The opinion/view that the Messenger (SAW) designated/specified a specific person to be Khaleefah after him contradicts the Shari’ah texts. And the statement that the Messenger (AS) designated certain persons to be Khulafaa after him until the Day of Judgement is even more contradictory to the Islamic texts.As for invalidating (the opinion) that the Messenger designated the Khilafah to anyone after him, this is apparent in numerous ways:First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since designating a person means informing Muslims who will be the Khaleefah over them. Hence the Khaleefah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can someone say that the pledge is the giving of obedience to this Khaleefah as the Shar’a has stated/enunciated (nassa) the obedience to the Khaleefah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in may other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is giving leadership (riasah) to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit (inqiyad) to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger designating a specific person to be Khaleefah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came generally (‘aama) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are: “He who dies without a pledge on his neck,” “Whoever pledges an Imam,” and “A man who pledges an Imam.” The opinion that the Messenger designated a specific person to become Khaleefah after him contradicts and invalidates the generality and unrestricted nature of the pledge. One should not say that this means that the pledge is the very way (‘ayn) of appointing the Khaleefah while the appointment of the Khaleefah is not the pledge so it is inevitable to first appoint the Khaleefah then pledge him; one should not say this because the pledge being the method of appointing the Khaleefah does not mean that it is exactly the same as his appointment. Nor should one say that it is required (la budda) to first appoint the Khaleefah and know his appointment before giving him the pledge as this would mean there is another method for appointing the Khaleefah such that the pledge is merely giving him obedience, whereas the ahadith on the pledge all indicate that it is the method to appoint the Khaleefah and there is no other way. Consider his statement (AS): “Whoever dies without a pledge on his neck”; it is quite explicit in meaning that whoever dies without appointing his Imam via the pledge nor does it mean in any way whoever dies without obeying an Imam. This indicates that in this hadith the Prophet means the method of appointing the Khaleefah nor does it mean mere obedience. Also consider his (AS) statement: “When the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter”; this is explicit that if two Khaleefahs are appointed, kill the later of them.Likewise all ahadith of the Prophet are explicit that it is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. The ahadith of the Prophet are explicit in not meaning mere obedience or unrestricted (mutlaq)obedience; rather, they mean submission/following the one appointed as the Khaleefah with their meaning that this is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. Above all this, there has not been authenticated even one hadith, whether in narration or meaning, which demonstrates any method of appointing the Khaleefah other than the pledge.Second: Ahadith have come from the Messenger (SAW) indicating that there will be disputes and contentions among people about the Khilafah and competition over it. If there were a text from the Messenger upon a (specific) person, there would not arise a dispute in the presence of that text or the Messenger would state that people would dispute with that person. Whereas the texts came saying that people would dispute between themselves and clarifying the method to open (fadh) this dispute and decide/settle the issue of the Khilafah. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Wahab bin Baqiyyat al-Wasiti narrated to me that Khalid bin Abdullah al-Juzairi told us from Abu Nadhra from Abu Said al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “If the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter of them.” Muslim also said in his Saheeh: Zuhayr bin Harb and Ishaq bin Ibrahim narrated to me, with Ishaq saying we were informed and Zuhayr said it was narrated to us by Jareer, from Al-‘Amash from Zaid bin Wahhab from Abdurrahman bin Abdurrabb al-Ka’aba who said: I entered the mosque and Abdullah bin ‘Amru bin al-‘As was seated in the shade of the Ka’aba with people gathered around him. So I joined them and sat with him. He said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in a voyage and we stopped at an encampment…when an announcer (mu’adhin) of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) announced collective prayer. So we all gathered before the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who said: “There was no Prophet before me except that it was obligatory upon him to guide his Ummah to the best that he knew for them and warn them of the worst he knew for them until he said: Whoever pledged an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, should obey him as much as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of the other person.” Muslim also narrated in his Saheeh: Muhammad bin Bashar narrated to us that Muhammad bin Ja’far narrated to us that Shu’ba narrated to us from Furrat al-Qazzaz from Abu Hazm who said: I remained with Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) who said: “The children of Israel had Prophets taking care of their affairs as politicians (tasusuhum). Whenever one Prophet died, another followed him. However, there will be no Prophet after me but there will be Khulafaa who will be many. They said: What do you command us? He said: Fulfil the pledge one after the other.” Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Uthman bin Abu Shayba narrated to us that Yunus bin Abu Ya’fur narrated to them from his father from Arfaja who said he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever finds you will all your affair united in one man, intending to incite rebellion or divide your unity, kill him.” This means that the Khilafah is the right of all Muslims such that each can contend for it. This contradicts the (saying that) the Messenger designated a specific person to be Khaleefah after him.Third: The ahadith which came with the word Imam by meaning of Khaleefah came with this word in unspecified (nakira); and when it came specified (ma’rifa), it either came specified with “the” (“al”) of the species (jins) or related to a collective noun (jam’u). In the (amkina) which came specified with “al”, it was the “al” of species by evidence of the sentence. The Messenger said: “Whoever pledges an Imam”, “…stood against an unjust Imam”, “there will be Imams after me.” And he said: “The Imam is the one who is a shepherd/guardian (ra’i) over the people and he is responsible for his citizens”, “Verily the Imam is a shield from behind whom they fight and by whom they are protected” and he said: “…to the Imam of the Muslims”, “The best of your Imams”, “…the worst of your Imams.” All this indicates that the Messenger (SAW) left vague (abham) who would be the Khaleefah after him without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam for a specific person.Fourth: The Sahabah (RA) differed in their time upon the persons to be the Khaleefah among them. This difference upon persons is an evidence that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr and Ali. Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah argue that there was a text for certain persons in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should noe say that there is a text which was know after them but it did not reach them because we take our deen from the Sahabah. They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text-any text-from the Sahabah, then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khaleefah after the Messenger, we find all the Sahabah without exception-including Abu Bakr and Ali-agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the uity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah.Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (SAW) did not appoint a Khaleefah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khaleefah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (RA) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khaleefah? He said: “If I appoint a Khilafah, verily one better than me did appoint a Khaleefah i.e. Abu Bakr. And if I do not, then one better than me did not i.e. the Messenger of Allah (SAW).” Muslim narrated from bin Umar that Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) said: “Verily Allah ‘azza wa jalla will preserve the deen. If I do not appoint a Khaleefah, verily the Messenger of Allah (SAW) did not appoint; and if I do appoint, verily Abu Bakr did appoint.” This is a clear text that the Messenger did not appoint a Khaleefah. Nor should one say that this is Umar’s opinion for when a companion says, ‘The Messenger did this or did not do this or we were in his time like this or there was in his time such and such’, this is a hadith used as evidence not merely a companion’s view. Moreover, Umar said this within the hearing and sight of the Sahabah, and Ali (RA) was present and this statement reach him without him opposing it, which indicates their agreement upon what Umar narrated.This is all with respect to the absence of any specific text designating a specific person for the Khilafah. As for the texts brought by those who say that there are texts designating a specific person, among these texts are those brought to indicate that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr to become Khaleefah after him whereas others are brought to indicate that he appointed Ali as Khaleefah after him. We must present them and explain their contents. As for the texts brought by those who say the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr, they are divided into two: One portion in which the Messenger (SAW) praises Abu Bakr wherein there is nothing to indicate that the Messenger appointed him. The other portion is one wherein some deduce by deduction (instinbat) that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr while others deduce that he nominated (rashaha) Abu Bakr. We will present their model by presenting some of them, noting that none of them exceed the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Said al-Khudri that the Prophet (SAW) said: “Verily the most gracious of people to me in his companionship and wealth is Abu Bakr. Were I to take an intimate friend (khaleel) other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr but instead there is the brotherhood of Islam and its love. There should not remain in the mosque any door but that it should be closed/barricaded except for the door of Abu Bakr.” Muslim also narrated this hadith but with different wording, although similar to these ones. There is nothing in this hadith to make a person say that he appointed Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. All that it contains is praise for Abu Bakr from the Messenger, and the Messenger (SAW) praised many companions by name. There have come ahadith with praise for Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas, Talha, Az-Zubayr, Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein (RA), Zayd bin Haritha, Usama bin Zayd, Abdullah bin Ja’far, Khadija, Aisha, Fatima daughter of the Prophet (AS), Umm Salamah, Bilal and others. Praise by itself does not in any way whatsoever indicate appointment to be Khaleefah (istikhlaf).As for the ahadith from which some deduced the Khilafah of Abu Bakr, they are four ahadith which we will present and clarify all that they contain. These ahadith are:First: Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Qasim bin Muhammad who said: “Aisha said: O my head so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: If it were to happen and I were alive, I would ask for you to be forgiven and pray for you. Aisha said: That is a serious matter (athkuliyahu). By Allah, I believe that you would like my death so that it if happened, you would spend the rest of your days wedded happily with some of your wives. The Prophet (SAW) said: Rather it is my head which is heavy. I wished/intended (hamamtu) to send for Abu Bakr and his son so as to give him a pledge/promise (‘ahd) so that no person will speak or a wisher wish. Then I said that Allah will reject and the believers prevent that or Allah will prevent and the believers reject.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Aisha in this wording from her: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to me in his illness: “Call for me your father, Abu Bakr, and your brother so that I write a book for I fear that a wisher will wish or a speaker say: I am better (or take precedence). But Allah will reject, and so the believers, except for Abu Bakr.”Secondly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father who said: “A woman came to the Prophet (SAW) and spoke to him about something; and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I came and did not find you—as is she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father in the words: “A woman asked the Messenger of Allah (SAW) something and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I come and do not find you—My father said: As if she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.”Thirdly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha, the mother of the believers, “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) told me during his illness: Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Aisha said: I said: When Abu Bakr stands in your place, people do not hear him for his crying so command Umar to lead prayers. He said: Command Abu Bakr to lead people in prayer. Aisha said: I said to Hafsa: Say that when Abu Bakr stands in your place, the people do not hear, and she did that. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: You are like the companions of Yusuf. Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Hafsa said to Aisha: I will never achieve any good through you!”Fourthly: Muslim narrated from bin Abu Mulkiyya who said: “I heard Aisha being asked: Whom would the Messenger of Allah (SAW) have appointed as Khaleefah after him had he so appointed? She said: Abu Bakr. She was asked: Then whom after Abu Bakr? She said: Umar. She was then asked: Then whom after Umar? She said: Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, and she stopped at that.”All these ahadith are not suitable evidence for the Messenger appointing Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. The first hadith is rejected for two reasons: The first is that the Messenger said: “I wished or intended” but he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered a Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr. Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to debate/contend (yunaqish) with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khaleefah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah.As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct/accurate that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words-“If I did not find you”-that you had died. The words which came in the hadith-“As if she meant death”-are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr if she came and did not find him is no proof/indication (dalalat) for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after the Messenger. Even if we were compelled to take her as meaning death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after him.As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in ruling/authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a vast (shas’i) difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger; rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahaba’s opinion is not a proof nor considered a Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khaleefah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger appointed Ali, they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger praised our master Ali (RA), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali, and a category in which those who accept the authenticity of the text (muhtajeen) have a clear text that the Messenger appointed Ali as Khaleefah.As for the first category in which the Messenger praised Ali, we will present a model of them by mentioning some of the ahadith with the remainder not exceeding the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Sahl bin S’ad (RA) “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: I will give the flag (rayah) tomorrow to someone by whose hands Allah will conquer. He said: So the people spent the night (yadukuna) which one of them it would be given to. When people woke up, they all (ghadaw) to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) hoping it would be given to them, but he said: Where is Ali bin Abi Talib? They said: His eyes are paining/injured. O Messenger of Allah. He said: Send to him to come to me. When he came, he (basiqa) in his eyes and prayed for him. He was cured as if he had never had (waji’a), and he gave him the flag.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Abu Hurayra with the words: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said on the day of Khayber: I will give this flag to someone who loves Allah and His Messenger by whose hands Allah will conquer. Umar bin al-Khattab said: I had never longed/wished for leadership except for that day. He said: (fatusawarat) for it hoping they would be called for it. He said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali bin Abi Talib and gave him the flag.”Al-Bukhari narrated in the chapter of (manaqib) of Ali (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you.” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan commanded S’ad saying: What has prevented you from insulting Abu Turab? He said: When I remember three (things) which the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said of him, I will never insult him. That I should have one of them is more beloved to me than red milch camels (n’um?). The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left him behind in some of his war expeditions, so Ali said to him: O Messenger of Allah (SAW), have you left me behind with women and children? The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to him: “Are you not pleased to be in the same status (manzalat) next to me like the status of Harun next to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” I also heard him say on the day of Khayber: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love. He said: (fatutwawulina) for it and he said: “Call for me Ali, so he was brought (urmida). He (busiqa) in his eyes and gave him the flag, and Allah conquered through him.’ And when this verse was revealed: Say: Come and let us call our sons and your sons [TMQ ], the Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain and said: ‘O Allah, this is my family.’” Muslim narrated from Sahl bin S’ad who said: A man from the family of Marwan was appointed (as ruler) over Madinah. He said: He called Sahl bin S’ad and commanded him to insult Ali. He said: Sahl refused, so it was said to him: If you refuse, then say: Allah curse Abu Turab. Sahl said: Ali has no name more beloved to me than Abu Turab, even though he would be pleased when called by it. It was said to him: Inform us of the incident as to why he was called Abu Turab, so he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to Fatima’s house and did not find him in the house, so he said: “Where is the son of your paternal uncle?” She said: There was something between him and me, and he made me angry and left without (yaqila) before me. So the Messenger of Allah said to someone: “Go find out where he is.” He came back and said: O Messenger of Allah, he is (raqid) in the mosque. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to him while he was reclining (mudhtaji’u). His cloak had fallen from his (shaqq) and mud/dirt (turab) had touched him, so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) began wiping it off him while saying: “Stand/wake up, O Abu Turab.” Muslim narrated from ‘Adiyy bin Thabit from Dharr who said: Ali said: “By the One who cleaves (falaqa) the grain (habbat) and (baraa nismat), it is the pledge of the unlettered (‘umiyy) Prophet (SAW) to me that none will love me except the believer and none will hate me except the hypocrite.” There is nothing in these ahadith to make someone say that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him. The hadith of Khayber is praise from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s statement to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you” is praise from the Messenger of Allah. As for the hadith of S’ad in which came: “Are you not pleased to have the status before me of Harun to Musa”, we will discuss in the second category of this topic (mawdhu’). In it is also the hadith of Khayber which is praise, and in it is that Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain are his family which is praise, and the hadith of Sahl bin S’ad is praise. Just like the Messenger of Allah (SAW) praised Ali, he also praised others among his Sahabah. The Messenger’s praise for a person does not in any way indicate his appointment.As for the second category of ahadith which are those from which some deduced that the Messenger stated textually that Ali would be Khaleefah after him, they are summarised (tatalakkhas) in these four texts:-1- Al-Bukhari narrated from Mus’ab bin S’ad from his father “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) left for Tabuk and appointed Ali, so he said: Do you leave me behind together with women and children? He said: Are you not pleased to have the same status with me as Harun had with Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me?” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are to me of the same status as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” And Muslim narrated from Ibrahim bin S’ad from S’ad that the Prophet (SAW) said to Ali: “Are you not pleased to have the same status before me as Harun before Musa.” Bin Ishaq narrated by saying: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left behind Ali bin Abi Talib to look after and supervise his family. They hypocrites (arjif bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal) and to make it easy (takhaffuf) for him. When the hypocrites said that, Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) took his weapons and left/moved out until he met the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because (istathqaltanee) and to make it easy for me. He said: “They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me so return and supervise on my behalf my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, to have the same status before me as Harun had before Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” So Ali returned to Madinah and the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his journey. As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned the following in the book “Al-Muraja’at”: “The hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: O Ali, verily it is allowed for you in the mosque what is allowed for me, and your status before me is that of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me.”2. Muslim narrated from Yazid bin Hayyan who said: I left with Husain bin Sabra and Umar bin Muslim to Zayd bin Arqam. When we sat with him, Husain said to him: “Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. You saw the Messenger of Allah (SAW), heard his hadith, fought with him and prayed behind him. Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. So relate to us, O Zayd, of what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). He said: O son of my brother, by Allah I have become old and my time has approached. I have forgotten some of that which I understood from the Messenger of Allah (SAW), so accept whatever I relate to you and do not force me on that which I do not relate. Then he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood one day before us speaking at the waters known as Khum between Makkah and Madinah. He thanked Allah, praised Him, exhorted and reminded then said: ‘As for what follows, verily O people I am but a man who (yuwshakk) that the messenger of my Lord will reach me and I will respond. I leave behind for you two weighty things (thaqalayn), the first of which is the Book of Allah wherein is guidance and light. Take the Book of Allah and restrict yourselves to it. He exhorted upon the Book of Allah and (raghiba) to it, then said: And the people of my house (ahl baitee). I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house.’ Husain said to him: and who are the people of his house, O Zayd? Are his wives not of his house? He said: His wives are of his house, but the people of his house are those to whom sadaqa is prohibited after him. He said: Who are they? He said: The family of Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far, and the family of ‘Abbas. He said: Is sadaqa prohibited to all of them? He said: Yes.”As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned in his book “Al-Muraja’at” this hadith via the following narration which At-Tabarani narrated through a chain whose authenticity is unanimously accepted from Zayd bin Arqam who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) spoke at Ghadeer Khum underneath trees and said: “O people, (yuwshakk) that I am called and I respond. Verily, I am responsible/accountable (mas’ool) and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We will testify that you conveyed, struggled and advised so may Allah recompense you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that Paradise is true and Hellfire is true, that death is true and resurrection after death is true, that the Hour (of Judgement) will come without any doubt, and that Allah will resurrect all those in their graves? They said: Yes, we do bear witness. Then he said: O people, verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. Whoever takes me as his patron then this one is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy. Then he said: O people, verily I (faratakum) and you will (warid) me at the Cistern (hawdth), a cistern wider than the distance from Basra to Sana’a. In it is (qidah) of silver the number of stars. Verily I will ask you when you come before me on the two weighty things (thaqalayn), how you took care of them after me. The weightier and greater one is the Book of Allah ‘azza wa jalla, a (sabab) of which one end is in the hands of Allah and the other in your hands. Hold tightly to it so that you do not go astray or change, and my (‘utra), the people of my house (ahl baitee). Verily the (lateef khabeer) has informed me that they will never (yanqadhiya) until they come before me at the cistern” (this is the end of what As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned).And Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Ameeni An-Najafi stated the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer”: “When he finished his rites of worship—i.e. the Prophet (SAW)—and left returning to Madinah, together with the mentioned group(s) of people, he reached Ghadeer Khum in Al-Jahfa where (tatasha’ab) the roads of the people of Madinah, Egypt and Iraq. This was the 15th day of Dhul-Hijja and Jibril, the trustworthy, descended to him from Allah with His saying: ‘O Messenger, deliver what was revealed to you from your Lord” [TMQ 5:] and He commanded him to cause Ali to stand to let the peole know and convey/inform that which was revealed regarding his patronage (wilayah) and the obligation of obedience upon every one. The first of the people were close to Al-Jahfa so the Messenger of Allah commanded those who had preceded to return and enclosed those who had delayed at that place, and he prohibited people from encamping beneath the five large close (samarat dowhat). When the people took camp and those underneath them (the trees) stood until the dhuhr prayer was announced, he headed for them and prayed beneath them. It was a (hajira) day where a man placed some of his cloak upon his face and some under his feet due to the severe heat, and the Messenger of Allah was shaded by a garment upon the (sumra) tree due to the sun. When he (SAW) finished his prayer, he stood to speak in the middle of the people in the (aqtab) of a camel with everyone hearing (rafi’a ‘aqeeratihi), and he said: ‘All praise is due to Allah whom we ask for help, believe in and depend upon. We ask Allah to protect us from the evils of our souls and bad deeds, the One whom none can guide whom He causes to go astray nor misguide whom He guides. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. As for what follows: O people, verily the (lateef) All-Knowing has informed me that He does not grant longevity to a Prophet except half the like of the one before him. Verily I (uwshakk) that I will be called and I will respond. Verily I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We bear witness that verily you have conveyed, advised and struggled so may Allah reward you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that His paradise is true and His hellfire is true, that death is true, that the Hour will come without any doubt and that Allah will resurrect htose in the graves? They said: Yes, we bear witness to this. He said: O Allah, do bear witness. Then he said: O people, will you not listen? They said: Yes. He said: Verily I (farata) to the cistern and you will be presented at the cistern, whose breadth is that between Sana’a and Basra, before me. In it is the (aqdah) of silver the number of stars, so look how you take care of the two weighty things after me. An announcer announced: And what are the two weighty things, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The greater of the two weighty things is the Book of Allah, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands so hold fast to it and you will not go astray. The other smaller one is my (‘utra). Verily the (lateef) All-Knowing informed me that they will never separate until they reach(?) the cistern and I asked that from my Lord. So do not precede them or neglect them or you will perish. Then he took the hand of Ali and raised it until the armpits was seen such that everyone recognised him and he said: O people, who takes precedence before the believers over their own selves? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: Verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. So whoever has me as his patron then Ali is his patron. He said this three times, and in the words of Imam Ahmad, Imam of the Hanbalis, four times. Then he said: O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and become an enemy to whoever takes him as an enemy. Love whoever loves him and hate whoever hates him, support whoever supports him and abandon whoever abandons him, and let the truth be with him wherever he is (dar). Verily, let the witness who is present the (one who is) absent.’”3. Those who say that the Messenger clearly announced the Khilafah of Ali narrated ahadith in their books. As for these ahadith, we will not make the place of research in them their narrations, despite the fact that the two shaikhs—Al-Bukhari and Muslim—did not narrate them, nor were they narrated via trustworthy narrators and most of them are among the fabricated ahadith. We will not make their narrations the place of research such that they say that these ahadith were not narrated by trustworthy narrators before you but were narrated by trustworthy narrators before us so that the one for whom the hadith is authenticated uses it as an evidence. Verily we will not make that the place of research; rather we will make the matter of research the texts themselves as they came in their narrations. These are the texts from which they deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him—and these ahadith are known as the ahadith of “wilayah”—which we will (nuwrid) a section of them with the rest being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi narrated from ‘bin Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali bin Abi Talib: “You are the waliyy of all believers after me.”b) It came in Kanz al-’Ammal from Imran bin Husain who said that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) sent an expedition and appointed Ali bin Abi Talib over them. He chose for himself a slave girl from the fifth (khums) and they rejected this from him. Four of them agreed to complain about him to the Prophet (SAW) so, when they came, one of the four stood and said: O Messenger of Allah, do you not see that Ali did such and such, and he turned away from him. The second stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. The third stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. And the fourth stood and said the same as they had said. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) turned towards them with anger (yabsiru) in his face and said: “What do you want for me with regard to Ali? Verily Ali is of me and I am of him, and he is the waliyy of every believer after me.”c) And in a long hadith from ‘Amru bin Maymun from ‘bin Abbas who said: TheMessenger of Allah (SAW) sent so and so with Surah At-Tawbah. He then sent Ali after him to take it from him and said: “No one should go with it except a man who is of me and I am of him.”d) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Wahhab bin Hamza who said: I travelled with Ali and I saw (jiffa) from him, so I said that when I return I will complain about it. So I returned and mentioned Ali to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) (faniltu minhu) and he said: “Do not say this of Ali, as he is your waliyy after me.”e) In Kanz al-’Ammal from ‘bin Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever is pleased to live my life, die my death and to reside in the paradise of Eden irrigated by my Lord then let him befriend Ali as waliyy after me.”f) In Muntakhab al-Kanz from Zayyad bin Mutarraf who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever would like to live my life, die my death, and enter the paradise promised to me by my Lord—and it is an eternal paradise—then let him befriend Ali and his descendants after me. Verily they will never remove you from the door of guidance nor enter you into the gate of misguidance.”g) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Ammar bin Yasir who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “I (awsiyy) whoever believes in me and trusts in me with the wilayah of Ali bin Abi Talib. Whoever befriends him has befriended me and whoever befriends me has befriended Allah. Whoever loves him has loved me, and whoever loves me has loved Allah. Whoever hates him has hated me, and whoever hates me has hated Allah.”h) Also in Al-Kanz from Ammar (marfu’): “O Allah, whoever believes and trusts in me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib. Verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.”4. There are ahadith narrated by those who say that the Messenger openly declared the Khilafah of Ali. These ahadith have not been narrated by any trustworthy person and most of them are fabricated ahadith. We present them not to research them from the angle of their narration so that they are claimed to be authenticated for those who narrate them. Rather we present them to make the point of research their texts according to what came in their texts. These ahadith contain the brotherhood of the Messenger with Ali, and making him the heir (al-warith) after him. We present a section of them with the remainder being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) The Prophet (SAW) established a brotherhood (akha) between the Muhajirin and chose Ali for himself. In what came of the hadith of the first brotherhood (muakhat), “so Ali said: O Messenger of Allah, verily my soul left me and my backbone broke when I saw you do what you did with your companions other than me. So if this is due to anger upon me, then for you is (‘atba) and graciousness. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: By the One who sent me with truth, I only left you for myself. Your are to me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me. You are my brother and inheritor. He said: What will I inherit from you. He said: What the Prophets inherited before me, the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophets.”b) The Prophet (SAW) made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar five months after the hijrah, but he did not make a brotherhood between Ali and any of the Ansar; rather he chose him for himself. In what came of the hadith of the second brotherhood “that the Messenger (SAW) said to Ali: Did you become angry at me when I made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and Ansar but did not make a brotherhood between you and any of them? Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?”c) It is narrated that the Messenger (SAW) went out one day to his companions with his face brightened so Abdurrahman bin Awf asked him and he said: “Good news came to me from my Lord about my brother and paternal uncle’s son and my daughter, that Allah will marry Ali with Fatima.” When the leader of women (zafata) her like with the leader of the (‘utra), the Prophet (SAW) said: “O Umm Ayman, call my brother for me. She said: He is your brother yet you are marrying him (to your daughter)? He said: Yes, O Umm Ayman. So she called Ali and he came.” And the Prophet spoke to him one day regarding a judgement (qadhiya) between him, his brother Ja’far and Zayd bin Haritha, saying: “As for you, O Ali, (you are) my brother, the father of my son, and of me and to me.”d) The Messenger (SAW) promised to Ali one day saying: “You are my brother and my wazeer. You will repay my debts, fulfill my commitments and (tubriu dhimmatee).”3) In Kanz al-’Ammal, he (SAW) said: “It is written on the gate of Paradise: There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.”These four texts, which are the texts in which the Messenger made him (Ali) of the status of Harun to Musa, the text that he left the Book of Allah and His (‘utra), the text of wilayah, and the text of brotherhood, are the texts from which some Muslims deduced that the Messenger (SAW) appointed Ali i.e. made him the Khaleefah after him. Let us take them text by text:As for the first text, which is the text which made Ali of the status of Harun to Musa before the Messenger, its meaning is clarified though studying the (maqam) in which it was said and studying its wording. As for the (maqam), the Messenger said this hadith on the day of the battle of Tabuk. Therein the Messenger (SAW) appointed in Madinah in his place Muhammad bin Maslamah to supervise the Muslims’ affairs and administer the rule (hukm), and appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family and commanded him to supervise them. The hypocrites (arjafa bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal lahu) and to make it easy from him (takhaffuf minhu). When the hypocrites said this, Ali (RA) took his weapon and left until he met the Messenger (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: “O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because you found me a burden and wished to make yourself light without me. He said: They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me. So return and take my place over my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, that you are of the same status before me as Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his travel. The hadith about making Ali the same status before the Messenger as Harun before Musa concern appointing him over his (SAW) family by the evidence of Ali’s own statement: “Do you leave me behind with women and children?” The reality of the incident is that he was appointed over his family so it cannot be taken to mean that he was appointed over the Khilafah, particularly when it is known that he (AS) appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah as ruler in his place and specified Ali to supervise over his family when he said to him, “my family and your family.” Moreover, the Messenger’s appointment of one of his companions over the rule when he left for battle does not meant that this appointed person is the Khaleefah in his place by the evidence that the Messenger (SAW) appointed many in the battles. In the battle of Al-‘Asheera he appointed Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Asad over Madinah, in the battle of Safwan he appointed Zayd bin Haritha over Madinah, in the battle Banu Lahyan he appointed bin Umm Maktum over Madinah, and so on. The appointment by the Messenger of someone to rule over Madinah until he returns form his battles does not indicate that means his appointment over the Khilafah, so what if he appointed him only over his family while appointing anotherr in authority until he returns from his battle?This is in relation to the appointment. As for the saying of the Messenger (SAW), “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun before Musa?” the meaning of its words are: Are you not pleased that there is for you, in what you surpervise/are appointed over, what Harun supervised for Musa. It is the resemblance (tashbeeh) of Ali with Harun with the way of resemblance being the appointment i.e. your similitude in my appointing you (or leaving you behind) is that of Harun when Musa appointed him. This is the meaning of the words of the hadith nore do these words have any other meaning/intention (murad). This meaning is specified and becomes the only meaning due to Ali’s saying to the Messenger: “Do you leave me behind with children and women?” whith the Messenger’s statement: “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” coming in response to this question of Ali and as a rejoinder to his statement. To understand what is meant by this hadith one must return to the Glorious Qur’an to see within in the (mawdhu’) of Musa’s appointing Harun to see what it is. Returning to the Glorious Qur’an, we find that this tale (qisa) is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following text: “We” [TMQ ]. So the hadith’s meaning becomes: Are you not pleased that I appoint you over my family like Musa appointed Harun over his people, so that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa due to the appointment? So the hadith’s intent is to pacify our master Ali’s (khatir) as he came displeased by this appointment, and at the same time it informs Ali that he will take his (SAW) place over his family when he is absent just like Harun took Musa’s place over his people when he was absent. As for his saying: “Except that there is no Prophet after me”, this negates the resemblance of Prophethood because Harun was a Prophet so he was a Prophet taking the place of another Prophet when he was absent. So the Messenger excluded Prophethood to remove any fancy/imagination that he is of the same status in Prophethood. Nor should one say that his statement, “No Prophet after me” means after my death as the words are related to appointment during his life. This is because Harun was a Prophet along with Musa during his life not after his death; he was his deputy (khalifa) over his people while he (Musa) was absent during his life not after his death. So the Messenger only made his statement: “Except that there is no Prophet after me” because Harun was a Prophet during Musa’s absence while he lived; so he made this statement in order to negate Prophethood from Ali. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) informed us in an authenticated hadith narrated by Al-Hakim that Harun died during Musa’s life. So there does not arise the issue of appointment after death as it did not exist in Harun and Musa, who are those with whom resemblance is made (mushabbih bihi), thus in does not exist in the Prophet and Ali who are the resemblers.This is the hadith’s meaning nore does it contain any indication to appointment over the Khilafah nore can it be understood in any way that the Messenger intended by this hadith to clearly state and make Ali Khaleefah over the Muslims after the Messenger’s death. The hadith (warid) relates to the appointment of Ali over the Messenger’s family during his absence due to the battle of Tabuk. As for the remaining narrations which came in this hadith i.e. his saying (AS): “Are you not please to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” some of them are authenticated narrations like those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their hadith from ‘Amir and Ibrahim, the two sons of S’ad, while others are not authenticated, but all of them came with the same text. This means that the hadith was said in Tabuk andt at other times. The response to this is that the authentic narrations are a narration which is a part of the incident i.e. narrations with the Messenger’s words alone separated from the incident which does not mean that it is an incident (haditha) other than the incident of Tabuk. Narrators and collectors of hadith frequently narrate a part of a hadith or a part of an incident, shortening it to the place of evidence (muhil shahid). Even if we accept that the hadith was not only over the incident of Tabuk but was said in Tabuk and other times, then this would mean that the Messenger appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family permanently during Tabuk and at other times; nor would it mean his appointment (may Allah ennoble his face) over the Khilafah after the Messenger’s death. All that the explanation of the hadith’s word and meaning indicate is: Are you not please that I appoint you over my family during my absence and whenever I am absent just like Harun supervised for Musa during his absence, except that Harun is a Prophet and you are not a Prophet because there is no Prophet after my Prophethood. This came in Muslim’s narration from Amir bin S’ad from his father: “Are you not pleased that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me” i.e. after my Prophethood. This is the similitude with which the Messenger compared Ali in relation to him just like Harun in relation to Musa i.e the appointment and nothing else, appointment during his absence and nothing else, and appointment over his family as came in the hadith’s text in its entirety. The frequency with which a hadith is repeated does not change its meaning to give it an alternative meaning. So the appointment in Tabuk was only over the Messenger’s family as is proven without doubt, while the other narrations in other than Tabuk conveyed the same text mentioned in Tabuk in words and meaning without mentioning the restriction (qayd) in the incident of Tabuk i.e. the family. Rather, they do not mention any restriction at all thus we measure/carry (tahmilu) them upon what was mentioned in the narration of Tabuk. This is because the narration of Tabuk is restricted to the family while the other narrations are free of any restriction in the appointment so we measure the unrestricted (mutlaq) upon the restricted (muqayyad). Nor should one say that the other narrations are general as the words of the hadith are not of the general words as the texts of all the narrations whether the narration: “Are you not pleased” or the narration: “Verily you” or the naration: “You” and the similar which is of the (mathabat) of Harun with Musa; all these words are specific to a specific status which is of the status of Harun with Musa which is not of the general status. Except that the status of Harun to Musa came unrestricted in some of the narrations which were not restricted by any restriction, while they were restricted to the family in some of the narrations so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted such that all the narrations are restricted to the family.As for the rest of the matters which Musa sought from Allah in his statement: “Give me an assistant (wazeer) from my family. My brother Harun…and associate him in my affair” [TMQ]. There is no place for them in relation to the status of Harun to Musa nor the appointment as it is a prayer from Musa to Allah to make his brother an assistant to him and to give him the Prophethood along with him because the matters which Musa prayed to Allah to associate Harun with him upon were Prophethood and the Message So the association was only in these matters not the rule, as Musa was not a ruler but only a Prophet. Moreover, the request was a request for assistance for him and associating him in his matter, not a request for his appointment (in rule).Above all that, these matters are not (mubayyina) to the status of Musa to Harun; rather (al-mubayyin) for the status of Musa to Harun is his appointing him over his people during his absence; so his status before him is that he took care of his people during his absence. There is no (wujud) for assistance and association in the Prophethood in the statement of the Messenger: “of the status of Harun to Musa” rather the meaning is restritcted to the appointment over the people nor do the texts carry any meaning other than this.It has been said that Musa was a ruler because a Shari’ah was revealed to him to rule by as there are solutions and punishments within it, and he was a leader of an army which intended to occupy Bait al-Maqdis when his people said to him: “You and your Lord go and fight” [TMQ 5:], so his appointment of Harun over his people was an appointment in Prophethood and also in authority. The response to this is that Musa was not a ruler, nor is it narrated in the Qur’an or elsewhere that he would execute the rules upon the children of Israel (Banu Israil) by strength/force and the authority (sultan) or that he was a ruler over them. Those who ruled Banu Israil with the Shari’ah of Musa was not Musa himself or in his lifetime, rather it was those Prophet who came after him like Dawud, Sulayman and other kings (muluk). As for Musa’s leadership over the armies, it never occurred. The ayat which are in Surah Al-Maidah from ayah 19 to ayah 26 do no have anything within them which indicates Musa’s leadership over the army; rather what is within them is that Musa requested his people to enter the Holy Land. They refused and said to him that there are a giant people (jabbar) within it so they would never enter until these giants left; they asked him and his Lord to go and fight but he did not go so the result was their (tahu) for fourty years in the wilderness (ardh). As for the revelation of the Shari’ah to Musa with solutions and punishments, this does not mean that Musa ruled with them; rather the reality is that he came with it and conveyed it to Banu Israil. He tried to take them to (Bait al-Maqdis) but they (tahuw) in the wilderness nor did they (istiqrar) in Musa’s time until his period ended. After their punishment with (at-teeh) ended, they moved and were ruled by kings and Prophets among them by the Shari’ah of Musa, which is stated by the Qur’an in more than one Surah. Moreover, the ayat in which Harun was appointed are explicit that it was an appointment on behalf of Musa in Prophethood when Musa went to (yultaqa) from Allah, which is in Surah Al-‘Araf from ayah 141: “We…” to the end of ayah 155: “And Musa chose from his people seventy men”. All of them are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, (tilqa alwah), Banu Israil taking (al-‘ajl) and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspcet (yashtabihu) that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no (shubha) that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause (sabab) like the incident of Tabuk or without any cuase, which indicate that the Messenger made Ali supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s appointment of ali, Ali became before the Messenger of the status of Harun to Musa. Ther is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger stated that Ali would become the Khaleefah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death.As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (SAW) house, to be gracious to them (yukarrimuhum), to honour and not to annoy (adha) them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The wores are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not chage what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Alilah the patron (mawla) by his statement: “Verily Allah is my Patron, and I am the patron of the believers such that I am dearer to them than their own souls. So the one for whom I am his parton, then this is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befirend whoever befriends him and be an enemy to whoever is an enemy to him.” As for the second matter, this is that he advised the doing of good to his (‘utra) by saying: “And my (‘utra), the people of my house, for verily the (lateef khabeer) informed me that they will never (qadhiya) until they arrive (yaridaa) at the cistern.” There is nothing other than these two matters in all these ahadith, despite all their number and differing narrations. As for the first matter, which is the friendship (muwalat), we shall discuss it during the discussion upon the ahadith of (wilayat) directly after this text. As for the second matter, it does not differ from being an advice to Muslims to be good to his (‘utra), the people of his house, by being gracious to them, honouring and not annoying/harming them as they will be questioned about them. Also that the family of the house and the Book of Allah will remain linked (muqtarineen) until the Day of Judgement. There exists nothing in this ahadith—the ahadith of Ghadeer Khum—more than advising Muslims to do good to his (‘utra); there is nothing within int indicating the appointment of Ali, or the people of his house, over the Khilafah after the death of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Where is the appointment in the Messenger’s statement according to all previous narrations narrated in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “Verily I will question you when you reach me about the two weighty matters, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or his statement: “Verily I have left for you two weighty matters, the Book of Allah ta’ala and my (‘utra)” or” “Verily I leave for you two weighty things, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or: “Be careful how you take my place over the two matters” or: “Do not (tuqaddimu) them so that you perish nor neglect them so that you perish.” Is there more in these texts than reminding the Muslims about his (‘utra) (AS) and exhorting them to be good to them? Does anyone understand from this that this means that they are the Khulafaa in ruling over Muslims after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death? From where is this taken? From the stated text of the words or their meaning? Thus there is no evidence in the hadith of Khum for the appointment of Ali, or the people of his family, over the Khilafah; so deducing through it fails/falls (tusqat).As for the third text, which are the ahadith of (wilayah), these ahadith by these words were not narrated by the two Shaikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, even if these ahadith are authenticated before those who rely upon them as evidence for Ali’s appointment, the texts they present cannot possibly be used to deduce such appointment. All their words are no more than “the waliyy of every believer after me”, “your waliyy after me”, “you are the waliyy of every believer after me”, “the waliyy of the believers after me”, “verily he is your waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali as waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali and his descendants as waliyy after me”, “whoever takes him as waliyy has taken me as waliyy”, “verily his wilayah is my wilayah”, “befriend whoever befirends him.” All these words and their like from all the rest of the narrations do not differ from the word al-waliyy, al-mawla and al-muwalat; so they are known as the hadith of (al-wilayah). The interpretation of all of them is in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “O Allah, be a waliyy for those who take him as waliyy, and be an enemy for those who oppose him/take him as an enemy.” The meaning here is their support and that they be with him and bear alliance/friendship (al-wala) and love for them. The word “waliyy” and “tawallaa” have come in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “He yatawallaa the righteous (as-saliheen)” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever yatawalla Allah and His Messenger and the beleivers, verily the party of Allah are the victorious” [TMQ ] and: “Verily your only waliyy is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe” [TMQ ] and: “His (Satan) only authority is over those who take him as waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Allah is the waliyy of the believers” [TMQ ] and: “They do not have against Him any waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever takes Satan as his waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa” [TMQ ] and: “Verily We have ordained for his waliyy a way” [TMQ ] and: “Verily my waliyy is Allah” [TMQ ] and: “That is because Allah is the waliyy of those whose believe and the disbelievers had no waliyy” [TMQ ]. In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy (al-aduww) so it is said: He took him as a friend (tawallaahu). The “mawla) is the supporter (an-nasir) and the (as-sayyid). Friendsihp/alliance (muwalat) is opposite to enmity (mu’adat). And the waliyy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor (as-sagheer) like the father and grandfather. The waliyy of the marriage contract (nikah), the properties and the orphan is the one who supervises/takes care of the affair and (yaqumu bi kifalatihi). In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliyy is among the names of Allah ta’ala who is the Helper/Supporter (An-Nasir) and it is said the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliyy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (SAW): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. All of this is not the meaning of the rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text (nass) for the Khilafah of Ali are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide (multahid ‘an al-bakhui’) that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost/more suitable in something even if we condescend that that is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings (mushtarak).” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know of the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it means in the hadith except that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are: 1) The Lord 2) Paternal uncle 3) Paternal uncle’s son 4) Son 5) Daughter’s son 6) The slave who is freed 7) One who frees a slave 8) Slave 9) Owner 10) Follower 11) One who is blessed 12) Partner 13) Confederate/Ally (haleef) 14) Companion 15) Neighbour 16) Guest 17) In-law 18) Relative (qareeb) 19) Benefactor/Beneficent 20) One lost to his friends/dead (faqeed) 21) Friend (waliyy) 22) Foremost/More suitable in something 23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave 24) Beloved 25) Helper 26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter 27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.” These are the meaning which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said: “Verily that which we consider (nartayahu) in this specific place after researching in the (ghimar) of the language, the (majami’ al-‘adab) and the (jawami’) of Arabic is that the reality of the meaning of “al-mawla” cannot be but the foremost/most suitable in something which collect these meanings collectively and is taken from each one of them with a manner (naw’) of attention.” So it apparent/clear from this that the word did not come with the meaning of ruler and that “al-muwalat” did not come with the meaning of rule, neither in the Qur’an or Hadith or the language. Words are interpreted either by their linguistic or Shari’ah meanings, so from where was the explanation of this ahadith taken that the “waliyy” and “muwalat” means giving the Khilafah to Ali and his family? When we follow those who deduced by these ahadith in any of the meanings of “waliyy” and “muwalat”, there never comes the meaning of supervising the rule in any of the texts. It is true that if we link/relate the word “waliyy” with the word “amr”, then its meaning becomes the ruler and it is said “waliyy al-amr”. In the ahadith which they call the ahadith of “al-wilayah”, the word “amr” never comes together with the word “waliyy” in any of their narrations, or any other narrations, which negates the meaning of taking care of the Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah from the ahadith.It is true that the word “wilayah” alone—not the words “mawla” or “waliyy” or “muwalat”—is a word with many meanings (mushtarak) including help/support (nusra) and authority i.e. the rule. In the ahadith which they narrated is the hadith mentioned in Kanz al-’Ammal which came with the word “wilayah” so one may say this means rule according to what the language states. The response is that this word came in the hadith by the meaning of taking as one friend (tawalla) which is indicated by the hadith’s text. Its text, according to what is narrated by those who use it as evidence, is: “O Allah, whoever believes in me and trusts me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib for verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.” This text specifies that its meaning is support/help (nusra) as the Messenger requested whoever believes in him to support/befriend (yatawalla) Ali because whoever supports him supports the Messenger and whoever supports the Messenger supports Allah. This is the meaning of the word “wilayah” and that is why it came expressed in “fa”: “For verily his wilayah is my wilayah.” It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali is the “waliyy” of every believer after the Messenger and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith—according to the language and Qur’anic texts—cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule (tawalla al-hukm) whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So they are not evidence that the Messenger appointed Ali to the Khilafah after him thus they arguing with them fails.Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is that fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article (mada) does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down (wudhi’a) for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came (ata) and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means (khalq) garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because of its meanings is the agent (mutassarif), and the one in charge (mutawalli), of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliyy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation (ishtiqaq). The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr.” “Waliyy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance (tawqeefiyya) according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications (madlulat). Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is that contextual connotations (qarain) in general, however they may be, cannot give a word ameaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a (mushtarak) word or (antonym?) for the word, and divert (tusarrifu) it from another, but it does not creat a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. That the word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters (thaqalayn) or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to (‘itibar) based upon their (‘itibar) of the Messenger, does not give it a new meaning that Ali becomes the ruler after the Messenger, as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliyy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali is the Khaleefah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.As for the fourth text which is the hadith of brotherhood, its mere reading when one views its sentence and words will lead to not using it as evidence. The texts which came upon this are: “You are my brother and inheritor”, “my brother and paternal uncle’s son”, “my brother and father of my son”, “from me and to me”, “my brother and assistant (wazeer) who repays my debts, fulfills my promise and (tubria dhimmatee)”, “Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.” All of these are words and sentences from which one cannot possibly deduce the appointment (istikhlaf) in any way. This is because they do not go beyond matters linked between a pair, the first expressing the extreme closeness of the second to him by (saying he is) his brother. The Messenger expresses the extreme closeness of Ali to him by calling him by calling him his brother and saying that he is from him, is his assistant and repays his debts. This is not any general matter (amr ‘aam) nor does it relate to the rule or Khilafah. Even if we insist that Ali is the Messenger’s (shafeeq) brother or his son, this does not indicate its meaning to be that he is the Khaleefah after him. His statement to Ali that: “You are my brother or son or assistant” or other similar things has no relationship in any way whatsoever, either in the language or the Shari’ah , to the rule or carry any indication relating to the appointment over the Khilafah. These ahadith are not suitable to be evidence that the Messenger promised Ali the Khilafah after him, and accordingly they fall down as evidence.As for the third type in which came clear texts(s) that the Messenger appointed Ali to become Khaleefah after him, they are two ahadith: the first is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer in one narration by the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” and the second is the hadith which they call the hadith of the house (ad-dar). As for the narration of the writer of the book of “Al-Ghadeer”, he mentioned a narration in the beginning of his book without mentioning the words “my heir (wasiyy) and Khaleefah” and then mentioned another later narration which he ascribed to At-Tabari which came with the words “my heir and Khaleefah” explicitly. So he—Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi, the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer”—said in his book in the chapter (‘anwan) “Al-Ghadeer in the Book of Al-‘Aziz”: “Al-Hafidh Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer At-Tabari who died in 310 hijri narrted in his narration in the book of “Al-Wilayah” among the chains of the hadith of Al-Ghadeer from Zayd bin Arqam who said: ‘When the Prophet (SAW) stopped at Ghadeer Khum in his return from the farewell pilgrimage at the time of forenoon when the sun was very hot, he commanded the tents (duwhat) which were assembled. He called for the collective prayer so we gathered. He gave a (baligha) khutbah and said: “Verily Allah ta’ala revealed to me: ‘Convey/Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord...protect you from the people’ [TMQ 5: ]. Jibril commanded me from my Lord that I stand at this witness point (mashad) and inform all white and black persons (i.e. all people) that Ali bin Abi Talib is my brother, heir, Khaleefah and the Imam after me.’” This is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, and due to the meaning of its text it is rejected so that what is said within it of the testament/bequest (wasiyya), appointment and leadership (imamah) after the Messenger is void without any basis for many causes (wujuh) such as:1. This ayah was not revealed in the farewell pilgrimage, rather it was revealed after Surah Al-Fath in the year of Hudaybiyya. This ayah is from Surah Al-Maidah which was revealed after Surah Al-Fath, and Surah Al-Fath was revealed during his (SAW) return from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. One glance to the Mushaf shows openly/clearly (bisata) the time of the revelation of the ayah: “O Prophet, convey what has been revealed to you” and shows it was revealed after Al-Fath. So the ayah was revealed four year before the farewell pilgrimage and has no relationship with the hadith of Ghadeer Khum in all the narrations since all narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum say that it happened in the farewell pilgrimage. This alone is enough to reject this hadith and certify its invalidity of what is claimed within it about the testament and appointment. 