₦airaland Forum

I vote Sweetnecta

Allaah Himself has cursed some people in His Noble Book. And we must curse whomsoever He has cursed. He has cursed hypocrites and Zaalimoon. You should know why we curse some of your heroes then.

Reading this forum, one cannot but laugh (in great surprise) at the arguments of the Ahl al-Sunnah. They are simply so ridiculous.

The Verse of the Cave neatly ends the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah and exposes Aboo Bakr forever. But, strangely, they have turned it into a "merit" for him! In order to do that, some of them have to LIE that Allaah has revealed Sakeenah upon Aboo Bakr and NOT upon the Prophet! One of them even attacks the Shee'ah for claiming that the Sakeenah was revealed upon the Prophet:

[size=14pt]إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا ۖ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا السُّفْلَىٰ ۗ وَكَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ {40}
[/size]
[Shakir 9:40] If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

So, Aboo Bakr was helped with angels as well?! This is the extent to which the Ahl al-Sunnah can go to distort the Words of Allaah.

Now, what have the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah said about that verse?

Ibn Katheer says:

[size=14pt] { فَأَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ } أي: تأييده ونصره عليه، أي: على الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في أشهر القولين[/size]

{So, Allaah revealed Sakeenah upon him}

Meaning, helped him on it, meaning UPON THE MESSENGER OF ALLAAH, peace be upon him accoringing to the MOST FAMOUS of the statements.
Source: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=40&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Imaam al-Aloosee also states under that verse in his RooH al-Ma'aanee, vol. 3, p. 36:

[size=14pt]وقال جمهور الناس الضمير عائد على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذا أقوى [/size]

THE MAJORITY of the people say that the pronoun (upon "him" refers to the Prophet, peace be upon him, AND THIS IS THE STRONGEST (VIEW).

In other words, the most acceptable interpretation to the 'ulamaa of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that the Sakeenah was revealed upon the Prophet only, EXCLUDING Aboo Bakr! Read the words of one of them:

Allah sent his Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) down upon Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Allah sends Sakinah down upon the believers; if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was an evil-doer as the Shia claim, then Allah would have sent his Wrath upon him, not his Sakinah. The Shia consider Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to be an agent of Satan. Would Allah send his Sakinah down upon Satan?

Since it is clear now that Allaah did NOT send Sakeenah upon Aboo Bakr, would the Shee'ah then be correct?

Can this Sunnee brother venture an explanation why Allaah abandoned Aboo Bakr?!

The explanation is clear! In other verses, Allaah revealed Sakeenah upon the believers:

[size=14pt]ثُمَّ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَأَنْزَلَ جُنُودًا لَمْ تَرَوْهَا وَعَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ }[/size]

[Shakir 9:26] Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers.

So, we know why Allaah did not send it upon Aboo Bakr.

To call Hadeeth al-Ghadeer a lie is the height of dishonesty. It is SaHeeH and mutawaatir. Every honest person knows and upholds this. Well, we cannot force you to accept the Truth. You know what the Sunnee scholars have said about anyone denying a mutawaatir Hadeeth? The Indian Sunnee scholar, Shaykh Nazaam al-Deen as well as the group of Indian Sunnee 'ulamaa in their book, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah, vol. 2, p. 265 states:

[size=14pt]وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ الْمُتَوَاتِرَ فَقَدْ كَفَرَ[/size]

Whoever denies a mutawaatir report is a Kaafir.

The founder of Wahaabism, MuHammad bin 'Abd al-Wahaab in his Risaalah fee Radd 'alaa RaafiDah, vol. 1, p. 41, also says something very similar:

[size=14pt]ومن أنكر ذلك فقد أنكر المتواتر وحال منكره معلوم أقل مراتبه أن يكون فاسقاً.[/size]

Whoever denies it has denied the mutawaatir. The condition of its denier (i.e. denier of mutawaatir), his lowest condition, is that he is a Faasiq (evil doer)!

So, we know what these people who deny Hadeeth al-Ghadeer are.

