Shiism: Imamate and Wilayat

Origin of Shi'ism, self-censorship in Muslim history, Ghadir Khumm and the Orientalists, appointment of Imam 'Ali (a) explicit or implicit?, concept of Ahlul Bayt, Wilayat, and the knowledge of the Ahlul Bayt (a).

Author(s):

Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

Publisher(s):

Al-Ma'arif Books

Preface

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

O Allah, send Your blessings upon Muhammad & his Progeny

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

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

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

Wa ma tawfíqí illa billah.

Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi
Toronto
12 Rabi II 1420 / 26 July 1999

Origin of Shí'ism: Political or Religious?

1. Introduction

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

This anti-Shí'a attitude is not limited to the writers of the past centuries, even some Sunni writers of the present century have the same views. Names like Abul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi, Manzur Ahmad Nu'mani (both of India), Ihsan Ilahi Zahír (of Pakistan), Muhibbu 'd-Dín al-Khatíb and Musa Jar Allah (both from Middle East) come to mind.1

It is not restricted to the circle of those that graduated from religious seminaries and had not been in touch with the so-called academic world. Ahmad Amin (of Egypt) and Fazlur Rahman (of Pakistan) fall in this category.

Ahmad Amin, for example, writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Beginning of Islam

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

Only after the hijra, when the majority of the people of Medina accepted Islam, the opportunity for implementation of Islamic social order arose and so Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) also assumed the position of the political leader of the society.

He signed agreements with other tribes, sent ambassadors to kings and emperors, organized armies and led Muslim forces, sat in judgement, appointed governors, deputees, commanders, and judges, and he also collected and distributed taxes. Nonetheless, Islam was first a religious movement that later on encompassed political aspects of society. So to say that "Islam as a religious phenomenon was subsequent to Islam as a political reality" is historically an incorrect statement.

3. The Origin of Shí'ism

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

Islam began when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) became forty years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allah revealed the verse

"And warn thy nearest relations." (The Qur'an 26:214)

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

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

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

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

The Prophet put his hand on the back of 'Ali's neck and said: "Inna hadha akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma'u lahu wa atí'u - Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey."9

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

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

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

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

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

• The Origin of Shí'a and Its Principles by Muhammad Husayn Kashiful Ghita'.

• Imamate: the Vicegerency of the Prophet by Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi.

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

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

• "The Meaning & Origin of Shí'ism" by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in The Right Path, vol.1 (Jan-Mar 1993) # 3.11

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

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

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

In his academic work, Islamic Messianism, the learned scholar counts the civil war as the beginning of "religious Shí'ism": "From the early days of the civil war in A.D. 656, some Muslims not only thought about the question of leadership in political terms, but also laid religious emphasis on it."13

But in his article that was presented in a community gathering and published by one of the religious centers, he places the beginning of Shí'ism from the time of Ghadir Khumm. He writes, "The proclamation by the Prophet on that occasion gave rise to the tension between the ideal leadership promoted through the wilaya of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the real one precipitated by human forces to suppress the purposes of Allah on earth."14

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

4. The Name "Shí'a"

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. These writers represent the Salafi/Wahhabi camp, and their anti-Shí'a works have been distributed world-wide with the courtesy of the petro-dollars of certain Middle-Eastern countries, especially after the Sunni masses started getting inspiration by the revolution of Iran which was led by Shí'a 'ulama'.

2. Fajru 'l-Islam, p. 33 as quoted and then refuted by Muhammad Husayn Kashiful 'l-Ghita', Aslu 'sh-Shí'a wa Usuluha (Qum: Mu'assasa al-Imam 'Ali, 1415) p. 140, 142; also see the latter's English translation, The Shí'a Origin and Faith (Karachi: Islamic Seminary, 1982).

3. Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) p. 171-172.

