The 2nd “naṣṣ khafī” proof that will be discussed is one of the most well-known arguments used by the Shīʿah; Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. Although the phrase (مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ) “Whoever I am his mawlā, then ʿAlī is his mawlā” is mutawātir, there are various different narrations of the rest of the text of the ḥadīth. Some of the more reliable and more complete versions will be provided here, to try to compile all of the reliably attested additions in the ḥadīth:
Through a ṣaḥīḥ chain,1 an-Nasāʾī and al-Ḥākim narrate:
عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ قَالَ: لَمَّا رَجَعَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , عَنْ حَجَّةِ الْوَدَاعِ وَنَزَلَ بِغَدِيرِ خُمٍّ أَمَرَ بِدَوْحَاتٍ فَقُمِّمْنَ , ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” كَأَنِّي دُعِيتُ فَأَجَبْتُ , إِنِّي قَدْ تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمُ الثَّقَلَيْنِ , أَحَدُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْآخَرِ: كِتَابَ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَعِتْرَتِي أَهْلَ بَيْتِي , فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ تَخْلُفُونِي فِيهِمَا , فَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ ” ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” إِنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ مَوْلَايَ , وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ ” ثُمَّ أَخَذَ بِيَدِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَقَالَ: ” مَنْ كُنْتُ وَلِيَّهُ فَهَذَا وَلِيُّهُ , اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالِاهُ , وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ ”
Another narration through a good chain,2 narrated by an-Nasāʾī and al-Bazzār, says:
عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: قَالَ عَلِيٌّ فِي الرَّحْبَةِ أَنْشُدُ بِاللهِ مَنْ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ غَدِيرٍ خُمٍّ يَقُولُ: «اللهُ وَلِيِّي، وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَمَنْ كُنْتُ وَلِيَّهُ، فَهَذَا وَلِيُّهُ، اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ، وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ، وَانْصُرْ مَنْ نَصَرَهُ»
Yet another authentic narration,3 transmitted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and aṭ-Ṭabarānī, and supported by 2 other reliable chains4 from al-Bazzār and another reliable chain5 from al-Ḥākim says:
عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ، قَالَ: جَمَعَ عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ النَّاسَ فِي الرَّحَبَةِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُمْ: أَنْشُدُ اللهَ كُلَّ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ غَدِيرِ خُمٍّ مَا سَمِعَ، لَمَّا قَامَ فَقَامَ ثَلَاثُونَ مِنَ النَّاسِ، وَقَالَ أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ: فَقَامَ نَاسٌ كَثِيرٌ فَشَهِدُوا حِينَ أَخَذَهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَقَالَ لِلنَّاسِ: ” أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ؟ ” قَالُوا: نَعَمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، قَالَ: ” مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَهَذَا مَوْلَاهُ، اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ، وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ ”
Another reliable narration6 from ʾIsḥāq ibn Rāhawayh says:
عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ الله عَنْه قَالَ: إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَضَرَ الشَّجَرَةَ بِخُمٍّ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ آخِذًا بِيَدِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ الله عَنْه قَالَ: ” أَلَسْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ أن الله تبارك وتعالى رَبُّكُمْ؟ ” قَالُوا: بَلَى. قَالَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: ” أَلَسْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أَوْلَى بِكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ وأن الله تعالى وَرَسُولَهُ أَوْلِيَاؤُكُمْ؟ ” فَقَالُوا: بَلَى. قَالَ: ” فَمَنْ كَانَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مَوْلَاهُ فَإِنَّ هَذَا مَوْلَاهُ، وَقَدْ تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ أَخَذْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا كتاب الله تعالى، سَبَبُهُ بيدي، وَسَبَبُهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ، وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي “.
Finally, there is another authentic narration7 narrated by Muslim, Ibn Khuzaymah, and many others of part of the sermon, albeit missing most of it:
ثُمَّ قَالَ قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فِينَا خَطِيبًا بِمَاءٍ يُدْعَى خُمًّا بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ وَذَكَّرَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ” أَمَّا بَعْدُ أَلاَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ رَسُولُ رَبِّي فَأُجِيبَ وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ” . فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ” وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي ”
From the collection of these different reports, the sermon of Ghadīr Khumm can be roughly ascertained in the fullest form reliably available to us as follows:
While returning from Ḥajjat al-Wadāʿ (the final Ḥajj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم), the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gathered his companions that were with him at Ghadīr Khumm, which is a resting place for travelers with water and trees near al-Juḥfah, and prepared a speech for them after they had finished praying. He صلى الله عليه وسلم started by pointing out his incoming departure from this world, saying “Indeed, O people, I am but a man and it seems that the messenger of my Lord is approaching and that I will answer him (referring to the angel of death), so I am leaving two weighty things with you that you will not go astray if you adhere to, the first greater than the other. The first of them is the book of Allāh, its rope in my hands and in your hands, in which is guidance and light, so adhere to the book of Allāh and hold strongly to it, and my ʿitrah, my ʾAhl al-Bayt; I remind you of Allāh concerning my ʾAhl al-Bayt, I remind you of Allāh concerning my ʾAhl al-Bayt, I remind you of Allāh concerning my ʾAhl al-Bayt. So pay attention to how you succeed me with regard to them, for indeed they will never separate even until they return to me at the Basin.” The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم then stated some rhetorical questions, first asking, “Do you not bear witness that Allāh تبارك وتعالى is your Lord?” “Of course,” answered the listeners. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم continued, asking “Do you not bear witness that Allāh تبارك وتعالى and his Messenger are more worthy / closer to you than your own selves, and that Allāh تبارك وتعالى and his Messenger are your walīs?” “Of course,” answered the listeners. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم then stated, “Indeed, Allāh عز وجل is my mawlā, and I am the walī of all the believers.” He صلى الله عليه وسلم then took the hand of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and said, “Whoever I am his mawlā, then this one is also his mawlā. Oh Allāh, be an ally for whoever is an ally of him, and be an enemy for whoever is an enemy of him, and support whoever supports him.”