One of them also claims that there is contradiction between Hadeeth al-Ghadeer (i.e. whomsoever I am his mawlaa, 'Alee is his mawlaa) and Hadeeth al-Wilaayah (i.e. 'Alee is the Walee of all believers after me). What kind of brain is that? If Imaam 'Alee (as) was the second mawlaa of the believers towards the end of the Prophet's lifetime, does that not make him the Walee after him? Both Hadeeths are actually complementary, and explain each other. It makes logical sense that the mawlaa of the believers during the Prophet's lifetime continues as such after his death. So, where is the contradiction?

Allaah (SWT) has stated clearly that the hearts of 'Aaishah and Hafsah had deviated from the Truth. Read the verse again, and the tafseer of the SaHaabah quoted by 'Allaamah al-Mawdoodee. This is the verse again as translated by him:

If you both (women) repent to Allah, (it is better for you), for your hearts have swerved from the right path.


When it is said that the heart of a person has swerved from the right path, it is MORE serious than to say that that person him/herself has deviated. You know why? If a person is deviated but his heart is still pure, he will gain guidance later if Allaah wills. But, if the heart of a person itself is deviated, such a person has no more hope of guidance.

We can see that clearly in the cases of 'Aaishah and Hafsah. It was 'Aaishah's deviated heart that made her murder thousands of her own children, and to mount an armed rebellion against her own mawlaa.

Some people are playing the emotional card here, and it is not helping the discussion. Both Prophet NooH (as) and Prophet LooT (as) were married to evil women. Yet, they NEVER divorced these two evil women. Does that in any way prove that those evil women were good people.

The fact that the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, did not divorce 'Aaishah and Hafsah does not make them good people.

The Qur'aan has actually both CONDEMNED and EXPOSED 'Aaishah in even Surah al-TaHreem. See verse 4. This is al-Mawdoodee's translation of verse 4:

If you both (women) repent to Allah, (it is better for you), for your hearts have swerved from the right path

This is his commentary:

The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi'uddin have translated this sentence thus: "Crooked have become your hearts." Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: "Your hearts have swerved from the right path." Imam Razi explains it thus: "Your hearts have swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace)." And 'Allama Alusi's commentary is Although it is incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him."

See http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/66/index.html#sdfootnote7anc

It is obvious to us now that the Sunnees on this forum who sought to call the Ghadeer incident a lie have backed down. They have seen that the event is undeniable. No matter what amount of Qiyaas is adopted to create doubt about it, it remains unassailable.

Another point that seems clear is that the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah have been completely dumbfounded by ‘Umar’s congratulations to Imaam ‘Alee (as) immediately after the declaration. ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab specifically and explicitly stated that Imaam ‘Alee (as) was assuming a NEW status that day. This makes all the acrobatics of the Ahl al-Sunnah on the meaning of the Ghadeer declaration a mere comical relief. No matter what they say, ‘Umar is always refuting them!

Finally, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, specifically identified Imaam ‘Alee (as) as the immediate Walee after him, and the Hadeeth is SaHeeH in the Sunnee books. I have already cited the reference, and Shaykh al-Albaanee’s grading. That puts Hadeeth al-Ghadeer in its proper context. Plus, by emphasizing that he was awlaa to the believers, our noble Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was re-iterating the kind of mawlaa he was to the believers: an absolute master. He then declared Imaam ‘Alee (as) as being the same kind of mawlaa to the believers. I have discussed all these things above. There is no need to repeat them here.

What I want to discuss here, first and foremost, is the instruction given by the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, to the SaHaabah concerning their new mawlaa, Imaam ‘Alee (as). Imaam al-Haakim, one of the most classical Sunnee Hadeethists, records this SaHeeH Hadeeth in his al-Mustadrak, with talkhees of Imaam al-Dhahabee, vol. 3, p. 121, #4556:

[size=14pt]أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو أَحْمَدَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الشَّيْبَانِيُّ مِنْ أَصْلِ كِتَابِهِ، ثنا عَلِيُّ بْنُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ الرَّازِيُّ بِمِصْرَ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ، ثنا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَعْلَى، ثنا بَسَّامٌ الصَّيْرَفِيُّ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو الْفُقَيْمِيِّ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ ثَعْلَبَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:

مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ عَلِيًّا فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى عَلِيًّا فَقَدْ عَصَانِي
[/size]
Narrated Aboo Dharr, may Allaah be pleased with him:

Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: “Whosoever obeys me has obeyed Allaah, and whosoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allaah. Whosoever obeys ‘Alee has obeyed me, and whosoever disobeys ‘Alee has disobeyed me.”

