al-ciada
21-02-07, 11:25 AM
assalamu alaikum
i'm discussing with a friend who is shia differences between shia islam and sunni islam and he asked me what the ruling of the sunni scholars on the sermon at ghafir khumm where the shia believe the prophet supposedly annointed Ali as khalif.
in my searching on the internet i've struggled to find much info by sunnis on it, every time you do a search on it it just brings up shia websites... probably because ghadir khumm is like.. one of the defnining moments in their religion i guess.
can anyone help me with this and give me information about what us sunnis believe occured? i'd be especially interested to read/listen to any lectures on the issue or read any fatwa or writings of scholars as well.
jazakallah khair for any response
wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
khanbaba
21-02-07, 01:57 PM
THE DECLARATION ON THE BANK OF GADEER I KHUM
At the bank of this lake the pilgrim travellers stopped and Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) is supposed to have made a declaration, "whose moula I am, his moula is Ali". In Arabic "Moula" means 'friend'. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said, "whose friend I am, his friend is Ali. Oh Allaah! Keep friendship with that person who keeps friendship with Ali and be enemy to him, who keeps enmity with Ali". What actually happened here was that a person quarreled with Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu). Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) therefore explained to him and in order to teach everyone else by way of a lesson, said, "whose friend I am, his friend is Ali." This had no bearing at all with the caliphate or the administration or the government. The Jews turned this into a basis of falsehood and said that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had declared Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as his successor at 'Gadeer I Khum' and had said, "See, Ali is my caliph" and keeping hand on his shoulder, said "Whose moula I am, his moula is Ali ". The Shias worked extremely hard on this and to prove the meaning of this hadeeth which they rephrased and wrote books propagating that this contains the declaration of caliphate.
It is to be re iterated with sorrow that the Shiah youth as well as the common public of the Shiah sect remember their history so well that they repeat it all the time and it is always on their tongues, whereas the Sunni public is totally unaware of their back ground even though it contains the truth.
Sadly, even the elders who are asked about these incidents, do not remember. The result is that whenever a Shiah person narrates this fabricated incident, the people run towards the Masjids to inform what they have heard. It is the duty of our youth to take interest in these religious matters and to keep in mind the basic historic information? There should not be so much ignorance about these incidents . The result of such ignorance is that whenever an opponent attacks, so many people are deprived of belief and faith and they join a deviated community.
POLITICAL SUCCESSION AFTER THE LAST PROPHET Rasulullaah (SALLAllaahU ALAYHI WA SALLAM).
This matter is included in the "principle matters" of Shias. It is a basic matter for them. When Deen was completed.? How was the issue of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam's) succession was decided? How was the issue of caliphate decided? One fact is regularly repeated so that it may be remembered is that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), during his last moments, due to acute weakness because of illness, had nominated Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) to lead the prayers in Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam's) absence (4). Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) continued leading the prayers upto the demise of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had not nominated anyone for political succession, but only for leading prayers. This gave an indication and hinted that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) nominated the best of Muslims to lead them in prayer, but it made no political nomination. The reason was that the Ummah itself was left with the choice. Allaah Almighty had, however, informed Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), through Divine revelation, that the Ummah shall not be willing to choose any person, other than Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) (5). That is why Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), on his own, had not taken any step. After the demise of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) said, "Look, prayer (salaat) is the basis of our Deen. For worldly direction, whom do we choose, for our country whom do we choose and for government, whom do we choose"?.After that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) said that for our world we chose him whom Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) chose for our Deen (6). Prayer relates to Deen and caliphate deals with administrative matters. So, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) said, "We, for our world, agreed on him, whom Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had agreed for our Deen, and the companions (radhiyAllaahu anhum) unanimously chose Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as their caliph. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had not appointed anyone as caliph. The reason for this was that if Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed the caliph, no one would have had the courage to object to any matter relating to his caliphate and his administration, if the appointment was made by Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) it would seem as if they were questioning his wisdom. The intention of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) was that if anyone had any objection on any issue, the caliph could be questioned and obliged to answer to the satisfaction of the questioner. You might have heard about the famous incident about Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu). Once, while wearing a long shirt he was questioned thus "Everyone has only one Yamani sheet, so how did you get two, because this long shirt is made of cloth from more than one sheet." Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) pointed towards his son, Hadhrat Abdullah (radhiyAllaahu anhu), who explained that he had given the sheet received by him to his father. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) therefore presented his defence. Why did the occasion arise for defence? Because the appointment of caliph was made by the Ummah and the Ummah had taken the oath of allegiance and therefore had the right to question whom they had chosen. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) desired that the caliph should be answerable to the Ummah. If Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed the caliph, then the Ummah would not feel comfortable to question him. This was the far sighted philosophy, wisdom and intelligence of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). He left the Ummah in a condition that whoever becomes caliph, has to be answerable to the Ummah.