2. The meaning of the ayah is clear in its stated text and understanding that the Mesenger is commanded to convey what was revealed to him from his Lord, and that which was revealed to him from his Lord was the Islamic Message. This is designated and made the sole meaning intended, nothing else, by His statement in the same ayah: “And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message” i.e. if you do not convey what was revealed to you then verily you have not conveyed His message. This is a clear text that the intention (murad) of the ayah “What was revealed to you” is the message of Allah and nothing else. Moreover, whenever the word “convey/deliver (balligh)” comes in the Qur’an it means conveying the message of Allah nor does it came in any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And they conveyed the message of Allah” [TMQ ] and: “I convey to you the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “(Uballighoo) the message of their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I convey the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I conveyed what I was sent with” [TMQ ]. Also, whenever the words “What was revealed to you” came in the Qur’an, the intention is the Shari’ah nor does it ever come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And those who believe in what was revealed to you and what was reveeld before you” [TMQ 2:4] and: “We believe in what was revealed to you” [TMQ ] and: “We believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Ibrahim” [TMQ ] and: “And verily among the people of the Book are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed” [TMQ ] and: “Are you angry with us except that we believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed earlier?” [TMQ ] and: “If only they had established the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to them from their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “Until you establish the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to you from your Lord. But what was revealed to you from your Lord will only increase the excess and disbelief of many of them” [TMQ ] and: “When they heard what was revealed to the Messenger you see their eyes flowing with tears” [TMQ ] and so all in all ayat of the Qur’an. As for the ayah: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ], in the ayah before and in the ayah after it was mentioned the words “what was revealed (ma unzila)” with one meaning i.e. the Shari’ah . Even the words in the following ayah are the same: “what was revealed from your Lord” [TMQ 5: ]. All this goes to specify the meaning of “what was revealed to you” in His saying: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ] to be the Islamic Shari’ah . This is clear to all who follow these two words, “convey (balligh)” and “what was revealed to you (ma unzila)”, in all the ayat of the Qur’an.3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an unknown (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him of the revelation (wahiyy) and revealed to the Messenger; so Allah commands the Messenger to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came (hasil) with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith as explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a (mawsul) noun or (nakira maqsud) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed toyou or deliver everything which We revealed to you of various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation (qareena) and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all that was revealed to you which is the message of Allah. This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.4. Verily His statement ta’ala at the end of the ayah: “Allah will protect you from the people. Verily Allah does not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5:] is an assurance (tatmeen) from Allah to the Messenger and safety/security (aman) to him from the harm (adha) which will affect touch him as a result of delivering His message. This assurance is not because of harm which will affect him from delivering one rule, rather from conveying the entire message to the disbelievers and particularly where its conveyance is accompanied by fighting. The meaning of the end of ayah is that Allah will protect you in conveying this message by jihad from the harm of the people because when the ayah was revealed, the method of delivering the message was jihad i.e. fighting with swords. It is not possible that it is meant He will protect you from those envious of Ali in making the Khilafah for him i.e. protect you—according to their view—from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like as the protection in the ayah is from the people not believers. The meaning of “the people” is specified to be the disbelievers by His statement in concluding the ayah: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5: ]. So this promise from Allah to His Messenger to protect and preserve him from the harm of disbelievers in conveying what was revealed to him specifies that the meaning of the conveyance in the ayah is the conveyance of the message of Islam. It has been said that there is no meaning in His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” while he is conveying in practice. The response to this is that this command to convey does not depart from one of two matters: Either the Messenger has hidden/concealed (katama) the message without conveying it, or there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed so the absence of conveyance to them is considered the absence of conveyance to the world. It is impossible for this command to mean his concealing a specific rule revealed to him which he did not convey—or conveyance of one rule without which the message is not complete—because the concealment of one rule will defame/denigrate (yat’inu) the Messenger’s Prophethood and his message like the concealment of the entire message, so it is impossible for it to mean the concealment of one specific rule. Also the ayah says: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” which negates the conveyance which means he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule (la siyyama) the conveyance of one rule is considered conveyance of the message. From the first day, the Messenger would convey the rules according to their revelation (munajjama) such that the conveyance of one each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule, rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him not to convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger fought with in spreading the da’wah until that time, so the treaty with them would lead one perhaps to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue (istimrar) the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger fought the Jews at Khaybar, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” and: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” and: “Allah will protect you from the people” and: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk”.As for the hadith of the house as narrated in Kanz al-‘Ammal and as explained in Nahj al-Balagha, it is summarised as followed: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk [TMQ] was revealed, the Messenger called Ali to preapre food and call the family of Abd al-Muttalib so Ali executed these commands. After the people had become satisfied and (irtawu), the Messenger (waqafa) before them speaking: O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, by Allah I do not know any youth among the Arabs who has come to his people with a thing better than what I have come to you with. Verily I have come to you with the good of this world and the Hereafter. Allah has commanded me to call you to Him, so which one of you will assist me in this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you? The people (ahjam) from the da’wah except Ali, the youngest among them, who responded saying: I, O Messenger of Allah, will be your assistant upon this matter. The Messenger repeated his statement and the people remained (ahjam) while Ali continued announcing his acceptance. So the Messenger took the (ruqba) of Ali and said to those present: This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey. The people laughed at the Prophet and his invitation, and said to Abu Talib while leaving the Messenger’s house: ‘He has commanded you to listen to your son and obey him.’” This is the summary of the hadith of the house as narrated by those who depend upon it as evidence.Al-Bukhari narrated the incident of the day when “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed (saying) that the Messenger stood upon (Mount) Safa without mentioning the preparation of food. Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad two hadiths, one about the preparation of food without mentioning it was the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed and another mentioning that the preparation of food was on the day the ayah was revealed. We will show (n’uridhu) these texts first then explain what they contain. Al-Bukhari narrated from bin ‘Abbas (RA) who said: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk was revealed, the Messenger stood upon Safa and started announcing: O Banu Fihr, O Banu Adiyy for all the (butun) of Quraysh until they gathered together. Whoever was unable to go would send a messenger to see what was happening. Abu Lahab and Quraysh came and he said: ‘If I told you there were horse(men) in the valley intending to attack you suddenly, would you believe me?’ They said: Yes, we have not tried you in anything except to find you saying the truth. He said: Verily, I am a warner to you before a severe punishment! Abu Lahab said: Woe be upon you for the rest of the day. Is it because of this that you gathered us? So “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed.” This indicated that the incident of preparation of food was not on the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed as it does not (tultaim) with what occurred in the hadith’s text.Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his Musnad: ‘Affan related to us that Abu Awana related to us from Uthman bin al-Mughira from Abu Sadiq from Rabi’a bin Najidh from Ali who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) gathered or called Banu Abd al-Muttalib in all their groups (raht) to eat (jadha’a) and drink (gharaq). He prepared for them (mudd) of food which they ate until they were satisfied. He said: The food remained as if it had not been touched. Then he called for (ghimr) which they drank until (rawoo), and the drink remained as if it had not been touched or drank. Then he (SAW) said: “‘O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, I have been sent specifically to you and to humanity in general. You have now seen of this sign (ayah) what you saw, so which one of you will give me a pledge in order to become my brother and companion?’ He said: None of them stood, so I stood for him though I was the youngest of the group and he said: Sit down. He repeated it three times following which I stood for him and he said ‘Sit down’, until the third time he struck my hand with his hand.’” This clarifies that there is no moment in this incident of the revelation of “And warn your nearest kinsfolk”, and that the Messenger offered Islam to them so that whoever became a Muslim would become his brother and companion and that he did not say anything to Ali.As for the second narration, Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad: “Aswad bin Amir related to us that Shareek related to us from Al-‘Amash from Al-Minhal from ‘Ibad bin Abdullah al-Asadi from Ali who said: When the ayah “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed, the Messenger gathered the family of his house. Thirty people gathered; they ate and drank then he said to them: ‘Which one will guarantee my debts and promises so as to be with me in Paradise, and he will be my Khaleefah over my family? A man, whom Shareek did not name, said: O Messenger of Allah, you were an ocean (bahr) so who could take care of this? Then another said (the same?). He offered that to the family of his house, so Ali (RA) said: I (will).’” The word inheritor or Khaleefah does not appear in these two texts in any way at all. Rather it is only the word Khaleefah which appears restricted to his family, and the Khilafah over the family is not the Khilafah in the rank/post (mansab) of rule or leadership nor does it have any relationship with that. These are the texts which came in the Saheeh books, and they came in numerous narrations with similar wordings and unified meanings, and there did not appear in any of them the words inheritor (wasiyy) or Khliafah. There has never appeared, either via any of the compilers of the Saheeh (books of ahadith) or any of the trustworthy narrators, in even one hadith the word(s) inheritor of Khaleefah in any way at all either in relation to Ali or anyone else, so the evidence falls due to the absence of any evidence for it in the Saheeh books. As for the text narrated by those who contend about the appointment of Ali whicy they named the hadith of the house, this text through this narration in meaning. The meaning (dirayah) of this hadith in respect of meaning and the narration in respect of the chain. So if it is rejected in its chain or meaning then it cannot be considered and falls as evidence. As for rejecting its meaning, this is due to may reasons including:Firstly: In this hadith it appears that the Messenger sought the assistance of the family of Abd al-Muttalib in his da’wah with the condition that the rule (al-amr) became theirs after them. This is void from two sides (wajhayn): firstly, this contradicts the Messenger’s statement and action in the incident in which he refused the request to him of the tribe that the rule becomes theirs after him if they become Muslims so he said: “The rule (al-amr) is for Allah, and He will place it where He wills/wishes.” Bin Hisham narrated in his book of the Sirah of the Prophet (SAW): Bin Ishaq said that Az-Zuhri narrated that he met Amir bin Sa’sa’ah so he invited them to Allah ‘azza wa jalla and offered himself to them. One man among them, whom they called Bayjirat bin Furra, said to him: By Allah, if I were to take this youth (fata) of the Quraysh, I would eat (i.e. conquer) the Arabs through him. Then he said: What if we were to pledge to support your matter then Allah would grant you victory over those who oppose you. Would the rule be with us after you? He said: “The rule is for Allah and He places it where He wills.” He said: So he said to him: Will we sacrifice our (nuhur) for you, then when Allah grants you victory the rule becomes for someone else? Then we have no need of your matter, and they rejected him.” How can the Messenger say: “The matter (al-amr) belongs to Allah and He will place it where He wills” i.e. the matter of the Khilafah and the rule after him, yet he says to Banu Abd al-Muttalib: “Which one of you will assist me upon this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and Khaleefah among you?” Is this not a clear contradiction? Inevitable, it is necessary that one of these two statements be rejected. Since it is said of the hadith of the house that it occurred when “Warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed i.e. the third year of the (bi’tha) and the hadith: “The matter belongs to Allah and He places it where He wills” occurred when the Messenger offered himself to the tribes i.e. in the tenth year after the (bi’tha) and therefore after the hadith of the house; so it is the hadith of the house which is rejected. As for the second side, it is that the Messenger in this hadith offered something to the disbelievers so that they may become Muslims, rather he offered them the greatest thing which is the Khilafah after him over all Muslims as the price for their entering into Islam. This contradicts the Messenger’s action in his da’wah and the Shari’ah rules. The Messenger would invite people to Islam because it is the correct deen nor has it been narrated from him, even via a weak hadith, that he offered anything—whether small or large—to a kaffir in exchange for his entering into Islam. As for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are Muslims given from the zakat in order to strengthen the State through them, not kuffar who are given so that they enter Islam. Nor is it allowed to give something to kuffar in exchange for their entering Islam.Second: The hadith mentions that the Messenger prepared a wedding feast and meal for kuffar in order to invite them to Islam, and he gathered them around a meal so that they may enter Islam nor did he prepare food for Ali the Muslim. So if these people reject Islam and reject that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for Islam, there is no place there for Ali such that he (yatasadda) his acceptance as he is not being invited to Islam as he is a Muslim, so no speech is addressed to him. So there is no place in this gathering such that he says to him: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” since he is not the (muhil) of the address or the negotiation.Third: The hadith mentions that the group rejected Islam, and despite him repeating his offer they persisted in rejecting Islam and rejecting that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for entering Islam. They remained kuffar so how could the Messenger say to them in addressing them: “This is my Khaleefah among you” commanding them with hearing and obeying him while he knows they are kuffar who have rejected Islam? And how could he be the Khaleefah among them while they are kuffar?Fourth: The narration they narrate says: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” which is on address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words (sadara) with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khaleefah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khaleefah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khaleefah over you.” Thus he is Khaleefah for the Muslims as is the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson (‘ibra) is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident (waqi’at ‘ayn) not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khaleefah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (SAW) did not explicitly state making Ali the Khaleefah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (SAW) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want--in relation to the person--but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khaleefah.As for the error of the views that the Messenger designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali for it. Those who way that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali, so if their evidence falls in respect to Ali it also naturally falls in respect of his descendants due to the proof falling in respect of him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all collect praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its falling in argument/evidence has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it. Sheikh Taqqi uddin Nabhani , Book : Shaksiyah Islamiyah volume 2
Wednesday 25 April 2012
The shar'a did not specify/designate a specific person for the Khilafah
THE SHAR’A DID NOT SPECIFY/DESIGNATE A SPECIFIC PERSON FOR THE KHILAFAH
The opinion/view that the Messenger (SAW) designated/specified a specific person to be Khaleefah after him contradicts the Shari’ah texts. And the statement that the Messenger (AS) designated certain persons to be Khulafaa after him until the Day of Judgement is even more contradictory to the Islamic texts.As for invalidating (the opinion) that the Messenger designated the Khilafah to anyone after him, this is apparent in numerous ways:First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since designating a person means informing Muslims who will be the Khaleefah over them. Hence the Khaleefah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can someone say that the pledge is the giving of obedience to this Khaleefah as the Shar’a has stated/enunciated (nassa) the obedience to the Khaleefah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in may other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is giving leadership (riasah) to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit (inqiyad) to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger designating a specific person to be Khaleefah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came generally (‘aama) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are: “He who dies without a pledge on his neck,” “Whoever pledges an Imam,” and “A man who pledges an Imam.” The opinion that the Messenger designated a specific person to become Khaleefah after him contradicts and invalidates the generality and unrestricted nature of the pledge. One should not say that this means that the pledge is the very way (‘ayn) of appointing the Khaleefah while the appointment of the Khaleefah is not the pledge so it is inevitable to first appoint the Khaleefah then pledge him; one should not say this because the pledge being the method of appointing the Khaleefah does not mean that it is exactly the same as his appointment. Nor should one say that it is required (la budda) to first appoint the Khaleefah and know his appointment before giving him the pledge as this would mean there is another method for appointing the Khaleefah such that the pledge is merely giving him obedience, whereas the ahadith on the pledge all indicate that it is the method to appoint the Khaleefah and there is no other way. Consider his statement (AS): “Whoever dies without a pledge on his neck”; it is quite explicit in meaning that whoever dies without appointing his Imam via the pledge nor does it mean in any way whoever dies without obeying an Imam. This indicates that in this hadith the Prophet means the method of appointing the Khaleefah nor does it mean mere obedience. Also consider his (AS) statement: “When the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter”; this is explicit that if two Khaleefahs are appointed, kill the later of them.Likewise all ahadith of the Prophet are explicit that it is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. The ahadith of the Prophet are explicit in not meaning mere obedience or unrestricted (mutlaq)obedience; rather, they mean submission/following the one appointed as the Khaleefah with their meaning that this is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. Above all this, there has not been authenticated even one hadith, whether in narration or meaning, which demonstrates any method of appointing the Khaleefah other than the pledge.Second: Ahadith have come from the Messenger (SAW) indicating that there will be disputes and contentions among people about the Khilafah and competition over it. If there were a text from the Messenger upon a (specific) person, there would not arise a dispute in the presence of that text or the Messenger would state that people would dispute with that person. Whereas the texts came saying that people would dispute between themselves and clarifying the method to open (fadh) this dispute and decide/settle the issue of the Khilafah. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Wahab bin Baqiyyat al-Wasiti narrated to me that Khalid bin Abdullah al-Juzairi told us from Abu Nadhra from Abu Said al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “If the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter of them.” Muslim also said in his Saheeh: Zuhayr bin Harb and Ishaq bin Ibrahim narrated to me, with Ishaq saying we were informed and Zuhayr said it was narrated to us by Jareer, from Al-‘Amash from Zaid bin Wahhab from Abdurrahman bin Abdurrabb al-Ka’aba who said: I entered the mosque and Abdullah bin ‘Amru bin al-‘As was seated in the shade of the Ka’aba with people gathered around him. So I joined them and sat with him. He said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in a voyage and we stopped at an encampment…when an announcer (mu’adhin) of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) announced collective prayer. So we all gathered before the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who said: “There was no Prophet before me except that it was obligatory upon him to guide his Ummah to the best that he knew for them and warn them of the worst he knew for them until he said: Whoever pledged an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, should obey him as much as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of the other person.” Muslim also narrated in his Saheeh: Muhammad bin Bashar narrated to us that Muhammad bin Ja’far narrated to us that Shu’ba narrated to us from Furrat al-Qazzaz from Abu Hazm who said: I remained with Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) who said: “The children of Israel had Prophets taking care of their affairs as politicians (tasusuhum). Whenever one Prophet died, another followed him. However, there will be no Prophet after me but there will be Khulafaa who will be many. They said: What do you command us? He said: Fulfil the pledge one after the other.” Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Uthman bin Abu Shayba narrated to us that Yunus bin Abu Ya’fur narrated to them from his father from Arfaja who said he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever finds you will all your affair united in one man, intending to incite rebellion or divide your unity, kill him.” This means that the Khilafah is the right of all Muslims such that each can contend for it. This contradicts the (saying that) the Messenger designated a specific person to be Khaleefah after him.Third: The ahadith which came with the word Imam by meaning of Khaleefah came with this word in unspecified (nakira); and when it came specified (ma’rifa), it either came specified with “the” (“al”) of the species (jins) or related to a collective noun (jam’u). In the (amkina) which came specified with “al”, it was the “al” of species by evidence of the sentence. The Messenger said: “Whoever pledges an Imam”, “…stood against an unjust Imam”, “there will be Imams after me.” And he said: “The Imam is the one who is a shepherd/guardian (ra’i) over the people and he is responsible for his citizens”, “Verily the Imam is a shield from behind whom they fight and by whom they are protected” and he said: “…to the Imam of the Muslims”, “The best of your Imams”, “…the worst of your Imams.” All this indicates that the Messenger (SAW) left vague (abham) who would be the Khaleefah after him without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam for a specific person.Fourth: The Sahabah (RA) differed in their time upon the persons to be the Khaleefah among them. This difference upon persons is an evidence that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr and Ali. Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah argue that there was a text for certain persons in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should noe say that there is a text which was know after them but it did not reach them because we take our deen from the Sahabah. They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text-any text-from the Sahabah, then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khaleefah after the Messenger, we find all the Sahabah without exception-including Abu Bakr and Ali-agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the uity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah.Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (SAW) did not appoint a Khaleefah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khaleefah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (RA) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khaleefah? He said: “If I appoint a Khilafah, verily one better than me did appoint a Khaleefah i.e. Abu Bakr. And if I do not, then one better than me did not i.e. the Messenger of Allah (SAW).” Muslim narrated from bin Umar that Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) said: “Verily Allah ‘azza wa jalla will preserve the deen. If I do not appoint a Khaleefah, verily the Messenger of Allah (SAW) did not appoint; and if I do appoint, verily Abu Bakr did appoint.” This is a clear text that the Messenger did not appoint a Khaleefah. Nor should one say that this is Umar’s opinion for when a companion says, ‘The Messenger did this or did not do this or we were in his time like this or there was in his time such and such’, this is a hadith used as evidence not merely a companion’s view. Moreover, Umar said this within the hearing and sight of the Sahabah, and Ali (RA) was present and this statement reach him without him opposing it, which indicates their agreement upon what Umar narrated.This is all with respect to the absence of any specific text designating a specific person for the Khilafah. As for the texts brought by those who say that there are texts designating a specific person, among these texts are those brought to indicate that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr to become Khaleefah after him whereas others are brought to indicate that he appointed Ali as Khaleefah after him. We must present them and explain their contents. As for the texts brought by those who say the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr, they are divided into two: One portion in which the Messenger (SAW) praises Abu Bakr wherein there is nothing to indicate that the Messenger appointed him. The other portion is one wherein some deduce by deduction (instinbat) that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr while others deduce that he nominated (rashaha) Abu Bakr. We will present their model by presenting some of them, noting that none of them exceed the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Said al-Khudri that the Prophet (SAW) said: “Verily the most gracious of people to me in his companionship and wealth is Abu Bakr. Were I to take an intimate friend (khaleel) other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr but instead there is the brotherhood of Islam and its love. There should not remain in the mosque any door but that it should be closed/barricaded except for the door of Abu Bakr.” Muslim also narrated this hadith but with different wording, although similar to these ones. There is nothing in this hadith to make a person say that he appointed Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. All that it contains is praise for Abu Bakr from the Messenger, and the Messenger (SAW) praised many companions by name. There have come ahadith with praise for Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas, Talha, Az-Zubayr, Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein (RA), Zayd bin Haritha, Usama bin Zayd, Abdullah bin Ja’far, Khadija, Aisha, Fatima daughter of the Prophet (AS), Umm Salamah, Bilal and others. Praise by itself does not in any way whatsoever indicate appointment to be Khaleefah (istikhlaf).As for the ahadith from which some deduced the Khilafah of Abu Bakr, they are four ahadith which we will present and clarify all that they contain. These ahadith are:First: Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Qasim bin Muhammad who said: “Aisha said: O my head so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: If it were to happen and I were alive, I would ask for you to be forgiven and pray for you. Aisha said: That is a serious matter (athkuliyahu). By Allah, I believe that you would like my death so that it if happened, you would spend the rest of your days wedded happily with some of your wives. The Prophet (SAW) said: Rather it is my head which is heavy. I wished/intended (hamamtu) to send for Abu Bakr and his son so as to give him a pledge/promise (‘ahd) so that no person will speak or a wisher wish. Then I said that Allah will reject and the believers prevent that or Allah will prevent and the believers reject.