the bigots and even deleted the crucial words of the Prophet and just wrote: "...he said to them, '...So who among you will help me in this matter? All of them turned away from him..."[23]

This clearly shows that he doesn't doubt the actual "Summoning of the Family" event but he lacked the intellectual courage to stand by the logical conclusion of his initial findings in the study of history.

6. The Isnãd of "Summoning the Family"

The opponents of the Shí'a view naturally have tried to question the credibility of some of the narrators of this famous event.

Ibn Taymiyya, well known for his anti-Shí'a sentiments, has adamantly declared it to be a fabricated hadíth. He has attacked the credibility of 'Abd al-Ghaffãr bin al-Qãsim known as Abu Maryam al-Kufi.[24] Abu Maryam is the source of Ibn Ishãq in narrating the event of "Summoning the Family". However, the only basis for questioning the credibility of Abu Maryam is his Shi'a links; but, as any unbiased person knows, that is not a sufficient ground to reject his narration. Shi'a biographers of narrators have counted him among the reliable narrators of hadíth from the fourth, fifth, and sixth Shi'a Imams (a.s.).[25]

Salma bin al-Fadhl (d. 191), the foremost disciple of Ibn Ishãq, is also recognized as credible in narrating the Prophet's biography from his master. He is quoted as saying, "I have heard the al-Maghãzi from Ibn Ishãq two times;" and he is well known among the scholars of hadith for historical narration from Ibn Ishãq.[26] According to Mutã' at-Tarãbíshí, Salma bin al-Fadhl's narration of historical nature are accepted by all.[27] Ibn Mu'ín says, "Salma [bin al-Fadhl] al-Abrash ar-Rãzi was a Shí'i as already written and there is no defect in him... Abu Zuhra says, 'The people of Ray did not like him because of his undesirable [i.e., Shi'í] beliefs.'"[28] Adh-Dhahabi writes the following about Salma: "He was steadfast in prayer and full of humility in his beliefs; he died in 191 A.H."[29]

Shaykh Salím al-Bishri had raised the issue why al-Bukhãri and Muslim do not mention this tradition in their Sahíhs. Sharafu 'd-Dín al-Musawi responded as follows:

"The tradition conflicts with the views of the two Shaykhs, Bukhari and Muslim, in respect of the Caliphate and that is why they have not recorded it in their Sahíhs. They have also scrupulously avoided recording a number of other genuine traditions which stipulated the Caliphate in favor of Amir al-Mu'minín lest the same serve as a weapon in the hands of the Shí'as, and so intentionally concealed the truth. Not only Bukhari and Muslim but also many other Shaykhs (i.e., senior traditionists) among the Ahl al-Sunnah followed this practice...They used to conceal everything of this nature and are well known for their creed of concealment of facts (favoring 'Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt). Hafiz Ibn Hajar has related this from them in Fath al-Bãri...

"Anyone who knows the behaviour of Bukhari towards Amir al-Mu'minín and other members of the Ahl al-Bayt also knows that his pen invariably omits mentioning the clear traditions of the Holy Prophet in their favor, and that his ink dries up before relating their distinguished, excellent qualities and one will not be surprised at his skipping over this and other similar traditions. There is neither might nor power but by Allah, the High and the Great."[30]

7. Conclusion

This brief review on the self-censorship that was exercised by the early historians and compilers of hadíth proves that absence of an event in the well known "early" books of Islamic history and hadíth does not necessarily mean that that event is a later invention by the Shí'as or is not considered credible. One must go beyond the artificial limits of "early" and official history of the Muslim people and also study the other "non-orthodox" sources to fully comprehend the real life drama that unfolded in the early days of the history of Islam.

* * *

Chapter 3: Ghadir Khumm and the Orientalists

1. Introduction

[31]

The 18th of Dhu 'l-Hijja is celebrated in the Shí'a world as the 'idd of Ghadir Khumm in which Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) said about Imam 'Ali: "Whomsoever's master (mawla) I am, this 'Ali is also his master." This event is of such significance to the Shí'as that no serious scholar of Islam can ignore it. The purpose of this paper is to study how the Orientalists handled the event of Ghadir Khumm. By "orientalists", I mean the Western scholarship of Islam and also those Easterners who received their entire Islamic training under such scholars.