4. Ibid, p. 173.

5. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shí'ism (Albany: State University of New York, 1981) p. 4. Dr. Sachedina studied at the Universities of Aligarh (India), Mashhad (Iran) and Toronto. Islamic Messianism is a revised version of his doctoral thesis presented to the University of Toronto in 1976

6. Ibid, p. 5.

7. Ibid, p. 6.

8. Ibid, p. 18.

9. For references of this event and discussion on this event, see the chapter "Self-Censorship in Muslim History".

10. For further discussion on the event of Ghadír Khumm, see the chapter "Ghadír Khumm & the Orientalists" below. For authenticity of this version of the hadíth (that is, "Book of Allah and my progeny" as opposed to "Book of Allah and my sunnah"), see the Sunni author, Hasan bin 'Ali as-Saqqaf, "The Book of Allah and What Else?" The Right Path, vol. 6 (# 3 & 4 Oct-Dec 1997) p. 44-49.

11. To this list we may also add The Succession to Muhammad by Wilferd Madelung published in 1997. This is the first study by a Western scholar of high stature who acknowledges that the caliphate of Abu Bakr was not unanimous, and that it was challenged by 'Ali bin Abi Talib and his followers. This is a new breakthrough in Western/non-Muslim scholarship which till now stated as a matter of fact that the Shí'a-Sunni dispute started only after the civil war, that is after the murder of 'Uthman bin 'Affan and during the battle between Imam 'Ali and Mu'awiya.

12. S. Hussain M. Ja’fari, Origins and Early Development of Shí'a Islam (London: Longmans, 1979) p. 2. Also available on line at: http://www.al-islam.org/the-origins-and-early-development-of-shia-islam-sayyid-jafari/ [10]

13. Islamic Messianism, p. 5.

14. Sachedina, "Wilaya of Imam Ali and its Theological-Juridical Implications for the Islamic Political Thought" in Ghadir (Toronto: Islamic Shí'a Ithna-'Asheri Jamaat & NASIMCO, 1990) p. 54.

Self-Censorship in Muslim History A case study of Da'wat dhu 'l-'Ashira

1. Introduction

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

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

2. The First Open Call to Islam

Islam began when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) became forty years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allah revealed the verse

"And warn thy nearest relations." (26:214)

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

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

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

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

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

"Inna hadha akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma'u lahu wa atí'u - Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey."1

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

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

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

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

The political considerations that influenced Ibn Hisham in deleting certain events and maintaining others is clear from his own statement. While listing the items that he has omitted, Ibn Hisham writes, "...things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people...all these things I have omitted."2Editors of the 1955 Egyptian edition of the Sirah write that Ibn Ishaq had quoted events that would not have pleased the 'Abbasids "like the participation of al-'Abbas with the infidels in the battle of Badr and his capture by the Muslims-the narration that Ibn Hisham later on omitted out of the fear of the 'Abbasids."3

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

The fact that Ibn Ishaq had mentioned the Summoning of the Family can be seen through those who have narrated events from Ibn Ishaq by sources other than Ibn Hisham. For example, at-Tabari (d. 310 AH) narrates the same event through Ibn Ishaq. Shaykh Abu Ja'far at-Tusi (d. 460 AH) also narrates the same event through two different chains of narrators: one of those two is on the authority of Ibn Ishaq through at-Tabari.4

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

Ibn Ishaq himself has been accused of having Shí'ite leanings. If true, this could be one of the considerations that prompted Ibn Hisham to omit the items that he thought supported the Shí'ite cause. However, al-Khatíb al-Baghdadi in Ta'ríkh Baghdad and Ibn Sayyidi 'n-Nas in 'Uyunu 'l-Athar, both Sunni historians, have defended Ibn Ishaq against all kinds of accusations including that of having Shí'ite leanings.5

4. Self-Censorship by At-Tabari

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

القوم ليقوموا، ودعاهم محمد في الغداة كرة أخرى، فلما طعموا قال لهم: ما أعلم إنسانا من العرب جاء قومه بأفضل مما جئتكم به، قد جئتكم بخير الدنيا والآخرة، وقد أمرني ربي أن أدعوكم اليه، فأيكم يوازرني على هذا الأمر وأن يكون أخي ووصيي وخليفتي فيكم؟ فأعرضوا عنه وهموا بتركه، لكن عليا نهض وما يزال صبيا دون الحلم، وقال: أنا يا رسول الله عو نك، أنا حرب على من حاربت. فابتسم بنو هاشم وقهقه بعضهم، وجعل نظرهم ينتقل من أبي طالب إلى ابنه ثم انصرفوا مستهزئين20