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Aisha in this wording from her: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to me in his illness: “Call for me your father, Abu Bakr, and your brother so that I write a book for I fear that a wisher will wish or a speaker say: I am better (or take precedence). But Allah will reject, and so the believers, except for Abu Bakr.”Secondly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father who said: “A woman came to the Prophet (SAW) and spoke to him about something; and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I came and did not find you—as is she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father in the words: “A woman asked the Messenger of Allah (SAW) something and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I come and do not find you—My father said: As if she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.”Thirdly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha, the mother of the believers, “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) told me during his illness: Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Aisha said: I said: When Abu Bakr stands in your place, people do not hear him for his crying so command Umar to lead prayers. He said: Command Abu Bakr to lead people in prayer. Aisha said: I said to Hafsa: Say that when Abu Bakr stands in your place, the people do not hear, and she did that. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: You are like the companions of Yusuf. Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Hafsa said to Aisha: I will never achieve any good through you!”Fourthly: Muslim narrated from bin Abu Mulkiyya who said: “I heard Aisha being asked: Whom would the Messenger of Allah (SAW) have appointed as Khaleefah after him had he so appointed? She said: Abu Bakr. She was asked: Then whom after Abu Bakr? She said: Umar. She was then asked: Then whom after Umar? She said: Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, and she stopped at that.”All these ahadith are not suitable evidence for the Messenger appointing Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. The first hadith is rejected for two reasons: The first is that the Messenger said: “I wished or intended” but he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered a Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr. Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to debate/contend (yunaqish) with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khaleefah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah.As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct/accurate that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words-“If I did not find you”-that you had died. The words which came in the hadith-“As if she meant death”-are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr if she came and did not find him is no proof/indication (dalalat) for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after the Messenger. Even if we were compelled to take her as meaning death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after him.As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in ruling/authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a vast (shas’i) difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger; rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahaba’s opinion is not a proof nor considered a Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khaleefah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger appointed Ali, they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger praised our master Ali (RA), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali, and a category in which those who accept the authenticity of the text (muhtajeen) have a clear text that the Messenger appointed Ali as Khaleefah.As for the first category in which the Messenger praised Ali, we will present a model of them by mentioning some of the ahadith with the remainder not exceeding the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Sahl bin S’ad (RA) “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: I will give the flag (rayah) tomorrow to someone by whose hands Allah will conquer. He said: So the people spent the night (yadukuna) which one of them it would be given to. When people woke up, they all (ghadaw) to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) hoping it would be given to them, but he said: Where is Ali bin Abi Talib? They said: His eyes are paining/injured. O Messenger of Allah. He said: Send to him to come to me. When he came, he (basiqa) in his eyes and prayed for him. He was cured as if he had never had (waji’a), and he gave him the flag.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Abu Hurayra with the words: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said on the day of Khayber: I will give this flag to someone who loves Allah and His Messenger by whose hands Allah will conquer. Umar bin al-Khattab said: I had never longed/wished for leadership except for that day. He said: (fatusawarat) for it hoping they would be called for it. He said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali bin Abi Talib and gave him the flag.”Al-Bukhari narrated in the chapter of (manaqib) of Ali (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you.” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan commanded S’ad saying: What has prevented you from insulting Abu Turab? He said: When I remember three (things) which the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said of him, I will never insult him. That I should have one of them is more beloved to me than red milch camels (n’um?). The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left him behind in some of his war expeditions, so Ali said to him: O Messenger of Allah (SAW), have you left me behind with women and children? The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to him: “Are you not pleased to be in the same status (manzalat) next to me like the status of Harun next to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” I also heard him say on the day of Khayber: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love. He said: (fatutwawulina) for it and he said: “Call for me Ali, so he was brought (urmida). He (busiqa) in his eyes and gave him the flag, and Allah conquered through him.’ And when this verse was revealed: Say: Come and let us call our sons and your sons [TMQ ], the Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain and said: ‘O Allah, this is my family.’” Muslim narrated from Sahl bin S’ad who said: A man from the family of Marwan was appointed (as ruler) over Madinah. He said: He called Sahl bin S’ad and commanded him to insult Ali. He said: Sahl refused, so it was said to him: If you refuse, then say: Allah curse Abu Turab. Sahl said: Ali has no name more beloved to me than Abu Turab, even though he would be pleased when called by it. It was said to him: Inform us of the incident as to why he was called Abu Turab, so he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to Fatima’s house and did not find him in the house, so he said: “Where is the son of your paternal uncle?” She said: There was something between him and me, and he made me angry and left without (yaqila) before me. So the Messenger of Allah said to someone: “Go find out where he is.” He came back and said: O Messenger of Allah, he is (raqid) in the mosque. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to him while he was reclining (mudhtaji’u). His cloak had fallen from his (shaqq) and mud/dirt (turab) had touched him, so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) began wiping it off him while saying: “Stand/wake up, O Abu Turab.” Muslim narrated from ‘Adiyy bin Thabit from Dharr who said: Ali said: “By the One who cleaves (falaqa) the grain (habbat) and (baraa nismat), it is the pledge of the unlettered (‘umiyy) Prophet (SAW) to me that none will love me except the believer and none will hate me except the hypocrite.” There is nothing in these ahadith to make someone say that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him. The hadith of Khayber is praise from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s statement to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you” is praise from the Messenger of Allah. As for the hadith of S’ad in which came: “Are you not pleased to have the status before me of Harun to Musa”, we will discuss in the second category of this topic (mawdhu’). In it is also the hadith of Khayber which is praise, and in it is that Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain are his family which is praise, and the hadith of Sahl bin S’ad is praise. Just like the Messenger of Allah (SAW) praised Ali, he also praised others among his Sahabah. The Messenger’s praise for a person does not in any way indicate his appointment.As for the second category of ahadith which are those from which some deduced that the Messenger stated textually that Ali would be Khaleefah after him, they are summarised (tatalakkhas) in these four texts:-1- Al-Bukhari narrated from Mus’ab bin S’ad from his father “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) left for Tabuk and appointed Ali, so he said: Do you leave me behind together with women and children? He said: Are you not pleased to have the same status with me as Harun had with Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me?” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are to me of the same status as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” And Muslim narrated from Ibrahim bin S’ad from S’ad that the Prophet (SAW) said to Ali: “Are you not pleased to have the same status before me as Harun before Musa.” Bin Ishaq narrated by saying: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left behind Ali bin Abi Talib to look after and supervise his family. They hypocrites (arjif bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal) and to make it easy (takhaffuf) for him. When the hypocrites said that, Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) took his weapons and left/moved out until he met the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because (istathqaltanee) and to make it easy for me. He said: “They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me so return and supervise on my behalf my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, to have the same status before me as Harun had before Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” So Ali returned to Madinah and the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his journey. As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned the following in the book “Al-Muraja’at”: “The hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: O Ali, verily it is allowed for you in the mosque what is allowed for me, and your status before me is that of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me.”2. Muslim narrated from Yazid bin Hayyan who said: I left with Husain bin Sabra and Umar bin Muslim to Zayd bin Arqam. When we sat with him, Husain said to him: “Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. You saw the Messenger of Allah (SAW), heard his hadith, fought with him and prayed behind him. Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. So relate to us, O Zayd, of what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). He said: O son of my brother, by Allah I have become old and my time has approached. I have forgotten some of that which I understood from the Messenger of Allah (SAW), so accept whatever I relate to you and do not force me on that which I do not relate. Then he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood one day before us speaking at the waters known as Khum between Makkah and Madinah. He thanked Allah, praised Him, exhorted and reminded then said: ‘As for what follows, verily O people I am but a man who (yuwshakk) that the messenger of my Lord will reach me and I will respond. I leave behind for you two weighty things (thaqalayn), the first of which is the Book of Allah wherein is guidance and light. Take the Book of Allah and restrict yourselves to it. He exhorted upon the Book of Allah and (raghiba) to it, then said: And the people of my house (ahl baitee). I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house.’ Husain said to him: and who are the people of his house, O Zayd? Are his wives not of his house? He said: His wives are of his house, but the people of his house are those to whom sadaqa is prohibited after him. He said: Who are they? He said: The family of Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far, and the family of ‘Abbas. He said: Is sadaqa prohibited to all of them? He said: Yes.”As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned in his book “Al-Muraja’at” this hadith via the following narration which At-Tabarani narrated through a chain whose authenticity is unanimously accepted from Zayd bin Arqam who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) spoke at Ghadeer Khum underneath trees and said: “O people, (yuwshakk) that I am called and I respond. Verily, I am responsible/accountable (mas’ool) and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We will testify that you conveyed, struggled and advised so may Allah recompense you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that Paradise is true and Hellfire is true, that death is true and resurrection after death is true, that the Hour (of Judgement) will come without any doubt, and that Allah will resurrect all those in their graves? They said: Yes, we do bear witness. Then he said: O people, verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. Whoever takes me as his patron then this one is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy. Then he said: O people, verily I (faratakum) and you will (warid) me at the Cistern (hawdth), a cistern wider than the distance from Basra to Sana’a. In it is (qidah) of silver the number of stars. Verily I will ask you when you come before me on the two weighty things (thaqalayn), how you took care of them after me. The weightier and greater one is the Book of Allah ‘azza wa jalla, a (sabab) of which one end is in the hands of Allah and the other in your hands. Hold tightly to it so that you do not go astray or change, and my (‘utra), the people of my house (ahl baitee). Verily the (lateef khabeer) has informed me that they will never (yanqadhiya) until they come before me at the cistern” (this is the end of what As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned).And Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Ameeni An-Najafi stated the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer”: “When he finished his rites of worship—i.e. the Prophet (SAW)—and left returning to Madinah, together with the mentioned group(s) of people, he reached Ghadeer Khum in Al-Jahfa where (tatasha’ab) the roads of the people of Madinah, Egypt and Iraq. This was the 15th day of Dhul-Hijja and Jibril, the trustworthy, descended to him from Allah with His saying: ‘O Messenger, deliver what was revealed to you from your Lord” [TMQ 5:] and He commanded him to cause Ali to stand to let the peole know and convey/inform that which was revealed regarding his patronage (wilayah) and the obligation of obedience upon every one. The first of the people were close to Al-Jahfa so the Messenger of Allah commanded those who had preceded to return and enclosed those who had delayed at that place, and he prohibited people from encamping beneath the five large close (samarat dowhat). When the people took camp and those underneath them (the trees) stood until the dhuhr prayer was announced, he headed for them and prayed beneath them. It was a (hajira) day where a man placed some of his cloak upon his face and some under his feet due to the severe heat, and the Messenger of Allah was shaded by a garment upon the (sumra) tree due to the sun. When he (SAW) finished his prayer, he stood to speak in the middle of the people in the (aqtab) of a camel with everyone hearing (rafi’a ‘aqeeratihi), and he said: ‘All praise is due to Allah whom we ask for help, believe in and depend upon. We ask Allah to protect us from the evils of our souls and bad deeds, the One whom none can guide whom He causes to go astray nor misguide whom He guides. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. As for what follows: O people, verily the (lateef) All-Knowing has informed me that He does not grant longevity to a Prophet except half the like of the one before him. Verily I (uwshakk) that I will be called and I will respond. Verily I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We bear witness that verily you have conveyed, advised and struggled so may Allah reward you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that His paradise is true and His hellfire is true, that death is true, that the Hour will come without any doubt and that Allah will resurrect htose in the graves? They said: Yes, we bear witness to this. He said: O Allah, do bear witness. Then he said: O people, will you not listen? They said: Yes. He said: Verily I (farata) to the cistern and you will be presented at the cistern, whose breadth is that between Sana’a and Basra, before me. In it is the (aqdah) of silver the number of stars, so look how you take care of the two weighty things after me. An announcer announced: And what are the two weighty things, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The greater of the two weighty things is the Book of Allah, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands so hold fast to it and you will not go astray. The other smaller one is my (‘utra). Verily the (lateef) All-Knowing informed me that they will never separate until they reach(?) the cistern and I asked that from my Lord. So do not precede them or neglect them or you will perish. Then he took the hand of Ali and raised it until the armpits was seen such that everyone recognised him and he said: O people, who takes precedence before the believers over their own selves? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: Verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. So whoever has me as his patron then Ali is his patron. He said this three times, and in the words of Imam Ahmad, Imam of the Hanbalis, four times. Then he said: O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and become an enemy to whoever takes him as an enemy. Love whoever loves him and hate whoever hates him, support whoever supports him and abandon whoever abandons him, and let the truth be with him wherever he is (dar). Verily, let the witness who is present the (one who is) absent.’”3. Those who say that the Messenger clearly announced the Khilafah of Ali narrated ahadith in their books. As for these ahadith, we will not make the place of research in them their narrations, despite the fact that the two shaikhs—Al-Bukhari and Muslim—did not narrate them, nor were they narrated via trustworthy narrators and most of them are among the fabricated ahadith. We will not make their narrations the place of research such that they say that these ahadith were not narrated by trustworthy narrators before you but were narrated by trustworthy narrators before us so that the one for whom the hadith is authenticated uses it as an evidence. Verily we will not make that the place of research; rather we will make the matter of research the texts themselves as they came in their narrations. These are the texts from which they deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him—and these ahadith are known as the ahadith of “wilayah”—which we will (nuwrid) a section of them with the rest being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi narrated from ‘bin Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali bin Abi Talib: “You are the waliyy of all believers after me.”b) It came in Kanz al-’Ammal from Imran bin Husain who said that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) sent an expedition and appointed Ali bin Abi Talib over them. He chose for himself a slave girl from the fifth (khums) and they rejected this from him. Four of them agreed to complain about him to the Prophet (SAW) so, when they came, one of the four stood and said: O Messenger of Allah, do you not see that Ali did such and such, and he turned away from him. The second stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. The third stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. And the fourth stood and said the same as they had said. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) turned towards them with anger (yabsiru) in his face and said: “What do you want for me with regard to Ali? Verily Ali is of me and I am of him, and he is the waliyy of every believer after me.”c) And in a long hadith from ‘Amru bin Maymun from ‘bin Abbas who said: TheMessenger of Allah (SAW) sent so and so with Surah At-Tawbah. He then sent Ali after him to take it from him and said: “No one should go with it except a man who is of me and I am of him.”d) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Wahhab bin Hamza who said: I travelled with Ali and I saw (jiffa) from him, so I said that when I return I will complain about it. So I returned and mentioned Ali to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) (faniltu minhu) and he said: “Do not say this of Ali, as he is your waliyy after me.”e) In Kanz al-’Ammal from ‘bin Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever is pleased to live my life, die my death and to reside in the paradise of Eden irrigated by my Lord then let him befriend Ali as waliyy after me.”f) In Muntakhab al-Kanz from Zayyad bin Mutarraf who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever would like to live my life, die my death, and enter the paradise promised to me by my Lord—and it is an eternal paradise—then let him befriend Ali and his descendants after me. Verily they will never remove you from the door of guidance nor enter you into the gate of misguidance.”g) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Ammar bin Yasir who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “I (awsiyy) whoever believes in me and trusts in me with the wilayah of Ali bin Abi Talib. Whoever befriends him has befriended me and whoever befriends me has befriended Allah. Whoever loves him has loved me, and whoever loves me has loved Allah. Whoever hates him has hated me, and whoever hates me has hated Allah.”h) Also in Al-Kanz from Ammar (marfu’): “O Allah, whoever believes and trusts in me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib. Verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.”4. There are ahadith narrated by those who say that the Messenger openly declared the Khilafah of Ali. These ahadith have not been narrated by any trustworthy person and most of them are fabricated ahadith. We present them not to research them from the angle of their narration so that they are claimed to be authenticated for those who narrate them. Rather we present them to make the point of research their texts according to what came in their texts. These ahadith contain the brotherhood of the Messenger with Ali, and making him the heir (al-warith) after him. We present a section of them with the remainder being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) The Prophet (SAW) established a brotherhood (akha) between the Muhajirin and chose Ali for himself. In what came of the hadith of the first brotherhood (muakhat), “so Ali said: O Messenger of Allah, verily my soul left me and my backbone broke when I saw you do what you did with your companions other than me. So if this is due to anger upon me, then for you is (‘atba) and graciousness. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: By the One who sent me with truth, I only left you for myself. Your are to me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me. You are my brother and inheritor. He said: What will I inherit from you. He said: What the Prophets inherited before me, the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophets.”b) The Prophet (SAW) made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar five months after the hijrah, but he did not make a brotherhood between Ali and any of the Ansar; rather he chose him for himself. In what came of the hadith of the second brotherhood “that the Messenger (SAW) said to Ali: Did you become angry at me when I made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and Ansar but did not make a brotherhood between you and any of them? Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?”c) It is narrated that the Messenger (SAW) went out one day to his companions with his face brightened so Abdurrahman bin Awf asked him and he said: “Good news came to me from my Lord about my brother and paternal uncle’s son and my daughter, that Allah will marry Ali with Fatima.” When the leader of women (zafata) her like with the leader of the (‘utra), the Prophet (SAW) said: “O Umm Ayman, call my brother for me. She said: He is your brother yet you are marrying him (to your daughter)? He said: Yes, O Umm Ayman. So she called Ali and he came.” And the Prophet spoke to him one day regarding a judgement (qadhiya) between him, his brother Ja’far and Zayd bin Haritha, saying: “As for you, O Ali, (you are) my brother, the father of my son, and of me and to me.”d) The Messenger (SAW) promised to Ali one day saying: “You are my brother and my wazeer. You will repay my debts, fulfill my commitments and (tubriu dhimmatee).”3) In Kanz al-’Ammal, he (SAW) said: “It is written on the gate of Paradise: There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.”These four texts, which are the texts in which the Messenger made him (Ali) of the status of Harun to Musa, the text that he left the Book of Allah and His (‘utra), the text of wilayah, and the text of brotherhood, are the texts from which some Muslims deduced that the Messenger (SAW) appointed Ali i.e. made him the Khaleefah after him. Let us take them text by text:As for the first text, which is the text which made Ali of the status of Harun to Musa before the Messenger, its meaning is clarified though studying the (maqam) in which it was said and studying its wording. As for the (maqam), the Messenger said this hadith on the day of the battle of Tabuk. Therein the Messenger (SAW) appointed in Madinah in his place Muhammad bin Maslamah to supervise the Muslims’ affairs and administer the rule (hukm), and appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family and commanded him to supervise them. The hypocrites (arjafa bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal lahu) and to make it easy from him (takhaffuf minhu). When the hypocrites said this, Ali (RA) took his weapon and left until he met the Messenger (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: “O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because you found me a burden and wished to make yourself light without me. He said: They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me. So return and take my place over my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, that you are of the same status before me as Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his travel. The hadith about making Ali the same status before the Messenger as Harun before Musa concern appointing him over his (SAW) family by the evidence of Ali’s own statement: “Do you leave me behind with women and children?” The reality of the incident is that he was appointed over his family so it cannot be taken to mean that he was appointed over the Khilafah, particularly when it is known that he (AS) appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah as ruler in his place and specified Ali to supervise over his family when he said to him, “my family and your family.” Moreover, the Messenger’s appointment of one of his companions over the rule when he left for battle does not meant that this appointed person is the Khaleefah in his place by the evidence that the Messenger (SAW) appointed many in the battles. In the battle of Al-‘Asheera he appointed Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Asad over Madinah, in the battle of Safwan he appointed Zayd bin Haritha over Madinah, in the battle Banu Lahyan he appointed bin Umm Maktum over Madinah, and so on. The appointment by the Messenger of someone to rule over Madinah until he returns form his battles does not indicate that means his appointment over the Khilafah, so what if he appointed him only over his family while appointing anotherr in authority until he returns from his battle?This is in relation to the appointment. As for the saying of the Messenger (SAW), “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun before Musa?” the meaning of its words are: Are you not pleased that there is for you, in what you surpervise/are appointed over, what Harun supervised for Musa. It is the resemblance (tashbeeh) of Ali with Harun with the way of resemblance being the appointment i.e. your similitude in my appointing you (or leaving you behind) is that of Harun when Musa appointed him. This is the meaning of the words of the hadith nore do these words have any other meaning/intention (murad). This meaning is specified and becomes the only meaning due to Ali’s saying to the Messenger: “Do you leave me behind with children and women?” whith the Messenger’s statement: “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” coming in response to this question of Ali and as a rejoinder to his statement. To understand what is meant by this hadith one must return to the Glorious Qur’an to see within in the (mawdhu’) of Musa’s appointing Harun to see what it is. Returning to the Glorious Qur’an, we find that this tale (qisa) is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following text: “We” [TMQ ]. So the hadith’s meaning becomes: Are you not pleased that I appoint you over my family like Musa appointed Harun over his people, so that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa due to the appointment? So the hadith’s intent is to pacify our master Ali’s (khatir) as he came displeased by this appointment, and at the same time it informs Ali that he will take his (SAW) place over his family when he is absent just like Harun took Musa’s place over his people when he was absent. As for his saying: “Except that there is no Prophet after me”, this negates the resemblance of Prophethood because Harun was a Prophet so he was a Prophet taking the place of another Prophet when he was absent. So the Messenger excluded Prophethood to remove any fancy/imagination that he is of the same status in Prophethood. Nor should one say that his statement, “No Prophet after me” means after my death as the words are related to appointment during his life. This is because Harun was a Prophet along with Musa during his life not after his death; he was his deputy (khalifa) over his people while he (Musa) was absent during his life not after his death. So the Messenger only made his statement: “Except that there is no Prophet after me” because Harun was a Prophet during Musa’s absence while he lived; so he made this statement in order to negate Prophethood from Ali. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) informed us in an authenticated hadith narrated by Al-Hakim that Harun died during Musa’s life. So there does not arise the issue of appointment after death as it did not exist in Harun and Musa, who are those with whom resemblance is made (mushabbih bihi), thus in does not exist in the Prophet and Ali who are the resemblers.This is the hadith’s meaning nore does it contain any indication to appointment over the Khilafah nore can it be understood in any way that the Messenger intended by this hadith to clearly state and make Ali Khaleefah over the Muslims after the Messenger’s death. The hadith (warid) relates to the appointment of Ali over the Messenger’s family during his absence due to the battle of Tabuk. As for the remaining narrations which came in this hadith i.e. his saying (AS): “Are you not please to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” some of them are authenticated narrations like those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their hadith from ‘Amir and Ibrahim, the two sons of S’ad, while others are not authenticated, but all of them came with the same text. This means that the hadith was said in Tabuk andt at other times. The response to this is that the authentic narrations are a narration which is a part of the incident i.e. narrations with the Messenger’s words alone separated from the incident which does not mean that it is an incident (haditha) other than the incident of Tabuk. Narrators and collectors of hadith frequently narrate a part of a hadith or a part of an incident, shortening it to the place of evidence (muhil shahid). Even if we accept that the hadith was not only over the incident of Tabuk but was said in Tabuk and other times, then this would mean that the Messenger appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family permanently during Tabuk and at other times; nor would it mean his appointment (may Allah ennoble his face) over the Khilafah after the Messenger’s death. All that the explanation of the hadith’s word and meaning indicate is: Are you not please that I appoint you over my family during my absence and whenever I am absent just like Harun supervised for Musa during his absence, except that Harun is a Prophet and you are not a Prophet because there is no Prophet after my Prophethood. This came in Muslim’s narration from Amir bin S’ad from his father: “Are you not pleased that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me” i.e. after my Prophethood. This is the similitude with which the Messenger compared Ali in relation to him just like Harun in relation to Musa i.e the appointment and nothing else, appointment during his absence and nothing else, and appointment over his family as came in the hadith’s text in its entirety. The frequency with which a hadith is repeated does not change its meaning to give it an alternative meaning. So the appointment in Tabuk was only over the Messenger’s family as is proven without doubt, while the other narrations in other than Tabuk conveyed the same text mentioned in Tabuk in words and meaning without mentioning the restriction (qayd) in the incident of Tabuk i.e. the family. Rather, they do not mention any restriction at all thus we measure/carry (tahmilu) them upon what was mentioned in the narration of Tabuk. This is because the narration of Tabuk is restricted to the family while the other narrations are free of any restriction in the appointment so we measure the unrestricted (mutlaq) upon the restricted (muqayyad). Nor should one say that the other narrations are general as the words of the hadith are not of the general words as the texts of all the narrations whether the narration: “Are you not pleased” or the narration: “Verily you” or the naration: “You” and the similar which is of the (mathabat) of Harun with Musa; all these words are specific to a specific status which is of the status of Harun with Musa which is not of the general status. Except that the status of Harun to Musa came unrestricted in some of the narrations which were not restricted by any restriction, while they were restricted to the family in some of the narrations so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted such that all the narrations are restricted to the family.As for the rest of the matters which Musa sought from Allah in his statement: “Give me an assistant (wazeer) from my family. My brother Harun…and associate him in my affair” [TMQ]. There is no place for them in relation to the status of Harun to Musa nor the appointment as it is a prayer from Musa to Allah to make his brother an assistant to him and to give him the Prophethood along with him because the matters which Musa prayed to Allah to associate Harun with him upon were Prophethood and the Message So the association was only in these matters not the rule, as Musa was not a ruler but only a Prophet. Moreover, the request was a request for assistance for him and associating him in his matter, not a request for his appointment (in rule).Above all that, these matters are not (mubayyina) to the status of Musa to Harun; rather (al-mubayyin) for the status of Musa to Harun is his appointing him over his people during his absence; so his status before him is that he took care of his people during his absence. There is no (wujud) for assistance and association in the Prophethood in the statement of the Messenger: “of the status of Harun to Musa” rather the meaning is restritcted to the appointment over the people nor do the texts carry any meaning other than this.It has been said that Musa was a ruler because a Shari’ah was revealed to him to rule by as there are solutions and punishments within it, and he was a leader of an army which intended to occupy Bait al-Maqdis when his people said to him: “You and your Lord go and fight” [TMQ 5:], so his appointment of Harun over his people was an appointment in Prophethood and also in authority. The response to this is that Musa was not a ruler, nor is it narrated in the Qur’an or elsewhere that he would execute the rules upon the children of Israel (Banu Israil) by strength/force and the authority (sultan) or that he was a ruler over them. Those who ruled Banu Israil with the Shari’ah of Musa was not Musa himself or in his lifetime, rather it was those Prophet who came after him like Dawud, Sulayman and other kings (muluk). As for Musa’s leadership over the armies, it never occurred. The ayat which are in Surah Al-Maidah from ayah 19 to ayah 26 do no have anything within them which indicates Musa’s leadership over the army; rather what is within them is that Musa requested his people to enter the Holy Land. They refused and said to him that there are a giant people (jabbar) within it so they would never enter until these giants left; they asked him and his Lord to go and fight but he did not go so the result was their (tahu) for fourty years in the wilderness (ardh). As for the revelation of the Shari’ah to Musa with solutions and punishments, this does not mean that Musa ruled with them; rather the reality is that he came with it and conveyed it to Banu Israil. He tried to take them to (Bait al-Maqdis) but they (tahuw) in the wilderness nor did they (istiqrar) in Musa’s time until his period ended. After their punishment with (at-teeh) ended, they moved and were ruled by kings and Prophets among them by the Shari’ah of Musa, which is stated by the Qur’an in more than one Surah. Moreover, the ayat in which Harun was appointed are explicit that it was an appointment on behalf of Musa in Prophethood when Musa went to (yultaqa) from Allah, which is in Surah Al-‘Araf from ayah 141: “We…” to the end of ayah 155: “And Musa chose from his people seventy men”. All of them are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, (tilqa alwah), Banu Israil taking (al-‘ajl) and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspcet (yashtabihu) that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no (shubha) that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause (sabab) like the incident of Tabuk or without any cuase, which indicate that the Messenger made Ali supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s appointment of ali, Ali became before the Messenger of the status of Harun to Musa. Ther is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger stated that Ali would become the Khaleefah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death.As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (SAW) house, to be gracious to them (yukarrimuhum), to honour and not to annoy (adha) them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The wores are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not chage what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Alilah the patron (mawla) by his statement: “Verily Allah is my Patron, and I am the patron of the believers such that I am dearer to them than their own souls. So the one for whom I am his parton, then this is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befirend whoever befriends him and be an enemy to whoever is an enemy to him.” As for the second matter, this is that he advised the doing of good to his (‘utra) by saying: “And my (‘utra), the people of my house, for verily the (lateef khabeer) informed me that they will never (qadhiya) until they arrive (yaridaa) at the cistern.” There is nothing other than these two matters in all these ahadith, despite all their number and differing narrations. As for the first matter, which is the friendship (muwalat), we shall discuss it during the discussion upon the ahadith of (wilayat) directly after this text. As for the second matter, it does not differ from being an advice to Muslims to be good to his (‘utra), the people of his house, by being gracious to them, honouring and not annoying/harming them as they will be questioned about them. Also that the family of the house and the Book of Allah will remain linked (muqtarineen) until the Day of Judgement. There exists nothing in this ahadith—the ahadith of Ghadeer Khum—more than advising Muslims to do good to his (‘utra); there is nothing within int indicating the appointment of Ali, or the people of his house, over the Khilafah after the death of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Where is the appointment in the Messenger’s statement according to all previous narrations narrated in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “Verily I will question you when you reach me about the two weighty matters, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or his statement: “Verily I have left for you two weighty matters, the Book of Allah ta’ala and my (‘utra)” or” “Verily I leave for you two weighty things, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or: “Be careful how you take my place over the two matters” or: “Do not (tuqaddimu) them so that you perish nor neglect them so that you perish.” Is there more in these texts than reminding the Muslims about his (‘utra) (AS) and exhorting them to be good to them? Does anyone understand from this that this means that they are the Khulafaa in ruling over Muslims after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death? From where is this taken? From the stated text of the words or their meaning? Thus there is no evidence in the hadith of Khum for the appointment of Ali, or the people of his family, over the Khilafah; so deducing through it fails/falls (tusqat).As for the third text, which are the ahadith of (wilayah), these ahadith by these words were not narrated by the two Shaikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, even if these ahadith are authenticated before those who rely upon them as evidence for Ali’s appointment, the texts they present cannot possibly be used to deduce such appointment. All their words are no more than “the waliyy of every believer after me”, “your waliyy after me”, “you are the waliyy of every believer after me”, “the waliyy of the believers after me”, “verily he is your waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali as waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali and his descendants as waliyy after me”, “whoever takes him as waliyy has taken me as waliyy”, “verily his wilayah is my wilayah”, “befriend whoever befirends him.” All these words and their like from all the rest of the narrations do not differ from the word al-waliyy, al-mawla and al-muwalat; so they are known as the hadith of (al-wilayah). The interpretation of all of them is in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “O Allah, be a waliyy for those who take him as waliyy, and be an enemy for those who oppose him/take him as an enemy.” The meaning here is their support and that they be with him and bear alliance/friendship (al-wala) and love for them. The word “waliyy” and “tawallaa” have come in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “He yatawallaa the righteous (as-saliheen)” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever yatawalla Allah and His Messenger and the beleivers, verily the party of Allah are the victorious” [TMQ ] and: “Verily your only waliyy is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe” [TMQ ] and: “His (Satan) only authority is over those who take him as waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Allah is the waliyy of the believers” [TMQ ] and: “They do not have against Him any waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever takes Satan as his waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa” [TMQ ] and: “Verily We have ordained for his waliyy a way” [TMQ ] and: “Verily my waliyy is Allah” [TMQ ] and: “That is because Allah is the waliyy of those whose believe and the disbelievers had no waliyy” [TMQ ]. In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy (al-aduww) so it is said: He took him as a friend (tawallaahu). The “mawla) is the supporter (an-nasir) and the (as-sayyid). Friendsihp/alliance (muwalat) is opposite to enmity (mu’adat). And the waliyy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor (as-sagheer) like the father and grandfather. The waliyy of the marriage contract (nikah), the properties and the orphan is the one who supervises/takes care of the affair and (yaqumu bi kifalatihi). In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliyy is among the names of Allah ta’ala who is the Helper/Supporter (An-Nasir) and it is said the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliyy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (SAW): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. All of this is not the meaning of the rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text (nass) for the Khilafah of Ali are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide (multahid ‘an al-bakhui’) that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost/more suitable in something even if we condescend that that is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings (mushtarak).” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know of the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it means in the hadith except that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are: 1) The Lord 2) Paternal uncle 3) Paternal uncle’s son 4) Son 5) Daughter’s son 6) The slave who is freed 7) One who frees a slave 8) Slave 9) Owner 10) Follower 11) One who is blessed 12) Partner 13) Confederate/Ally (haleef) 14) Companion 15) Neighbour 16) Guest 17) In-law 18) Relative (qareeb) 19) Benefactor/Beneficent 20) One lost to his friends/dead (faqeed) 21) Friend (waliyy) 22) Foremost/More suitable in something 23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave 24) Beloved 25) Helper 26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter 27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.” These are the meaning which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said: “Verily that which we consider (nartayahu) in this specific place after researching in the (ghimar) of the language, the (majami’ al-‘adab) and the (jawami’) of Arabic is that the reality of the meaning of “al-mawla” cannot be but the foremost/most suitable in something which collect these meanings collectively and is taken from each one of them with a manner (naw’) of attention.” So it apparent/clear from this that the word did not come with the meaning of ruler and that “al-muwalat” did not come with the meaning of rule, neither in the Qur’an or Hadith or the language. Words are interpreted either by their linguistic or Shari’ah meanings, so from where was the explanation of this ahadith taken that the “waliyy” and “muwalat” means giving the Khilafah to Ali and his family? When we follow those who deduced by these ahadith in any of the meanings of “waliyy” and “muwalat”, there never comes the meaning of supervising the rule in any of the texts. It is true that if we link/relate the word “waliyy” with the word “amr”, then its meaning becomes the ruler and it is said “waliyy al-amr”. In the ahadith which they call the ahadith of “al-wilayah”, the word “amr” never comes together with the word “waliyy” in any of their narrations, or any other narrations, which negates the meaning of taking care of the Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah from the ahadith.It is true that the word “wilayah” alone—not the words “mawla” or “waliyy” or “muwalat”—is a word with many meanings (mushtarak) including help/support (nusra) and authority i.e. the rule. In the ahadith which they narrated is the hadith mentioned in Kanz al-’Ammal which came with the word “wilayah” so one may say this means rule according to what the language states. The response is that this word came in the hadith by the meaning of taking as one friend (tawalla) which is indicated by the hadith’s text. Its text, according to what is narrated by those who use it as evidence, is: “O Allah, whoever believes in me and trusts me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib for verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.” This text specifies that its meaning is support/help (nusra) as the Messenger requested whoever believes in him to support/befriend (yatawalla) Ali because whoever supports him supports the Messenger and whoever supports the Messenger supports Allah. This is the meaning of the word “wilayah” and that is why it came expressed in “fa”: “For verily his wilayah is my wilayah.” It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali is the “waliyy” of every believer after the Messenger and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith—according to the language and Qur’anic texts—cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule (tawalla al-hukm) whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So they are not evidence that the Messenger appointed Ali to the Khilafah after him thus they arguing with them fails.Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is that fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article (mada) does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down (wudhi’a) for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came (ata) and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means (khalq) garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because of its meanings is the agent (mutassarif), and the one in charge (mutawalli), of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliyy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation (ishtiqaq). The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr.” “Waliyy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance (tawqeefiyya) according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications (madlulat). Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is that contextual connotations (qarain) in general, however they may be, cannot give a word ameaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a (mushtarak) word or (antonym?) for the word, and divert (tusarrifu) it from another, but it does not creat a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. That the word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters (thaqalayn) or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to (‘itibar) based upon their (‘itibar) of the Messenger, does not give it a new meaning that Ali becomes the ruler after the Messenger, as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliyy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali is the Khaleefah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.As for the fourth text which is the hadith of brotherhood, its mere reading when one views its sentence and words will lead to not using it as evidence. The texts which came upon this are: “You are my brother and inheritor”, “my brother and paternal uncle’s son”, “my brother and father of my son”, “from me and to me”, “my brother and assistant (wazeer) who repays my debts, fulfills my promise and (tubria dhimmatee)”, “Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.” All of these are words and sentences from which one cannot possibly deduce the appointment (istikhlaf) in any way. This is because they do not go beyond matters linked between a pair, the first expressing the extreme closeness of the second to him by (saying he is) his brother. The Messenger expresses the extreme closeness of Ali to him by calling him by calling him his brother and saying that he is from him, is his assistant and repays his debts. This is not any general matter (amr ‘aam) nor does it relate to the rule or Khilafah. Even if we insist that Ali is the Messenger’s (shafeeq) brother or his son, this does not indicate its meaning to be that he is the Khaleefah after him. His statement to Ali that: “You are my brother or son or assistant” or other similar things has no relationship in any way whatsoever, either in the language or the Shari’ah , to the rule or carry any indication relating to the appointment over the Khilafah. These ahadith are not suitable to be evidence that the Messenger promised Ali the Khilafah after him, and accordingly they fall down as evidence.As for the third type in which came clear texts(s) that the Messenger appointed Ali to become Khaleefah after him, they are two ahadith: the first is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer in one narration by the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” and the second is the hadith which they call the hadith of the house (ad-dar). As for the narration of the writer of the book of “Al-Ghadeer”, he mentioned a narration in the beginning of his book without mentioning the words “my heir (wasiyy) and Khaleefah” and then mentioned another later narration which he ascribed to At-Tabari which came with the words “my heir and Khaleefah” explicitly. So he—Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi, the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer”—said in his book in the chapter (‘anwan) “Al-Ghadeer in the Book of Al-‘Aziz”: “Al-Hafidh Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer At-Tabari who died in 310 hijri narrted in his narration in the book of “Al-Wilayah” among the chains of the hadith of Al-Ghadeer from Zayd bin Arqam who said: ‘When the Prophet (SAW) stopped at Ghadeer Khum in his return from the farewell pilgrimage at the time of forenoon when the sun was very hot, he commanded the tents (duwhat) which were assembled. He called for the collective prayer so we gathered. He gave a (baligha) khutbah and said: “Verily Allah ta’ala revealed to me: ‘Convey/Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord...protect you from the people’ [TMQ 5: ]. Jibril commanded me from my Lord that I stand at this witness point (mashad) and inform all white and black persons (i.e. all people) that Ali bin Abi Talib is my brother, heir, Khaleefah and the Imam after me.’” This is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, and due to the meaning of its text it is rejected so that what is said within it of the testament/bequest (wasiyya), appointment and leadership (imamah) after the Messenger is void without any basis for many causes (wujuh) such as:1. This ayah was not revealed in the farewell pilgrimage, rather it was revealed after Surah Al-Fath in the year of Hudaybiyya. This ayah is from Surah Al-Maidah which was revealed after Surah Al-Fath, and Surah Al-Fath was revealed during his (SAW) return from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. One glance to the Mushaf shows openly/clearly (bisata) the time of the revelation of the ayah: “O Prophet, convey what has been revealed to you” and shows it was revealed after Al-Fath. So the ayah was revealed four year before the farewell pilgrimage and has no relationship with the hadith of Ghadeer Khum in all the narrations since all narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum say that it happened in the farewell pilgrimage. This alone is enough to reject this hadith and certify its invalidity of what is claimed within it about the testament and appointment. 2. The meaning of the ayah is clear in its stated text and understanding that the Mesenger is commanded to convey what was revealed to him from his Lord, and that which was revealed to him from his Lord was the Islamic Message. This is designated and made the sole meaning intended, nothing else, by His statement in the same ayah: “And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message” i.e. if you do not convey what was revealed to you then verily you have not conveyed His message. This is a clear text that the intention (murad) of the ayah “What was revealed to you” is the message of Allah and nothing else. Moreover, whenever the word “convey/deliver (balligh)” comes in the Qur’an it means conveying the message of Allah nor does it came in any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And they conveyed the message of Allah” [TMQ ] and: “I convey to you the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “(Uballighoo) the message of their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I convey the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I conveyed what I was sent with” [TMQ ]. Also, whenever the words “What was revealed to you” came in the Qur’an, the intention is the Shari’ah nor does it ever come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And those who believe in what was revealed to you and what was reveeld before you” [TMQ 2:4] and: “We believe in what was revealed to you” [TMQ ] and: “We believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Ibrahim” [TMQ ] and: “And verily among the people of the Book are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed” [TMQ ] and: “Are you angry with us except that we believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed earlier?” [TMQ ] and: “If only they had established the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to them from their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “Until you establish the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to you from your Lord. But what was revealed to you from your Lord will only increase the excess and disbelief of many of them” [TMQ ] and: “When they heard what was revealed to the Messenger you see their eyes flowing with tears” [TMQ ] and so all in all ayat of the Qur’an. As for the ayah: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ], in the ayah before and in the ayah after it was mentioned the words “what was revealed (ma unzila)” with one meaning i.e. the Shari’ah . Even the words in the following ayah are the same: “what was revealed from your Lord” [TMQ 5: ]. All this goes to specify the meaning of “what was revealed to you” in His saying: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ] to be the Islamic Shari’ah . This is clear to all who follow these two words, “convey (balligh)” and “what was revealed to you (ma unzila)”, in all the ayat of the Qur’an.3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an unknown (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him of the revelation (wahiyy) and revealed to the Messenger; so Allah commands the Messenger to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came (hasil) with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith as explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a (mawsul) noun or (nakira maqsud) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed toyou or deliver everything which We revealed to you of various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation (qareena) and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all that was revealed to you which is the message of Allah. This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.4. Verily His statement ta’ala at the end of the ayah: “Allah will protect you from the people. Verily Allah does not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5:] is an assurance (tatmeen) from Allah to the Messenger and safety/security (aman) to him from the harm (adha) which will affect touch him as a result of delivering His message. This assurance is not because of harm which will affect him from delivering one rule, rather from conveying the entire message to the disbelievers and particularly where its conveyance is accompanied by fighting. The meaning of the end of ayah is that Allah will protect you in conveying this message by jihad from the harm of the people because when the ayah was revealed, the method of delivering the message was jihad i.e. fighting with swords. It is not possible that it is meant He will protect you from those envious of Ali in making the Khilafah for him i.e. protect you—according to their view—from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like as the protection in the ayah is from the people not believers. The meaning of “the people” is specified to be the disbelievers by His statement in concluding the ayah: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5: ]. So this promise from Allah to His Messenger to protect and preserve him from the harm of disbelievers in conveying what was revealed to him specifies that the meaning of the conveyance in the ayah is the conveyance of the message of Islam. It has been said that there is no meaning in His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” while he is conveying in practice. The response to this is that this command to convey does not depart from one of two matters: Either the Messenger has hidden/concealed (katama) the message without conveying it, or there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed so the absence of conveyance to them is considered the absence of conveyance to the world. It is impossible for this command to mean his concealing a specific rule revealed to him which he did not convey—or conveyance of one rule without which the message is not complete—because the concealment of one rule will defame/denigrate (yat’inu) the Messenger’s Prophethood and his message like the concealment of the entire message, so it is impossible for it to mean the concealment of one specific rule. Also the ayah says: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” which negates the conveyance which means he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule (la siyyama) the conveyance of one rule is considered conveyance of the message. From the first day, the Messenger would convey the rules according to their revelation (munajjama) such that the conveyance of one each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule, rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him not to convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger fought with in spreading the da’wah until that time, so the treaty with them would lead one perhaps to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue (istimrar) the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger fought the Jews at Khaybar, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” and: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” and: “Allah will protect you from the people” and: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk”.As for the hadith of the house as narrated in Kanz al-‘Ammal and as explained in Nahj al-Balagha, it is summarised as followed: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk [TMQ] was revealed, the Messenger called Ali to preapre food and call the family of Abd al-Muttalib so Ali executed these commands. After the people had become satisfied and (irtawu), the Messenger (waqafa) before them speaking: O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, by Allah I do not know any youth among the Arabs who has come to his people with a thing better than what I have come to you with. Verily I have come to you with the good of this world and the Hereafter. Allah has commanded me to call you to Him, so which one of you will assist me in this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you? The people (ahjam) from the da’wah except Ali, the youngest among them, who responded saying: I, O Messenger of Allah, will be your assistant upon this matter. The Messenger repeated his statement and the people remained (ahjam) while Ali continued announcing his acceptance. So the Messenger took the (ruqba) of Ali and said to those present: This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey. The people laughed at the Prophet and his invitation, and said to Abu Talib while leaving the Messenger’s house: ‘He has commanded you to listen to your son and obey him.’” This is the summary of the hadith of the house as narrated by those who depend upon it as evidence.Al-Bukhari narrated the incident of the day when “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed (saying) that the Messenger stood upon (Mount) Safa without mentioning the preparation of food. Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad two hadiths, one about the preparation of food without mentioning it was the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed and another mentioning that the preparation of food was on the day the ayah was revealed. We will show (n’uridhu) these texts first then explain what they contain. Al-Bukhari narrated from bin ‘Abbas (RA) who said: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk was revealed, the Messenger stood upon Safa and started announcing: O Banu Fihr, O Banu Adiyy for all the (butun) of Quraysh until they gathered together. Whoever was unable to go would send a messenger to see what was happening. Abu Lahab and Quraysh came and he said: ‘If I told you there were horse(men) in the valley intending to attack you suddenly, would you believe me?’ They said: Yes, we have not tried you in anything except to find you saying the truth. He said: Verily, I am a warner to you before a severe punishment! Abu Lahab said: Woe be upon you for the rest of the day. Is it because of this that you gathered us? So “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed.” This indicated that the incident of preparation of food was not on the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed as it does not (tultaim) with what occurred in the hadith’s text.Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his Musnad: ‘Affan related to us that Abu Awana related to us from Uthman bin al-Mughira from Abu Sadiq from Rabi’a bin Najidh from Ali who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) gathered or called Banu Abd al-Muttalib in all their groups (raht) to eat (jadha’a) and drink (gharaq). He prepared for them (mudd) of food which they ate until they were satisfied. He said: The food remained as if it had not been touched. Then he called for (ghimr) which they drank until (rawoo), and the drink remained as if it had not been touched or drank. Then he (SAW) said: “‘O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, I have been sent specifically to you and to humanity in general. You have now seen of this sign (ayah) what you saw, so which one of you will give me a pledge in order to become my brother and companion?’ He said: None of them stood, so I stood for him though I was the youngest of the group and he said: Sit down. He repeated it three times following which I stood for him and he said ‘Sit down’, until the third time he struck my hand with his hand.’” This clarifies that there is no moment in this incident of the revelation of “And warn your nearest kinsfolk”, and that the Messenger offered Islam to them so that whoever became a Muslim would become his brother and companion and that he did not say anything to Ali.As for the second narration, Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad: “Aswad bin Amir related to us that Shareek related to us from Al-‘Amash from Al-Minhal from ‘Ibad bin Abdullah al-Asadi from Ali who said: When the ayah “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed, the Messenger gathered the family of his house. Thirty people gathered; they ate and drank then he said to them: ‘Which one will guarantee my debts and promises so as to be with me in Paradise, and he will be my Khaleefah over my family? A man, whom Shareek did not name, said: O Messenger of Allah, you were an ocean (bahr) so who could take care of this? Then another said (the same?). He offered that to the family of his house, so Ali (RA) said: I (will).’” The word inheritor or Khaleefah does not appear in these two texts in any way at all. Rather it is only the word Khaleefah which appears restricted to his family, and the Khilafah over the family is not the Khilafah in the rank/post (mansab) of rule or leadership nor does it have any relationship with that. These are the texts which came in the Saheeh books, and they came in numerous narrations with similar wordings and unified meanings, and there did not appear in any of them the words inheritor (wasiyy) or Khliafah. There has never appeared, either via any of the compilers of the Saheeh (books of ahadith) or any of the trustworthy narrators, in even one hadith the word(s) inheritor of Khaleefah in any way at all either in relation to Ali or anyone else, so the evidence falls due to the absence of any evidence for it in the Saheeh books. As for the text narrated by those who contend about the appointment of Ali whicy they named the hadith of the house, this text through this narration in meaning. The meaning (dirayah) of this hadith in respect of meaning and the narration in respect of the chain. So if it is rejected in its chain or meaning then it cannot be considered and falls as evidence. As for rejecting its meaning, this is due to may reasons including:Firstly: In this hadith it appears that the Messenger sought the assistance of the family of Abd al-Muttalib in his da’wah with the condition that the rule (al-amr) became theirs after them. This is void from two sides (wajhayn): firstly, this contradicts the Messenger’s statement and action in the incident in which he refused the request to him of the tribe that the rule becomes theirs after him if they become Muslims so he said: “The rule (al-amr) is for Allah, and He will place it where He wills/wishes.” Bin Hisham narrated in his book of the Sirah of the Prophet (SAW): Bin Ishaq said that Az-Zuhri narrated that he met Amir bin Sa’sa’ah so he invited them to Allah ‘azza wa jalla and offered himself to them. One man among them, whom they called Bayjirat bin Furra, said to him: By Allah, if I were to take this youth (fata) of the Quraysh, I would eat (i.e. conquer) the Arabs through him. Then he said: What if we were to pledge to support your matter then Allah would grant you victory over those who oppose you. Would the rule be with us after you? He said: “The rule is for Allah and He places it where He wills.” He said: So he said to him: Will we sacrifice our (nuhur) for you, then when Allah grants you victory the rule becomes for someone else? Then we have no need of your matter, and they rejected him.” How can the Messenger say: “The matter (al-amr) belongs to Allah and He will place it where He wills” i.e. the matter of the Khilafah and the rule after him, yet he says to Banu Abd al-Muttalib: “Which one of you will assist me upon this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and Khaleefah among you?” Is this not a clear contradiction? Inevitable, it is necessary that one of these two statements be rejected. Since it is said of the hadith of the house that it occurred when “Warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed i.e. the third year of the (bi’tha) and the hadith: “The matter belongs to Allah and He places it where He wills” occurred when the Messenger offered himself to the tribes i.e. in the tenth year after the (bi’tha) and therefore after the hadith of the house; so it is the hadith of the house which is rejected. As for the second side, it is that the Messenger in this hadith offered something to the disbelievers so that they may become Muslims, rather he offered them the greatest thing which is the Khilafah after him over all Muslims as the price for their entering into Islam. This contradicts the Messenger’s action in his da’wah and the Shari’ah rules. The Messenger would invite people to Islam because it is the correct deen nor has it been narrated from him, even via a weak hadith, that he offered anything—whether small or large—to a kaffir in exchange for his entering into Islam. As for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are Muslims given from the zakat in order to strengthen the State through them, not kuffar who are given so that they enter Islam. Nor is it allowed to give something to kuffar in exchange for their entering Islam.Second: The hadith mentions that the Messenger prepared a wedding feast and meal for kuffar in order to invite them to Islam, and he gathered them around a meal so that they may enter Islam nor did he prepare food for Ali the Muslim. So if these people reject Islam and reject that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for Islam, there is no place there for Ali such that he (yatasadda) his acceptance as he is not being invited to Islam as he is a Muslim, so no speech is addressed to him. So there is no place in this gathering such that he says to him: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” since he is not the (muhil) of the address or the negotiation.Third: The hadith mentions that the group rejected Islam, and despite him repeating his offer they persisted in rejecting Islam and rejecting that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for entering Islam. They remained kuffar so how could the Messenger say to them in addressing them: “This is my Khaleefah among you” commanding them with hearing and obeying him while he knows they are kuffar who have rejected Islam? And how could he be the Khaleefah among them while they are kuffar?Fourth: The narration they narrate says: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” which is on address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words (sadara) with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khaleefah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khaleefah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khaleefah over you.” Thus he is Khaleefah for the Muslims as is the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson (‘ibra) is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident (waqi’at ‘ayn) not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khaleefah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (SAW) did not explicitly state making Ali the Khaleefah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (SAW) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want--in relation to the person--but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khaleefah.As for the error of the views that the Messenger designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali for it. Those who way that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali, so if their evidence falls in respect to Ali it also naturally falls in respect of his descendants due to the proof falling in respect of him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all collect praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its falling in argument/evidence has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it. Sheikh Taqqi uddin Nabhani , Book : Shaksiyah Islamiyah volume 2
The opinion/view that the Messenger (SAW) designated/specified a specific person to be Khaleefah after him contradicts the Shari’ah texts. And the statement that the Messenger (AS) designated certain persons to be Khulafaa after him until the Day of Judgement is even more contradictory to the Islamic texts.As for invalidating (the opinion) that the Messenger designated the Khilafah to anyone after him, this is apparent in numerous ways:First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since designating a person means informing Muslims who will be the Khaleefah over them. Hence the Khaleefah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can someone say that the pledge is the giving of obedience to this Khaleefah as the Shar’a has stated/enunciated (nassa) the obedience to the Khaleefah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in may other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is giving leadership (riasah) to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit (inqiyad) to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger designating a specific person to be Khaleefah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came generally (‘aama) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are: “He who dies without a pledge on his neck,” “Whoever pledges an Imam,” and “A man who pledges an Imam.” The opinion that the Messenger designated a specific person to become Khaleefah after him contradicts and invalidates the generality and unrestricted nature of the pledge. One should not say that this means that the pledge is the very way (‘ayn) of appointing the Khaleefah while the appointment of the Khaleefah is not the pledge so it is inevitable to first appoint the Khaleefah then pledge him; one should not say this because the pledge being the method of appointing the Khaleefah does not mean that it is exactly the same as his appointment. Nor should one say that it is required (la budda) to first appoint the Khaleefah and know his appointment before giving him the pledge as this would mean there is another method for appointing the Khaleefah such that the pledge is merely giving him obedience, whereas the ahadith on the pledge all indicate that it is the method to appoint the Khaleefah and there is no other way. Consider his statement (AS): “Whoever dies without a pledge on his neck”; it is quite explicit in meaning that whoever dies without appointing his Imam via the pledge nor does it mean in any way whoever dies without obeying an Imam. This indicates that in this hadith the Prophet means the method of appointing the Khaleefah nor does it mean mere obedience. Also consider his (AS) statement: “When the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter”; this is explicit that if two Khaleefahs are appointed, kill the later of them.Likewise all ahadith of the Prophet are explicit that it is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. The ahadith of the Prophet are explicit in not meaning mere obedience or unrestricted (mutlaq)obedience; rather, they mean submission/following the one appointed as the Khaleefah with their meaning that this is the method of appointing the Khaleefah. Above all this, there has not been authenticated even one hadith, whether in narration or meaning, which demonstrates any method of appointing the Khaleefah other than the pledge.Second: Ahadith have come from the Messenger (SAW) indicating that there will be disputes and contentions among people about the Khilafah and competition over it. If there were a text from the Messenger upon a (specific) person, there would not arise a dispute in the presence of that text or the Messenger would state that people would dispute with that person. Whereas the texts came saying that people would dispute between themselves and clarifying the method to open (fadh) this dispute and decide/settle the issue of the Khilafah. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Wahab bin Baqiyyat al-Wasiti narrated to me that Khalid bin Abdullah al-Juzairi told us from Abu Nadhra from Abu Said al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “If the pledge is given to two Khaleefahs, kill the latter of them.” Muslim also said in his Saheeh: Zuhayr bin Harb and Ishaq bin Ibrahim narrated to me, with Ishaq saying we were informed and Zuhayr said it was narrated to us by Jareer, from Al-‘Amash from Zaid bin Wahhab from Abdurrahman bin Abdurrabb al-Ka’aba who said: I entered the mosque and Abdullah bin ‘Amru bin al-‘As was seated in the shade of the Ka’aba with people gathered around him. So I joined them and sat with him. He said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in a voyage and we stopped at an encampment…when an announcer (mu’adhin) of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) announced collective prayer. So we all gathered before the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who said: “There was no Prophet before me except that it was obligatory upon him to guide his Ummah to the best that he knew for them and warn them of the worst he knew for them until he said: Whoever pledged an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, should obey him as much as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of the other person.” Muslim also narrated in his Saheeh: Muhammad bin Bashar narrated to us that Muhammad bin Ja’far narrated to us that Shu’ba narrated to us from Furrat al-Qazzaz from Abu Hazm who said: I remained with Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) who said: “The children of Israel had Prophets taking care of their affairs as politicians (tasusuhum). Whenever one Prophet died, another followed him. However, there will be no Prophet after me but there will be Khulafaa who will be many. They said: What do you command us? He said: Fulfil the pledge one after the other.” Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Uthman bin Abu Shayba narrated to us that Yunus bin Abu Ya’fur narrated to them from his father from Arfaja who said he heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever finds you will all your affair united in one man, intending to incite rebellion or divide your unity, kill him.” This means that the Khilafah is the right of all Muslims such that each can contend for it. This contradicts the (saying that) the Messenger designated a specific person to be Khaleefah after him.Third: The ahadith which came with the word Imam by meaning of Khaleefah came with this word in unspecified (nakira); and when it came specified (ma’rifa), it either came specified with “the” (“al”) of the species (jins) or related to a collective noun (jam’u). In the (amkina) which came specified with “al”, it was the “al” of species by evidence of the sentence. The Messenger said: “Whoever pledges an Imam”, “…stood against an unjust Imam”, “there will be Imams after me.” And he said: “The Imam is the one who is a shepherd/guardian (ra’i) over the people and he is responsible for his citizens”, “Verily the Imam is a shield from behind whom they fight and by whom they are protected” and he said: “…to the Imam of the Muslims”, “The best of your Imams”, “…the worst of your Imams.” All this indicates that the Messenger (SAW) left vague (abham) who would be the Khaleefah after him without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam for a specific person.Fourth: The Sahabah (RA) differed in their time upon the persons to be the Khaleefah among them. This difference upon persons is an evidence that the Messenger did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr and Ali. Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah argue that there was a text for certain persons in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should noe say that there is a text which was know after them but it did not reach them because we take our deen from the Sahabah. They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text-any text-from the Sahabah, then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khaleefah after the Messenger, we find all the Sahabah without exception-including Abu Bakr and Ali-agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the uity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah.Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (SAW) did not appoint a Khaleefah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khaleefah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (RA) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khaleefah? He said: “If I appoint a Khilafah, verily one better than me did appoint a Khaleefah i.e. Abu Bakr. And if I do not, then one better than me did not i.e. the Messenger of Allah (SAW).” Muslim narrated from bin Umar that Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) said: “Verily Allah ‘azza wa jalla will preserve the deen. If I do not appoint a Khaleefah, verily the Messenger of Allah (SAW) did not appoint; and if I do appoint, verily Abu Bakr did appoint.” This is a clear text that the Messenger did not appoint a Khaleefah. Nor should one say that this is Umar’s opinion for when a companion says, ‘The Messenger did this or did not do this or we were in his time like this or there was in his time such and such’, this is a hadith used as evidence not merely a companion’s view. Moreover, Umar said this within the hearing and sight of the Sahabah, and Ali (RA) was present and this statement reach him without him opposing it, which indicates their agreement upon what Umar narrated.This is all with respect to the absence of any specific text designating a specific person for the Khilafah. As for the texts brought by those who say that there are texts designating a specific person, among these texts are those brought to indicate that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr to become Khaleefah after him whereas others are brought to indicate that he appointed Ali as Khaleefah after him. We must present them and explain their contents. As for the texts brought by those who say the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr, they are divided into two: One portion in which the Messenger (SAW) praises Abu Bakr wherein there is nothing to indicate that the Messenger appointed him. The other portion is one wherein some deduce by deduction (instinbat) that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr while others deduce that he nominated (rashaha) Abu Bakr. We will present their model by presenting some of them, noting that none of them exceed the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Said al-Khudri that the Prophet (SAW) said: “Verily the most gracious of people to me in his companionship and wealth is Abu Bakr. Were I to take an intimate friend (khaleel) other than my Lord, I would have taken Abu Bakr but instead there is the brotherhood of Islam and its love. There should not remain in the mosque any door but that it should be closed/barricaded except for the door of Abu Bakr.” Muslim also narrated this hadith but with different wording, although similar to these ones. There is nothing in this hadith to make a person say that he appointed Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. All that it contains is praise for Abu Bakr from the Messenger, and the Messenger (SAW) praised many companions by name. There have come ahadith with praise for Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas, Talha, Az-Zubayr, Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein (RA), Zayd bin Haritha, Usama bin Zayd, Abdullah bin Ja’far, Khadija, Aisha, Fatima daughter of the Prophet (AS), Umm Salamah, Bilal and others. Praise by itself does not in any way whatsoever indicate appointment to be Khaleefah (istikhlaf).As for the ahadith from which some deduced the Khilafah of Abu Bakr, they are four ahadith which we will present and clarify all that they contain. These ahadith are:First: Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Qasim bin Muhammad who said: “Aisha said: O my head so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: If it were to happen and I were alive, I would ask for you to be forgiven and pray for you. Aisha said: That is a serious matter (athkuliyahu). By Allah, I believe that you would like my death so that it if happened, you would spend the rest of your days wedded happily with some of your wives. The Prophet (SAW) said: Rather it is my head which is heavy. I wished/intended (hamamtu) to send for Abu Bakr and his son so as to give him a pledge/promise (‘ahd) so that no person will speak or a wisher wish. Then I said that Allah will reject and the believers prevent that or Allah will prevent and the believers reject.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Aisha in this wording from her: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to me in his illness: “Call for me your father, Abu Bakr, and your brother so that I write a book for I fear that a wisher will wish or a speaker say: I am better (or take precedence). But Allah will reject, and so the believers, except for Abu Bakr.”Secondly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father who said: “A woman came to the Prophet (SAW) and spoke to him about something; and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I came and did not find you—as is she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father in the words: “A woman asked the Messenger of Allah (SAW) something and he commanded her to return to him. She said: O Messenger of Allah, what if I come and do not find you—My father said: As if she meant death—so he said: If you do not find me, then go to Abu Bakr.”Thirdly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha, the mother of the believers, “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) told me during his illness: Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Aisha said: I said: When Abu Bakr stands in your place, people do not hear him for his crying so command Umar to lead prayers. He said: Command Abu Bakr to lead people in prayer. Aisha said: I said to Hafsa: Say that when Abu Bakr stands in your place, the people do not hear, and she did that. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: You are like the companions of Yusuf. Command Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Hafsa said to Aisha: I will never achieve any good through you!”Fourthly: Muslim narrated from bin Abu Mulkiyya who said: “I heard Aisha being asked: Whom would the Messenger of Allah (SAW) have appointed as Khaleefah after him had he so appointed? She said: Abu Bakr. She was asked: Then whom after Abu Bakr? She said: Umar. She was then asked: Then whom after Umar? She said: Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah, and she stopped at that.”All these ahadith are not suitable evidence for the Messenger appointing Abu Bakr as Khaleefah. The first hadith is rejected for two reasons: The first is that the Messenger said: “I wished or intended” but he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered a Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr. Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to debate/contend (yunaqish) with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khaleefah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah.As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct/accurate that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words-“If I did not find you”-that you had died. The words which came in the hadith-“As if she meant death”-are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr if she came and did not find him is no proof/indication (dalalat) for the appointment of Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after the Messenger. Even if we were compelled to take her as meaning death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khaleefah after him.As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in ruling/authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a vast (shas’i) difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger; rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahaba’s opinion is not a proof nor considered a Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khaleefah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger appointed Ali, they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger praised our master Ali (RA), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali, and a category in which those who accept the authenticity of the text (muhtajeen) have a clear text that the Messenger appointed Ali as Khaleefah.As for the first category in which the Messenger praised Ali, we will present a model of them by mentioning some of the ahadith with the remainder not exceeding the meaning of praise.Al-Bukhari narrated from Sahl bin S’ad (RA) “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: I will give the flag (rayah) tomorrow to someone by whose hands Allah will conquer. He said: So the people spent the night (yadukuna) which one of them it would be given to. When people woke up, they all (ghadaw) to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) hoping it would be given to them, but he said: Where is Ali bin Abi Talib? They said: His eyes are paining/injured. O Messenger of Allah. He said: Send to him to come to me. When he came, he (basiqa) in his eyes and prayed for him. He was cured as if he had never had (waji’a), and he gave him the flag.” Muslim narrated this hadith from Abu Hurayra with the words: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said on the day of Khayber: I will give this flag to someone who loves Allah and His Messenger by whose hands Allah will conquer. Umar bin al-Khattab said: I had never longed/wished for leadership except for that day. He said: (fatusawarat) for it hoping they would be called for it. He said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali bin Abi Talib and gave him the flag.”Al-Bukhari narrated in the chapter of (manaqib) of Ali (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you.” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan commanded S’ad saying: What has prevented you from insulting Abu Turab? He said: When I remember three (things) which the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said of him, I will never insult him. That I should have one of them is more beloved to me than red milch camels (n’um?). The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left him behind in some of his war expeditions, so Ali said to him: O Messenger of Allah (SAW), have you left me behind with women and children? The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to him: “Are you not pleased to be in the same status (manzalat) next to me like the status of Harun next to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” I also heard him say on the day of Khayber: ‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love. He said: (fatutwawulina) for it and he said: “Call for me Ali, so he was brought (urmida). He (busiqa) in his eyes and gave him the flag, and Allah conquered through him.’ And when this verse was revealed: Say: Come and let us call our sons and your sons [TMQ ], the Messenger of Allah (SAW) called Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain and said: ‘O Allah, this is my family.’” Muslim narrated from Sahl bin S’ad who said: A man from the family of Marwan was appointed (as ruler) over Madinah. He said: He called Sahl bin S’ad and commanded him to insult Ali. He said: Sahl refused, so it was said to him: If you refuse, then say: Allah curse Abu Turab. Sahl said: Ali has no name more beloved to me than Abu Turab, even though he would be pleased when called by it. It was said to him: Inform us of the incident as to why he was called Abu Turab, so he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to Fatima’s house and did not find him in the house, so he said: “Where is the son of your paternal uncle?” She said: There was something between him and me, and he made me angry and left without (yaqila) before me. So the Messenger of Allah said to someone: “Go find out where he is.” He came back and said: O Messenger of Allah, he is (raqid) in the mosque. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to him while he was reclining (mudhtaji’u). His cloak had fallen from his (shaqq) and mud/dirt (turab) had touched him, so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) began wiping it off him while saying: “Stand/wake up, O Abu Turab.” Muslim narrated from ‘Adiyy bin Thabit from Dharr who said: Ali said: “By the One who cleaves (falaqa) the grain (habbat) and (baraa nismat), it is the pledge of the unlettered (‘umiyy) Prophet (SAW) to me that none will love me except the believer and none will hate me except the hypocrite.” There is nothing in these ahadith to make someone say that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him. The hadith of Khayber is praise from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s statement to Ali: “You are of me and I am of you” is praise from the Messenger of Allah. As for the hadith of S’ad in which came: “Are you not pleased to have the status before me of Harun to Musa”, we will discuss in the second category of this topic (mawdhu’). In it is also the hadith of Khayber which is praise, and in it is that Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husain are his family which is praise, and the hadith of Sahl bin S’ad is praise. Just like the Messenger of Allah (SAW) praised Ali, he also praised others among his Sahabah. The Messenger’s praise for a person does not in any way indicate his appointment.As for the second category of ahadith which are those from which some deduced that the Messenger stated textually that Ali would be Khaleefah after him, they are summarised (tatalakkhas) in these four texts:-1- Al-Bukhari narrated from Mus’ab bin S’ad from his father “that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) left for Tabuk and appointed Ali, so he said: Do you leave me behind together with women and children? He said: Are you not pleased to have the same status with me as Harun had with Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me?” Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas from his father who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali: “You are to me of the same status as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me.” And Muslim narrated from Ibrahim bin S’ad from S’ad that the Prophet (SAW) said to Ali: “Are you not pleased to have the same status before me as Harun before Musa.” Bin Ishaq narrated by saying: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) left behind Ali bin Abi Talib to look after and supervise his family. They hypocrites (arjif bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal) and to make it easy (takhaffuf) for him. When the hypocrites said that, Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) took his weapons and left/moved out until he met the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because (istathqaltanee) and to make it easy for me. He said: “They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me so return and supervise on my behalf my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, to have the same status before me as Harun had before Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” So Ali returned to Madinah and the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his journey. As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned the following in the book “Al-Muraja’at”: “The hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: O Ali, verily it is allowed for you in the mosque what is allowed for me, and your status before me is that of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me.”2. Muslim narrated from Yazid bin Hayyan who said: I left with Husain bin Sabra and Umar bin Muslim to Zayd bin Arqam. When we sat with him, Husain said to him: “Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. You saw the Messenger of Allah (SAW), heard his hadith, fought with him and prayed behind him. Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. So relate to us, O Zayd, of what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (SAW). He said: O son of my brother, by Allah I have become old and my time has approached. I have forgotten some of that which I understood from the Messenger of Allah (SAW), so accept whatever I relate to you and do not force me on that which I do not relate. Then he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood one day before us speaking at the waters known as Khum between Makkah and Madinah. He thanked Allah, praised Him, exhorted and reminded then said: ‘As for what follows, verily O people I am but a man who (yuwshakk) that the messenger of my Lord will reach me and I will respond. I leave behind for you two weighty things (thaqalayn), the first of which is the Book of Allah wherein is guidance and light. Take the Book of Allah and restrict yourselves to it. He exhorted upon the Book of Allah and (raghiba) to it, then said: And the people of my house (ahl baitee). I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house, I remind you of Allah regarding the people of my house.’ Husain said to him: and who are the people of his house, O Zayd? Are his wives not of his house? He said: His wives are of his house, but the people of his house are those to whom sadaqa is prohibited after him. He said: Who are they? He said: The family of Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far, and the family of ‘Abbas. He said: Is sadaqa prohibited to all of them? He said: Yes.”As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned in his book “Al-Muraja’at” this hadith via the following narration which At-Tabarani narrated through a chain whose authenticity is unanimously accepted from Zayd bin Arqam who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) spoke at Ghadeer Khum underneath trees and said: “O people, (yuwshakk) that I am called and I respond. Verily, I am responsible/accountable (mas’ool) and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We will testify that you conveyed, struggled and advised so may Allah recompense you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that Paradise is true and Hellfire is true, that death is true and resurrection after death is true, that the Hour (of Judgement) will come without any doubt, and that Allah will resurrect all those in their graves? They said: Yes, we do bear witness. Then he said: O people, verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. Whoever takes me as his patron then this one is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy. Then he said: O people, verily I (faratakum) and you will (warid) me at the Cistern (hawdth), a cistern wider than the distance from Basra to Sana’a. In it is (qidah) of silver the number of stars. Verily I will ask you when you come before me on the two weighty things (thaqalayn), how you took care of them after me. The weightier and greater one is the Book of Allah ‘azza wa jalla, a (sabab) of which one end is in the hands of Allah and the other in your hands. Hold tightly to it so that you do not go astray or change, and my (‘utra), the people of my house (ahl baitee). Verily the (lateef khabeer) has informed me that they will never (yanqadhiya) until they come before me at the cistern” (this is the end of what As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned).And Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Ameeni An-Najafi stated the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer”: “When he finished his rites of worship—i.e. the Prophet (SAW)—and left returning to Madinah, together with the mentioned group(s) of people, he reached Ghadeer Khum in Al-Jahfa where (tatasha’ab) the roads of the people of Madinah, Egypt and Iraq. This was the 15th day of Dhul-Hijja and Jibril, the trustworthy, descended to him from Allah with His saying: ‘O Messenger, deliver what was revealed to you from your Lord” [TMQ 5:] and He commanded him to cause Ali to stand to let the peole know and convey/inform that which was revealed regarding his patronage (wilayah) and the obligation of obedience upon every one. The first of the people were close to Al-Jahfa so the Messenger of Allah commanded those who had preceded to return and enclosed those who had delayed at that place, and he prohibited people from encamping beneath the five large close (samarat dowhat). When the people took camp and those underneath them (the trees) stood until the dhuhr prayer was announced, he headed for them and prayed beneath them. It was a (hajira) day where a man placed some of his cloak upon his face and some under his feet due to the severe heat, and the Messenger of Allah was shaded by a garment upon the (sumra) tree due to the sun. When he (SAW) finished his prayer, he stood to speak in the middle of the people in the (aqtab) of a camel with everyone hearing (rafi’a ‘aqeeratihi), and he said: ‘All praise is due to Allah whom we ask for help, believe in and depend upon. We ask Allah to protect us from the evils of our souls and bad deeds, the One whom none can guide whom He causes to go astray nor misguide whom He guides. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. As for what follows: O people, verily the (lateef) All-Knowing has informed me that He does not grant longevity to a Prophet except half the like of the one before him. Verily I (uwshakk) that I will be called and I will respond. Verily I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We bear witness that verily you have conveyed, advised and struggled so may Allah reward you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that His paradise is true and His hellfire is true, that death is true, that the Hour will come without any doubt and that Allah will resurrect htose in the graves? They said: Yes, we bear witness to this. He said: O Allah, do bear witness. Then he said: O people, will you not listen? They said: Yes. He said: Verily I (farata) to the cistern and you will be presented at the cistern, whose breadth is that between Sana’a and Basra, before me. In it is the (aqdah) of silver the number of stars, so look how you take care of the two weighty things after me. An announcer announced: And what are the two weighty things, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The greater of the two weighty things is the Book of Allah, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands so hold fast to it and you will not go astray. The other smaller one is my (‘utra). Verily the (lateef) All-Knowing informed me that they will never separate until they reach(?) the cistern and I asked that from my Lord. So do not precede them or neglect them or you will perish. Then he took the hand of Ali and raised it until the armpits was seen such that everyone recognised him and he said: O people, who takes precedence before the believers over their own selves? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: Verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. So whoever has me as his patron then Ali is his patron. He said this three times, and in the words of Imam Ahmad, Imam of the Hanbalis, four times. Then he said: O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and become an enemy to whoever takes him as an enemy. Love whoever loves him and hate whoever hates him, support whoever supports him and abandon whoever abandons him, and let the truth be with him wherever he is (dar). Verily, let the witness who is present the (one who is) absent.’”3. Those who say that the Messenger clearly announced the Khilafah of Ali narrated ahadith in their books. As for these ahadith, we will not make the place of research in them their narrations, despite the fact that the two shaikhs—Al-Bukhari and Muslim—did not narrate them, nor were they narrated via trustworthy narrators and most of them are among the fabricated ahadith. We will not make their narrations the place of research such that they say that these ahadith were not narrated by trustworthy narrators before you but were narrated by trustworthy narrators before us so that the one for whom the hadith is authenticated uses it as an evidence. Verily we will not make that the place of research; rather we will make the matter of research the texts themselves as they came in their narrations. These are the texts from which they deduced that the Messenger appointed Ali to be Khaleefah after him—and these ahadith are known as the ahadith of “wilayah”—which we will (nuwrid) a section of them with the rest being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi narrated from ‘bin Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to Ali bin Abi Talib: “You are the waliyy of all believers after me.”b) It came in Kanz al-’Ammal from Imran bin Husain who said that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) sent an expedition and appointed Ali bin Abi Talib over them. He chose for himself a slave girl from the fifth (khums) and they rejected this from him. Four of them agreed to complain about him to the Prophet (SAW) so, when they came, one of the four stood and said: O Messenger of Allah, do you not see that Ali did such and such, and he turned away from him. The second stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. The third stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. And the fourth stood and said the same as they had said. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) turned towards them with anger (yabsiru) in his face and said: “What do you want for me with regard to Ali? Verily Ali is of me and I am of him, and he is the waliyy of every believer after me.”c) And in a long hadith from ‘Amru bin Maymun from ‘bin Abbas who said: TheMessenger of Allah (SAW) sent so and so with Surah At-Tawbah. He then sent Ali after him to take it from him and said: “No one should go with it except a man who is of me and I am of him.”d) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Wahhab bin Hamza who said: I travelled with Ali and I saw (jiffa) from him, so I said that when I return I will complain about it. So I returned and mentioned Ali to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) (faniltu minhu) and he said: “Do not say this of Ali, as he is your waliyy after me.”e) In Kanz al-’Ammal from ‘bin Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever is pleased to live my life, die my death and to reside in the paradise of Eden irrigated by my Lord then let him befriend Ali as waliyy after me.”f) In Muntakhab al-Kanz from Zayyad bin Mutarraf who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Whoever would like to live my life, die my death, and enter the paradise promised to me by my Lord—and it is an eternal paradise—then let him befriend Ali and his descendants after me. Verily they will never remove you from the door of guidance nor enter you into the gate of misguidance.”g) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Ammar bin Yasir who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “I (awsiyy) whoever believes in me and trusts in me with the wilayah of Ali bin Abi Talib. Whoever befriends him has befriended me and whoever befriends me has befriended Allah. Whoever loves him has loved me, and whoever loves me has loved Allah. Whoever hates him has hated me, and whoever hates me has hated Allah.”h) Also in Al-Kanz from Ammar (marfu’): “O Allah, whoever believes and trusts in me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib. Verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.”4. There are ahadith narrated by those who say that the Messenger openly declared the Khilafah of Ali. These ahadith have not been narrated by any trustworthy person and most of them are fabricated ahadith. We present them not to research them from the angle of their narration so that they are claimed to be authenticated for those who narrate them. Rather we present them to make the point of research their texts according to what came in their texts. These ahadith contain the brotherhood of the Messenger with Ali, and making him the heir (al-warith) after him. We present a section of them with the remainder being of the same meaning and even of the same wording.a) The Prophet (SAW) established a brotherhood (akha) between the Muhajirin and chose Ali for himself. In what came of the hadith of the first brotherhood (muakhat), “so Ali said: O Messenger of Allah, verily my soul left me and my backbone broke when I saw you do what you did with your companions other than me. So if this is due to anger upon me, then for you is (‘atba) and graciousness. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: By the One who sent me with truth, I only left you for myself. Your are to me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me. You are my brother and inheritor. He said: What will I inherit from you. He said: What the Prophets inherited before me, the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophets.”b) The Prophet (SAW) made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar five months after the hijrah, but he did not make a brotherhood between Ali and any of the Ansar; rather he chose him for himself. In what came of the hadith of the second brotherhood “that the Messenger (SAW) said to Ali: Did you become angry at me when I made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and Ansar but did not make a brotherhood between you and any of them? Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?”c) It is narrated that the Messenger (SAW) went out one day to his companions with his face brightened so Abdurrahman bin Awf asked him and he said: “Good news came to me from my Lord about my brother and paternal uncle’s son and my daughter, that Allah will marry Ali with Fatima.” When the leader of women (zafata) her like with the leader of the (‘utra), the Prophet (SAW) said: “O Umm Ayman, call my brother for me. She said: He is your brother yet you are marrying him (to your daughter)? He said: Yes, O Umm Ayman. So she called Ali and he came.” And the Prophet spoke to him one day regarding a judgement (qadhiya) between him, his brother Ja’far and Zayd bin Haritha, saying: “As for you, O Ali, (you are) my brother, the father of my son, and of me and to me.”d) The Messenger (SAW) promised to Ali one day saying: “You are my brother and my wazeer. You will repay my debts, fulfill my commitments and (tubriu dhimmatee).”3) In Kanz al-’Ammal, he (SAW) said: “It is written on the gate of Paradise: There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.”These four texts, which are the texts in which the Messenger made him (Ali) of the status of Harun to Musa, the text that he left the Book of Allah and His (‘utra), the text of wilayah, and the text of brotherhood, are the texts from which some Muslims deduced that the Messenger (SAW) appointed Ali i.e. made him the Khaleefah after him. Let us take them text by text:As for the first text, which is the text which made Ali of the status of Harun to Musa before the Messenger, its meaning is clarified though studying the (maqam) in which it was said and studying its wording. As for the (maqam), the Messenger said this hadith on the day of the battle of Tabuk. Therein the Messenger (SAW) appointed in Madinah in his place Muhammad bin Maslamah to supervise the Muslims’ affairs and administer the rule (hukm), and appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family and commanded him to supervise them. The hypocrites (arjafa bihi) and said: He did not leave him behind except (istithqal lahu) and to make it easy from him (takhaffuf minhu). When the hypocrites said this, Ali (RA) took his weapon and left until he met the Messenger (SAW) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: “O Prophet of Allah, the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because you found me a burden and wished to make yourself light without me. He said: They lied, rather I left you behind due to what I left behind me. So return and take my place over my family and your family. Are you not pleased, O Ali, that you are of the same status before me as Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me?” so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) continued on his travel. The hadith about making Ali the same status before the Messenger as Harun before Musa concern appointing him over his (SAW) family by the evidence of Ali’s own statement: “Do you leave me behind with women and children?” The reality of the incident is that he was appointed over his family so it cannot be taken to mean that he was appointed over the Khilafah, particularly when it is known that he (AS) appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah as ruler in his place and specified Ali to supervise over his family when he said to him, “my family and your family.” Moreover, the Messenger’s appointment of one of his companions over the rule when he left for battle does not meant that this appointed person is the Khaleefah in his place by the evidence that the Messenger (SAW) appointed many in the battles. In the battle of Al-‘Asheera he appointed Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Asad over Madinah, in the battle of Safwan he appointed Zayd bin Haritha over Madinah, in the battle Banu Lahyan he appointed bin Umm Maktum over Madinah, and so on. The appointment by the Messenger of someone to rule over Madinah until he returns form his battles does not indicate that means his appointment over the Khilafah, so what if he appointed him only over his family while appointing anotherr in authority until he returns from his battle?This is in relation to the appointment. As for the saying of the Messenger (SAW), “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun before Musa?” the meaning of its words are: Are you not pleased that there is for you, in what you surpervise/are appointed over, what Harun supervised for Musa. It is the resemblance (tashbeeh) of Ali with Harun with the way of resemblance being the appointment i.e. your similitude in my appointing you (or leaving you behind) is that of Harun when Musa appointed him. This is the meaning of the words of the hadith nore do these words have any other meaning/intention (murad). This meaning is specified and becomes the only meaning due to Ali’s saying to the Messenger: “Do you leave me behind with children and women?” whith the Messenger’s statement: “Are you not pleased to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” coming in response to this question of Ali and as a rejoinder to his statement. To understand what is meant by this hadith one must return to the Glorious Qur’an to see within in the (mawdhu’) of Musa’s appointing Harun to see what it is. Returning to the Glorious Qur’an, we find that this tale (qisa) is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following text: “We” [TMQ ]. So the hadith’s meaning becomes: Are you not pleased that I appoint you over my family like Musa appointed Harun over his people, so that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa due to the appointment? So the hadith’s intent is to pacify our master Ali’s (khatir) as he came displeased by this appointment, and at the same time it informs Ali that he will take his (SAW) place over his family when he is absent just like Harun took Musa’s place over his people when he was absent. As for his saying: “Except that there is no Prophet after me”, this negates the resemblance of Prophethood because Harun was a Prophet so he was a Prophet taking the place of another Prophet when he was absent. So the Messenger excluded Prophethood to remove any fancy/imagination that he is of the same status in Prophethood. Nor should one say that his statement, “No Prophet after me” means after my death as the words are related to appointment during his life. This is because Harun was a Prophet along with Musa during his life not after his death; he was his deputy (khalifa) over his people while he (Musa) was absent during his life not after his death. So the Messenger only made his statement: “Except that there is no Prophet after me” because Harun was a Prophet during Musa’s absence while he lived; so he made this statement in order to negate Prophethood from Ali. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) informed us in an authenticated hadith narrated by Al-Hakim that Harun died during Musa’s life. So there does not arise the issue of appointment after death as it did not exist in Harun and Musa, who are those with whom resemblance is made (mushabbih bihi), thus in does not exist in the Prophet and Ali who are the resemblers.This is the hadith’s meaning nore does it contain any indication to appointment over the Khilafah nore can it be understood in any way that the Messenger intended by this hadith to clearly state and make Ali Khaleefah over the Muslims after the Messenger’s death. The hadith (warid) relates to the appointment of Ali over the Messenger’s family during his absence due to the battle of Tabuk. As for the remaining narrations which came in this hadith i.e. his saying (AS): “Are you not please to be before me of the status of Harun to Musa?” some of them are authenticated narrations like those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their hadith from ‘Amir and Ibrahim, the two sons of S’ad, while others are not authenticated, but all of them came with the same text. This means that the hadith was said in Tabuk andt at other times. The response to this is that the authentic narrations are a narration which is a part of the incident i.e. narrations with the Messenger’s words alone separated from the incident which does not mean that it is an incident (haditha) other than the incident of Tabuk. Narrators and collectors of hadith frequently narrate a part of a hadith or a part of an incident, shortening it to the place of evidence (muhil shahid). Even if we accept that the hadith was not only over the incident of Tabuk but was said in Tabuk and other times, then this would mean that the Messenger appointed our master Ali (RA) over his family permanently during Tabuk and at other times; nor would it mean his appointment (may Allah ennoble his face) over the Khilafah after the Messenger’s death. All that the explanation of the hadith’s word and meaning indicate is: Are you not please that I appoint you over my family during my absence and whenever I am absent just like Harun supervised for Musa during his absence, except that Harun is a Prophet and you are not a Prophet because there is no Prophet after my Prophethood. This came in Muslim’s narration from Amir bin S’ad from his father: “Are you not pleased that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me” i.e. after my Prophethood. This is the similitude with which the Messenger compared Ali in relation to him just like Harun in relation to Musa i.e the appointment and nothing else, appointment during his absence and nothing else, and appointment over his family as came in the hadith’s text in its entirety. The frequency with which a hadith is repeated does not change its meaning to give it an alternative meaning. So the appointment in Tabuk was only over the Messenger’s family as is proven without doubt, while the other narrations in other than Tabuk conveyed the same text mentioned in Tabuk in words and meaning without mentioning the restriction (qayd) in the incident of Tabuk i.e. the family. Rather, they do not mention any restriction at all thus we measure/carry (tahmilu) them upon what was mentioned in the narration of Tabuk. This is because the narration of Tabuk is restricted to the family while the other narrations are free of any restriction in the appointment so we measure the unrestricted (mutlaq) upon the restricted (muqayyad). Nor should one say that the other narrations are general as the words of the hadith are not of the general words as the texts of all the narrations whether the narration: “Are you not pleased” or the narration: “Verily you” or the naration: “You” and the similar which is of the (mathabat) of Harun with Musa; all these words are specific to a specific status which is of the status of Harun with Musa which is not of the general status. Except that the status of Harun to Musa came unrestricted in some of the narrations which were not restricted by any restriction, while they were restricted to the family in some of the narrations so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted such that all the narrations are restricted to the family.As for the rest of the matters which Musa sought from Allah in his statement: “Give me an assistant (wazeer) from my family. My brother Harun…and associate him in my affair” [TMQ]. There is no place for them in relation to the status of Harun to Musa nor the appointment as it is a prayer from Musa to Allah to make his brother an assistant to him and to give him the Prophethood along with him because the matters which Musa prayed to Allah to associate Harun with him upon were Prophethood and the Message So the association was only in these matters not the rule, as Musa was not a ruler but only a Prophet. Moreover, the request was a request for assistance for him and associating him in his matter, not a request for his appointment (in rule).Above all that, these matters are not (mubayyina) to the status of Musa to Harun; rather (al-mubayyin) for the status of Musa to Harun is his appointing him over his people during his absence; so his status before him is that he took care of his people during his absence. There is no (wujud) for assistance and association in the Prophethood in the statement of the Messenger: “of the status of Harun to Musa” rather the meaning is restritcted to the appointment over the people nor do the texts carry any meaning other than this.It has been said that Musa was a ruler because a Shari’ah was revealed to him to rule by as there are solutions and punishments within it, and he was a leader of an army which intended to occupy Bait al-Maqdis when his people said to him: “You and your Lord go and fight” [TMQ 5:], so his appointment of Harun over his people was an appointment in Prophethood and also in authority. The response to this is that Musa was not a ruler, nor is it narrated in the Qur’an or elsewhere that he would execute the rules upon the children of Israel (Banu Israil) by strength/force and the authority (sultan) or that he was a ruler over them. Those who ruled Banu Israil with the Shari’ah of Musa was not Musa himself or in his lifetime, rather it was those Prophet who came after him like Dawud, Sulayman and other kings (muluk). As for Musa’s leadership over the armies, it never occurred. The ayat which are in Surah Al-Maidah from ayah 19 to ayah 26 do no have anything within them which indicates Musa’s leadership over the army; rather what is within them is that Musa requested his people to enter the Holy Land. They refused and said to him that there are a giant people (jabbar) within it so they would never enter until these giants left; they asked him and his Lord to go and fight but he did not go so the result was their (tahu) for fourty years in the wilderness (ardh). As for the revelation of the Shari’ah to Musa with solutions and punishments, this does not mean that Musa ruled with them; rather the reality is that he came with it and conveyed it to Banu Israil. He tried to take them to (Bait al-Maqdis) but they (tahuw) in the wilderness nor did they (istiqrar) in Musa’s time until his period ended. After their punishment with (at-teeh) ended, they moved and were ruled by kings and Prophets among them by the Shari’ah of Musa, which is stated by the Qur’an in more than one Surah. Moreover, the ayat in which Harun was appointed are explicit that it was an appointment on behalf of Musa in Prophethood when Musa went to (yultaqa) from Allah, which is in Surah Al-‘Araf from ayah 141: “We…” to the end of ayah 155: “And Musa chose from his people seventy men”. All of them are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, (tilqa alwah), Banu Israil taking (al-‘ajl) and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspcet (yashtabihu) that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no (shubha) that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause (sabab) like the incident of Tabuk or without any cuase, which indicate that the Messenger made Ali supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s appointment of ali, Ali became before the Messenger of the status of Harun to Musa. Ther is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger stated that Ali would become the Khaleefah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death.As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (SAW) house, to be gracious to them (yukarrimuhum), to honour and not to annoy (adha) them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The wores are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not chage what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Alilah the patron (mawla) by his statement: “Verily Allah is my Patron, and I am the patron of the believers such that I am dearer to them than their own souls. So the one for whom I am his parton, then this is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befirend whoever befriends him and be an enemy to whoever is an enemy to him.” As for the second matter, this is that he advised the doing of good to his (‘utra) by saying: “And my (‘utra), the people of my house, for verily the (lateef khabeer) informed me that they will never (qadhiya) until they arrive (yaridaa) at the cistern.” There is nothing other than these two matters in all these ahadith, despite all their number and differing narrations. As for the first matter, which is the friendship (muwalat), we shall discuss it during the discussion upon the ahadith of (wilayat) directly after this text. As for the second matter, it does not differ from being an advice to Muslims to be good to his (‘utra), the people of his house, by being gracious to them, honouring and not annoying/harming them as they will be questioned about them. Also that the family of the house and the Book of Allah will remain linked (muqtarineen) until the Day of Judgement. There exists nothing in this ahadith—the ahadith of Ghadeer Khum—more than advising Muslims to do good to his (‘utra); there is nothing within int indicating the appointment of Ali, or the people of his house, over the Khilafah after the death of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Where is the appointment in the Messenger’s statement according to all previous narrations narrated in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “Verily I will question you when you reach me about the two weighty matters, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or his statement: “Verily I have left for you two weighty matters, the Book of Allah ta’ala and my (‘utra)” or” “Verily I leave for you two weighty things, the Book of Allah and my (‘utra), the family of my house” or: “Be careful how you take my place over the two matters” or: “Do not (tuqaddimu) them so that you perish nor neglect them so that you perish.” Is there more in these texts than reminding the Muslims about his (‘utra) (AS) and exhorting them to be good to them? Does anyone understand from this that this means that they are the Khulafaa in ruling over Muslims after the Messenger of Allah (SAW)’s death? From where is this taken? From the stated text of the words or their meaning? Thus there is no evidence in the hadith of Khum for the appointment of Ali, or the people of his family, over the Khilafah; so deducing through it fails/falls (tusqat).As for the third text, which are the ahadith of (wilayah), these ahadith by these words were not narrated by the two Shaikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, even if these ahadith are authenticated before those who rely upon them as evidence for Ali’s appointment, the texts they present cannot possibly be used to deduce such appointment. All their words are no more than “the waliyy of every believer after me”, “your waliyy after me”, “you are the waliyy of every believer after me”, “the waliyy of the believers after me”, “verily he is your waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali as waliyy after me”, “let him take Ali and his descendants as waliyy after me”, “whoever takes him as waliyy has taken me as waliyy”, “verily his wilayah is my wilayah”, “befriend whoever befirends him.” All these words and their like from all the rest of the narrations do not differ from the word al-waliyy, al-mawla and al-muwalat; so they are known as the hadith of (al-wilayah). The interpretation of all of them is in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum: “O Allah, be a waliyy for those who take him as waliyy, and be an enemy for those who oppose him/take him as an enemy.” The meaning here is their support and that they be with him and bear alliance/friendship (al-wala) and love for them. The word “waliyy” and “tawallaa” have come in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “He yatawallaa the righteous (as-saliheen)” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever yatawalla Allah and His Messenger and the beleivers, verily the party of Allah are the victorious” [TMQ ] and: “Verily your only waliyy is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe” [TMQ ] and: “His (Satan) only authority is over those who take him as waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Allah is the waliyy of the believers” [TMQ ] and: “They do not have against Him any waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “And whoever takes Satan as his waliyy” [TMQ ] and: “Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa” [TMQ ] and: “Verily We have ordained for his waliyy a way” [TMQ ] and: “Verily my waliyy is Allah” [TMQ ] and: “That is because Allah is the waliyy of those whose believe and the disbelievers had no waliyy” [TMQ ]. In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy (al-aduww) so it is said: He took him as a friend (tawallaahu). The “mawla) is the supporter (an-nasir) and the (as-sayyid). Friendsihp/alliance (muwalat) is opposite to enmity (mu’adat). And the waliyy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor (as-sagheer) like the father and grandfather. The waliyy of the marriage contract (nikah), the properties and the orphan is the one who supervises/takes care of the affair and (yaqumu bi kifalatihi). In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliyy is among the names of Allah ta’ala who is the Helper/Supporter (An-Nasir) and it is said the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliyy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (SAW): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. All of this is not the meaning of the rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text (nass) for the Khilafah of Ali are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al-Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide (multahid ‘an al-bakhui’) that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost/more suitable in something even if we condescend that that is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings (mushtarak).” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know of the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it means in the hadith except that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are: 1) The Lord 2) Paternal uncle 3) Paternal uncle’s son 4) Son 5) Daughter’s son 6) The slave who is freed 7) One who frees a slave 8) Slave 9) Owner 10) Follower 11) One who is blessed 12) Partner 13) Confederate/Ally (haleef) 14) Companion 15) Neighbour 16) Guest 17) In-law 18) Relative (qareeb) 19) Benefactor/Beneficent 20) One lost to his friends/dead (faqeed) 21) Friend (waliyy) 22) Foremost/More suitable in something 23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave 24) Beloved 25) Helper 26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter 27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.” These are the meaning which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said: “Verily that which we consider (nartayahu) in this specific place after researching in the (ghimar) of the language, the (majami’ al-‘adab) and the (jawami’) of Arabic is that the reality of the meaning of “al-mawla” cannot be but the foremost/most suitable in something which collect these meanings collectively and is taken from each one of them with a manner (naw’) of attention.” So it apparent/clear from this that the word did not come with the meaning of ruler and that “al-muwalat” did not come with the meaning of rule, neither in the Qur’an or Hadith or the language. Words are interpreted either by their linguistic or Shari’ah meanings, so from where was the explanation of this ahadith taken that the “waliyy” and “muwalat” means giving the Khilafah to Ali and his family? When we follow those who deduced by these ahadith in any of the meanings of “waliyy” and “muwalat”, there never comes the meaning of supervising the rule in any of the texts. It is true that if we link/relate the word “waliyy” with the word “amr”, then its meaning becomes the ruler and it is said “waliyy al-amr”. In the ahadith which they call the ahadith of “al-wilayah”, the word “amr” never comes together with the word “waliyy” in any of their narrations, or any other narrations, which negates the meaning of taking care of the Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah from the ahadith.It is true that the word “wilayah” alone—not the words “mawla” or “waliyy” or “muwalat”—is a word with many meanings (mushtarak) including help/support (nusra) and authority i.e. the rule. In the ahadith which they narrated is the hadith mentioned in Kanz al-’Ammal which came with the word “wilayah” so one may say this means rule according to what the language states. The response is that this word came in the hadith by the meaning of taking as one friend (tawalla) which is indicated by the hadith’s text. Its text, according to what is narrated by those who use it as evidence, is: “O Allah, whoever believes in me and trusts me, let him befriend Ali bin Abi Talib for verily his wilayah is my wilayah and my wilayah is the wilayah of Allah ta’ala.” This text specifies that its meaning is support/help (nusra) as the Messenger requested whoever believes in him to support/befriend (yatawalla) Ali because whoever supports him supports the Messenger and whoever supports the Messenger supports Allah. This is the meaning of the word “wilayah” and that is why it came expressed in “fa”: “For verily his wilayah is my wilayah.” It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali is the “waliyy” of every believer after the Messenger and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith—according to the language and Qur’anic texts—cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule (tawalla al-hukm) whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So they are not evidence that the Messenger appointed Ali to the Khilafah after him thus they arguing with them fails.Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is that fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article (mada) does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down (wudhi’a) for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came (ata) and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means (khalq) garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because of its meanings is the agent (mutassarif), and the one in charge (mutawalli), of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliyy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation (ishtiqaq). The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliyy al-amr.” “Waliyy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance (tawqeefiyya) according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications (madlulat). Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is that contextual connotations (qarain) in general, however they may be, cannot give a word ameaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a (mushtarak) word or (antonym?) for the word, and divert (tusarrifu) it from another, but it does not creat a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. That the word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters (thaqalayn) or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to (‘itibar) based upon their (‘itibar) of the Messenger, does not give it a new meaning that Ali becomes the ruler after the Messenger, as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliyy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali is the Khaleefah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.As for the fourth text which is the hadith of brotherhood, its mere reading when one views its sentence and words will lead to not using it as evidence. The texts which came upon this are: “You are my brother and inheritor”, “my brother and paternal uncle’s son”, “my brother and father of my son”, “from me and to me”, “my brother and assistant (wazeer) who repays my debts, fulfills my promise and (tubria dhimmatee)”, “Ali is the brother of the Messenger of Allah.” All of these are words and sentences from which one cannot possibly deduce the appointment (istikhlaf) in any way. This is because they do not go beyond matters linked between a pair, the first expressing the extreme closeness of the second to him by (saying he is) his brother. The Messenger expresses the extreme closeness of Ali to him by calling him by calling him his brother and saying that he is from him, is his assistant and repays his debts. This is not any general matter (amr ‘aam) nor does it relate to the rule or Khilafah. Even if we insist that Ali is the Messenger’s (shafeeq) brother or his son, this does not indicate its meaning to be that he is the Khaleefah after him. His statement to Ali that: “You are my brother or son or assistant” or other similar things has no relationship in any way whatsoever, either in the language or the Shari’ah , to the rule or carry any indication relating to the appointment over the Khilafah. These ahadith are not suitable to be evidence that the Messenger promised Ali the Khilafah after him, and accordingly they fall down as evidence.As for the third type in which came clear texts(s) that the Messenger appointed Ali to become Khaleefah after him, they are two ahadith: the first is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer in one narration by the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” and the second is the hadith which they call the hadith of the house (ad-dar). As for the narration of the writer of the book of “Al-Ghadeer”, he mentioned a narration in the beginning of his book without mentioning the words “my heir (wasiyy) and Khaleefah” and then mentioned another later narration which he ascribed to At-Tabari which came with the words “my heir and Khaleefah” explicitly. So he—Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi, the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer”—said in his book in the chapter (‘anwan) “Al-Ghadeer in the Book of Al-‘Aziz”: “Al-Hafidh Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer At-Tabari who died in 310 hijri narrted in his narration in the book of “Al-Wilayah” among the chains of the hadith of Al-Ghadeer from Zayd bin Arqam who said: ‘When the Prophet (SAW) stopped at Ghadeer Khum in his return from the farewell pilgrimage at the time of forenoon when the sun was very hot, he commanded the tents (duwhat) which were assembled. He called for the collective prayer so we gathered. He gave a (baligha) khutbah and said: “Verily Allah ta’ala revealed to me: ‘Convey/Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord...protect you from the people’ [TMQ 5: ]. Jibril commanded me from my Lord that I stand at this witness point (mashad) and inform all white and black persons (i.e. all people) that Ali bin Abi Talib is my brother, heir, Khaleefah and the Imam after me.’” This is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, and due to the meaning of its text it is rejected so that what is said within it of the testament/bequest (wasiyya), appointment and leadership (imamah) after the Messenger is void without any basis for many causes (wujuh) such as:1. This ayah was not revealed in the farewell pilgrimage, rather it was revealed after Surah Al-Fath in the year of Hudaybiyya. This ayah is from Surah Al-Maidah which was revealed after Surah Al-Fath, and Surah Al-Fath was revealed during his (SAW) return from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. One glance to the Mushaf shows openly/clearly (bisata) the time of the revelation of the ayah: “O Prophet, convey what has been revealed to you” and shows it was revealed after Al-Fath. So the ayah was revealed four year before the farewell pilgrimage and has no relationship with the hadith of Ghadeer Khum in all the narrations since all narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum say that it happened in the farewell pilgrimage. This alone is enough to reject this hadith and certify its invalidity of what is claimed within it about the testament and appointment. 2. The meaning of the ayah is clear in its stated text and understanding that the Mesenger is commanded to convey what was revealed to him from his Lord, and that which was revealed to him from his Lord was the Islamic Message. This is designated and made the sole meaning intended, nothing else, by His statement in the same ayah: “And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message” i.e. if you do not convey what was revealed to you then verily you have not conveyed His message. This is a clear text that the intention (murad) of the ayah “What was revealed to you” is the message of Allah and nothing else. Moreover, whenever the word “convey/deliver (balligh)” comes in the Qur’an it means conveying the message of Allah nor does it came in any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And they conveyed the message of Allah” [TMQ ] and: “I convey to you the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “(Uballighoo) the message of their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I convey the message of my Lord” [TMQ ] and: “I conveyed what I was sent with” [TMQ ]. Also, whenever the words “What was revealed to you” came in the Qur’an, the intention is the Shari’ah nor does it ever come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah ta’ala said: “And those who believe in what was revealed to you and what was reveeld before you” [TMQ 2:4] and: “We believe in what was revealed to you” [TMQ ] and: “We believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Ibrahim” [TMQ ] and: “And verily among the people of the Book are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed” [TMQ ] and: “Are you angry with us except that we believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed earlier?” [TMQ ] and: “If only they had established the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to them from their Lord” [TMQ ] and: “Until you establish the Torah and Gospel and what was revealed to you from your Lord. But what was revealed to you from your Lord will only increase the excess and disbelief of many of them” [TMQ ] and: “When they heard what was revealed to the Messenger you see their eyes flowing with tears” [TMQ ] and so all in all ayat of the Qur’an. As for the ayah: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ], in the ayah before and in the ayah after it was mentioned the words “what was revealed (ma unzila)” with one meaning i.e. the Shari’ah . Even the words in the following ayah are the same: “what was revealed from your Lord” [TMQ 5: ]. All this goes to specify the meaning of “what was revealed to you” in His saying: “Convey what was revealed to you” [TMQ 5: ] to be the Islamic Shari’ah . This is clear to all who follow these two words, “convey (balligh)” and “what was revealed to you (ma unzila)”, in all the ayat of the Qur’an.3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an unknown (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him of the revelation (wahiyy) and revealed to the Messenger; so Allah commands the Messenger to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came (hasil) with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith as explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a (mawsul) noun or (nakira maqsud) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed toyou or deliver everything which We revealed to you of various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation (qareena) and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all that was revealed to you which is the message of Allah. This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.4. Verily His statement ta’ala at the end of the ayah: “Allah will protect you from the people. Verily Allah does not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5:] is an assurance (tatmeen) from Allah to the Messenger and safety/security (aman) to him from the harm (adha) which will affect touch him as a result of delivering His message. This assurance is not because of harm which will affect him from delivering one rule, rather from conveying the entire message to the disbelievers and particularly where its conveyance is accompanied by fighting. The meaning of the end of ayah is that Allah will protect you in conveying this message by jihad from the harm of the people because when the ayah was revealed, the method of delivering the message was jihad i.e. fighting with swords. It is not possible that it is meant He will protect you from those envious of Ali in making the Khilafah for him i.e. protect you—according to their view—from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like as the protection in the ayah is from the people not believers. The meaning of “the people” is specified to be the disbelievers by His statement in concluding the ayah: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk” [TMQ 5: ]. So this promise from Allah to His Messenger to protect and preserve him from the harm of disbelievers in conveying what was revealed to him specifies that the meaning of the conveyance in the ayah is the conveyance of the message of Islam. It has been said that there is no meaning in His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” while he is conveying in practice. The response to this is that this command to convey does not depart from one of two matters: Either the Messenger has hidden/concealed (katama) the message without conveying it, or there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed so the absence of conveyance to them is considered the absence of conveyance to the world. It is impossible for this command to mean his concealing a specific rule revealed to him which he did not convey—or conveyance of one rule without which the message is not complete—because the concealment of one rule will defame/denigrate (yat’inu) the Messenger’s Prophethood and his message like the concealment of the entire message, so it is impossible for it to mean the concealment of one specific rule. Also the ayah says: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” which negates the conveyance which means he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule (la siyyama) the conveyance of one rule is considered conveyance of the message. From the first day, the Messenger would convey the rules according to their revelation (munajjama) such that the conveyance of one each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule, rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him not to convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger fought with in spreading the da’wah until that time, so the treaty with them would lead one perhaps to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue (istimrar) the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger fought the Jews at Khaybar, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” and: “Then you would not have conveyed His message” and: “Allah will protect you from the people” and: “Verily Allah will not guide the disbelieving folk”.As for the hadith of the house as narrated in Kanz al-‘Ammal and as explained in Nahj al-Balagha, it is summarised as followed: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk [TMQ] was revealed, the Messenger called Ali to preapre food and call the family of Abd al-Muttalib so Ali executed these commands. After the people had become satisfied and (irtawu), the Messenger (waqafa) before them speaking: O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, by Allah I do not know any youth among the Arabs who has come to his people with a thing better than what I have come to you with. Verily I have come to you with the good of this world and the Hereafter. Allah has commanded me to call you to Him, so which one of you will assist me in this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you? The people (ahjam) from the da’wah except Ali, the youngest among them, who responded saying: I, O Messenger of Allah, will be your assistant upon this matter. The Messenger repeated his statement and the people remained (ahjam) while Ali continued announcing his acceptance. So the Messenger took the (ruqba) of Ali and said to those present: This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey. The people laughed at the Prophet and his invitation, and said to Abu Talib while leaving the Messenger’s house: ‘He has commanded you to listen to your son and obey him.’” This is the summary of the hadith of the house as narrated by those who depend upon it as evidence.Al-Bukhari narrated the incident of the day when “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed (saying) that the Messenger stood upon (Mount) Safa without mentioning the preparation of food. Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad two hadiths, one about the preparation of food without mentioning it was the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed and another mentioning that the preparation of food was on the day the ayah was revealed. We will show (n’uridhu) these texts first then explain what they contain. Al-Bukhari narrated from bin ‘Abbas (RA) who said: When “And warn your nearest kinsfolk was revealed, the Messenger stood upon Safa and started announcing: O Banu Fihr, O Banu Adiyy for all the (butun) of Quraysh until they gathered together. Whoever was unable to go would send a messenger to see what was happening. Abu Lahab and Quraysh came and he said: ‘If I told you there were horse(men) in the valley intending to attack you suddenly, would you believe me?’ They said: Yes, we have not tried you in anything except to find you saying the truth. He said: Verily, I am a warner to you before a severe punishment! Abu Lahab said: Woe be upon you for the rest of the day. Is it because of this that you gathered us? So “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed.” This indicated that the incident of preparation of food was not on the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed as it does not (tultaim) with what occurred in the hadith’s text.Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his Musnad: ‘Affan related to us that Abu Awana related to us from Uthman bin al-Mughira from Abu Sadiq from Rabi’a bin Najidh from Ali who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) gathered or called Banu Abd al-Muttalib in all their groups (raht) to eat (jadha’a) and drink (gharaq). He prepared for them (mudd) of food which they ate until they were satisfied. He said: The food remained as if it had not been touched. Then he called for (ghimr) which they drank until (rawoo), and the drink remained as if it had not been touched or drank. Then he (SAW) said: “‘O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, I have been sent specifically to you and to humanity in general. You have now seen of this sign (ayah) what you saw, so which one of you will give me a pledge in order to become my brother and companion?’ He said: None of them stood, so I stood for him though I was the youngest of the group and he said: Sit down. He repeated it three times following which I stood for him and he said ‘Sit down’, until the third time he struck my hand with his hand.’” This clarifies that there is no moment in this incident of the revelation of “And warn your nearest kinsfolk”, and that the Messenger offered Islam to them so that whoever became a Muslim would become his brother and companion and that he did not say anything to Ali.As for the second narration, Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad: “Aswad bin Amir related to us that Shareek related to us from Al-‘Amash from Al-Minhal from ‘Ibad bin Abdullah al-Asadi from Ali who said: When the ayah “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed, the Messenger gathered the family of his house. Thirty people gathered; they ate and drank then he said to them: ‘Which one will guarantee my debts and promises so as to be with me in Paradise, and he will be my Khaleefah over my family? A man, whom Shareek did not name, said: O Messenger of Allah, you were an ocean (bahr) so who could take care of this? Then another said (the same?). He offered that to the family of his house, so Ali (RA) said: I (will).’” The word inheritor or Khaleefah does not appear in these two texts in any way at all. Rather it is only the word Khaleefah which appears restricted to his family, and the Khilafah over the family is not the Khilafah in the rank/post (mansab) of rule or leadership nor does it have any relationship with that. These are the texts which came in the Saheeh books, and they came in numerous narrations with similar wordings and unified meanings, and there did not appear in any of them the words inheritor (wasiyy) or Khliafah. There has never appeared, either via any of the compilers of the Saheeh (books of ahadith) or any of the trustworthy narrators, in even one hadith the word(s) inheritor of Khaleefah in any way at all either in relation to Ali or anyone else, so the evidence falls due to the absence of any evidence for it in the Saheeh books. As for the text narrated by those who contend about the appointment of Ali whicy they named the hadith of the house, this text through this narration in meaning. The meaning (dirayah) of this hadith in respect of meaning and the narration in respect of the chain. So if it is rejected in its chain or meaning then it cannot be considered and falls as evidence. As for rejecting its meaning, this is due to may reasons including:Firstly: In this hadith it appears that the Messenger sought the assistance of the family of Abd al-Muttalib in his da’wah with the condition that the rule (al-amr) became theirs after them. This is void from two sides (wajhayn): firstly, this contradicts the Messenger’s statement and action in the incident in which he refused the request to him of the tribe that the rule becomes theirs after him if they become Muslims so he said: “The rule (al-amr) is for Allah, and He will place it where He wills/wishes.” Bin Hisham narrated in his book of the Sirah of the Prophet (SAW): Bin Ishaq said that Az-Zuhri narrated that he met Amir bin Sa’sa’ah so he invited them to Allah ‘azza wa jalla and offered himself to them. One man among them, whom they called Bayjirat bin Furra, said to him: By Allah, if I were to take this youth (fata) of the Quraysh, I would eat (i.e. conquer) the Arabs through him. Then he said: What if we were to pledge to support your matter then Allah would grant you victory over those who oppose you. Would the rule be with us after you? He said: “The rule is for Allah and He places it where He wills.” He said: So he said to him: Will we sacrifice our (nuhur) for you, then when Allah grants you victory the rule becomes for someone else? Then we have no need of your matter, and they rejected him.” How can the Messenger say: “The matter (al-amr) belongs to Allah and He will place it where He wills” i.e. the matter of the Khilafah and the rule after him, yet he says to Banu Abd al-Muttalib: “Which one of you will assist me upon this matter so that he may become my brother, inheritor and Khaleefah among you?” Is this not a clear contradiction? Inevitable, it is necessary that one of these two statements be rejected. Since it is said of the hadith of the house that it occurred when “Warn your nearest kinsfolk” [TMQ ] was revealed i.e. the third year of the (bi’tha) and the hadith: “The matter belongs to Allah and He places it where He wills” occurred when the Messenger offered himself to the tribes i.e. in the tenth year after the (bi’tha) and therefore after the hadith of the house; so it is the hadith of the house which is rejected. As for the second side, it is that the Messenger in this hadith offered something to the disbelievers so that they may become Muslims, rather he offered them the greatest thing which is the Khilafah after him over all Muslims as the price for their entering into Islam. This contradicts the Messenger’s action in his da’wah and the Shari’ah rules. The Messenger would invite people to Islam because it is the correct deen nor has it been narrated from him, even via a weak hadith, that he offered anything—whether small or large—to a kaffir in exchange for his entering into Islam. As for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are Muslims given from the zakat in order to strengthen the State through them, not kuffar who are given so that they enter Islam. Nor is it allowed to give something to kuffar in exchange for their entering Islam.Second: The hadith mentions that the Messenger prepared a wedding feast and meal for kuffar in order to invite them to Islam, and he gathered them around a meal so that they may enter Islam nor did he prepare food for Ali the Muslim. So if these people reject Islam and reject that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for Islam, there is no place there for Ali such that he (yatasadda) his acceptance as he is not being invited to Islam as he is a Muslim, so no speech is addressed to him. So there is no place in this gathering such that he says to him: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” since he is not the (muhil) of the address or the negotiation.Third: The hadith mentions that the group rejected Islam, and despite him repeating his offer they persisted in rejecting Islam and rejecting that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for entering Islam. They remained kuffar so how could the Messenger say to them in addressing them: “This is my Khaleefah among you” commanding them with hearing and obeying him while he knows they are kuffar who have rejected Islam? And how could he be the Khaleefah among them while they are kuffar?Fourth: The narration they narrate says: “This is my brother, inheritor and my Khaleefah among you so listen to him and obey” which is on address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words (sadara) with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khaleefah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khaleefah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khaleefah over you.” Thus he is Khaleefah for the Muslims as is the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson (‘ibra) is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident (waqi’at ‘ayn) not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khaleefah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (SAW) did not explicitly state making Ali the Khaleefah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (SAW) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want--in relation to the person--but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khaleefah.As for the error of the views that the Messenger designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali for it. Those who way that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali, so if their evidence falls in respect to Ali it also naturally falls in respect of his descendants due to the proof falling in respect of him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all collect praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its falling in argument/evidence has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it. Sheikh Taqqi uddin Nabhani , Book : Shaksiyah Islamiyah volume 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment