The view that the Messenger (saw) designated a specific person to be the Khalifah after him contradicts the Shari’ah texts. And the statement that the Messenger (saw) nominated certain persons to be Khulafaa after him until the Day of Judgement is even more contradictory to the Islamic texts.

As for invalidating (the opinion) that the Messenger (saw) nominated the Khilafah for someone after him, this is apparent in numerous ways:

First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since nominating a person means informing the Muslims as to who will be the Khalifah over them. Hence the Khalifah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khalifah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can it be said that the pledge is the pledge of obedience to the Khalifah since the Shar’a has enunciated the obedience to the Khalifah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in many other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is about giving leadership to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger (saw) nominating a specific person to be Khalifah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came in a general manner (‘aam) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are:

And

The opinion that the Messenger (saw) designated a specific person to become Khalifah after him contradicts and invalidates the generality and unrestricted nature of the pledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that this means that the ba’yah is the very way of appointing the Khalifah while the appointment of the Khalifah is separate to the ba’yah, this is why the Khalifah is appointed first & then the ba’yah is given to him; one should not say this because the ba’yah is the method of appointing the Khalifah and this does not mean that it is exactly the same as his appointment. Nor should one say that it is compulsory to first appoint the Khalifah and acknowledge his appointment before giving him the ba’yah as this would mean that there is another method for appointing the Khalifah such that the ba’yah is merely for his obedience, whereas the ahadith about the ba’yah all indicate that it is the method to appoint the Khalifah and there is no other way. Consider his (saw) statement:

It is quite explicit in meaning that whoever dies without appointing his Imam via the pledge and it does not mean in any way whoever dies without obeying an Imam. This indicates that in this hadith the Prophet means the method of appointing the Khalifah and does not mean mere obedience. Also consider his (saw) statement:

This is explicit that if two Khalifahs are appointed, kill the later of them. Likewise all ahadith of the Prophet are explicit that it is the method of appointing the Khalifah. The ahadith of the Prophet are explicit in not meaning mere obedience or unrestricted (mutlaq) obedience; rather, they mean following the one appointed as the Khalifah with their meaning that this is the method of appointing the Khalifah. Further, there is not even one authenticated hadith, whether in narration or meaning, which demonstrates a method of appointing the Khalifah other than the ba’yah.

Second: Ahadith have been narrated from the Messenger (saw) indicating that there will be disputes and contentions among people about the Khilafah and competition over it. If there was a text from the Messenger (saw) concerning the appointment of a (specific) person, there would not arise a dispute in the presence of that text or the Messenger (saw) would state that people would dispute with that person. Whereas the texts came saying that people would dispute between themselves and it also clarified the method to resolve this dispute and settle the issue of the Khilafah. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Wahab bin Baqiyyat al-Wasiti narrated to me that Khalid bin Abdullah al-Juzairi told us from Abu Nadhra from Abu Saeed al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Muslim also said in his Saheeh: Zuhayr bin Harb and Ishaq bin Ibrahim narrated to me, with Ishaq saying we were informed and Zuhayr said it was narrated to us by Jareer, from Al-‘Amash from Zaid bin Wahhab from Abdurrahman bin Abdurrabb al-Ka’aba who said: I entered the mosque and Abdullah bin ‘Amru bin al-‘Aas was seated in the shade of the Ka’aba with people gathered around him. So I joined them and sat with him. He said: We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) in a voyage and we stopped at an encampment when an announcer (mu’adhin) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) announced the collective prayer. So we all gathered before the Messenger of Allah (saw) who said:

Muslim also narrated in his Saheeh: Muhammad bin Bashar narrated to us that Muhammad bin Ja’far narrated to us that Shu’ba narrated to us from Furrat al-Qazzaz from Abu Hazm who said: I remained with Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him narrate from the Prophet (saw) who said:

Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Uthman bin Abu Shayba narrated to us that Yunus bin Abu Ya’fur narrated to them from his father from Arfaja who said he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying:

This means that the Khilafah is the right of all Muslims such that anyone can contend for it. This contradicts the (saying that) the Messenger (saw) nominated a specific person to be the Khalifah after him.

Third: The ahadith which came with the word Imam denoting the Khalifah came with this word in an unspecified form; and when it came in an specified one, it either came specified with “the” (“al”) of the species or related to a collective noun. In the possibilities which came specified with “al”, it was the “al” of species by evidence of the sentence. The Messenger said:

And he said:

and he said:

All this indicates that the Messenger (saw) left the issue concerning who would be the Khalifah after him unspecified without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam being a specific person.

Fourth: The Sahabah (ra) differed in their time about the persons to be the Khalifah among them. This difference among persons is evidence that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra). Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger (saw) that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah (ra) argue that there was a text for certain people in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should anyone say that there is a text which was known after them but it did not reach them, because we take our deen from the Sahabah (ra). They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text or any text from the Sahabah (ra), then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khalifah after the Messenger (saw), we find that all the Sahabah (ra) without exception including Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra) agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger (saw) designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the unity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah (ra) of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (saw) did not appoint a Khalifah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khalifah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (ra) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khalifah? He said:

Muslim narrated from bin Umar that Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) said:

This is a clear text that the Messenger (saw) did not appoint a Khalifah. Nor should one say that this is Umar’s opinion for when a companion says, ‘The Messenger (saw) did this or did not do this or we were in his time like this or there was in his time such and such’, this is a hadith used as evidence not merely a companion’s view. Moreover, Umar said this within the hearing and sight of the Sahabah (ra), and Ali (ra) was present and this statement reached him and he did not oppose it, which indicates their agreement upon what Umar (ra) narrated.

This is all with respect to the absence of any specific text designating a specific person for the Khilafah. As for the texts brought by those who say that there are texts designating a specific person, among these texts are those brought to indicate that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr (ra) to become Khalifah after him whereas others are brought to indicate that he appointed Ali (ra) as the Khalifah after him. We must present them and explain their contents.

As for the texts brought by those who say the Messenger (saw) appointed Abu Bakr (ra), they are divided into two: One portion in which the Messenger (saw) praises Abu Bakr (ra) wherein there is nothing to indicate that the Messenger (saw) appointed him. The other portion is one wherein some deduce by deduction that the Messenger (saw) appointed Abu Bakr (ra) while others deduce that he nominated Abu Bakr (ra). We will present their model by presenting some of them, noting that none of them exceed the meaning of praise.

Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Saeed al-Khudri that the Prophet (saw) said:

Muslim also narrated this hadith but with different wording, although similar to these ones. There is nothing in this hadith to make a person say that he appointed Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah. All that it contains is praise for Abu Bakr (ra) from the Messenger (saw), and the Messenger (saw) praised many companions by name. There have come ahadith with praise for Umar (ra), Uthman (ra), Ali (ra), Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas (ra), Talha (ra), Az-Zubayr (ra), Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al Jarrah (ra), Al-Hassan (ra) and Al-Hussein (ra), Zayd bin Haritha (ra), Usama bin Zayd (ra), Abdullah bin Ja’far (ra), Khadija (ra), Aisha (ra), Fatima (ra) daughter of the Prophet (saw), Umm Salamah (ra), Bilal (ra) and others. Praise by itself does not in any way whatsoever indicate appointment to be Khalifah.

As for the ahadith from which some deduced the Khilafah of Abu Bakr (ra), they are four ahadith which we will present and clarify all that they contain. These ahadith are:

First: Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Qasim bin Muhammad (ra) who said:

Muslim narrated this hadith from Aisha (ra) in this wording from her: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to me in his illness:

Secondly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father who said:

Muslim narrated this hadith from Muhammad bin Jubayr bin Mut’im from his father in the words:

Thirdly: Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha (ra), the mother of the believers,

Fourthly: Muslim narrated from bin Abu Mulkiyya who said:

All these ahadith are not suitable evidence for the Messenger (saw) appointing Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah. The first hadith is rejected for two reasons: The first is that the Messenger (saw) said:

But he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s (saw) saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha (ra) is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr (ra). Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to contend with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khalifah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah.

As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words “If I did not find you” that you had died. The words which came in the hadith “As if she meant death” are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr (ra) if she came and did not find him is no proof for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah after the Messenger (saw). Even if we were compelled to take her understanding to mean death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khalifah after him (saw). As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a large difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.

As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger (saw); rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahabah’s opinion is not a proof nor considered Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.

This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khalifah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (saw), they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger (saw) praised our master Ali (ra), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra), and a category which came up among the ones who used these ahadith as evidence to say that there exists clear text that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) as the Khalifah.

As for the first category in which the Messenger (saw) praised Ali (ra), we will present a model from them by mentioning some of the ahadith and the others don't exceeding the meaning of praise.

Muslim narrated this hadith from Abu Hurairah with the words:

Al-Bukhari narrated in the chapter of virtues of Ali (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ali (ra):

Muslim narrated from ‘Amir Bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas (ra) from his father who said: Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan (ra) commanded S’aad (ra) saying: What has prevented you from insulting Abu Turab (ra)? He said: When I remember three (things) which the Messenger of Allah (saw) said of him, I will never insult him. That I should have even one of these is more beloved to me than red camels. The Messenger of Allah (saw) left him behind in some of his war expeditions, so Ali (ra) said to him: O Messenger of Allah (saw), have you left me behind with women and children? The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to him:

I also heard him say on the day of Khayber:

‘I will give the flag to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love.

He said: We moved for it and he said:

And when this verse was revealed:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) called Ali (ra), Fatima (ra), Hassan (ra) and Husain (ra) and said:

Muslim narrated from Sahl bin S’aad who said: A man from the family of Marwan was appointed (as ruler) over Madinah. He said: He called Sahl bin S’aad and commanded him to insult Ali (ra). He said: Sahl refused, so it was said to him: If you refuse, then say: Allah curse Abu Turab (ra). Sahl said: Ali (ra) has no name more beloved to me than Abu Turab (ra), and he would be pleased when called by it. It was said to him: Inform us of the incident as to why he was called Abu Turab (ra), so he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) came to Fatima’s house and did not find him in the house, so he said:

Muslim narrated from ‘Adiyy bin Thabit from Dharr who said: Ali said:

There is nothing in these ahadith to make someone say that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to be Khalifah after him. The hadith of Khayber is praise from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s (saw) statement to Ali (ra):

Is a praise from the Messenger of Allah (saw). As for the hadith of S’aad in which came:

This subject will be discussed in the second category of the ahadith on the topic. In it is also the hadith of Khayber which is a praise and in it is that Ali (ra), Fatima (ra), Hassan (ra) and Husain (ra) are his family which is a praise, and the hadith of Sahl bin S’ad is a praise. Just like the Messenger of Allah (saw) praised Ali (ra), he also praised others among his Sahabah (ra). The Messenger’s praise for a person does not in any way indicate his appointment.

As for the second category of ahadith which are those from which some deduced that the Messenger (saw) stated textually that Ali would be the Khalifah after him, they are summarised in these four texts:- 1- Al-Bukhari narrated from Mus’ab bin S’ad from his father

Muslim narrated from ‘Amir bin S’ad bin Abi Waqqas (ra) from his father who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ali (ra):

And Muslim narrated from Ibrahim bin S’ad from S’ad that the Prophet (saw) said to Ali (ra):

Ibn Ishaq narrated by saying: The Messenger of Allah (saw) left behind Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) to look after and supervise his family. The hypocrites started spreading false rumors and said to him that: He (saw) did not leave him behind except for the reason that it was hard on him and so that it could become easy for him. When the hypocrites said that, Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) took his weapons and moved out until he met the Messenger of Allah (saw) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said: O Prophet of Allah (saw), the hypocrites claimed that you left me behind because it was hard for me and to make it easy for me. He said:

So Ali returned to Madinah and the Messenger of Allah (saw) continued on his journey. As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned the following in the book “Al-Muraja’at ”: “The hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

2. Muslim narrated from Yazid bin Hayyan who said: I left with Husain bin Sabra and Umar bin Muslim to Zayd bin Arqam (ra). When we sat with him, Husain said to him: “Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. You saw the Messenger of Allah (saw), heard his hadith, fought with him and prayed behind him. Verily, O Zayd, you met a great deal of good. So relate to us, O Zayd, of what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: O son of my brother, by Allah I have become old and my time has approached. I have forgotten some of that, which I understood from the Messenger of Allah (saw), so accept whatever I relate to you and do not force me on that which I do not relate. Then he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) stood one day before us speaking at the waters known as Khum between Makkah and Madinah. He thanked Allah, praised Him, exhorted and reminded then said:

As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned in his book “Al-Muraja’at” this hadith via the following narration which At-Tabarani narrated through a chain whose authenticity is unanimously accepted from Zayd bin Arqam (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) spoke at Ghadeer Khum underneath some trees and said:

(This is the end of what As-Sayyid Abd al-Husain Sharaf ud-Deen mentioned). And Shaikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Ameeni An-Najafi stated the following in his book “Al Ghadeer”: “When he finished his rites of worship i.e. the Prophet (saw) and left for Madinah, together with the mentioned group(s) of people, he reached Ghadeer Khum in Al-Jahfa where the roads branch for the people of Madinah, Egypt and Iraq. This was the 15th day of Dhul-Hijja and Jibril, the trustworthy, descended to him from Allah (swt) with His saying:

And He commanded him to cause Ali (ra) to stand to let the people know and inform what was revealed regarding his patronage and the obligation of obedience upon every one. The first of the people were close to Al-Jahfa so the Messenger of Allah (saw) commanded those who had proceeded to return and enclosed those who had delayed at that place, and he prohibited people from encamping beneath the five large trees. When the people took camp and those underneath them (the trees) stood until the dhuhr prayer was announced, he headed for them and prayed beneath them. It was a sizzling day where a man placed some of his cloak upon his face and some under his feet due to the severe heat, and the Messenger of Allah was shaded by a garment upon the sumra tree due to the sun. When he (saw) finished his prayer, he stood to speak in the middle of the people on the hump of a camel and he spoke with a raised tone with every one hearing him and he (saw) said

3. Those who say that the Messenger (saw) clearly announced the Khilafah of Ali (ra) narrated ahadith in their books. As for these ahadith, we will not make the place of research in them their narrations, despite the fact that the two sheikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not narrate them, nor were they narrated via any trustworthy narrators and most of them are among the fabricated ahadith. We will not make their narrations the subject of research such that they say that these ahadith were not narrated by trustworthy narrators before you but were narrated by trustworthy narrators before us so that the one for whom the hadith is authenticated uses it as an evidence. We will not make that the domain of research; rather we will make the matter of research the texts themselves as they came in the narrations. These are the texts from which they deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali to be the Khalifah after him—and these ahadith are known as the ahadith of “wilayah”—from which we will present some of them and the rest carry the same meaning and even the same wordings.

a) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi narrated from ‘Ibn Abbas (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra):

b) It has been narrated in Kanz al-’Ammal from Imran bin Husain who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent an expedition and appointed Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) over them. He chose for himself a slave girl from the fifth (khums) and they rejected this from him. Four of them agreed to complain about him to the Prophet (saw) so, when they came, one of the four stood and said: O Messenger of Allah (saw), do you not see that Ali (ra) did such and such, and he (saw) turned away from him. The second stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. The third stood and said the same, so he turned away from him. And the fourth stood and said the same as they had said. The Messenger of Allah (saw) turned towards them with anger visible in his face and said:

c) And in a long hadith from ‘Amru bin Maymun from ‘Ibn Abbas (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent so and so with Surah At-Tawbah. He then sent Ali (ra) after him to take it from him and said:

d) IKanz al-’Ammal from Wahhab bin Hamza who said: I travelled with Ali (ra) and I saw harshness from him, so I said that when I will return I will complain about it. So I returned and mentioned Ali (ra) to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he said:

e) In Kanz al-’Ammal from ‘ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

f) In Muntakhab al-Kanz from Zayyad bin Mutarraf who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying:

g) In Kanz al-’Ammal from Ammar bin Yasir who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

h) Also in Al-Kanz from Ammar it has been narrated in a marfu hadith :

4. There are ahadith narrated by those who say that the Messenger (saw) openly declared the Khilafah of Ali (ra). These ahadith have not been narrated by any trustworthy person and most of them are fabricated ahadith. We present them not to research them from the angle of their narration so that they are claimed to be authenticated for those who narrate them. Rather we present them to make the point of research their texts according to what came in their texts. These ahadith contain the brotherhood of the Messenger (saw) with Ali (ra), and making him the heir after him. We present a few of them with the remainder carrying the same meaning and even the same wordings.

a) The Prophet (saw) established a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and chose Ali (ra) for himself. In what came of the hadith of the first brotherhood, “so Ali said: O Messenger of Allah (saw), verily my soul left me and my spine has been broken when I saw you do what you did with your companions other than me. If this is a sign of your anger with me, then I complain only to you and beg your pardon. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

By the One who sent me with truth, I only left you for myself. You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa except that there is no Prophet after me. You are my brother and inheritor. He said: What will I inherit from you. He said: What did the Prophets inherit before me, the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophets.”

b) The Prophet (saw) made a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar five months after the hijrah, but he did not make a brotherhood between Ali (ra) and any of the Ansar; rather he chose him (Ali) for himself. It came in the hadith of the second brotherhood

When the sayyid Annisa’s (leader of the women) deserving groom for her marriage was being considered, the Prophet (saw) said:

And the Prophet (saw) spoke to him one day regarding a judgement between him, his brother Ja’far (saw) and Zayd bin Haritha (saw), saying:

d) The Messenger (saw) promised to Ali (ra) one day saying:

3) In Kanz al-’Ammal, he (saw) said

These four texts, which are the texts in which the Messenger (saw) made him (Ali) of the status of Harun to Musa, the text that he left the Book of Allah and His progeny, the text of wilayah, and the text of brotherhood, are the texts from which some Muslims deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) i.e. made him the Khalifah after him. Let us take them text by text:

As for the first text, which is the text which made Ali at the status of Harun to Musa before the Messenger (saw), its meaning is clarified though studying the occcasion in which it was said and studying its wording. As for the occasion, the Messenger (saw) said this hadith on the day of the battle of Tabuk. Therein the Messenger (saw) appointed in Madinah in his place Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) to supervise the Muslims’ affairs and administer the rule, and appointed our master Ali (ra) over his family and commanded him to supervise them. The hypocrites shook him and said: He did not leave him behind except because it had become hard on him he wanted to make it easy for him. When the hypocrites said this, Ali (ra) took his weapon and left until he met the Messenger (saw) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said:

So the Messenger of Allah (saw) continued on his travel. The hadith about Ali (ra) being the same status for the Messenger (saw) as Harun for Musa concern to his (saw)’s appointing him over his (saw) family by the evidence of Ali’s (ra) own statement:

The reality of the incident is that he was appointed over his family so it cannot be taken to mean that he was appointed over the Khilafah, particularly when it is known that he (saw) appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah as the ruler in his place and specified Ali (ra) to supervise over his family when he said to him, “my family and your family.” Moreover, the Messenger’s (saw) appointment of one of his companions over the rule when he left for battle does not mean that this appointed person is the Khalifah in his place by the evidence that the Messenger (saw) appointed many in the battles. In the battle of Al-‘Asheera he appointed Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Asad over Madinah, in the battle of Safwan he appointed Zayd bin Haritha (ra) over Madinah, in the battle Banu Lahyan he appointed ibn Umm Maktum (ra) over Madinah, and so on. The appointment by the Messenger (saw) of someone to rule over Madinah until he returns from his battles does not indicate that means his appointment over the Khilafah, so what if he appointed him only over his family while appointing another in authority until he returns from his battle.

This is in relation to the appointment. As for the saying of the Messenger (saw):

The meaning of its words is: Are you not pleased that there is for you, in what you are appointed over, what Harun supervised for Musa. It is the resemblance of Ali (ra) with Harun in the way of resemblance being the appointment i.e. your similitude in my appointing you (or leaving you behind) is similar to that of Harun when Musa appointed him. This is the meaning of the words of the hadith and these words do not have any other meaning. This meaning is specified and becomes the only meaning due to Ali’s (ra) saying to the Messenger:

With the Messenger’s statement:

This came in response to this question of Ali (ra) and as a response to his statement. To understand what is meant by this hadith one must return to the Glorious Qur’an to see within the issue of Musa’s appointing Harun to see what it is. Returning to the Glorious Qur’an, we find that this event is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following text:

So the hadith’s meaning becomes: Are you not pleased that I appoint you over my family like Musa appointed Harun over his people, so that you become before me of the status of Harun to Musa due to the appointment? So the hadith’s intent is to pacify our master Ali’s heart as he came displeased by this appointment, and at the same time it informs Ali (ra) that he will take his (saw) place over his family when he is absent just like Harun took Musa’s place over his people when he was absent. As for his saying:

This negates the resemblance of Prophethood because Harun was a Prophet (saw) so he was a Prophet (saw) taking the place of another Prophet (saw) when he was absent. So the Messenger (saw) excluded Prophethood to remove any imagination that he is of the same status in Prophethood. Nor should one say that his statement,

Means after my death as the words are related to appointment during his life. This is because Harun was a Prophet along with Musa during his life not after his death; he was his deputy (khalifa) over his people while he (Musa) was absent during his life not after his death. So the Messenger only made his statement: “Except that there is no Prophet after me” because Harun was a Prophet during Musa’s absence while he lived; so he made this statement in order to negate Prophethood from Ali (ra). Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us in an authenticated hadith narrated by Al-Hakim that Harun died during Musa’s life. So there does not raise the issue of appointment after death as it did not exist in Harun and Musa, who are those with whom resemblance is made, thus it does not exist in the Prophet (saw) and Ali (ra) who are the resemblers.

This is the hadith’s meaning nor does it contain any indication to appointment for the Khilafah nor can it be understood in any way that the Messenger (saw) intended by this hadith to clearly state and make Ali (ra) the Khalifah over the Muslims after the Messenger’s (saw) death. The hadith discussed is related to the appointment of Ali (ra) over the Messenger’s (saw) family during his absence due to the battle of Tabuk. As for the remaining narrations which came in this hadith i.e. his (saw) saying:

Some of them are authenticated narrations like those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their hadith from ‘Amir and Ibrahim, the two sons of S’ad, while others are not authenticated, but all of them came with the same text. This means that the hadith was said in Tabuk and at other times. The response to this is that the authentic narrations are a narration which is a part of the incident i.e. narrations with the Messenger’s (saw) words alone separated from the incident which does not mean that it is an incident other than the incident of Tabuk. Narrators and collectors of hadith frequently narrate a part of a hadith or a part of an incident, shortening it to the place of evidence. Even if we accept that the hadith was not only about the incident of Tabuk but was said in Tabuk and other times, then this would mean that the Messenger (saw) appointed our master Ali (ra) over his family permanently during Tabuk and at other times; nor would it mean his appointment (may Allah ennoble his face) over the Khilafah after the Messenger’s (saw) death. All that the explanation of the hadith’s word and meaning indicate is: Are you not pleased that I appointed you over my family during my absence just like Harun supervised for Musa during his absence, except that Harun was a Prophet and you are not a Prophet because there is no Prophet after my Prophethood. This came in Muslim’s narration from Amir bin S’ad from his father:

i.e. after my Prophethood. This is the similitude with which the Messenger (saw) compared Ali (ra) in relation to him just like Harun in relation to Musa i.e. the appointment and nothing else, appointment during his absence and nothing else, and appointment over his family as came in the hadith’s text in its entirety. The frequency with which a hadith is repeated does not change its meaning to give it an alternative meaning. So the appointment in Tabuk was only over the Messenger’s (saw) family as is proven without doubt, while the other narrations in other than Tabuk conveyed the same text mentioned in Tabuk in words and meaning without mentioning the restriction in the incident of Tabuk i.e. the family. Rather, they do not mention any restriction at all thus we measure them upon what was mentioned in the narration of Tabuk. This is because the narration of Tabuk is restricted to the family while the other narrations are free of any restriction in the appointment so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted. Nor should one say that the other narrations are general as the words of the hadith are not from the general words as the texts of all the narrations whether the narration: “Are you not pleased” or the narration: “Verily you” or the naration: “You” and the similar which is of the weightage of Harun with Musa; all these words are specific to a specific status which is of the status of Harun with Musa which is not of the general status. Except that the status of Harun to Musa came unrestricted in some of the narrations which were not restricted by any restriction, while they were restricted to the family in some of the narrations so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted such that all the narrations are restricted to the family.

As for the rest of the matters which Musa sought from Allah in his statement:

There is no place for them in relation to the status of Harun to Musa nor the appointment as the Khalifa since it is a prayer which Musa Made to Allah to make his brother an assistant to him and to give him the Prophethood along with him because the matters which Musa prayed to Allah (swt) to associate Harun with him upon were Prophethood and the Message so the association was only in these matters not the rule, as Musa was not a ruler but only a Prophet. Moreover, the request was a request for assistance for him and associating him in his matter, not a request for his appointment (in rule).

Above all this, these matters are not an indication to the status of Musa to Harun; rather an indication for the status of Musa to Harun is his appointing him over his people during his absence; so his status before him is that he took care of his people during his absence. There is no existence for assistance and association in the Prophethood in the statement of the Messenger: “of the status of Harun to Musa” infact the meaning is restricted to the appointment over the people and the texts do not carry any meaning other than this.

It has been said that Musa was a ruler because a Shari’ah was revealed to him to rule by ,as there are solutions and punishments within it, and he was a leader of an army which intended to occupy Bait al-Maqdis when his people said to him:

So his appointment of Harun over his people was an appointment in Prophethood and also in authority. The response to this is that Musa was not a ruler, nor is it narrated in the Qur’an or elsewhere that he would execute the rules upon the children of Israel (Banu Israil) by strength and the authority or that he was a ruler over them. Those who ruled Banu Israil with the Shari’ah of Musa were not Musa himself or in his lifetime, rather it was those Prophet who came after him like Dawud, Sulayman and other kings. As for Musa’s leadership over the armies, it never occurred. The ayaat which are in Surah Al-Maidah from ayah 19 to ayah 26 do no have anything within them which indicates Musa’s leadership over the army; rather what is within them is that Musa (as) requested his people to enter the Holy Land. They refused and said to him that there are giant aggressive people within it so they would never enter until these giants left; they asked him and his Lord to go and fight but he did not go so the result was their exile for fourty years in the wilderness. As for the revelation of the Shari’ah to Musa (as) with solutions and punishments, this does not mean that Musa (as) ruled with these; rather the reality is that he came with it and conveyed it to Banu Israil. He tried to take them to Bait al-Maqdis but they strayed in the wilderness and they did not stabilise until his period had ended. After their punishment with the exile ended, they moved and were ruled by kings and Prophets among them by the Shari’ah of Musa, which is stated by the Qur’an in more than one Surah. Moreover, the ayaat in which Harun was appointed are explicit that it was an appointment on behalf of Musa in Prophethood when Musa went to meet Allah (swt), which is in Surah Al-‘Araf from ayah 141:

All of these are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, and the throwing of the tablets (by Musa), and the Banu Israil taking to worship the calf and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspect that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no evidence that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.

This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause like the incident of Tabuk or without any cause, which indicate that the Messenger (saw) made Ali (ra) supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s (saw) appointment of Ali (ra), Ali became to the Messenger (saw) comparable to the status of Harun to Musa. There is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger (saw) stated that Ali (ra) would become the Khalifah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s death.

As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (saw) house, to be gracious to them, to honour and not to hurt them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger (saw) appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The words are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not change what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Allah the patron in his statement:

As for the second matter, this is that he advised his progeny to undertake good deeds by saying:

There is nothing other than these two matters in all these ahadith, despite all their number and differing narrations. As for the first matter, which is the friendship, we shall discuss it during the discussion upon the ahadith of (wilayat) directly after this text. As for the second matter, it does not differ from being an advice to Muslims to be good to his progeny,, the people of his house, by being gracious to them, honouring and not annoying them as they will be questioned about them. Also that the family of the house and the Book of Allah (swt) will remain linked until the Day of Judgement. There exists nothing in this ahadith and the ahadith of Ghadeer Khum more than advising Muslims to do good to his progeny; there is nothing within in it indicating the appointment of Ali (ra), or the people of his house, over the Khilafah after the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Where is the appointment in the Messenger’s (saw) statement according to all previous narrations narrated in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum:

Or his statement:

Or

Or:

Or:

Is there more in these texts than reminding the Muslims about his progeny (saw) and exhorting them to be good to them? Does anyone understand from this that this means that they are the Khulafaa in ruling over Muslims after the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s death? From where is this taken? From the stated text of the words or their meanings? Thus there is no evidence in the hadith of Khum for the appointment of Ali (ra), or the people of his family, over the Khilafah; so deducing through it fails.

As for the third text, which is the ahadith of (wilayah), these ahadith by these words were not narrated by the two Sheikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, even if these ahadith are authenticated before those who rely upon them as evidence for Ali’s appointment, the texts they present cannot possibly be used to deduce such appointment. All their words are no more than

All these words and their like from all the rest of the narrations do not differ from the word al waliyy, al-mawla and al-muwalat; so they are known as the hadith of (al-wilayah). The interpretation of all of them is in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum:

The meaning here is their support and that they be with him and bear friendship (al-wala) and love for them. The word “waliyy” and “tawallaa” have come in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy so it is said: He took him as a friend. The (mawla) is the supporter and the master (as-sayyid). Friendship is opposite to enemity. And the waliy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor like the father and grandfather. The waliy of the marriage contract, the properties and the orphan is the one who takes care of the affair and becomes his sponsor. In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliy is among the names of Allah (swt) who is the Helper (An-Nasir) and he is the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (saw): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. None of this is the meaning of rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text for the Khilafah of Ali (ra) are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Sheikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost suitable in something even if we condescend that this is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings.” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know about the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it comes with a meaning in the hadith except with that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are:

1) The Lord.

2) Paternal uncle.

3) Paternal uncle’s son.

4) Son.

5) Daughter’s son.

6) The slave who is freed.

7) One who frees a slave.

8) Slave.

9) Owner.

10) Follower.

11) One who is blessed.

12) Partner.

13) Confederate/Ally (haleef).

14) Companion.

15) Neighbour.

16) Guest.

17) In-law.

18) Relative (qareeb).

19) Benefactor/Beneficent.

20) One lost from his friends/dead (faqeed).

21) Friend (waliy).

22) Foremost/More suitable in something.

23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave.

24) Beloved.

25) Helper.

26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter.

27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.

These are the meanings which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation to the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said:

So it is apparent from this that the word did not come with the meaning of ruler and that “al muwalat” did not come with the meaning of rule, neither in the Qur’an or Hadith or the language. Words are interpreted either by their linguistic or Shari’ah meanings, so from where was the explanation of this ahadith taken that the “waliy” and “muwalat” means giving the Khilafah to Ali (ra) and his family? When we follow those who deduced by these ahadith in any of the meanings of “waliy” and “muwalat”, there never comes the meaning of supervising the rule in any of the texts. It is true that if we relate the word “waliy” with the word “amr”, then its meaning becomes the ruler and it is said “waliyy al-amr”. In the ahadith which they call the ahadith of “al-wilayah”, the word “amr” never comes together with the word “waliy” in any of their narrations, or any other narrations, which negates the meaning of taking care of the Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah (saw) from the ahadith.

It is true that the word “wilayah” alone not the words “mawla” or “waliy” or “muwalat” is a word with many meanings including support (nusra) and authority i.e. the rule. In the ahadith which they narrated is the hadith mentioned in Kanz al-’Ammal which came with the word “wilayah” so one may say this means rule according to what the language states. The response is that this word came in the hadith by the meaning of taking as a friend which is indicated by the hadith’s text. Its text, according to what is narrated by those who use it as evidence, is:

This text specifies that its meaning is support as the Messenger (saw) requested that whoever believes in him (saw) to befriend Ali (ra) because whoever supports him supports the Messenger (saw) and whoever supports the Messenger (saw) supports Allah (swt). This is the meaning of the word “wilayah” and this is why it was expressed by the word “faa”:

It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali (ra) is the “waliy” of every believer after the Messenger (saw) and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith according to the language and Qur’anic texts cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So these are not evidence that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to the Khilafah after him thus their arguing with these texts fails. Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is the fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article and it does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because one of its meanings is the agent, and the one in charge, of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation. The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr.” “Waliy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications. Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is the contextual connotation in general, however they, cannot give a word a meaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a collective word or contrastive to the word, and divert it from another, but it does not create a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. The word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to trust based upon their trust of the Messenger (saw), does not give it a new meaning that Ali (ra) becomes the ruler after the Messenger (saw), as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this it becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali (ra) is the Khalifah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.

