| 1. Introduction
We have gathered[59] here
tonight in memory of the person who has given us our
identity as "Shi'a Muslims". We take pride in calling
ourselves "Shi'as of 'Ali" - the Partisans or Followers
of 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib (a.s.).
Tonight I am going to talk on the caliphate of Imam
'Ali bin Abi Tãlib because of questions asked by many
people about the recent controversy on "the explicit
appointment" of the Imam to the position of caliphate
versus "the implicit appointment". Not only adults, but
also youths have approached me with this question; and
it is my duty to ensure that the beliefs of our youths
in the imamate and caliphate of Amir al-Mu'minín stays
firm without any shadow of doubt.
The controversy started regarding the statement of a
learned Shí'a scholar published in the Bio Ethics
Encyclopaedia under the entry of "Islam" in which
he writes:
"Mohammad died in 632 C.E., having brought the
whole of Arabia under the Medina government. However,
he had left no explicit instructions regarding
succession to his religious-political authority."[60]
Initially, when I was given a copy of the article, I
did not think much of it because I realized that it was
a paper written for a very wide audience. (Although
ideally the issue of succession should not have been
mentioned in that article at all, its deletion would not
have harmed the main body of the article.) However, the
response of the learned writer to the questions sent to
him via internet by some Shí'as from the U.K. became a
matter of concern for me. He responded as follows:
"On the question whether there was no EXPLICIT
instruction regarding succession to the Prophet's
'religious-political authority' let it be clear that
the statement while asserting that there were no
EXPLICIT (that is, distinctly expressed, clearly
stated, not merely implied) instruction in the matter
of succession to the 'Prophet's religious-political
authority,' it asserts by implication that there was
an IMPLICIT (that is, necessarily involved though not
plainly expressed) direction in the matter. This
implicit direction of the Prophet was expressed on
several occasions in his lifetime, including finally
at al-Ghadir.
"It was also because of this absence of explicit
statement on these occasions that Imam 'Ali never used
any of these occasions, including al-Ghadir, to put
forward his candidacy as the only rightful successor
of the Prophet."[61]
After the 21st of Ramadhan 1418, the learned scholar
issued another statement in which he reaffirmed his
belief in the absence of the explicit appointment of
Imam 'Ali by writing:
"The foundation of our faith, that is the Shi'a
faith, is based on this IMPLICIT sense. Historically
(the only position that can be taken in the article
here) the source of dissension in the early community
was the absence of EXPLICIT directions regarding the
succession in the community."
"The statement of the wilaya (man kuntu mawla[hu]
fa hadha 'Aliyyun mawla[hu]), which is the
documentation for the Shí'a acclamation in support of
the Imamate of Imam 'Ali, is regarded as an implicit
rather than explicit statement of the Prophet
regarding the 'succession of his comprehensive
authority.' The reason is that the word mawla in
Arabic is ambiguous as far as the 'succession' itself
is concerned."[62]
2. The Explicit vs Implicit
First let us see whether or not this division of
appointment of caliphate into "implicit" and "explicit"
has any historical precedence in the history of Islamic
theology. For the sake of time restraint, let me just
state the following historical facts:
1. On the issue of caliphate, the Muslims have
different views. The Sunni Muslims do not believe
that the Prophet appointed anyone as his successor,
neither explicitly nor implicitly; and that it was left
for the community to choose whomsoever they wanted. The
Shi'as, on the other hand, believe that the
Prophet appointed 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib as the caliph and
successor after him.
2. All the Shi'a sects (i.e., the Imamiyya/Ithnã-'Ashariyya
and both the existing Ismã'iliyya groups: the Bohras and
the Agha Khanis) believe that the Prophet of Islam
explicitly appointed Imam 'Ali on many occasions as his
caliph and successor.
3. The Zaydiyya sect has a belief different
from the Sunnis as well as the Shi'as. Although they
believe that 'Ali was the best and the most qualified
for caliphate, they still accept Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn
al-Khattãb as the first and the second successors of the
Prophet respectfully; but they do not accept 'Uthmãn bin
'Affãn as the third caliph.