This reconstruction may not be perfect, but it is an attempt to combine all of the available reliably narrating wordings so that all of the aspects can be taken into consideration. It is worth noting that the terms mawlā and walī are interchangeably synonymous, and different narrations of the ḥadīth often tend to interchange them.
The Shīʿah argued that “mawlā” here holds the meaning of ʾawlā (more worthy) in terms of authority and presiding over affairs due to the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم statement (ألست أولى بكم من أَنفسكُم) “Am I not more worthy / closer to you than your own selves?” They argued that if this statement were not importing that meaning onto the word “mawlā,” then it would become useless and ineloquent. They also argued that the Sunnī claim about the meaning of “mawlā” would make the ḥadīth a pointless restatement of something already known to everybody, in which ʿAlī رضي الله عنه would hold no special virtue, since the Qurʾān already commands a relationship of love, support, and alliance between all believers. Similarly to ʾĀyat al-Wilāyah, the Twelvers and Zaydīs slightly differed in their claims, although in this case their main two arguments are the same. Whereas the Twelvers claimed that “mawlā” here specifically holds the meaning of ʾawlā, in terms of worthiness of authority over people’s affairs, the Zaydīs claimed that it holds the meanings of the one who holds authority, the one who is more worthy, the one who supports others, and the one who loves others all at once. The Zaydīs also repeated their previous claim that holding authority over affairs is the common usage of the term mawlā.
The Sunnīs hold that the ḥadīth is saying that whoever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم supports, loves, and is an ally and walī in the religion of, then ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is also like this for them, that whoever takes the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as such must also take ʿAlī رضي الله عنه as such; and that whoever supports, loves and is an ally and walī in the religion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم must have the same conduct and disposition towards ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. The justification for this and response to the Shīʿī points is as follows, splitting it into discussion on the wording of the sermon and then on its external context:
First, regarding the wording of the ḥadīth:
1.
The phrase (ألست أولى بكم من أَنفسكُم) “Am I not more worthy / closer to you than your own selves?” that is being used to argue for this claimed meaning is ʾāḥādī and not mutawātir, and is not mentioned in the majority of the narrations of the ḥadīth. Scholars have also differed with regards to its authenticity, so there is no ʾijmāʿ. Due to this, the phrase cannot provide certainty with regards to the meaning, despite it being narrated from reliable chains, since its thubūt to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is ẓannī. According to many scholars, the fact that the majority of the versions do not contain the addition would even call the acceptability of it into question.8 The Shīʿī claim entails going against much stronger external evidences, as will be shown later on, so this argument is already of inherently low weight. For that matter, some of these external evidences even exceed the mass-transmission of the core of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr itself.
2.
With regard to the Zaydī claim of the meaning, then essentially the same response must be restated here as was given in the context of ʾĀyat al-Wilāyah. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that the common usage of the term mawlā or walī is for the holder of authority and not its other meanings. Just like its synonymous term walī, the term mawlā also seems to be more commonly used in the Qurʾān to refer to support, as seen clearly in ʾāyāt such as 47:11, 8:40, 66:4, and others. As for their argument that the term mawlā should be taken upon all of its literal meanings until proven otherwise, then as was already mentioned, this principle is a matter of wide disagreement among Sunnī scholars.9 Even the scholars who accept this view take it as either a matter of ẓann or of precaution, and not certainty. Regardless, as will soon be seen, the principle, if accepted, cannot even be applied here for the Shīʿī claim, just as in the prior case.
3.
Moving on to the Twelver claim, although this also applies to a lesser extent against the Zaydīs, we point out that ʾawlā is not among the standard definitions of mawlā, not in the Sharʿ, the Arabic language, or the common usage (ʿUrf). Very few scholars of the Arabic language gave ʾawlā as one of the meanings of mawlā, and the earliest ones especially do not mention this,10 so its sparse transmission makes it an obscure usage.11 In the few cases where it is found, it tends to be in books of tafsīr talking about rare or metaphorical meanings of words in the Qurʾān, and many scholars of the language have explicitly stated that this usage is not literal.12 On top of this, though the words mawlā and walī are not especially rare in the Qurʾān, this particular tafsīr is so rare that it is only found for a single ʾāyah (57:15), and for that matter is even disputed in that one. None of the scholars of the language have validated that a mafʿal construction can have the meaning of an ʾafʿal construction, so this usage was taken by scholars of the language as an ism makān (mafʿal) derived from ʾawlā, while such derivation from an ʾafʿal construction is highly abnormal grammatically.13 Furthermore, the word ʾawlā can be placed before prepositions that the word mawlā cannot be placed before, and the word mawlā can be pluralized and attributed to other nouns in ways ʾawlā cannot be, which shows that there are many cases where interchanging the words is linguistically prohibited, indicating that neither word was primarily designated to refer to or be synonymous with the other. These factors all indicate that this usage is metaphorical and indirect.14
After having established that ʾawlā is only an obscure and indirect metaphorical meaning for the term mawlā/walī, we can consider the ḥadīth with an analogy by supposing that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had said (أَلَسْت نَبِيكُم والمخبر لكم بِالْوَحْي عَن ربكُم وناسخ شرائع من كَانَ قبلكُمْ فَمن كنت مَوْلَاهُ فعلي مَوْلَاهُ) “Am I not your prophet, and the informer to you of the revelation from your lord, and the abrogator of the legislations of those before you? So whoever I am his mawlā, then ʿAlī is his mawlā.” There would have been no issue with such a statement, and it would not have given any indication that mawlā meant any of the previous terms, since although they may have some relation to the term mawlā or even entail certain meanings of mawlā being true for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, none are definitions of mawlā.