THE LAST PROPHET Rasulullaah (SALLAllaahU ALAYHI WA SALLAM) DID NOT NOMINATE ANYONE FOR MATTERS OF GOVERNMENT.
Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) did not nominate anyone for the matters relating to government, but he nominated one for prayer, because it could not be delayed. Remember, Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had NOT appointed anyone for government, for caliphate, for lordship, for chieftainship. The Jews fabricated a story that Rasulullaah had appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam's) successor at Gadheer I Khum. This is false. The Shias propagate, with great emphasis, that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed his successor at Gadeer I Khum. Let us look at this from a logical point of view.
Commonsense demands that if Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had to appoint and declare a successor, then the plains of Arafat was most suitable for it and not the bank of a pond where only 13 people were present. When there is a huge congregation, an annual congregation and Muslims from every area are present, then that was where the declaration should have been made and not at the bank of a pond.
WHEN WAS THE VERSE OF COMPLETION OF DEEN REVEALED?
Another bone of contention for the Shias is that our Deen was completed on the 9th of Zil Hajj. On this day, Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said, in the name of Allaah Almighty, that "our Deen is complete". This means that henceforth, no verse can be revealed explaining any matter or principle relating to Deen. Shias have a belief that after prophethood, Allaah Almighty has established the chain of 'Imaamat' of the twelve Imams, who are appointed by Allaah Almighty, and who came turn by turn. They may be questioned about whether this issue of Imaamat is a basic one and based on principle or an administrative one? For us, caliphate is an administrative matter and not a Divine heavenly one. Muslims may adopt any procedure for control and administration of the country. They may choose the ruler, choose the caliph, choose the head. This is an administrative matter and not a Divine one. The Divine issues ended with the end of prophethood. When Jibrael (A.S.) came on earth, brought the message of Allaah and said, "this is my last visit to earth (7). I am, after this, not to come to earth with any message@. For this particular purpose, he was not to come again. Yes, for bringing the blessing of Allaah, to come on Laila tul Qadr, to come during the nights of Ramadhaan, is a different matter. But, to descend with the message of Almighty Allaah, this was his last descendance and none was to come after it. The instructions / directions received from Allaah, are divine instructions. As far as government and caliphate is concerned, these are administrative matters and not Divine ones. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), in his capacity as Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), was standard bearer of Divine instructions. As head of the state, administratively the worldly affairs were done under Divine Guidance.
After the demise of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) there was no need for further Divine instructions, as these were available in the form of the Quraan and Sunnah. The matter remained of administration, for which the Shias themselves have proposed the 18th Zil Haj (i.e. after pilgrimage). According to them, the caravan of Muslims of Madinah was returning and on the way at Gadeer I Khum, the declaration was made. According to the statement of Imam Baqir, the date was 18 and they say that the Deen was completed with the caliphate, on the 18th. We, Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat say that our Deen was completed on the 9th. Almighty Allaah said on 9th Atoday I have completed your Deen@. So Deen was completed on 9th and if the matter of caliphate or government was a basic matter, it would have been done before the 9th and not related to Deen. They will not accept that it was a casual matter, which happened on the way and Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) made reconciliation between both parties, with the words, "who is not friend of Ali, I am not his friend" (provided the hadeeth is true).
THE COUNTER ACTIVITY OF SHIAS:
The Shias have concocted (8) that this verse, " today I have completed your Deen " was revealed twice. Once on the 9th and again on the 18th. Some verses were revealed twice. "Surah Fateha" was revealed twice. Shias say that this verse was revealed on the 9th and again on the 18th. We say that in the word 'today' or Athis day@occurring in it, time is specified. When there is no time limit or fixation of time in 'Surah Fateha' who is the authority to do so. It may be said ten times or twenty times, it is proper as no time limit is involved in it. So in a verse in which time is not specified even if it is revealed ten times it does not matter. But in the verse in which time is specified, Allaah Almighty completed Deen on the 9th and afterwards Allaah Almighty says, "completed on the 18th." In this case one of them will be incorrect, either the first or the second. Any news specifying 'time' can be said once only. You have received a letter. You say you received it on Tuesday. After that you say that it was received by you on Thursday. Would the listener pardon you? No!. An issue specifying time has no change. The statement 'I received a letter on Thursday' involves time. To then say that you received it on Friday would be wrong unless you negate your earlier statement. Both cannot be true. In human terms a person may make an error and correct it later. To say Allaah did such a thing is outrageous. If Allaah Almighty says AToday I have completed Deen@ and the date was the 9th, how is it possible that Allaah may say again on the 18th, A no, I have completed it today@. Either the first statement shall be incorrect or the later one. The Shias have laid their claim on the allegation that the appointment of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) was made at Gadeer I Khum and it was said, "Ali shall be my successor after me.@
WHY DID HADHRAT ALI (RADHIYAllaahU ANHU) HIMSELF NOT SAY SO?
A question of great importance arises that when Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) passed away, why did Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) himself not say that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed him caliph or that Allaah had appointed him Imam. He used to offer prayers under the leadership of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) and during the caliphate period of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) under his leadership, and after that and during the caliphate of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyAllaahu anhu), he always co operated and never claimed to be the successor and caliph of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Take note that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) does not declare this calim. Yet these people say that he was appointed as caliph. The claimant is silent, he says nothing, but the witness is so active that he is saying time and again that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as his caliph. This does not appeal to wisdom and intelligence. Had Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) or Allaah appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as caliph, he could have at least once, in his life, declared that he was Allaah's appointee. He used to offer prayers under the leadership of all the three caliphs (9) and fully co operated with them, but these people deny this saying that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as caliph and his caliphate is lawful and justified. Some allege that he was afraid to do so. This argument degrades the status of so brave a soldier of Islaam as Hadhrat Ali(R.A.)
ONE MORE OCCASION FOR PROPOSING CALIPHATE:
The Shias made up another story. They claim that when the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to Madinah after Gadeer I Khum, he fell ill, and requested them to bring a pen and paper to write something "you bring a pen and paper for me, so that I may write something for you and you will not go astray after me". it was a narrative that the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had asked for a pen and a paper in his last moments. In fact, the Beloved Prophet (SallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had intended to bequeath three things, which are all mentioned in the hadeeth. The first thing Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had intended to inform the companions (radhiyAllaahu anhum) was to permit foreign deputations to come and to provide an opportunity for them to talk on international matters. After my death, the ambassadors of foreign countries, representatives of foreign countries will come to you. So keep and maintain international relations with them. You should grant them permission to come, as I was doing (10). Islaam does not want you to stagnate to stay at one place only. No. Islaam says that you should spread over the earth as much as you can so that the voice of Allaah may spread over the wide land. This was the first advice. The second advice was not to depend on the Jews and that the whole island of Arabia should be evacuated of Jews. This was the order of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) for at the time of his demise, the Jews were living even in Madinah. They were evacuated by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) during his period of caliphate, saying that Amy Master (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had bequeathed that the infidels and Jews should not live here.@ (11). All Jews, who were living in Madinah, were asked to pack their bags and baggage and were assured to be given full compensation for what they left behind. Islaam does not educate to oppress or to take possession of belongings of others. What could not be taken was compensated for. The Jews left from Khyber and they were compensated for each and every thing.