Before proceeding further, a brief narration of the event of Ghadir Khumm would not be out of place. This will be especially helpful to those who are not familiar with the event. While returning from his last pilgrimage, the Prophet received the following command of Allãh: "O the Messenger! Convey what had been revealed to you from your Lord; if you do not do so, then [it would be as if] you have not conveyed His message [at all]. Allãh will protect you from the people." (The Qur'ãn 5:67) Therefore he stopped at Ghadir Khumm on the 18th of Dhu 'l-Hijja, 10 AH to convey the message to the pilgrims before they dispersed. At one point, he asked his followers whether he, Muhammad, had more authority (awla) over the believers than they had over themselves; the crowd cried out, "Yes, it is so, O Apostle of Allãh." Then he took 'Ali by the hand and declared: "Whomsoever's master (mawla) I am, this 'Ali is also his master - man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun mawlahu." Then the Prophet also announced his impending death and charged the believers to remain attached to the Qur'ãn and to his Ahlul Bayt. This summarizes the important parts of the event of Ghadir Khumm.

The main body of this paper is divided as follows: Part II is a brief survey of the approach used by the Orientalists in studying Shí'ism. Part III deals with the approach used to study Ghadir Khumm in particular. Part IV is a critical review of what M.A. Shaban has written about the event in his Islamic History AD 600-750. This will be followed by a conclusion.

2. Study of Shí'ism by the Orientalists

When the Egyptian writer, Muhammad Qutb, named his book as Islam: the Misunderstood Religion, he was politely expressing the Muslim sentiment about the way Orientalists have treated Islam and Muslims in general. The word "misunderstood" implies that at least a genuine attempt was made to understand Islam. However, a more blunt criticism of Orientalism, shared by the majority of Muslims, comes from Edward Said, "The hardest thing to get most academic experts on Islam to admit is that what they say and do as scholars is set in a profoundly and in some ways an offensively political context. Everything about the study of Islam in the contemporary West is saturated with political importance, but hardly any writers on Islam, whether expert or general, admit the fact in what they say. Objectivity is assumed to inhere in learned discourse about other societies, despite the long history of political, moral, and religious concern felt in all societies, Western or Islamic, about the alien, the strange and different. In Europe, for example, the Orientalist has traditionally been affiliated directly with colonial offices."[32]

Instead of assuming that objectivity is inhere in learned discourse, Western scholarship has to realize that precommitment to a political or religious tradition, on a conscious or subconscious level, can lead to biased judgement. As Marshall Hudgson writes, "Bias comes especially in the questions he poses and in the type of category he uses, where indeed, bias is especially hard to track down because it is hard to suspect the very terms one uses, which seem so innocently neutral..."[33] The Muslim reaction to the image portrayed of them by Western scholarship is beginning to get its due attention. In 1979, the highly respected scholar trained in Western academia, Albert Hourani, said, "The voices of those from the Middle East and North Africa telling us that they do not recognize themselves in the image we have formed of them are too numerous and insistent to be explained in terms of academic rivalry or national pride."[34] This was about Islam and Muslims vis-à-vis the Orientalists.

When we focus on the study of Shí'ism by the Orientalists, the word "misunderstood" is not strong enough; rather it is an understatement. Not only is Shí'ism misunderstood, it has been ignored, misrepresented and studied mostly through the heresiographic literature of their opponents. It seems as if the Shí'ites had no scholars and literature of their own. To borrow an expression from Marx, "they cannot represent themselves, they must be represented," and that also by their adversaries!

The reason for this state of affairs lies in the paths through which Western scholars entered the field of Islamic studies. Hodgson, in his excellent review of Western scholarship, writes, "First, there were those who studied the Ottoman Empire, which played so major a role in modern Europe. They came to it usually in the first instance from the viewpoint of the European diplomatic history. Such scholars tended to see the whole of Islamdom from the political perspective of Istanbul, the Ottoman capital. Second, there were those, normally British, who entered Islamic studies in India so as to master Persian as good civil servants, or at least they were inspired by Indian interest. For them, the imperial transition of Delhi tended to be the culmination of Islamicate history. Third, there were the Semitists, often interested primarily in Hebrew studies, who were lured into Arabic. For them, headquarters tended to be Cairo, the most vital of Arabic-using cities in the nineteenth century, though some turned to Syria or the Maghrib. They were commonly philologians rather than historians, and they learned to see Islamicate culture through the eyes of the late Egyptian and Syrian Sunni writers most in vogue in Cairo. Other paths-that of the Spaniards and some Frenchmen who focused on the Muslims in Medieval Spain, that of the Russians who focused on the northern Muslims-were generally less important."[35]