4.
The apparent purpose of the rhetorical questions at the beginning of the ḥadīth was to urge those being addressed to accept the following statements, through reaffirming the already known status of Allāh and His Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is most unmistakably seen in the phrase (أَلَسْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ أن الله تبارك وتعالى رَبُّكُمْ) “Do you not bear witness that Allāh تبارك وتعالى is your Lord?” Despite the fact that lord (رب) is among the literal meanings of mawlā/walī, none would ever claim that this phrase is indicating that mawlā/walī should hold such a meaning in the ḥadīth. There is no conceivable purpose for such a phrase except to urge the listeners to accept the following statements, so it is impossible to argue that such a purpose would be invalid for the rest of the rhetorical questions, and it is apparent that these questions all share in purpose. Some other slightly weak versions include more preceding rhetorical questions, which display even more clearly that they can only hold this purpose.15
The prior mention of the word ʾawlā in the ḥadīth would not necessitate that mawlā takes that meaning, even if ʾawlā were one of the meanings of mawlā, unless this would be the only way for the statement to have a purpose and benefit; in this case such a purpose is not only unnecessary, but is also unlikely and against the apparent context. On this, the Shīʿah cannot respond except by making arbitrary and self-defeating distinctions, considering that they claim, for example, in ʾĀyat al-Wilāyah that the context does not import the meaning of walī onto that ʾāyah, but then change their standard when it comes to Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. The Sunnīs, on the other hand, are able to apply a consistent standard and have clear justification for how the context should be judged in each case. This context can be analogized to the hypothetical statement (ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم فمن كنت ناصره ومواليه فعلي ناصره ومواليه) “Am I not more worthy of you than your own selves? Then, whoever I am his supporter, then ʿAlī is his supporter.” We can see that such a statement would not have been ineloquent, showing that the phrase (ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم) “Am I not more worthy of you than your own selves?” does not require that mawlā means ʾawlā, due to having another discernible purpose.
If mawlā here were being used only with the meaning of ʾawlā, then it also would be strange for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to say (وأن الله تعالى وَرَسُولَهُ أَوْلِيَاؤُكُمْ) “and that Allāh and his Messenger are your walīs” right after saying (أَلَسْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أَوْلَى بِكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ) “that Allāh and his Messenger are more worthy / closer to you than your own selves,” as these would have been identical in meaning, and it would have been an ineloquent repetition. Connection with wāw al-ʿaṭf (translated as “and”) normally entails the two connected things being different in meaning,16 while the claim of the Twelvers requires the two statements to be identical in meaning. An example of a version in which mawla clearly cannot mean ʾawlā says (هذا وليي والمؤدي عني) “This is my walī and the conveyor on my behalf.”17 We know without doubt that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه was not worthy of authority over the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and that he was not more worthy of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم than the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم own self. It must be acknowledged that the chain of this ḥadīth is not very strong, but its weakness is slight enough to serve as additional supporting evidence.
The goal of urging the listeners to accept muwālāh with ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is further supported by the mention made of ʾAhl al-Bayt as a whole, and the duʿāʾ made at the end of the ḥadīth. Specifically looking at the duʿāʾ, (اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ، وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ، وَانْصُرْ مَنْ نَصَرَهُ) “Oh Allāh, be an ally of whoever is an ally of him and be an enemy of whoever is an enemy of him and support whoever supports him,” we observe that it refers to muwālāh in the sense of support and love, directly alluding to the Sunnī belief regarding the meaning. Indeed, the term muwālāh, as in (اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ) “Oh Allāh, be an ally of whoever is an ally of him” literally means to take someone as a mawlā,18 and it is used both in general19 and very clearly in this context to refer to the opposite of taking someone as an enemy. If somebody speaks using a word that bears multiple meanings, and then makes a supplication for people fulfilling certain particular meaning, it would immediately come to the mind of the listeners that the original word was being used with that meaning the supplication was just made for. Also, if the word were being used to refer to authority, then it would have been more fitting to supplicate for those who obey ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and accept his authority, and against those who disobey him and reject his authority, which does not exist even in longer weak versions. This duʿāʾ is established in more and stronger versions than the addition used by the Shīʿah for the meaning they claim, and furthermore, the norm is that a clarification of a statement’s meaning would be expected after the statement, rather than before it. Any argument against this contextual point can easily be reversed against the claim of the Shīʿah. In direct comparison on this immediate contextual element, we find that the argument from the duʿāʾ is based on a more robust linguistic connection than the argument from the ʾawlā preface, that the Sunnī claim on the motivation for the ʾawlā preface is supported by unambiguous additional context, unlike the case for what Shīʿah would claim for this duʿāʾ, and that the meaning of the duʿāʾ lacks the possible ambiguity in the meaning of the ʾawlā preface.