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

"akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí:

my brother, my successor, my caliph."6

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

"akhhi wa kadha wa kadha:

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

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

5. Self-Censorship In Modern Times

A modern writer of Egypt, Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, wrote a famous book on the Prophet's biography known as Hayat Muhammad. Haykal had first published the Prophet's biography in his weekly paper as-Siyasa. The event of the Feast was published in the supplement of issue # 2751 (12 Dhu 'l-Qa'dah 1350) p. 5, column 2. One of his critics wrote a letter to the paper accusing Haykal of using Shí'ite sources for that statement about Imam 'Ali. Haykal responds to this accusation in the supplement of issue # 2758, p. 6, column 4, by denying that he used a Shí'ite source "since all traditions do speak of this behaviour of 'Ali;" and quotes the hadith from Sahíh of Muslim, Musnad of Ahmad and others.7

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

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

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

"All of them turned away from him and wanted to leave him but 'Alí stood up although he was still a child who had not reached maturity and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, I shall be your helper! I will help you against whomsoever you fight.' The Banu Hashim smiled, some of them laughed, and their eyes moved from Abu Talib to his son; and then they left in the state of ridicule."8

القوم ليقوموا، ودعاهم محمد في الغداة كرة أخرى، فلما طعموا قال لهم: ما أعلم إنسانا من العرب جاء قومه بأفضل مما جئتكم به، قد جئتكم بخير الدنيا والآخرة، وقد أمرني ربي أن أدعوكم اليه، فأيكم يوازرني على هذا الأمر وأن يكون أخي ووصيي وخليفتي فيكم؟ فأعرضوا عنه وهموا بتركه، لكن عليا نهض وما يزال صبيا دون الحلم، وقال: أنا يا رسول الله عو نك، أنا حرب على من حاربت. فابتسم بنو هاشم وقهقه بعضهم، وجعل نظرهم ينتقل من أبي طالب إلى ابنه ثم انصرفوا مستهزئين 24

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

In the second edition, Haykal seems to have given into the pressure of the bigots and even deleted the crucial words of the Prophet and just wrote: "...he said to them, '...So who among you will help me in this matter? All of them turned away from him..."9

ليقوموا، ودعاهم محمد في الغداة كرة أخرى، فلما طعموا قال لهم: ما أعلم إنسانا من العرب جاء قومه بأفضل مما جئتكم به، قد جئتكم بخير الدنيا والآخرة، وقد أمرني ربي أن أدعوكم اليه، فأيكم يوازرني على هذا الأمر وأن يكون أخي ووصيي وخليفتي فيكم؟ فأعرضوا عنه وهموا بتركه، لكن عليا نهض وما يزال صبيا دون الحلم، وقال: أنا يا رسول الله عو نك، أنا حرب على من حاربت. فابتسم بنو هاشم وقهقه بعضهم، وجعل نظرهم ينتقل من أبي طالب إلى ابنه ثم انصرفوا مستهزئين 26

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

6. The Isnad of "Summoning the Family"

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

Ibn Taymiyya, well known for his anti-Shí'a sentiments, has adamantly declared it to be a fabricated hadíth. He has attacked the credibility of 'Abd al-Ghaffar bin al-Qasim known as Abu Maryam al-Kufi.10 Abu Maryam is the source of Ibn Ishaq in narrating the event of "Summoning the Family". However, the only basis for questioning the credibility of Abu Maryam is his Shi'a links; but, as any unbiased person knows, that is not a sufficient ground to reject his narration. Shi'a biographers of narrators have counted him among the reliable narrators of hadíth from the fourth, fifth, and sixth Shi'a Imams (a.s.).11

Salma bin al-Fadhl (d. 191), the foremost disciple of Ibn Ishaq, is also recognized as credible in narrating the Prophet's biography from his master. He is quoted as saying, "I have heard the al-Maghazi from Ibn Ishaq two times;" and he is well known among the scholars of hadith for historical narration from Ibn Ishaq.12According to Muta' at-Tarabíshí, Salma bin al-Fadhl's narration of historical nature are accepted by all.13 Ibn Mu'ín says, "Salma [bin al-Fadhl] al-Abrash ar-Razi was a Shí'i as already written and there is no defect in him... Abu Zuhra says, 'The people of Ray did not like him because of his undesirable [i.e., Shi'í] beliefs.'"14 Adh-Dhahabi writes the following about Salma: "He was steadfast in prayer and full of humility in his beliefs; he died in 191 A.H."15