It is quite obvious that none of these paths would have led Western scholars to the centres of Shí'a learning or literature. The majority of what they studied about Shí'ism was channelled through the non-Shí'i sources. Hudgson, who deserves our highest praise for noticing this point, says, "All paths were at one in paying relatively little attention to the central areas of the Fertile Crescent and Iran, with their tendency towards Shí'ism; areas that tended to be most remote from western penetration."[36] And after the First World War, "the Cairene path to Islamic studies became the Islamicist's path par excellence, while other paths to Islamic studies came to be looked on as of more local relevance."[37]

Therefore, whenever an Orientalist stuided Shí'ism through Ottoman, Cairene or Indian paths, it was quite natural for him to be biased against Shí'a Islam. "The Muslim historians of doctrine [who are mostly Sunni] always tried to show that all other schools of thought other than their own were not only false but, if possible, less than truly Muslim. Their work described innumerable 'firqahs' in terms which readily misled modern scholars into supposing they were referring to so many 'heretical sects'."[38] And so we see that until very recently, Western scholars easily described Sunni'ism as 'orthodox Islam' and Shí'ism as a 'heretical sect'. After categorizing Shí'ism as a heretical sect of Islam, it became "innocently neutral" for Western scholars to absorb the Sunni scepticism concerning the early Shí'a literature. Even the concept of taqiyyah (dissimulation when one's life is in danger) was blown out of proportion and it was assumed that every statement of a Shí'a scholar had a hidden meaning. And, consequently, whenever an Orientalist studied Shí'ism, his precommitment to Judeo-Christian tradition of the West was compounded with the Sunni bias against Shí'ism.

One of the best examples of this compounded bias is found in the way the event of Ghadir Khumm was studied by the Orientalists, an issue that forms the main purpose of this paper.

3. Ghadír Khumm: From Oblivion to Recognition

The event of Ghadir Khumm is a very good example to trace the Sunni bias that found its way into the mental state of Orientalists. Those who are well-versed with the polemic writings of Sunnis know that whenever the Shí'as present a hadíth or a historical evidence in support of their view, a Sunni polemicist would respond in the following manner:

Firstly, he will outright deny the existence of any such hadíth or historical event.

Secondly, when confronted with hard evidence from his own sources, he will cast doubt on the reliability of the transmitters of that hadíth or event.

Thirdly, when he is shown that all the transmitters are reliable by Sunni standards, he will give an interpretation to the hadíth or the event that will be quite different from that of the Shí'as.

These three levels form the classical response of the Sunni polemicists in dealing with the arguments of the Shí'as. A quotation from Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldun's The Muqaddimah would suffice to prove my point. (Ibn Khaldun is quoting the following part from al-Milal wa 'n-Nihal, a heresiographic work of ash-Shahristãni.) According to Ibn Khaldun, the Shí'as believe that

'Ali is the one whom Muhammad appointed. The (Shí'ah) transmit texts (of traditions) in support of (this belief)...The authority on the Sunnah and the transmitters of the religious law do not know these texts.[1] Most of them are supposititious, or[2] some of their transmitters are suspect, or[3] their (true) interpretation is very different from the wicked interpretation that (the Shí'ah) give to them.[39]

Interestingly, the event of Ghadir Khumm has suffered the same fate at the hands of Orientalists. With the limited time and resources available to me at this moment, I was surprised to see that most works on Islam have ignored the event of Ghadir Khumm, indicating, by its very absence, that the Orientalists believed this event to be 'supposititious' and an invention of the Shí'as. Margoliouth's Muhammad and the Rise of Islam (1905), Brockelmann's History of the Islamic People (1939), Arnold and Guillaume's The Legacy of Islam (1931), Guillaume's Islam (1954), von Grunebaum's Classical Islam (1963), Arnold's The Caliphate (1965), and The Cambridge History of Islam (1970) have completely ignored the event of Ghadir Khumm.

Why did these and many other Western scholars ignore the event of Ghadir Khumm? Since Western scholars mostly relied on anti-Shí'a works, they naturally ignored the event of Ghadir Khumm. L. Veccia Vaglieri, one of the contributors to the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1953), writes:

Most of those sources which form the basis of our knowledge of the life of Prophet (Ibn Hishãm, al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, etc.) pass in silence over Muhammad's stop at Ghadir Khumm, or, if they mention it, say nothing of his discourse (the writers evidently feared to attract the hostility of the Sunnis, who were in power, by providing material for the polemic of the Shí'is who used these words to support their thesis of 'Ali's right to the caliphate). Consequently, the western biographers of Muhammad, whose work is based on these sources, equally make no reference to what happened at Ghadir Khumm.[40]

Then we come to those few Western scholars who mention the hadíth or the event of Ghadir Khumm but express their scepticism about its authority-the second stage in the classical response of the Sunni polemicists.

The first example of such scholars is Ignaz Goldziher, a highly respected German Orientalist of the nineteenth century. He discusses the hadíth of Ghadir Khumm in his Muhammedanische Studien (1889-1890) translated into English as Muslim Studies (1966-1971) under the chapter entitled as "The Hadíth in its Relation to the Conflicts of the Parties of Islam." Coming to the Shí'as, Goldziher writes:

A stronger argument in their [Shí'as'] favour...was their conviction that the Prophet had expressly designated and appointed 'Ali as his successor before his death...Therefore the 'Alid adherents were concerned with inventing and authorizing traditions which prove 'Ali's installation by direct order of the Prophet. The most widely known tradition (the authority of which is not denied even by orthodox authorities though they deprive it of its intention by a different interpretation) is the tradition of Khumm, which came into being for this purpose and is one of the firmest foundation of the theses of the 'Alid party.[41]

One would expect such a renowned scholar to prove how the Shí'as "were concerned with inventing" traditions to support their theses, but nowhere does Goldziher provide any evidence. After citing at-Tirmidhi and al-Nasã'i in the footnote as the source for hadíth of Ghadir Khumm, he says, "Al-Nasã'i had, as is well known, pro-'Alid inclinations, and also at-Tirmidhi included in his collection tendentious traditions favouring 'Ali, e.g., the tayr tradition."[42] This is again the same old classical response of the Sunni polemicists-discredit the transmitters as unreliable or adamantly accuse the Shí'as of inventing the traditions.

Another example is the first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1911-1938) which has a short entry under "Ghadir Khumm" by F. Bhul, a Danish Orientalist who wrote a biography of the Prophet. Bhul writes, "The place has become famous through a tradition which had its origin among the Shi'is but is also found among Sunnis, viz., the Prophet on journey back from Hudaibiya (according to others from the farewell pilgrimage) here said of 'Ali: Whomsoever I am lord of, his lord is 'Ali also!"[43] Bhul makes sure to emphasize that the hadíth of Ghadir has "its origin among the Shí'is!"

Another striking example of the Orientalists' ignorance about Shí'ism is A Dictionary of Islam (1965) by Thomas Hughes. Under the entry of Ghadir, he writes, "A festival of the Shi'ahs on the 18th of the month of Zu 'l-Hijjah, when three images of dough filled with honey are made to represent Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthmãn, which are struck with knives, and the honey is sipped as typical of the blood of the usurping Khalifahs. The festival is named for Ghadir, 'a pool,' and the festival commemorates, it is said, Muhammad having declared 'Ali his successor at Ghadir Khum, a watering place midway between Makkah and al-Madinah."[44] Coming from a Shí'a family that traces its ancestory back to the Prophet himself, having studied in Iran for ten years and lived among the Shí'as of Africa and North America, I have yet to see, hear or read about the dough and honey ritual of Ghadir! I was more surprised to see that even Vaglieri, in the second edition of the Encyclopaedia, has incorporated that nonsense into her fairly excellent article on Ghadir Khumm. She adds at the end that, "This feast also holds an important place among the Nusayris." It is quite possible that the dough and honey ritual is observed by the Nusayris; it has nothing to do with the Shí'as. But do all Orientalists know the difference between the Shí'as and the Nusayris? I very much doubt so.

A fourth example from the contemporary scholars who have treaded the same path is Philip Hitti in his History of the Arabs (1964). After mentioning that the Buyids established "the rejoicing on that [day] of the Prophet's alleged appointment of 'Ali as his successor at Ghadir Khumm," he describes the location of Ghadir Khumm in the footnote as "a spring between Makkah and al-Madinah where Shí'ite tradition asserts the Prophet declared, 'Whomsoever I am lord of, his lord is 'Ali also'."[45] Although this scholar mentions the issue of Ghadir in a passing manner, he classifies the hadíth of Ghadir is a "Shí'ite tradition".