5.
There is no strong justification to even take the term ʾawlā in the ḥadīth to be about authority, and it is more justified to take it to refer to closeness, love, and support. An easy example of ʾawlā not referring to authority is the ʾāyah { إِنَّ أَوْلَي اَ۬لنَّاسِ بِإِبْرَٰهِيمَ لَلذِينَ اَ۪تَّبَعُوهُ وَهَٰذَا اَ۬لنَّبِےٓءُ وَالذِينَ ءَامَنُواْۖ وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ اُ۬لْمُومِنِينَۖ } “The closest of people to ʾIbrāhīm are those who followed him, and this prophet, and those who believe; and Allāh is the Guardian of all believers.” (3:68) There is no definitive evidence against this explanation, nor does the apparent text conflict with it. As for the ʾāyah (33:6) { اِ۬لنَّبِےٓءُ اَ۬وْل۪يٰ بِالْمُومِنِينَ مِنَ اَنفُسِهِمْۖ وَأَزْوَٰجُهُۥٓ أُمَّهَٰتُهُمْۖ وَأُوْلُواْ اُ۬لَارْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمُۥٓ أَوْل۪يٰ بِبَعْضٖ فِے كِتَٰبِ اِ۬للَّهِ مِنَ اَ۬لْمُومِنِينَ وَالْمُهَٰجِرِينَ إِلَّآ أَن تَفْعَلُوٓاْ إِلَيٰٓ أَوْلِيَآئِكُم مَّعْرُوفاٗۖ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِے اِ۬لْكِتَٰبِ مَسْطُوراٗۖ } “The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers; and those having mutual kinship are closer to one another (for the purpose of inheritance) than (other) believers and emigrants according to the Book of Allāh, unless you do some good to your friends (by making a will in their favor). This had been written in the Book (the Preserved Tablet)”, then there is no consensus on its meaning,20 and there seem to be two well-founded Sunnī views on it. One view, supported by scholars like ʾAbū Ḥayyān and aṭ-Ṭībī,21 says that the term ʾawlā there means “closer”, indicating that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has a familial relationship of closeness with the believers like that of a father, such that he is more loving and kind with them and seeks their benefit more than their own selves do. The other view says that ʾawlā in that context means “more worthy,” indicating that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is more worthy of the believers than their own selves in all areas, including support, love, and obedience/authority. The first view clearly aligns with the Sunnī claim and is incompatible with the Shīʿī claim, since it makes the term ʾawlā related to love and support but not authority or rule. Although the first view is less prevalent among scholars than the second one, this fact does not refute it due to the lack of any consensus, and the view is supported by points such as the fact that the context of the ʾāyah is all about this kind of familial relationship, and that some narrations from the Ṣaḥābah about the ʾāyah also say that it is affirming a fatherly status for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and that the way the words are arranged is more fitting for ʾawlā meaning “closer” rather than “more worthy.”
There is also no clear reason why the meaning should have to be fully identical to the meaning in the ʾāyah, or why all aspects of the meaning should have to apply equivalently to ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. If such reasoning were valid, then it might also be valid to argue that since phrases such as (إِنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ مَوْلَايَ) “Indeed, Allāh is my mawlā” imitate the wordings of ʾāyāt such as 66:4, then “mawlā” in Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr should also mean supporter/ally as it does in the ʾāyah. In reality, the meaning of the term ʾawlā itself depends on the context, and taking the phrase to refer to support and love is supported by the context found in Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. This is because the supplication made by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the end of the ḥadīth says (اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ، وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ، وَانْصُرْ مَنْ نَصَرَهُ) “Oh Allāh, be an ally for whoever is an ally of him, and be an enemy for whoever is an enemy of him, and support whoever supports him.” This directly indicates that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is being stated as worthy of love and support, which strengthens the claim of the terms “ʾawlā” and “mawlā” in the ḥadīth also referring to these things, especially since the meanings of the words in the supplication are clear and undisputed. The claim is also supported by the fact that the statement of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, including the preceding statement (ألست أولى بكم من أَنفسكُم) “Am I not more worthy / closer to you than your own selves?”, was originally said in response to people who were upset with ʿAlī رضي الله عنه to cause them to return to a relationship of love and support with him, and this element of context will later receive further elaboration.
6.
We know by necessity and by unanimous agreement of all sects of ʾIslām that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه did not have authority to manage people’s affairs during the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. We also observe that the statement (من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه) “Whoever I am his mawlā, then ʿAlī is his mawlā” was made in the present tense, without any distinction being given of when the statement should or shouldn’t apply. This makes it highly unlikely for the term mawlā here to be about authority, since there is no evidence at all for the word mawlā holding the meaning of someone who gains authority to manage people’s affairs in the future. This claim would require taking the statement against its apparent and literal wording and limiting its application. On the other hand, the Sunnī claim does not require going against the apparent or literal import of the ḥadīth.
The mention of the incoming passing of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the beginning of the sermon does not inherently justify restricting the time of application of the ḥadīth, as this simply shows that the sermon will concern matters related to his صلى الله عليه وسلم passing and what comes after. This would still be true even in the hypothetical case that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were giving up his leadership at that point and handing it over to ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, which is what would be understood if it were about authority in the present tense, and it does not change anything about the fact that the Shīʿī is still taking the statement out of its apparent and literal meaning.