These were the advises of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). To entertain the foreign deputations and not to send them back and the second advice was to evacuate the Jews from the Island of the Arabs. The third advice was Not to worship his grave as the people coming with love and affection may do. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), who spent his whole life in propagating Tauheed and the Oneness of Allaah, stated that his grave may not be worshipped for the purpose of prayer (12). These were three matters about which bequeath was made. In some narratives, the bequeath was for the second matter, i.e. about the evacuation of the Jews.
THE SHIAS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THIS BEQUEATH:
The Shias do not except all this and say that the purpose of requesting pen and paper was to dictate Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu's) caliphate. If, the purpose was to dictate Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu's) caliphate, then they should at least admit that there was no declaration made at Gadeer I Khum concerning caliphate, due to which now the necessity of bequeath arose. If declaration had been made there in the presence of 13 people, then there was no need of bequeath here. If Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had to bequeath here, no declaration was made there. If declaration was made there, then there was no bequeath here and this was not the bequeath of caliphate, but for some other matter. But, these Shiah ayatullahs are strange people, who on one side say that declaration was made at Gadeer I Khum and at the same time claim that Rasulullaah was requesting for pen and paper to nominate the caliph.
abdusamad
22-02-07, 03:09 AM
There is NO such thing as SHIA ISLAM or SUNNI ISLAM
The Raafidha are not Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, and they have their own religion.
Where as the sunnis are of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, and hence we are followers of ISLAM
al-ghazalli
22-02-07, 03:53 PM
http://al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm
Sidi I say this to you with sincere nisihah so I pray inshallah you do not take this as something offensive but polemics is for those who have lost the love to remember Allah Almighty.
I have visited that site often and I can tell you the site is nothing but distortions and lies, just take a look at the references they give for sunni books or hadith, half of them don't even exist or they are severely distorted.
And May Allah Guide us All to the Truth.
Amen.
Haider Ali
22-02-07, 07:24 PM
Sidi I say this to you with sincere nisihah so I pray inshallah you do not take this as something offensive but polemics is for those who have lost the love to remember Allah Almighty.
I have visited that site often and I can tell you the site is nothing but distortions and lies, just take a look at the references they give for sunni books or hadith, half of them don't even exist or they are severely distorted.
And May Allah Guide us All to the Truth.
Amen.
I'm not offended at all akhi. But do keep in mind that Ghadir Khum is an authentic historic event according to all Islamic school of thoughts.
And Ameen to your sincere prayer.
Wassalam.
al-ghazalli
22-02-07, 09:15 PM
I'm not offended at all akhi. But do keep in mind that Ghadir Khum is an authentic historic event according to all Islamic school of thoughts.
And Ameen to your sincere prayer.
Wassalam.
Assalamu `ala man ittaba`al-huda
I do not deny the event of Ghadeer Khum Sidi, but in order to understand the sunni viewpoints you have to understand our basis of Usul.
Really its all about Usul al-Fiqh the superiority of fiqh over hadith has been established by the numerous sayings of the Khalaf. Our precepts of ijtihad are quite different to that of shias due to base differentials in our epistemology.
This is why different madhabs (groups of scholars who follow each of the respective methodologies) have different views on interpretations and utilisation of various hadith.
Hence daleel is not hadith alone, but the composition of hadith and other evidenciary sources within a given framework. If this forms a coherent proof with respect to the basic axioms of the framework, then it is a valid ruling/interpretation. If it does not, it is not.
Hence it's a good idea to understand sunni usul al-fiqh when one is trying to understand why sunnis have the positions they do on various topics.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.