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

"The tradition conflicts with the views of the two Shaykhs, Bukhari and Muslim, in respect of the Caliphate and that is why they have not recorded it in their Sahíhs. They have also scrupulously avoided recording a number of other genuine traditions which stipulated the Caliphate in favor of Amir al-Mu'minín lest the same serve as a weapon in the hands of the Shí'as, and so intentionally concealed the truth.

Not only Bukhari and Muslim but also many other Shaykhs (i.e., senior traditionists) among the Ahl al-Sunnah followed this practice...They used to conceal everything of this nature and are well known for their creed of concealment of facts (favoring 'Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt). Hafiz Ibn Hajar has related this from them in Fath al-Bari...

"Anyone who knows the behaviour of Bukhari towards Amir al-Mu'minín and other members of the Ahl al-Bayt also knows that his pen invariably omits mentioning the clear traditions of the Holy Prophet in their favor, and that his ink dries up before relating their distinguished, excellent qualities and one will not be surprised at his skipping over this and other similar traditions. There is neither might nor power but by Allah, the High and the Great."16

7. Conclusion

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

1. Most Muslim historians and commentators of the Qur'an have quoted this event. See the following Sunni sources: at-Tabari, at-Ta'ríkh, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1980 offset of the 1789 edition) p. 171-173; Ibn al-Athír, al-Kamil, vol. 5 (Beirut, 1965) p. 62-63; Abu 'l-Fida', al-Mukhtasar fi Ta'ríkhi 'l-Bashar, vol. 1 (Beirut, n.d.) p. 116-117; al-Khazin, at-Tafsír, vol. 4 (Cairo, 1955) p. 127; al-Baghawi, at-Tafsír (Ma'alimu 't-Tanzíl), vol. 6 (Riyadh: Dar Tayyiba, 1993) p. 131; al-Bayhaqi, Dala'ilu 'n-Nubuwwa, vol. 1 (Cairo, 1969) p. 428-430; as-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 5 (Beirut, n.d.) p. 97; and Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanzu 'l-'Ummal, vol. 15 (Hyderabad, 1968) pp. 100, 113, 115. For further references, see 'Abdu 'l-Husayn al-Aminí, al-Ghadír, vol. 2 (Beirut, 1967) pp. 278-289. In English see, Rizvi, S. Saeed Akhtar, Imamate: the Vicegerency of the Prophet (Tehran: WOFIS, 1985) pp. 57-60. Available on line at: http://www.al-islam.org/imamate-the-viceregency-of-the-prophet-sayyid-akhtar-rizvi [11]

For an elaborate discussion on the isnad and meaning of the Prophet's hadíth in this event, and also the variations in the early Sunni and Shi'a sources, see Dr. Sayyid Talib Husayn ar-Rifa'í, Yawmu 'd-Dar (Beirut: Dar al-Azwa', 1986).

2. Ibn Hisham, as-Sírah an-Nabawiyya, vol. 1 (Cairo: Mustafa al-Halabi & Sons, 1955) p. 11-12; also see its English translation by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Lahore: Oxford University Press, 1955) p. 691. See also the introduction by Dr. Asghari Mahdawi to the 6th century Persian translation by Rafí'u 'd-Dín Hamadani of the Sirah entitled as Sirat-e Rasulu 'l-lah (Tehran, Bunyad-e Farhang-e Iran, 1360 [solar] AH) p. nun.

3. Ibn Hisham, as-Sirah, vol. 1, p. 10.

4. Abu Ja'far at-Tusi, Kitabu 'l-Amali, vol. 2 (Najaf: Maktabatu 'l-Haydari, 1964) p. 194-196.

5. See the introduction to as-Sirah an-Nabawiyya, vol. 1, p. 15-17; also see Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p. XXXIV-XXXVIII.

6. See the 1879 edition of EJ Brill, Leiden (vol. 3, p. 1173), the 1908 edition of Daru 'l-Qamusi 'l-Hadíth, Cairo (vol. 1&2, p. 217), and also the 1961 edition of Daru 'l-Ma'arif, Cairo, edited by Muhammad Abu 'l-Fadl Ibrahim (vol. 2, p. 321) in which the original words are intact. Even at-Tabari's 1988 English translation published by State University of New York, vol. 6 (translators: WM Watt and MV McDonald) p. 90-91 has maintained the original words of the Prophet without any omission.

7. Antonie Wessels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1972) p. 223, 245; also see 'Abdu 'l-Husayn Sharafu 'd-Dín al-Musawi, al-Muraji'at, annotated by Husayn ar-Razi (Beirut: n.p., 1982) p. 189.

8. Haykal, Hayat Muhammad (Cairo: 1st edition) p. 104.

9. Haykal, Hayat Muhammad (Cairo: 2nd edition, 1354) p. 139-140.

10. Ibn Taymiyya, Minhaju 's-Sunnah, vol. 4 (Cairo: al-Matba'atu 'l-Kubra al-Amíriyya, 1322) p. 81.

11. Sayyid Abu 'l-Qasim al-Khu'I, Mu'jam Rijali 'l-Hadíth, vol. 10 (Beirut: Madinatu 'l-'Ilm, 1983) p. 55-56.

12. Muta' at-Tarabíshí, Ruwat Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar fi 'l-Maghazi wa 's-Siyar wa Sa'iri 'l-Marwiyat (Damascus: Daru 'l-Fikr, 1994) p. 149.

13. Ibid.

14. S. Sharafu 'd-Dín al-Musawi, al-Muraji'at, p. 129; also its English translation by M. A. H. Khan, The Right Path (Blanco, Texas: Zahra Publication, 1986) p. 85-86..Also see http://www.al-islam.org/al-murajaat-shii-sunni-dialogue-sharaf-al-din-al-musawi [12]

15. Adh-Dhahabi, Mizanu 'l-I'tidal, vol. 2 (Egypt, Dar Ihya'i 'l-Kutubi 'l-'Arabiyya, n.d.) p. 192.

16. Sharafu 'd-Dín al-Musawi, al-Muraji'at, p. 191-192

Ghadir Khumm and the Orientalists

1. Introduction

Note: This is a revised and expanded version of a paper first published simultaneously in the bi-monthly The Light (June 1990) magazine and in Ghadir (Toronto: ISIJ & NASIMCO, July 1990) under the title of "Orientalists & the Event of Ghadir Khumm". ***

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

Before proceeding further, a brief narration of the event of Ghadir Khumm would not be out of place. This will be especially helpful to those who are not familiar with the event. While returning from his last pilgrimage, the Prophet received the following command of Allah:

"O the Messenger! Convey what had been revealed to you from your Lord; if you do not do so, then [it would be as if] you have not conveyed His message [at all]. Allah will protect you from the people." (The Qur'an 5:67)

Therefore he stopped at Ghadir Khumm on the 18th of Dhu 'l-Hijja, 10 AH to convey the message to the pilgrims before they dispersed. At one point, he asked his followers whether he, Muhammad, had more authority (awla) over the believers than they had over themselves; the crowd cried out, "Yes, it is so, O Apostle of Allah." Then he took 'Ali by the hand and declared: "Whomsoever's master (mawla) I am, this 'Ali is also his master - man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun mawlahu." Then the Prophet also announced his impending death and charged the believers to remain attached to the Qur'an and to his Ahlul Bayt. This summarizes the important parts of the event of Ghadir Khumm.

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

2. Study of Shí'ism by the Orientalists

When the Egyptian writer, Muhammad Qutb, named his book as Islam: the Misunderstood Religion, he was politely expressing the Muslim sentiment about the way Orientalists have treated Islam and Muslims in general. The word "misunderstood" implies that at least a genuine attempt was made to understand Islam.

However, a more blunt criticism of Orientalism, shared by the majority of Muslims, comes from Edward Said, "The hardest thing to get most academic experts on Islam to admit is that what they say and do as scholars is set in a profoundly and in some ways an offensively political context. Everything about the study of Islam in the contemporary West is saturated with political importance, but hardly any writers on Islam, whether expert or general, admit the fact in what they say. Objectivity is assumed to inhere in learned discourse about other societies, despite the long history of political, moral, and religious concern felt in all societies, Western or Islamic, about the alien, the strange and different. In Europe, for example, the Orientalist has traditionally been affiliated directly with colonial offices."1

Instead of assuming that objectivity is inhere in learned discourse, Western scholarship has to realize that precommitment to a political or religious tradition, on a conscious or subconscious level, can lead to biased judgement. As Marshall Hudgson writes, "Bias comes especially in the questions he poses and in the type of category he uses, where indeed, bias is especially hard to track down because it is hard to suspect the very terms one uses, which seem so innocently neutral..."2

The Muslim reaction to the image portrayed of them by Western scholarship is beginning to get its due attention. In 1979, the highly respected scholar trained in Western academia, Albert Hourani, said, "The voices of those from the Middle East and North Africa telling us that they do not recognize themselves in the image we have formed of them are too numerous and insistent to be explained in terms of academic rivalry or national pride."3 This was about Islam and Muslims vis-à-vis the Orientalists.

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

The reason for this state of affairs lies in the paths through which Western scholars entered the field of Islamic studies. Hodgson, in his excellent review of Western scholarship, writes,

"First, there were those who studied the Ottoman Empire, which played so major a role in modern Europe. They came to it usually in the first instance from the viewpoint of the European diplomatic history. Such scholars tended to see the whole of Islamdom from the political perspective of Istanbul, the Ottoman capital.

Second, there were those, normally British, who entered Islamic studies in India so as to master Persian as good civil servants, or at least they were inspired by Indian interest. For them, the imperial transition of Delhi tended to be the culmination of Islamicate history.

Third, there were the Semitists, often interested primarily in Hebrew studies, who were lured into Arabic. For them, headquarters tended to be Cairo, the most vital of Arabic-using cities in the nineteenth century, though some turned to Syria or the Maghrib.

They were commonly philologians rather than historians, and they learned to see Islamicate culture through the eyes of the late Egyptian and Syrian Sunni writers most in vogue in Cairo. Other paths-that of the Spaniards and some Frenchmen who focused on the Muslims in Medieval Spain, that of the Russians who focused on the northern Muslims-were generally less important."4

It is quite obvious that none of these paths would have led Western scholars to the centres of Shí'a learning or literature. The majority of what they studied about Shí'ism was channelled through the non-Shí'i sources. Hudgson, who deserves our highest praise for noticing this point, says, "All paths were at one in paying relatively little attention to the central areas of the Fertile Crescent and Iran, with their tendency towards Shí'ism; areas that tended to be most remote from western penetration."5 And after the First World War, "the Cairene path to Islamic studies became the Islamicist's path par excellence, while other paths to Islamic studies came to be looked on as of more local relevance."6

Therefore, whenever an Orientalist stuided Shí'ism through Ottoman, Cairene or Indian paths, it was quite natural for him to be biased against Shí'a Islam. "The Muslim historians of doctrine [who are mostly Sunni] always tried to show that all other schools of thought other than their own were not only false but, if possible, less than truly Muslim. Their work described innumerable 'firqahs' in terms which readily misled modern scholars into supposing they were referring to so many 'heretical sects'."7

And so we see that until very recently, Western scholars easily described Sunni'ism as 'orthodox Islam' and Shí'ism as a 'heretical sect'. After categorizing Shí'ism as a heretical sect of Islam, it became "innocently neutral" for Western scholars to absorb the Sunni scepticism concerning the early Shí'a literature. Even the concept of taqiyyah (dissimulation when one's life is in danger) was blown out of proportion and it was assumed that every statement of a Shí'a scholar had a hidden meaning. And, consequently, whenever an Orientalist studied Shí'ism, his precommitment to Judeo-Christian tradition of the West was compounded with the Sunni bias against Shí'ism.

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

3. Ghadír Khumm: From Oblivion to Recognition

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

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

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

Thirdly, when he is shown that all the transmitters are reliable by Sunni standards, he will give an interpretation