4. Historically speaking, it is the Jãrûdiyya
sub-sect of the Zaydiyya that believed that the Prophet
had appointed Imam 'Ali not by naming him but by just
describing his qualities: "nassa bi 'l-wasf dûna 't-tasmiyya
- he [the Prophet] appointed by the description without
naming [the person]."[63]
It is from this belief that the nass (the
directive for appointment) is divided into "an-nass
al-jali-the clear/explicit directive" and "an-nass
al-khafi-the hidden/implicit directive".
But the Shi'a Imãmiyya Ithnã-'Ashariyya have
never subscribed to the idea that "the foundation of our
faith is based on this implicit sense." They have
believed all along that the Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.) on
several occasions, very clearly and very openly
appointed 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib as his successor, caliph
and Imam of the Muslims after him.[64]
Only when the Shi'a Imãmiyya theologians were in debate
against their opponents (including the Zaydiyya), they
used the term "an-nass al-jali" on the principle
of dealing with the opponent on his own terms.[65]
So historically speaking, no Shi'a Imamiyya
theologian has treaded exclusively the path of implicit
or implied appointment of Amiru 'l-Mu'minín 'Ali bin Abi
Tãlib (a.s.) as "the foundation of our faith" and none
of them have taken the hadíth of Ghadír as an implicit
appointment.
5. Why did the Zaydiyya insist on the
implicitness of the appointment of 'Ali to caliphate?
Since some of their sub-sects had accepted the caliphate
of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, believing in the explicit
statements of the Prophet appointing 'Ali would portray
those two caliphs in a very negative light-it would mean
that they knowingly opposed the explicit statements of
the Prophet! So in order to safeguard the prestige of
the first two caliphs, the appointment of 'Ali was
shrouded in ambiguity by saying that it was not explicit
but only implied. And since it was not explicit, the
caliphs could not be blamed for usurping the caliphate
from Amiru 'l-Mu'minín 'Ali!
This shows the serious implications of believing that
the appointment of 'Ali was only implicit; it would mean
that the blame of whatever happened after the Prophet's
death on the issue of succession is to be placed on the
Prophet himself, and not on the caliphs. It would mean
that the first two caliphs are not to be blamed for
usurping the caliphate from Imam 'Ali because they were
doing what they thought, in the absence of any explicit
instruction, was the best for Islam.
So when the objections of the Shí'a community against
the learned scholar increased, in the last days of
Ramadhãn 1418, he issued a general circular addressed to
the Shí'as via the Internet:
"I am taking this opportunity to state in the most
ABSOLUTE terms that not only do I believe in the
unequivocal authenticity of the event of al-Ghadir
which took place on the 18th of Dhul-Hijja,
11AH/632 CE; I believe that the statement by the
Prophet 'Everyone whose master I am, also has 'Ali as
a master,' to be the explicit designation of the Imam
'Ali to the office of the Leadership of the Muslim
Community, as upheld by the Twelver Shí'a faith."[66]
3. The First Explicit Appointment
Islam began when the Prophet became 40 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 Allãh revealed the verse
"And warn thy nearest relations." (26:214)
When this verse was revealed, the Prophet organized a
feast which is known as "the Feast of the Clan" (da'wat
dhi 'l-'ashíra). This is the first time that the
Prophet openly and publicly called the relations to
accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of Allãh. It is
also the same feast in which the Prophet declared 'Ali
bin Abi Tãlib very openly, very clearly, and very
explicitly as his successor and caliph. I will just
summarize what the Prophet said:
O Sons of 'Abdu 'l-Muttalib! By Allãh, 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 (akhí),
my successor (wasiyyí) and my caliph (khalifatí)?
The Prophet (s.a.w.) used the words "my brother, my
successor, my caliph". This is as explicit as it can get
in the very first call to Islam! No one answered except
'Ali bin Abi Tãlib who was only around fifteen years old
at that time. The Prophet called 'Ali closer to himself,
patted his neck, and said:
"Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my
caliph amongst you. Therefore, listen to him and
obey."[67]
This is very explicit because the audience understand
the appointment of 'Ali very clearly. Some of them,
including Abu Lahab, even joked with Abu Tãlib that your
nephew, Mohammad, has ordered you to listen to and obey
your own son! At the least, this shows that the
appointment was clear and explicit, not just implied.
The greatest proof of the explicit nature of this
appointment at the very early stage of Prophet
Mohammad's mission is the attempt by Sunni writers to
conceal the words used by the Prophet. For example, the
famous Muslim historian, Ibn Jarír at-Tabari (d. 310
AH), has recorded this incident with the crucial words
intact in his Ta'ríkhu 'l-Umam wa 'l-Mulûk. The
1879 edition of his Ta'ríkh, published in Leiden
(Netherlands) has the words: "...this is my brother, my
successor and my caliph..." But when it came to at-Tabari's
Tafsír, while commenting on the verse 26:214, at-Tabari
himself or the editors have changed the words as
follows: "...this is my brother, and so-and-so..."
All these attempts to delete the whole incident from
the pages of history or change the crucial words "my
successor and my caliph" into "so-and-so" clearly shows
that those terms were very explicit in supporting the
appointment of Imam 'Ali as the successor of the
Prophet. If it had been otherwise, then there was no
need on the part of our opponents to hide or change
these words.
4. Abu Sufyãn Knew But Others Didn't?
Insisting on the implicitness of the appointment of
'Ali safeguards the prestige of the first two caliphs.
Instead of looking for the truth and then judging the
people, they want to twist the truth to safeguard the
positions of the people.
It is difficult to believe that the companions of the
Prophet did not hear him appointing 'Ali on so many
different occasions; and knowing that they were Arabic
speaking Qurayshi, it is unacceptable to think that they
did not clearly understand the appointment. One way of
knowing this is to go to an interesting turn of event
that took place after the Prophet's death.
When 'Ali and the Banu Hãshim were busy in the
funeral rites of the Prophet, a person comes to their
door and offers his help for caliphate. That person was
Abu Sufyãn. Yes, Abu Sufyãn, the archenemy of the
Prophet who fought many battles against Islam and
Muslims, and only surrendered when he could no longer
fight the Muslims. He surrendered just a couple of years
before the Prophet's death.
He comes to 'Ali's house and recites a poem in the
praise of the Prophet's family. Then he said: "O Banu
Hãshim! O Banu 'Abd Manãf! Will you accept that Abu
Fasíl...rules over you? By Allãh! If you wish, I can
fill it [i.e., the city of Medina] with horses and
soldiers."
'Ali bin Abi Tãlib knew that Abu Sufyãn was not
sincere, that he was just trying to take advantage of
the conflict on the issue of succession after the
Prophet. Abu Sufyãn wanted Banu Hãshim and the group of
Abu Bakr/'Umar to fight one another and weaken one
another so that Banu Umayya could take advantage of the
situation and gain its lost supremacy over the Arabs.
And so Imam 'Ali replied: "Go away, O Abu Sufyãn! By
Allãh you do not mean what you are saying! You have
always been deceiving Islam and its people; and we are
busy with [the funeral of] the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.).
And [as for those who are conspiring for caliphate],
each person is responsible for what he does."[68]
It is indeed unbelievable that Abu Sufyãn, with his
background, knew that 'Ali had the right to caliphate
while the other 'great' companions did not know or did
not understand the Prophet clearly.
It seems that Abu Sufyãn further tried to incite 'Ali
to take up arms for his right of caliphate. At that
time, 'Ali responded by saying: "If I speak [for my
right], they say, 'He is hungry for power.' And if I
keep quiet, they say, 'He fears death.' No, not at all;
after all that chaos. By Allãh, this son of Abu Tãlib is
more at ease with death than an infant is at its
mother's breast!"[69]
5. Why Didn't 'Ali Use These Arguments?
Did Imam 'Ali not use the arguments of Da'wat dhi
'l-'Ashira or Ghadír soon after the Prophet's death
because they were just implicit statements? The learned
Shí'a scholar wrote: "It is also because of this absence
of explicit statement on these occasions that Imam 'Ali
never used any of these occasions, including al-Ghadir,
to put forward his candidacy as the only rightful
successor of the Prophet."[70]
This is indeed a novel way of looking at the conflict of
caliphate. The Sunni opponent would just extend this
view a little bit further and say that 'Ali did not use
these arguments because there was no argument at all.
In order to understand why 'Ali did not use the
arguments at that particular time, we have to understand
the circumstances, the opponents, and the consequences
of the actions of Imam 'Ali (a.s.).