If we were to assume for the sake of argument that the term mawlā did refer to authority here, it could not be referring to the present state of affairs in the ḥadīth, as is already established. Since there is no specification for the timing in the future of when ʿAlī رضي الله عنه would gain authority, there is nothing preventing it from referring to his ʾImāmah after the first 3 Khulafāʾ, especially due to the definitive proofs for their ʾImāmah. Although such a hidden meaning would not be clearly understood by the listeners, that does not preclude the possibility of it being included within the term mawlā as an extra secondary meaning, since for Sunnīs (and Zaydīs) there is no issue in the term holding multiple meanings at once. Thus, the claim of the Shīʿah here is not only unlikely, but also self-defeating.
7.
Another argument used by the Shīʿah is to claim that the Sunnīs are confusing the meanings of mawlā. They argued that the Sunnīs seek to make mawlā mean someone who ought to be or is worthy of being loved and supported, but that this is not part of the meanings of mawlā. What is among the meanings of mawlā, according to them, is someone who supports or loves others, which they argued would be inapplicable here, since it would be tantamount to the ḥadīth being a statement of obligation on ʿAlī رضي الله عنه himself. We respond that these aspects are all contained in the ḥadīth, in slightly different ways. What first must be pointed out is that the ḥadīth is on a literal linguistic level a statement, and not a command. As such, a major element in the import of the ḥadīth is the statement of the fact that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is a true supporter, lover, and ally of the Muslims just as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is. By extension, this aspect also serves the role of telling the listeners that they must take ʿAlī رضي الله عنه as such, and behave towards him while acknowledging this status that he has.
On the other side, we also argue from three perspectives that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه being worthy of the love, support, and alliance of the Muslims is also part of the import of the ḥadīth. The first is that, if the word mawlā is taken as a mushtarak maʿnawī, meaning that it was made to refer to the shared element between all of its particular meanings, then a person who is loved, supported, and allied with would trivially fall under its literal meaning. Secondly, if the word mawlā is taken as a mushtarak lafẓī (meaning that it was made to refer to multiple particular meanings individually), then the fact that countless ʾāyāt of the Qurʾān, such as (3:28), (4:89,139,144), (9:71), (60:1), and (62:6) display the meaning of walī/mawlā as someone who is the object of alliance, love, and support, or make the status mutual, clearly indicates that this is either a Sharʿī meaning designated by the texts or a literal linguistic meaning. Finally, even if this were not part of the direct literal meaning of mawlā (which is highly unlikely), it could still be a metaphorical meaning, and is still understood from it through the duʿāʾ, (اللهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالَاهُ، وَعَادِ مَنْ عَادَاهُ، وَانْصُرْ مَنْ نَصَرَهُ) “Oh Allāh, be an ally of whoever is an ally of him and be an enemy of whoever is an enemy of him and support whoever supports him,” at the end of the ḥadīth. Ironically, according to the Shīʿī claims, being worthy of love and support is clearly a literal meaning of mawlā regardless, since this would fall under the meaning of ʾawlā.
Moving on, we will now look at the ḥadīth from the perspective of its external context and purpose to further discern how it should be understood.
8.
The Shīʿah argued that the context of the sermon indicates its importance, and that the Sunnī interpretation makes the statement in Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr pointless, as it would be redundant with things the listeners already knew, and would entail no special virtue for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. Before demonstrating how this is not the case, it must first be pointed out that the argument of the statement being made pointless is in fact most applicable against the claim of the Shīʿah, and not that of the Sunnīs. First of all, it has already been established that there is little dispute on the fact that this ḥadīth is an example of naṣṣ khafī at best, meaning that the listener does not necessarily understand the meaning of ʾImāmah directly upon hearing the ḥadīth, but rather must determine this through reasoning and deliberation; indeed, one who has observed the arguments surrounding the meaning of the ḥadīth cannot doubt that this is the case. We also know that according to the Twelvers, many cases of naṣṣ jalī, which are clear, explicit statements where every listener immediately understands them as appointments of ʾImāmah, had already occurred, while the Zaydīs do not even claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم made any statements of naṣṣ jalī.
The question that arises is this: If Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr really were meant as a declaration of ʾImāmah for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, a matter of such fundamental importance and great consequence according to the Shīʿah, then why would it not have been stated in such an explicit way that nobody could possibly misunderstand it? How could the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم save the most clear explicit statements for the smaller gatherings, or even avoid them completely, and gather the people near the time of his passing for a major declaration, only to state it in terms that are not as explicit as possible and could be misunderstood? Not only that, but in terms that the Ṣaḥābah, assuming they did not commit mass apostasy by intentionally rejecting the command, in general failed to properly understand! This glaring issue with the Shīʿī claim is pointed out by the early scholar of ʾAhl al-Bayt, al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā (or possibly al-Muthallath, his son) ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib, in an authentic narration from him. 22
The narration says that a Shīʿī came to al-Ḥasan al-Muthannā (or al-Muthallath) asking him about Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, and that he responded by saying, “Verily by Allāh, if the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم had meant authority and rule and presiding over people after him by this, then he would have made it clear to them, just as he was clear to them about the Ṣalāh, Zakāh, fasting of Ramaḍān, and Ḥajj to the House [of Allāh], for indeed the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم was the most sincere advisor for the Muslims. He would have said [something along the lines of] ‘O people, this one [ʿAlī] shall have authority over you and preside over your affairs after me, so listen to him and obey.’ Indeed, if it were as they say that Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم had chosen ʿAlī for this matter and made him the authority over the Muslims after him then ʿAlī would have been the greatest one in error and crime by abandoning the command of Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.”
Some Shīʿah objected to this argument by saying that it is an accusation against the statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of it being unclear, but this is obviously not the case. Every listener understands immediately without any need for deliberation that Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr is clearly a statement of virtue and praise for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, just as Sunnīs affirm, and the general import of the ḥadīth is known without need for deliberation; the only thing requiring some deliberation and reasoning is making a precise judgement on the full intended meaning of this virtue and praise. On the other hand, under the Shīʿī claim, even the main point of the ḥadīth requires deliberation and reasoning to figure out and is not immediately understood, despite the fact that this import is considered by them to be among the most important and fundamental declarations in the religion. Thus, the apparent conclusion from the fact that the ḥadīth lacks any clear and fully explicit statement about succession or ʾImāmah is that the intended meaning of it was not about succession or ʾImāmah at all.
9.
Before explaining how the statement is a special virtue for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, it is first useful to know the immediate cause of the statement. The cause, as mentioned by countless scholars, was that many of those who were with ʿAlī رضي الله عنه on an expedition in Yemen began to resent him due to his (correct) judgements that they did not like, and some of them then complained to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about him after returning, so after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم completed the Ḥajj, he gave this speech to illuminate the high status of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and correct anyone who had ill will towards him. These facts are attested in countless reliable narrations,23 from Buraydah رضي الله عنه through his son ʿAbdullāh24 and through Ibn ʿAbbās,25 from ʾAbū Saʿīd al-Khudrī,26 from ʿAmr ibn Shāsh,27 and from ʾUsāmah ibn Zayd رضي الله عنهم,28 indicating that many people were complaining about ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and had displeasure towards him when they returned from their Yemen expedition with him, due to his (correct) actions taken there, which all occurred not long before the speech of Ghadīr Khumm. This historical context supports the claim that the sermon of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr was given to respond to those with hatred or anger against ʿAlī رضي الله عنه (both in the immediate past and future), rather than to make a declaration of leadership. This general claim is also reinforced by the fact that the sermon was given after the conquest of Makkah had already happened, meaning there were many new Muslims who previously had their relatives killed by ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and likely held grudges, and by observing that many people later on fought against or had hatred towards ʿAlī رضي الله عنه.
In recent times, a strange revisionist claim has emerged from some of the Shīʿah that these complaints occurred after another earlier expedition of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه to Yemen, and not the one that was right before the final Ḥajj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Suffice it to say that Sunnī scholars of the Prophetic Sīrah have always known and distinguished between the different expeditions,29 and even authoritative Shīʿī sources confirm that the final expedition right before the event of Ghadīr Khumm was the one in which the complaints occurred.30 The narration of ʾAbū Saʿīd al-Khudrī رضي الله عنه even explicitly states that the event was at the time of the final Ḥajj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, and this is also displayed in the narration of the tābiʿī Yazīd ibn Ṭalḥah.31
The Shīʿah argued that some versions of incidents related to the Yemen expedition use the word (بعدي) “after me” after stating ʿAlī to be the walī of the believers, and that such versions support their claims. This addition is found in a total of 3 chains, one narrated through ʾAbū Balj from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, another through ʾAjlaḥ from Buraydah رضي الله عنه, and the last through Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān from ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn رضي الله عنه. These narrations do not share the same wording, and only share in adding the word (بعدي) “after me,” and even the presence of this addition does not occur consistently in all narrations from these chains. These three narrators have generally been considered on the level of being ṣadūq (trustworthy but not fully reliable) by the scholars of ḥadīth, with the first being error-prone and the last two being among the Shīʿah, although for all of the three narrators there have been scholars that weakened them. Considering these things, and the fact that these wordings are inconsistent with many much stronger narrated ones as shown, many scholars have justifiably rejected the reliability of these narrations.32 A highly probable explanation is that the Shīʿī narrators narrated the event based on the meaning they understood and believed, and not the precise words, and that ʾAbū Balj erred in the chain and/or text, as noted by scholars who inspected his narration.33 Even if this addition were granted for the sake of argument, it would be possible to interpret it as referring to wilāyah in a specific context, or could also mean that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is the supporter and ally of the believers after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, especially in cases of conflict. In any case, these narrations do not come anywhere near conclusively precluding Sunnī interpretations.
10.
Now as for the purpose of the statement and the special virtue it provides to ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, then this is straightforward to explain. As already indicated, there had been many people who had dislike or displeasure towards ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, and were not sincere in their muwālāh towards him. This trend was seen in the many complaints narrated from people after the Yemen expedition of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, and is also understood from the fact that there were new Muslims who had converted after the conquest of Makkah and previously had their relatives killed by ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. Obviously, it was not only those few individuals who we have narrations of explicit complaints from that had dislike towards ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, but this was a larger issue that was occurring then. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioning the muwālāh of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه alongside his own serves to directly respond to such people. This becomes even more important considering what happened after the passing of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, with groups rebelling against ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, and the hate of the Khawārij and Nawāṣib against him. ʿAlī رضي الله عنه even used this ḥadīth as a proof against those who rebelled against him during his Khilāfah. As such, it can clearly be seen that the purpose of the statement was to affirm the virtue of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and rebuke anyone who would have enmity towards him, in that time and in the future.
To further clarify what makes this a special virtue for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, three things must be pointed out. First, with regard to the general statements in the Qurʾān about believers being ʾawliyāʾ of each other, then the fact that they are general makes them open to hypothetical specifications or exceptions. Mentioning a specific person is not open to this, making it a higher virtue. Secondly, a person could make the accusation against ʿAlī رضي الله عنه that he is not truly among the believers, and this statement serves to refute such an idea, and establish with absolute certainty that he is indeed from among the believers and free from any kufr or fisq, and that he fully supports and loves the believers and is fully deserving of their support and love. Finally, mentioning ʿAlī رضي الله عنه alongside the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and connecting their muwālāh is in itself a great honor. This is such that if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had made a general statement that the believers are ʾawliyāʾ of each other, then stated that “whoever I am his mawlā, then ʿAlī is his mawlā,” then it would have still been purposeful and eloquent speech, and would still be a great virtue. To be more clear, what this implies is a comparison of the manner in which ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is the supporter and lover of the believers, and to which he must be taken as such and supported and loved by them, to the manner in which this is the case with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. There can be no doubt that this is a great and high virtue only held by very few. In this respect, the ḥadīth has a similar import to the authentic ḥadīth in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم promises ʿAlī رضي الله عنه that none but a believer would love him, and none but a hypocrite would hate him.34
11.
The Ṣaḥābah present at the time understood the ḥadīth differently from what the Shīʿah interpret it to mean, and they are in the strongest position to understand its meaning. We first must look at the most obvious facts: We clearly observe that the Ṣaḥābah seemed to accept the first 3 Khulafāʾ as rulers, and that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه did not openly claim their position for himself against them, but rather seemed to accept their rule. It is even reliably attested that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه quoted Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr as proof against those who rebelled against him, but we lack evidence that he ever used it against any of the 3 Khulafāʾ to justify a claim of rule. As will be seen later on, when we consider all the facts present, the only possible conclusion is that this happened out of sincere agreement among the Ṣaḥābah and by ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. We know that the Qurʾān and mutawātir Sunnah praise the Ṣaḥābah as a group, and we also know that if ʿAlī رضي الله عنه had abandoned that which would have been his right, he would have been falling into grave sin. Consequently, it cannot possibly be said that they all rejected the truth about Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr.
Furthermore, we can also look at the statements and actions of the Ṣaḥābah in direct relation to Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr itself. For example, it is narrated (albeit by a weak chain) that when ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما heard the statement from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, he said: (هَنِيئًا لَكَ يَا ابْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ , أَصْبَحْتَ وَأَمْسَيْتَ مَوْلَى كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ) “Congratulations to you oh son of ʾAbū Ṭālib, you were the mawlā of every male and female believer in the morning and in the evening.”35 We know that ʿAlī رضي الله عنه could not have been an active authority during the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, which shows that this statement contradicts the Shīʿī belief, since this wording is an explicit indication of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه actively holding the described position at the time of it being made,36 and the statement received no objection or clarification from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم or from any other Ṣaḥābah. It is also narrated that: (أَنه قيل لعمر إِنَّك تصنع بعلي شَيْئا لَا تَصنعهُ بِأحد من أَصْحَاب النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّه مولَايَ) “It was said to ʿUmar that he acts with ʿAlī in a way that he does not act with any of the other companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, so he said, ‘Indeed, he is my mawlā.’”37 These both go against the Twelver claim that the Ṣaħābah denied the wilāyah of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and wanted to hide and obfuscate it. Another reliable narration38 mentions that when a group of the ʾAnṣār approached ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, and he asked them who they were, they responded to him by saying (مَوَالِيكَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ) “Your mawālī (plural of mawlā), oh ʾAmīr al-Muʾminīn,” and when he questioned them about this, they referred to Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr as their basis, and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه made no objection or clarification. This indicates that the ʾAnṣār supporting ʿAlī رضي الله عنه in his wars understood the term “mawlā” in Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr to be a bidirectional mutually applicable status between themselves and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, which means they could not have taken it to refer to authority. The only thing that can be used here by Shīʿah is some poetry dubiously attributed to Ḥassān ibn Thābit, for which nothing even close to reliable attestation exists.
12.
The final arguments of the Shīʿah are to claim that certain verses of the Qurʾān were revealed in conjunction with the sermon of Ghadīr Khumm, and that this supports their claim on the meaning of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr. The two verses are { اِ۬لْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِے وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ اُ۬لِاسْلَٰمَ دِيناٗۖ } “Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you” (5:3) and { يَٰٓأَيُّهَا اَ۬لرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَۖ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَٰتِهِۦۖ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ اَ۬لنَّاسِۖ إِنَّ اَ۬للَّهَ لَا يَهْدِے اِ۬لْقَوْمَ اَ۬لْكٰ۪فِرِينَۖ } “O Messenger, convey all that has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you shall not have conveyed His message (at all). Allāh shall protect you from the people. Surely, Allāh does not lead the disbelieving people to the right path.” (5:67)
The response here is extremely simple. In both cases, the few narrations that support the verses being revealed in conjunction with the sermon of Ghadīr Khumm are very weak, and are completely contradicted by many much stronger narrations. For the first one, countless narrations39 (many of them authentic) state that the verse was revealed on the day of ʿArafah in the final year of the life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, while the contrary narrations are unequivocally weak as already noted, and the textual context of the ʾāyah also has no relation to what the Shīʿah claim. For the second case, there are many differing narrations of varying reliability on when the ʾāyah was revealed,40 but the vast majority contradict the Shīʿī claim, which is again based on very few weak narrations. Their claim here again has no connection to the textual context, and in this case also contradicts the apparent generality of { مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَۖ } “all that has been sent down to you from your Lord”.