To these scholars who, consciously or unconsciously, have absorbed the Sunni bias against Shí'ism and insist on the Shí'ite origin or invention of the hadíth of Ghadir, I would just repeat what Vaglieri has said in the Encyclopaedia of Islam about Ghadir Khumm:

It is, however, certain that Muhammad did speak in this place and utter the famous sentence, for the account of this event has been preserved, either in a concise form or in detail, not only by al-Ya'kubi, whose sympathy for the 'Alid cause is well known, but also in the collection of traditions which are considered canonical, especially in the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal; and the hadiths are so numerous and so well attested by the different isnãds that it does not seem possible to reject them.[46]

Vaglieri continues, "Several of these hadiths are cited in the bibliography, but it does not include the hadíth which, although reporting the sentence, omit to name Ghadir Khumm, or those which state that the sentence was pronounced at al-Hudaybiya. The complete documentation will be facilitated when the Concordance of Wensinck have been completely published. In order to have an idea of how numerous these hadiths are, it is enough to glance at the pages in which Ibn Kathir has collected a great number of them with their isnads."

It is time the Western scholarship made itself familiar with the Shí'ite literature of the early days as well as of the contemporary period. The Shí'a scholars have produced great works on the issue of Ghadir Khumm. Here I will just mention two of those:

1. The first is 'Abaqãtu 'l-Anwãr in eleven bulky volumes written in Persian by Mir Hãmid Husayn al-Musawi (d. 1306 AH) of India. 'Allãmah Mir Hãmid Husayn has devoted three bulky volumes (consisting of about 1080 pages) on the isnãd, tawãtur and meaning of the hadíth of Ghadir. An abridged version of this work in Arabic translation entitled as Nafahãtu 'l-Azhãr fi Khulãsati 'Abaqãti 'l-Anwãr by Sayyid 'Ali al-Milãni has been published in twelve volumes by now; and four volumes of these (with modern type-setting and printing) are dedicated to the hadíth of Ghadír.

2. The second work is al-Ghadír in eleven volumes in Arabic by 'Abdul Husayn Ahmad al-Amini (d. 1970) of Iraq. 'Allãmah Amini has given with full references the names of 110 companions of the Prophet and also the names of 84 tãbi'ín (disciples of the companions) who have narrated the hadíth of Ghadir. He has also chronologically given the names of the historians, traditionalists, exegetists and poets who have mentioned the hadíth of Ghadir from the first till the fourteenth Islamic century.

The late Sayyid 'Abdu 'l-'Azíz at-Tabãtabã'í has stated that there probably is not a single hadíth that has been narrated by so many companions as the number we see (120) in the hadíth of Ghadír. However, comparing that number to the total number of people who were present in Ghadír Khumm, he states that 120 is just ten percent of the total audience. And so he rightly gave the following title to his paper: "Hadíth Ghadír: Ruwãtuhu Kathíruna lil-Ghãyah...Qalíluna lil-Ghãyah - Its Narrators are Very Many...Very Few".[47]

4. Shaban & His New Interpretation

Among the latest work by Western scholarship on the history of Islam is M.A. Shaban's Islamic History AD 600-750 subtitled as "A New Interpretation" in which the author claims not only to use newly discovered material but also to re-examine and re-interpret material which has been known to us for many decades. Shaban, a lecturer of Arabic at SOAS of the University of London, is not prepared to even consider the event of Ghadir Khumm. He writes, "The famous Shí'ite tradition that he [the Prophet] desginated 'Ali as his successor at Ghadir Khumm should not be taken seriously."

Shaban gives two 'new' reasons for not taking the event of Ghadir seriously:

"Such an event is inherently improbable considering the Arabs' traditional reluctance to entrust young and untried men with great responsibility. Furthermore, at no point do our sources show the Madinan community behaving as if they had heard of this designation."[48]

Let us critically examine each of these reasons given by Shaban.

1. The traditional reluctance of the Arabs to entrust young men with great responsibility.

First of all, had not the Prophet introduced many things to which the Arabs were traditionally reluctant? Did not the Meccans accept Islam itself very reluctantly? Was not the issue of marrying a divorced wife of one's adopted son a taboo among the Arabs? This 'traditional reluctance,' instead of being an argument against the designation of 'Ali, is actually part of the argument used by the Shí'as. They agree that the Arabs (in particular, the Quraysh) were reluctant to accept 'Ali as the Prophet's successor not only because of his young age but also because he had killed their leaders in the early battles of Islam. According to the Shí'as, Allãh also knew about this reluctance and that is why after ordering the Prophet to proclaim 'Ali as his successor ("O the Messenger! Convey what had been revealed to you..."), He reassured His Messenger by saying that, "Allãh will protect you from the people." (5:67) The Prophet was commissioned to convey the message of Allãh, no matter whether the Arabs liked it or not.

Moreover, this 'traditional reluctance' was not an irrevocable custom of the Arab society as Shaban wants us to believe. Jafri, in The Origin and Early Development of Shí'a Islam, says, "[O]ur sources do not fail to point out that, though the 'Senate' (Nadwa) of pre-Islamic Mecca was generally a council of elders only, the sons of the chieftain Qusayy were privileged to be exempted from this age restriction and were admitted to the council despite their youth. In later times more liberal concessions seems to have been in vogue; Abu Jahl was admitted despite his youth, and Hakim b. Hazm was admitted when he was only fifteen or twenty years old." Then Jafri quotes Ibn 'Abd Rabbih, "There are no monarchic king over the Arabs of Mecca in the Jahiliya. So whenever there was a war, they took a ballot among chieftains and elected one as 'King', were he a minor or a grown man. Thus on the day of Fijar, it was the turn of the Banu Hashim, and as a result of the ballot Al-'Abbãs, who was then a mere child, was elected, and they seated him on the shield."[49]

Thirdly, we have an example in the Prophet's own decisions during the last days of his life when he entrusted the command of the army to Usãmah bin Zayd, a young man who was hardly twenty years of age.[50] He was appointed over the elder members of the Muhãjirín (the Quraysh) and the Ansãr; and, indeed, many of the elders resented this decision of the Prophet.[51] If the Prophet of Islam could appoint the young and untried Usãmah bin Zayd over the elders of the Quraysh and Ansãr, then why should it be "inherently improbable" to think that the Prophet had designated 'Ali as his successor?

2. The traditional reluctance to entrust untried men with great responsibility.

Apart from the young age of 'Ali, Shaban also refers to the reluctance of the Arabs in entrusting "untried men with great responsibility." This implies that the Arabs selected Abu Bakr because he had been "tried with great responsibilities." I doubt whether Mr. Shaban would be able to substantiate the implication of his claim from Islamic history. One will find more instances where 'Ali was entrusted by the Prophet with greater responsibilities than was Abu Bakr. 'Ali was left behind in Mecca during the Prophet's migration to mislead the enemies and also to return the properties of various people which were given in trust to the Prophet. 'Ali was tried with greater responsibilities during the early battles of Islam in which he was always successful. When the ultimatum (barã'at) against the pagan Arabs of Mecca was revealed, first Abu Bakr was assigned to convey it to the Meccans; but later on this great responsibility was taken away from him and entrusted to 'Ali. 'Ali was entrusted with safety of the city and citizens of Medina while the Prophet had gone on the expedition to Tabûk. 'Ali was appointed the leader of the expedition to Yemen. These are just the few examples that come to mind at random. Therefore, on a comparative level, 'Ali bin Abu Tãlib was a person who had been tried and entrusted with greater responsibilities more than Abu Bakr.

3. The behaviour of the Madinan community about declaration of Ghadir Khumm.

Firstly, if an event can be proved true by the accepted standard of hadíth criticism (of the Sunnis, of course), then the reaction of the people to the credibility of that event is immaterial.

Secondly, the same 'traditional reluctance' used by Shaban to discredit the declaration of Ghadir can be used here against his scepticism towards the event of Ghadir. This traditional reluctance, besides other factors that are beyond the scope of this paper,[52] can be used to explain the behaviour of the Madinan community.

Thirdly, although the Madinan community was silent during the events which kept 'Ali away from caliphate, there were many among them who had witnessed the declaration of Ghadir Khumm. On quite a few occasions, Imam 'Ali implored the companions of the Prophet to bear witness to the declaration of Ghadir. Here I will just mention one instance that took place in Kufa during the reign of Imam 'Ali, about 25 years after the Prophet's death.

Imam 'Ali heard that some people were doubting his claim of precedence over the previous caliphs, therefore, he came to a gathering at the mosque and implored the eyewitnesses of the event of Ghadir Khumm to verify the truth of the Prophet's declaration about his being the lord and master of all the believers. Many companions of the Prophet stood up and verified the claim of 'Ali. We have the names of twenty-four of those who testified on behalf of 'Ali, although other sources like Musnad of Hanbal and Majma' az-Zawã'id of Hãfidh al-Haythami put that number at thirty. Also bear in mind that this incident took place 25 years after the event of Ghadir Khumm, and during this period hundreds of eye witnesses had died naturally or in the battles fought during the first two caliphs' rule. Add to this the fact that this incident took place in Kufa which was far from the centre of the companions, Medina. This incident that took place in Kufa in the year 35 AH has itself been narrated by four companions and fourteen tãbi'in and has been recorded in most books of history and tradition.[53]

In conclusion, the behaviour of the Madinan community after the death of the Prophet does not automatically make the declaration of Ghadir Khumm improbable. I think this will suffice to make Mr. Shaban realize that his is not a 'new' interpretation; rather it exemplifies, in my view, the first stage of the classical response of the Sunni polemicists-an outright denial of the existence of an event or a hadíth which supports the Shí'a view-which has been absorbed by the majority of Western scholars of Islam.

5. The Meaning of "Mawla"

The last argument in the strategy of the Sunni polemicists in their response to an event or a hadíth presented by the Shí'as is to give it an interpretation that would safeguard their beliefs. They exploit the fact that the word "mawla" has various meanings: master, lord, slave, benefactor, beneficiery, protector, patron, client, friend, charge, neighbour, guest, partner, son, uncle, cousin, nephew, son-in-law, leader, follower. The Sunnis say that the word "mawla" uttered by the Prophet in Ghadir does not mean "master or lord", it means "friend".

On the issue of the hadíth of Ghadír, this is the stage where the Western scholarship of Islam has arrived. While explaining the context of the statement uttered by the Prophet in Ghadir Khumm, L. Veccia Vaglieri follows the Sunni interpretation. She writes:

On this point, Ibn Kathír shows himself yet again to be percipient historian: he connects the affair of Ghadir Khumm with episodes which took place during the expedition to the Yemen, which was led by 'Ali in 10/631-2, and which had returned to Mecca just in time to meet the Prophet there during his Farewell Pilgrimage. 'Ali had been very strict in the sharing out of the booty and his behaviour had aroused protests; doubt was cast on his rectitude, he was reproached with avarice and accused of misuse of authority. Thus it is quite possible that, in order to put an end to all these accusations, Muhammad wished to demonstrate publicly his esteem and love for 'Ali. Ibn Kathir must have arrived at the same conclusion, for he does not forget to add that the Prophet's words put an end to the murmuring against Ali.[54]

Whenever a word has more than one meaning, it is indeed a common practice to look at the context of the statement and the event to understand the intent of the speaker. Ibn Kathir and other Sunni writers have connected the event of Ghadir Khumm to the incident of the expedition to Yemen. But why go so far back to understand the meaning of "mawla", why not look at the whole sermon that the Prophet gave at Ghadir Khumm itself? Isn't it a common practice to look at the immediate context of the statement, rather than look at remote events, in time and space?

When we look at the immediate context of the statement uttered by the Holy Prophet in Ghadir Khumm, we find the following:

1. The question that the Prophet asked just before the declaration. He asked, "Do I not have more authority upon you (awla bi kum) than you have yourselves?" When the people replied, "Yes, surely," then the Prophet declared: "Whosoever's mawla am I, this 'Ali is his mawla." Surely the word "mawla", in this context, has the same meaning as the word "awla: have more authority".[55]

2. After the declaration, the Prophet uttered the following prayer: "O Allãh! Love him who loves 'Ali, and be enemy of the enemy of 'Ali; help him who helps 'Ali, and forsake him who forsakes 'Ali." This prayer itself shows that 'Ali, on that day, was being entrusted with a position that would make some people his enemies and that he would need supporters in carrying out his responsibilities. This could not be anything but the position of the mawla in the sense of ruler, master and lord. Are helpers ever needed to carry on a 'friendship'?

3. The statement of the Prophet in Ghadir that: "It seems imminent that I will be called away (by Allãh) and I will answer the call." It was clear that the Prophet was making arrangements for the leadership of the Muslims after his death.

4. The companions of the Prophet congratulated 'Ali by addressing him as "Amirul Mumineen - Leader of the Believers". This leaves no room for doubt concerning the meaning of mawla.