The Circumstances:
When the Prophet passed away from this world, there
were different kinds of people among the Muslim
community.
First there was the so-called fifth columnists among
the Muslims who were waiting for a civil war so as to
put an end to Islam and gain power over the Arabs. Abu
Sufyãn and his clan represented this group. They were
neither in Saqifa nor with 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib. The
Qur'ãn also talks about the presence of hypocrites among
the Muslims. (See 9:97.) Then there was Musaylima al-Kadhdhãb
and Sajjah bint al-Harath both claimed prophethood and
had gained some following among the Bedouins.
After surveying the circumstances, what could 'Ali
have done?
Let me give you an example to illustrate the decision
of Imam 'Ali. During the caliphate of 'Umar, there is a
story of an infant who was being claimed by two women as
their baby. The decision was forwarded to Imam 'Ali.
When the Imam found both women insisting on their claim,
he ordered that the infant be cut into two, and each
woman be given one half. What was the reaction of the
real mother and the fake mother? The fake mother decided
to go along with the decision even if it meant cutting
the baby into two halves whereas the real mother
announced her readiness to give up the child.
Islam is the baby in our discussion; the usurpers
would do anything to keep the power even if it meant
endangering the survival of Islam itself. 'Ali, on the
other hand, as the true custodian of Islam, was prepared
to relinquish the power for sake of saving Islam from
total destruction. That is why Imam 'Ali did not resort
to the sword or allow Abu Sufyãn and others to incite
him into armed opposition. He accepted deprivation of
his personal right of caliphate over the destruction of
Islam.
He accepted deprivation but did not stop from
protesting whenever and wherever the chance availed
itself for him. When he was deprived again after 'Umar's
death, he addressed the Consultative Committee who had
chosen 'Uthmãn and said, "You have certainly known that
I am the most rightful of all others for the caliphate.
By Allãh, so long as the affairs of the Muslims remain
intact and there is no oppression in it save on myself,
I shall be quiet..."[71]
The Opponents:
As for the opponents, they were not ready to listen
to any word of reason. When you know that your opponents
are not opposing you because of ignorance, and that they
are ready even to kill you-there is no sense in
mentioning all the proofs right there and then. You may
wonder why I am saying this.
You recall that in the Da'wat dhi 'l-'Ashira, the
Prophet had used three words for Imam 'Ali: "my brother,
my successor, and my caliph." The last two terms were
very crucial for the claim of 'Ali to caliphate. The
first one "my brother" was not that forceful or
threatening to the opponents. That is why even when the
Sunni writers started concealing the hadith of the
Prophet, they left the words "my brother" intact but
they replaced the words "my successor, my caliph" with
the words "so-and-so".
Now to understand the attitude and obstinacy of the
opponents of 'Ali, let us see just one part of the
heated exchange of words between Imam 'Ali (a.s.) and 'Umar
ibn al-Khattãb during those early days of caliphate.
I will just summarize what happened before the actual
conversation: After 'Umar and his group imposed Abu Bakr
over the Ansãr (the inhabitants of Medina) at Saqifa,
they came to the Prophet's Mosque and declared that Abu
Bakr has been chosen as the caliph so all should come
and pledge allegiance to him. Then they were informed
that 'Ali, other members of Banu Hãshim and some
prominent companions of the Prophet had gathered in the
house of Fãtima, refusing to pledge allegiance to Abu
Bakr. Abu Bakr sent messages but nobody came to pledge
allegiance (bay'at). Then 'Umar came with his
people and even put firewood at the door to burn the
house down if no one came out! They finally forced the
door open, injuring Fãtima in the process, and
forcefully brought all people to the Mosque to pledge
allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Imam 'Ali was also arrested and brought to the
Mosque. There was an exchange of words between the Imam
and Abu Bakr in which the Imam used only the argument
used by the Quraysh (Meccans) against the Ansãr. The
Quraysh had gained the upper hand over the Ansãr by
saying that the Prophet was from their tribe, therefore,
they have more right to the caliphate; Imam 'Ali
extended that line of argument and said that we are from
the family of the Prophet, therefore, we have more right
to the caliphate than you.[72]
Ibn Qutayba ad-Dinwari, a Sunni historian of
caliphate, continues the narration:
They said to 'Ali: "Pledge allegiance!"
'Ali said: "If I do not do, then what?"
They said: "Then, by Allãh besides whom there
is no god, we shall chop off your neck!"
'Ali said: "Then you would be killing a servant
of Allãh and the brother of His
Messenger!"
'Umar said: "As for being a servant of Allãh, yes;
as for being the brother of His Messenger, no![73]
What does this statement of 'Umar say? Out of the
three things that the Prophet had mentioned about Imam
'Ali, the least threatening was "my brother," but during
those days, 'Umar was not even prepared to accept 'Ali
as "the brother of the Prophet"! Now you tell me
why 'Ali did not say, "I am also the Prophet's successor
and caliph"?
Ibn Qutaybah goes on with his narration: While this
conversation between Imam 'Ali and 'Umar was going on,
"Abu Bakr was silent, not saying anything. Then 'Umar
turned to him and said, 'Why don't you issue your order
concerning him?' Abu Bakr said, 'I do not wish to impose
anything on him as long as Fãtima is by his side.'"
Yes, it was Fãtima who protected the life of 'Ali
during those bleak days of the Muslim history. 'Ali
leaves the oppressive atmosphere, goes to the Prophet's
grave and complains by addressing the Prophet: "O son of
my mother! The people oppressed me and had almost killed
me." These are the same words Hãrun used to complain
about the Israelites when Prophet Musa came back with
the Tawrãt. (See 7:150) Remember that the Prophet of
Islam himself had said, "O 'Ali, you are to me like
Hãrun was to Musa; except that there is no prophet after
me."[74]
6. Didn't 'Ali Ever Use These Arguments?
'Ali did not use the arguments during the early days
of caliphate for two reasons: 1. for the sake of Islam's
well-being and survival; 2. because of the obstinacy of
his opponents. It had nothing to do with the implicit
vs. explicit nature of appointment. The truth is that
whenever the opportunity availed itself, Imam 'Ali
always talked about his right to the caliphate of the
Prophet.
No one can blame 'Ali for making the claim or
presenting its proof at a later date. He himself said,
"No person is to be blamed for delay in (securing) his
own right but the blame lies on him who takes what he is
not entitled to."[75]
In the year 35 AH, while the Imam was in Kufa, he
heard that some people doubted his claim of precedence
over the previous three caliphs. Therefore, he came to
the gathering at the mosque and implored the
eyewitnesses of the event of Ghadir Khumm to verify the
truth of the Prophet's declaration about his being "the
mawla" (master, leader, lord) of those whose
master was the Prophet himself. In most sources, we have
the names of twenty four companions of the Prophet who
testified to the truth of Imam 'Ali's claim. Other
sources like Musnad of Ibn Hanbal and Majma'u
'z-Zawã'id of al-Haythami put that number at thirty.[76]
One should bear in mind that this incident took place
25 years after the event of Ghadir Khumm, and during
that period hundreds of eyewitnesses had died naturally
or in the battles fought during that time. Add to this
the fact that this incident took place in Kufa which was
far from Medina, the center of the companions.
* * *
[59] This section is
based on the notes of two lectures in memory of Imam
'Ali bin Abí Tãlib (a.s.) given at Ja'fari Islamic
Centre, Toronto, on the eve of 19th and 21st Ramadhãn,
1418 (1998).
[60] Abdulaziz
Sachedina, "Islam," The Bio Ethics Encyclopaedia, vol. 3
(1995) p. 1289.
[61] See the response
of Dr. Sachedina widely distributed on the inter-net
among the Shi'as.
[62] See Sachedina's
circular addressed to "All the Followers of the
Ahlul-Bayt".
[63] See 'Allãma al-Hilli,
Manãhiju 'l-Yaqín, ed. M.R. al-Ansãri (Qum, 1416) p.
306; al-Mufíd, Awã'ilu 'l-Maqãlãt, p. 41-42. After 'Ali,
the Zaydiyya believe in Hasan and Husayn, and then in
Zayd bin 'Ali. After Zayd, any descendant of 'Ali and
Fãtima who does jihãd against the tyrants, is pious and
is learned in religion can become their Imam.
[64] See an-Nawbakhti
(circ. 3rd century AH), Firaqu 'sh-Shí'a (Beirut, 1984)
p. 19. This book is actually a summarized version of
Maqãlãtu 'l-Imãmiyya of Sa'd bin 'Abdullãh al-Ash'ari
al-Qummi and has been erroneously attributed to an-Nawbakhti.
See S.M. Riza al-Husayni al-Jalãli, "'Firaqu 'sh-Shí'a'
aw 'Maqãlãtu 'l-Imãmiyya' li 'n-Nawbakhti am li 'l-'Ashari?"
in the first issue of Turãthunã, (Qum: Mu'assasa Ãli 'l-Bayt,
1405) pp. 29-49.
[65] See, for example,
one of the most famous books of Shi'a theology, Kashfu
'l-Murãd, the commentary (sharh) of 'Allãmah al-Hilli on
Muhaqqiq at-Tusi's Tajridu 'l-I'tiqãdãt, tr. Abu 'l-Hasan
Sha'rãni (Tehran: Islamiyya, n.d.) p. 516-518. In Usûlu
'l-Fiqh, the term "an-nass" means a statement whose
meaning is very clear and specific. In this sense, an-nass,
by definition, cannot be implicit or ambiguous, and so
it cannot be divided into jali and khafi.
[66] Issued in late
Ramadhãn or early Shawwãl 1418 on the internet.
[67] For more on this
event, see the chapter, "Self-Censorship in Muslim
History" above.
[68] Al-Mufíd, al-Irshãd,
p. 190; al-Ya'qûbi, at-Ta'ríkh, vol. 2 (Beirut: Dar
Sadir) p. 126; Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkiratu Khawãssi
'l-Umma, p. 121; Ibn 'Abdi Rabbih, al-'Iqdu 'l-Faríd,
vol. 4 (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, 1983) p. 257;
al-Qadi 'Abdu 'l-Jabbãr, al-Mughni fi 't-Tawhíd wa 'l-'Adl,
vol. 2 (Cairo: Dar al-Misriyya li 't-Ta'lif) p. 121; Ibn
Abi 'l-Hadíd, Sharh Nahji 'l-Balãgha, vol. 6 (Cairo: Dar
Ihya Kutubi 'l-'Arabiya, 1959) p. 17.
[69] See Nahju 'l-Balãgha,
sermon no. 5.
[70] See the quotation
in the first part of this chapter.
[71] Nahju 'l-Balãgha,
sermon # 74; see also at-Tabari in his Ta'ríkh and Ibn
al-Athír in his al-Kãmil in the events of 23 AH; al-Azhari,
Tahzibu 'l-Lugha, vol. 1 (Cairo edition) p. 341.
[72] What I have
written above cannot even be considered as a summary of
the events of Saqifa and its aftermath. For details of
the events in English, based on the earliest sources of
Muslim history, see Rizvi, Imãmate, pp. 113-126; al-'Askari,
S. Murtaza, 'Abdu'l-lãh ibn Sabã' and Other Myths
(Tehran: Wofis, 1984) pp. 69-95; Jafri, The Origin &
Early Development, pp. 27-53.
[73] For the
conversation mentioned here, see Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dinwari,
al-Imãmah wa 's-Siyãsah, part 1 (Cairo: al-Halabi
Publications, n.d.) p. 20. Ibn Qutaybah's own words are
as follows:
[74] Imam al-Bukhãri
has quoted this in two places in his Sahíh, once in a
brief form (without "except there is no prophet after
me") and then in full. See Sahíh, vol. 5, Arabic with
English translation by M. Mohsin Khan (Beirut: Dar al-'Arabiyya,
n.d.) p. 47, 492-493.
[75] Nahju 'l-Balãgha,
saying # 166.
[76] This incident of
Kufa has been narrated by four companions of the Prophet
and fourteen of their disciples, and has been recorded
in most books of history and tradition. See al-Amini,
al-Ghadír, vol. 1 (Tehran: Mu'assatu 'l-Muwahidi, 1976)
pp. 166-186.
[Also see section on
Reminders by Imam 'Ali [a] in Ghadir Khumm:
Appointment of Imam 'Ali in the Qur'an, Hadith,
History] |