Both Imaam al-Haakim and Imaam al-Dhahabee declared the Hadeeth to be SaHeeH.

Here, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was telling ALL the SaHaabah, what their duties are to their new mawlaa, Imaam ‘Alee (as). They MUST obey him in all circumstances. Whosoever disobeys Imaam ‘Alee (as) in any circumstance has disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger.

So, we ask the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah: how can you say Imaam ‘Alee (as) was only the buddy of the believers when it was obligatory upon them to obey him? Is it obligatory upon us to obey our buddies? Does this not further establish that Imaam ‘Alee (as) is our mawlaa and the mawlaa of the SaHaabah primarily in the sense of absolute master?

Whoever wants the Truth must have seen it already.

This takes me to the next issue (although a diversion created by one of the Sunnee brothers): ‘Aaishah. Was Imaam ‘Alee (as) her mawlaa too? If she was a believer, then yes! Apparently, every Sunnee would agree that she was a believer. That means that obedience to Imaam ‘Alee (as) was obligatory upon her, as it was upon Aboo Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan.

There is no doubt that ‘Aaishah led an armed rebellion against Imaam ‘Alee (as) and murdered thousands of his followers. ‘Aaishah wanted to topple her own mawlaa!

So, the question is: did Aaishah disobey Imaam ‘Alee (as) or not? The answer is very obvious: she disobeyed Imaam ‘Alee (as). Fine! That means, she thereby disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger. No sensible person can deny that!

Apart from disobeying her mawlaa (Imaam ‘Alee), her Prophet (MuHammad) and her God (Allaah), ‘Aaishah was also guilty of murdering thousands of the defenders of her mawlaa. She murdered thousands of the believers.

My question is: is she above the Qur’aan or below it? Do the verses of the Qur’aan apply to her too or is she above the law?

If she is not above the law, then the verses of the Qur’aan apply to her too! I will only cite a verse relevant to her and leave the conclusion to the readers:

[size=14pt]وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا [/size]

[Yusufali 4:93] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.

In the final analysis, I want to point out that it was the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, who first CURSED ‘Aaishah and Mu’aawiyah!! Shaykh al-Albaanee in his Zilaal al-Jannah, vol. 2, p. 338 states:
[size=14pt]
من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه و عاد من عاداه

و هو حديث صحيح غايةً[/size]

“Whomsoever I am his mawlaa, ‘Alee is his mawlaa. O Allaah! Befriend whoever is his friend, and be the enemy of whosoever is his enemy.”

It is an absolutely SaHeeH Hadeeth.

There is no doubt that both ‘Aaishah and Mu’aawiyah were enemies of Imaam ‘Alee (as) who waged a bloody civil war against his government. Due to the above CURSE of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, they both were ENEMIES of Allaah. This fact cannot be denied by any sane brain.

I will end my post with this beautiful verse from the Qur’aan:

[size=14pt]مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِلَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ [/size]

[Yusufali 2:98] Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

As-Salaam ‘alaykum everyone,

It seems I have to correct something first. Brother LagosShia is NOT the same person as KwaraShia. I am KwaraShia. Just check the writing style of KwaraShia and compare it with mine here.

That said, let me now draw my attention to the claim of some people here. I presented a SaHeeH Sunnee Hadeeth which shows ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab congratulating Imaam ‘Alee (as) after the Ghadeer declaration, and suggesting that the noble Imaam was NOT the mawlaa of the believers before that day. Since Imaam ‘Alee (as) was a friend and helper of the believers before Ghadeer Khumm, it follows logically that the word could not have meant “friend” or “helper”. We are left with only one more meaning: master! I saw someone here twisting ‘Umar’s words! Laa Hawla wa laa kuwwata illaa billaah! That shows the extent to which people can descend simply to obscure the truth.

Worse still, that fellow attributed his distortion to al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer. But, this is really what al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer records in his al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol. 7, p. 350:

[size=14pt]وقال عبد الرزاق: أنا معمر عن علي بن زيد بن جدعان، عن عدي بن ثابت، عن البراء بن عازب قال: خرجنا مع رسول الله حتى نزلنا غدير خم بعث مناديا ينادي، فلما اجتمعا قال: " ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله ! قال: ألست أولى بكم من أمهاتكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله قال: ألست أولى بكم من آبائكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله ! قال: ألست ألست ألست؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله قال: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه " فقال عمر بن الخطاب: هنيئا لك يا ابن أبي طالب أصبحت اليوم ولي كل مؤمن
.
وكذا رواه ابن ماجة من حديث حماد بن سلمة عن علي بن زيد وأبي هارون العبدي عن عدي بن ثابت عن البراء به. وهكذا رواه موسى بن عثمان الحضرمي عن أبي إسحاق عن البراء به. وقد روي هذا الحديث عن سعد وطلحة بن عبيد الله وجابر بن عبد الله وله طرق عنه وأبي سعيد الخدري وحبشي بن جنادة وجرير بن عبد الله وعمر بن الخطاب وأبي هريرة.[/size]

Although Ibn Katheer too doctored the wording of Ibn Majah (from whom he allegedly copied this Hadeeth) and replaced mawlaa with walee, the meaning remains the same. The red part above means:

‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab said: “Congratulations to you O son of Aboo Taalib! TODAY, you have become the Walee of all believers.”

Ibn Katheer goes ahead to show that the following SaHaabah have narrated this particular incident:

1. Al-Baraa
2. Sa’d
3. TalHa bin ‘Ubayd Allaah
4. Jaabir bin ‘Abd Allaah
5. Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree
6. Habashee bin Junaadah
7. Jareer bin ‘Abd Allaah
8. ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab
9. Aboo Hurayrah

This confirms the tawaatur of that narration, and leaves any doubters with no option.

Imaam al-Suyutee exposes Ibn Katheer’s distortion in his al-Haawee, vol. 1, p. 78:

[size=14pt]وأخرج أحمد، وابن ماجه عن البراء بن عازب قال: (كنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم في سفر فنزلنا بغدير خم فنودي فينا الصلاة جامعة فصلى الظهر وأخذ بيد علي فقال, فلقيه عمر بعد ذلك فقال له: (هنيئاً لك يا ابن أبي طالب أصبحت وأمسيت مولى كل مؤمن ومؤمنة([/size]

AHmad and Ibn Majah narrated that al-Baraa bin ‘Aazib said: “…. ’Umar met ‘Alee after it (the declaration) and said to him: ‘Congratulations to you O son of Aboo Taalib! You have become the mawlaa of all male and female believers.”

In other words, once again, Imaam ‘Alee (as) was NOT the mawlaa of the believers BEFORE Ghadeer Khumm. He only became their mawlaa on that day! If the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was only talking about friendship, then ‘Umar’s words have no meaning! Imaam ‘Alee (as) did not become the friend of the believers on that day! Every single believer is a friend and helper of the others.

Moreover, why did ‘Umar need to congratulate Imaam ‘Alee (as) on something that he already was?! Why did the Prophet raise the hands of the Imaam (as) only to say “he is your buddy”??! Raising the hand, in all cultures, is a nomination. If you are a leader, and you raise the hand of someone in front of the people, it is a nomination. Why would the Prophet seek to confuse people by doing that, when he only intended to say “he is your buddy”?

The final point here is in the words of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family:
[size=14pt]
ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم[/size]

Am I not more entitled (awlaa) to you than yourselves?

In Arabic, the word mawlaa has a number of meanings: master, friend, helper, freed slave, slave-owner, etc. However, whenever the word mawlaa means master, it is always derived from the root awlaa. Whosoever is awlaa is also the mawlaa, and this means master.

By saying the words above, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was reminding the believers that he was their mawlaa, in the sense of absolute master. Imaam al-Shawkaanee in his FatH al-Qadeer, vol. 4, p. 261, explains what mawlaa in the sense of awlaa means:
[size=14pt]
يجب عليهم أن يطيعوه فوق طاعتهم لأنفسهم[/size]

It becomes obligatory upon them to obey him above their own wishes.

This is the explanation of the mufassiroon of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah, under Qur’aan 33:6.

Therefore, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, is the mawlaa of the believers only in the sense of an absolute master. To avoid any confusion on the meaning of mawlaa in his words, this was why he asked the above question, meaning: Am I not your mawlaa in the sense of absolute master? They said: Yes. Then he says: Whomsoever I am his mawlaa, this ‘Alee is his mawlaa!

Do we need anything more? Do these people think the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, asked that question just for fun?

Yes, Imaam ‘Alee (as) became the mawlaa of the believers during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. This confirms the Hadeeth which says that Imaam ‘Alee (as) was of the same rank to our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was Prophet Haaroon (as) was to Prophet Moosaa (as). Prophet Haaroon (as) was the master of the Banoo Israaeel too along with Prophet Moosaa (as). However, as long as Prophet Moosaa (as) was around, his (Haaroon’s) authority becomes suspended. When Moosaa (as) went to meet his Lord, Prophet Haaroon (as) became his Khaleefah. Yes, there can be two mawlaas for the believers at a time. But the authority of one of them will hang as long as the most senior mawlaa is still around or alive.

Finally, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, further explained the meaning of his words in Hadeeth al-Ghadeer. Imaam al-Tayaalisee in his Musnad, vol. 1, p. 360, # 2752 records this SaHeeH Hadeeth:

[size=14pt]حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي بَلْجٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ (ص) قَالَ لِعَلِيٍّ: أَنْتَ وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ بَعْدِي.[/size]

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbaas:

Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said to ‘Alee: “You are the Walee of all believers after me.”

Shaykh al-Albaanee grades the Hadeeth as SaHeeH in his al-SaHeeHah, vol. 5, p. 222, # 2223. To get the correct meaning of Walee, let us cite Ibn Katheer. Ibn Katheer records in al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol. 6, p. 301 that when Aboo Bakr became the caliph, he said:

[size=14pt]لَمَّا وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ، خَطَبَ النَّاسُ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ، أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَقَدْ وُلِّيتُكُمْ وَلَسْتُ بِخَيْرِكُمْ . وهذا إسناد صحيح.[/size]

When Aboo Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, became the Walee, he delivered a sermon. After praising Allaah, he said: “Now then, O people! I have been made your Walee while I am not the best of you.” This chain is SaHeeH.

This settles the matter completely.

Is Hadeeth al-Ghadeer a lie? Apparently, whosoever says so is either ignorant or dishonest. It is not just SaHeeH. It is also mutawaati[/i]r. A Pakistani Sunnee scholar wrote an entire book on it, where he detailed 53 SaHeeH reports of the incident in the Sunnee books (in the Introduction, he states that he is compiling only SaHeeH Hadeeths). Of course, that Pakistani scholar is a verified and multiply certified Hadeeth expert (read about him on Wikipedia or elsewhere). This is an online link to that book: The Ghadir Declaration (http://www.minhajbooks.com/english/bookid/248/The-Ghadir-Declaration-by-Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri.html). Anyone who wishes to verify the authenticity and [i]tawaatur of that Hadeeth can see this detailed research (http://www.alalbany.net/books_view.php?id=5448&search=%E3%E4%20%DF%E4%CA%20%E3%E6%E1%C7%E5&book=sahiha) by Shaykh NaaSir al-Deen al-Albaanee, who declared SEVERAL chains of the Hadeeth to be SaHeeH, and declared the Hadeeth itself to be both SaHeeH and mutawaatir.

This is the 5th Hadeeth, as cited and translated by that Pakistani scholar, Shaykh al-Islaam Prof. Dr. MuHammad Taahir al-Qadree:

[size=14pt][/size]
“It is narrated by Barā’ bin ‘Āzib (RA): We were on a journey with Allāh’s Messenger (SAW). (On the way) we stayed at Ghadīr Khum. There it was announced that the prayer was about to be offered. The space under two trees was cleaned for Allāh’s Messenger (SAW). Then he offered the zuhr (noon) prayer, and, holding ‘Alī’s hand, he said: Don’t you know that I am even nearer than the lives of the believers? They said: Why not! He said: Don’t you know that I am even nearer than the life of every believer? They said: Why not! The narrator says that he said while holding ‘Alī’s hand: One who has me as his master has ‘Alī as his master. O Allāh! Befriend the one who befriends him (‘Alī) and be the enemy of one who is his enemy. The narrator says that after this ‘Umar (bin al-Khattāb (RA)) met ‘Alī (RA) and said to him: O Ibn Abī Tālib! Congratulations, you have become the master of every male and female believer, morning and evening (for ever).”

About this particular Hadeeth, Mulla ‘Alee al-Qaaree, in his Mirqaat, vol. 11, p. 78 states:

[size=14pt]رواه أحمد أي في مسنده، وأقل مرتبته أن يكون حسنا فلا التفات لمن قدح في ثبوت هذا الحديث.[/size]

Ahmad recorded it in his Musnad. The least grading it has is Hasan. There is no excuse for anyone who criticizes the authenticity of this Hadeeth.

Can any Sunnee venture to explain WHY ‘Umar CONGRATULATED Imaam ‘Alee, peace be upon him?

Let’s go with the theory that Imaam ‘Alee was only being declared the buddy of the believers as many Sunnee scholars claim. What is worth congratulation there? Is every Muslim not already a brother and buddy of the other? Moreover, note ‘Umar’s words (… you have become …). That explains why he congratulated Imaam ‘Alee, peace be upon him: he had BECOME the mawlaa of all believers. In other words, he was NOT a mawlaa of the believers in the sense that ‘Umar understood it BEFORE the Day of Ghadeer.

The Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah on this forum are advised to correct ‘Umar here!

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

At Ghadir Khumm, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) declared his final will to his entire Ummah. This will is binding upon the entire Ummah, including the Sahabah, till eternity. It gives direction to the Ummah after him.

Sayyid Hasan al-Saqqaf has stated in his Sahih Sifat Salat al-Nabi 29:
[size=14pt]
ففي سنن الترمذي : 5/663 برقم : 3788 قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله : إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدي أحدهما أعظم من الآخر ، كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي ، ولن يفترقا حتى يردا عليّ الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما
[/size]
And in Sunan al-Tirmidhi 5/663 No. 3788, it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) said: I am leaving among you that which if you hold onto you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other. It is the Book of Allah, a rope stretching from the heaven to the earth. The other is my itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt. The two will never be separated until they reach me at the Pond. Watch closely how you treat them both after me.

Sayyid al-Saqqaf states:

وهو صحيح
And it is sahih.

Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani, in his Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi 3/542 No. 3786 also records:
[size=14pt]
: إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدي أحدهما أعظم من الآخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما
[/size]
I am leaving among you that which if you hold firmly onto you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other, and it is the Book of Allah, a rope reaching from the heaven to the earth and the other is my Itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt. The two will never separate until they meet me at the Pond (of Kawthar). Watch how you treat them after me.

Al-Albani says:

[size=14pt]صحيح[/size]

It is sahih.

There is also a separate hadith that seems to explain the one above:

[size=14pt]إني تارك فيكم خليفتين ، كتاب الله حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي ، وأنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا عليّ الحوض
[/size]
I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of Allah, a rope reaching from the heaven to the earth and my Itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt. The two will never separate until they meet me at the Pond.
Sahih Jami' al-Saghir 1/842 No. 2457

Al-Albani once again says:

[size=14pt]صحيح[/size]

It is sahih.

In spite that this hadith is very clear about the fact that:

1. Both the Qur'an and the Ahl al-Bayt (as) are to be followed after the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)
2. As long as the Qur'an exists, there is an Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to be its companion, both of whom MUST be followed together

Sunnis nonetheless claim that the hadith only commands us to love the Ahl al-Bayt (as) and NOT to follow them!!!

Source: http://wilayat.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=408:hadith-thaqalayn-at-arafat-and-at-ghadir&catid=64:featured-articles&Itemid=54