5. The occasion, place and time. Imagine the Prophet breaking his journey in mid-day and detaining nearly one hundred thousand travellers under the burning sun of the Arabian desert, making them sit in a thorny place on the burning sand, and making a pulpit of camel saddles, and then imagine him delivering a long sermon and at the end of all those preparations, he comes out with an announcement that "Whosoever considers me a friend, 'Ali is also his friend!" Why? Because some (not all the hundred thousand people who had gathered there) were upset with 'Ali in the way he handled the distribution of the booty among his companions on the expedition to Yemen! Isn't that a ridiculous thought?

Another way of finding the meaning in which the Prophet used the word "mawla" for 'Ali is to see how the people in Ghadir Khumm understood it. Did they take the word "mawla" in the sense of "friend" or in the meaning of "master, leader"?

Hassãn ibn Thãbit, the famous poet of the Prophet, composed a poem on the event of Ghadir Khumm on the same day. He says:

He then said to him: "Stand up, O 'Ali, for

I am pleased to make you Imam & Guide after me.

In this line, Hassãn ibn Thãbit has understood the term "mawla" in the meaning of "Imam and Guide" which clearly proves that the Prophet was talking about his successor, and that he was not introducing 'Ali as a "friend" but as a "leader".

Even the words of 'Umar ibn al-Khattãb are interesting. He congratulated Imam 'Ali in these words: "Congratulations, O son of Abu Tãlib, this morning you became mawla of every believing man and woman."[56] If "mawla" meant "friend" then why the congratulations? Was 'Ali an 'enemy' of all believing men and women before the day of Ghadir?

These immediate contexts make it very clear that the Prophet was talking about a comprehensive authority that 'Ali has over the Muslims comparable to his own authority over them. They prove that the meaning of the term "mawla" in hadíth of Ghadír is not "friend" but "master, patron, lord, or leader".[57]

Finally, even if we accept that the Prophet uttered the words "Whomsoever's mawla I am, this 'Ali is his mawla" in relation to the incident of the expedition to Yemen, even then "mawla" would not mean "friend". The reports of the expedition, in Sunni sources, say that 'Ali had reserved for himself the best part of the booty that had come under the Muslims' control. This caused some resentment among those who were under his command. On meeting the Prophet, one of them complained that since the booty was the property of the Muslims, 'Ali had no right to keep that item for himself. The Prophet was silent; then the second person came with the same complaint. The Prophet did not respond again. Then the third person came with the same complaint. That is when the Prophet became angry and said, "What do you want with 'Ali? He indeed is the waliy after me."[58]

What does this statement prove? It says that just as the Prophet, according to verse 33:6, had more right (awla) over the lives and properties of the believers, similarly, 'Ali as the waliy, had more right over the lives and properties of the believers. The Prophet clearly puts 'Ali on the highest levels of authority (wilãyat) after the Prophet himself. That is why the author of al-Jãmi'u 's-Saghír comments, "This is indeed the highest praise for 'Ali."

6. Conclusion

In this brief survey, I have shown that the event of Ghadir Khumm is a historical fact that cannot be rejected; that in studying Shí'ism, the precommitment to Judeo-Christian tradition of the Orientalists was compounded with the Sunni bias against Shí'ism. Consequently, the event of Ghadir Khumm was ignored by most Western scholars and emerged from oblivion only to be handled with scepticism and re-interpretation.

I hope this one example will convince at least some Western scholars to re-examine their methodology in studying Shí'ism; instead of approaching it largely through the works of heresiographers like ash-Shahristãni, Ibn Hazm, al-Maqrizi and al-Baghdãdi who present the Shí'as as a heretical sect of Islam, they should turn to more objective works of both the Shí'as as well as the Sunnis.

The Shí'as are tired, and rightfully so, of being portrayed as a heretical sect that emerged because of political circumstances of the early Islamic period. They demand to represent themselves instead of being represented by their adversaries.

* * *

Peace be upon you,

O my Master, Amiru 'l-Mu'minin!

O the trustee of Allãh in His earth,

His representative among His creatures,

and His convincing proof for His servants...

Peace be upon you,

O the upright religion of Allãh and His straight path.

Peace be upon you, O the great news about whom they disputed and about whom they will be questioned.

I bear witness, O Amiru 'l-Mu'minin,

that the person who doubts about you

has not believed in the trustworthy Messenger;

and one who equates you to others has astrayed

from the upright religion which

the Lord of the universe has chosen for us and

which He has perfected through your wilãyat

on the day of Ghadir.

(Excerpts from Ziyãrat of the Day of Ghadír)