Interestingly, when asked about the meaning of Ḥadīth al-Ghadīr, the Zaydī ʾImām al-Qāsim ibn ʾIbrāhīm ar-Rassī said, “Its interpretation is ‘For whomever I am his supporter (nāṣir), then ʿAlī is his supporter,’ and this is because the ‘mawlā’ in the tongue of the Arabs is the supporter (naṣīr).”41
- الطحاوي , الذهبي , الأرنؤوط
↩︎ - ابن كثير , ابن حجر الهيتمي
↩︎ - الأرنؤوط , ابن حجر الهيتمي , ابن حبان
↩︎ - ابن حجر الهيتمي
↩︎ - المستدرك للحاكم – حديث #6272
↩︎ - ابن حجر العسقلاني , السيوطي , البوصيري
↩︎ - صحيح مسلم , صحيح ابن خزيمة
↩︎ - نزهة النظر لابن حجر – ص69 , فتح المغيث للسخاوي – زيادات الثقات , البحر المحيط للزركشي – زيادة الراوي الثقة
↩︎ - البحر المحيط للزركشي – مسألة في حكم المشترك بالنسبة إلى معنييه أو معانيه , البحر المحيط للزركشي – تنبيه الخلاف في حمل المشترك على معانيه
↩︎ - لسان العرب لابن منظور , http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/ولي/ , http://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/ولى/
↩︎ - المزهر للسيوطي ج1 ص92, ص147
↩︎ - الكشاف للزمخشري , البحر المحيط لأبي حيان , تفسير الرازي , تفسير البيضاوي , تفسير ابن عطية
↩︎ - حاشية القونوي على تفسير البيضاوي – ج18 ص454
↩︎ - شرح العضد على مختصر ابن الحاجب مع الحاشيتين – ج1 ص530
↩︎ - المعجم الكبير للطبراني – حديث 2983
↩︎ - الأشباه والنظائر في النحو للسيوطي – ج4 ص178-179
↩︎ - السنن الكبرى للنسائي – حديث #8159 , السنن الكبرى للنسائي – حديث #8077
↩︎ - https://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/?p=10720#ecbd29 , شرح الرضي على شافية ابن الحاجب – معاني: فاعل
↩︎ - https://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/%d9%88%d9%84%d9%89/#3c4a67
↩︎ - الكشاف للزمخشري , تفسير القرطبي , تفسير الماوردي , بحر العلوم للسمرقندي , البحر المحيط لأبي حيان , تفسير الألوسي , تفسير ابن عطية , تفسير النسفي , التسهيل لابن جزي , تفسير الماتريدي
↩︎ - شرح المشكاة للطيبي – حديث #6103
↩︎ - الاعتقاد للبيهقي – حديث #344-345 , السنة للخلال – حديث #465 , تاريخ دمشق لابن عساكر – ج13 ص69 , جزء أبي جعفر الثقفي – حديث #42 , النهي عن سب الأصحاب للضياء المقدسي – حديث #22
↩︎ - البداية والنهاية لابن كثير – باب بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم علي بن أبي طالب وخالد بن الوليد إلى اليمن قبل حجة الوداع
البداية والنهاية لابن كثير – فصل في إيراد الحديث الدال على أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام خطب بمكان بين مكة والمدينة مرجعه من حجة الوداع
↩︎ - صحيح البخاري – حديث #4093 , مسند أحمد – حديث #22961 , مسند أحمد – حديث #22966
↩︎ - مسند أحمد – حديث #22945
↩︎ - دلائل النبوة للبيهقي – حديث #2145 , المستدرك للحاكم – حديث #4654
↩︎ - المستدرك للحاكم – حديث #4619
↩︎ - شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة لللالكائي – حديث #2640
↩︎ - شرح الزرقاني على المواهب اللدنية – بعث علي إلى اليمن
↩︎ - الإرشاد للمفيد – ج1 ص173 , إعلام الورى للطبرسي – ج1 ص268
↩︎ - سيرة ابن هشام – موافاة علي في قفوله من اليمن رسول الله في الحج
↩︎ - مسند أحمد – حديث #23012 , مسند أحمد – حديث #3061 , مسند أحمد – حديث #19928
↩︎ - شرح علل الترمذي لابن رجب – ص821-822
↩︎ - صحيح مسلم – حديث #78
↩︎ - مصنف ابن أبي شيبة – حديث #32781
↩︎ - https://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/%d8%b5%d8%a8%d8%ad/#f16490
↩︎ - تاريخ دمشق لابن عساكر – ج42 ص235
↩︎ - مسند أحمد – حديث #23564 , إتحاف الخيرة المهرة للبوصيري – حديث #6687
↩︎ - تفسير الطبري , تفسير ابن كثير , الدر المنثور
↩︎ - تفسير ابن كثير , تفسير الطبري , الدر المنثور
↩︎ - مسائل القاسم الرسي – مسألة #175 – من مجموع كتبه ورسائله – ج2 ص612-613
↩︎
Leave a Reply