“My brother and assistant (wazeer) who repays my debts, fulfills my promise and frees me from by responsibilities”

All of these are words and sentences from which one cannot possibly deduce the appointment in any way. This is because they do not go beyond matters linked between a pair, the first expressing the extreme closeness of the second to him by (saying he is) his brother. The Messenger (saw) expressed his extreme closeness to Ali (ra) to him by calling him his brother and saying that he is from him, is his assistant and repays his debts. This is not any general matter nor does it relate to the rule or Khilafah. Even if we insist that Ali (ra) is the Messenger’s (saw) brother or his son, this does not indicate its meaning to be that he is the Khalifah after him. His statement to Ali that:

Or other similar things have no relationship in any way whatsoever, either in the language or the Shari’ah, to the rule or carry any indication relating to the appointment over the Khilafah. These ahadith are not suitable to be evidence that the Messenger (saw) promised Ali (ra) the Khilafah after him, and accordingly they do not fulfil as evidence. As for the third type in which clear texts(s) came that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to become Khalifah after him, they are two ahadith: the first is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer in one narration by the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” and the second is the hadith which they call the hadith of the house. As for the narration of the writer of the book of “Al Ghadeer”, he mentioned a narration in the beginning of his book without mentioning the words “my heir and Khalifah” and then mentioned another later narration which he ascribed to At Tabari which came with the words “my heir and Khalifah” explicitly. So he, Sheikh Abd al Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi, the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” said in his book under the chapter “Al-Ghadeer in the Book of Al-‘Aziz”: “Al-Hafidh Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer At Tabari who died in 310 Hijri narrated in his narration in the book of “Al-Wilayah” among the chains of the hadith of Al-Ghadeer from Zayd bin Arqam (ra) who said: ‘When the Prophet (saw) stopped at Ghadeer Khum in his return from the farewell pilgrimage at the time of forenoon when the sun was very hot, he commanded to assemble the tents around the lofty trees which were assembled. He called for the collective prayer so we gathered. He gave a lengthy khutbah and said: “Verily Allah (swt) revealed to me:

This is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, and due to the meaning of its text it is rejected so that what is said within it of the bequest, appointment and leadership after the Messenger is void without any basis for many causes such as:

1. This ayah was not revealed in the farewell pilgrimage, rather it was revealed after Surah Al Fath in the year of Hudaybiyya. This ayah is from Surah Al-Maidah which was revealed after Surah Al-Fath, and Surah Al-Fath was revealed during his (saw) return from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. One glance to the Mushaf shows clearly the time of the revelation of the ayah: “O Prophet, convey what has been revealed to you” and shows it was revealed after Al-Fath. So the ayah was revealed four years before the farewell pilgrimage and has no relationship with the hadith of Ghadeer Khum in all the narrations since all narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum say that it happened in the farewell pilgrimage. This alone is enough to reject this hadith and certify its invalidity of what is claimed within it about the testament and appointment.

2. The meaning of the ayah is clear in its stated text and understanding that the Messenger is commanded to convey what was revealed to him from his Lord, and that which was revealed to him from his Lord was the Islamic Message. This is designated and made the sole meaning intended, nothing else, by His statement in the same ayah: “And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message” i.e. if you do not convey what was revealed to you then verily you have not conveyed His message. This is a clear text that the intention of the ayah “What was revealed to you” is the message of Allah and nothing else. Moreover, whenever the word deliver (balligh) comes in the Qur’an it means conveying the message of Allah (swt) and it has never come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

Also, whenever the words

These ayat were revealed in the Qur’an, the purpose is the Shari’ah and it does not come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And:

And so in all the ayat of the Qur’an. As for the ayah:

In the ayah before and in the ayah after it was mentioned the words “what was revealed” with one meaning i.e. the Shari’ah. Even the words in the following ayah are the same:

3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an ambigous (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him from the revelation and revealed to the Messenger (saw); so Allah (swt) commands the Messenger (saw) to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith an explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.

4. The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a relative pronoun (ism mawsul) noun or intended indefinite noun (nakira maqsuda) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed to you or deliver everything which We (swt) revealed to you from the various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all what was revealed to you which is the message of Allah (swt). This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.

5. Verily His (swt) statement at the end of the ayah:

Is an assurance from Allah to the Messenger (saw) and safety to him from the harm which will affect him as a result of delivering His (swt) message. This assurance is not because of harm which will affect him from delivering one rule, rather from conveying the entire message to the disbelievers and particularly where its conveyance is accompanied by fighting. The meaning of the end of ayah is that Allah will protect you in conveying this message by jihad from the harm of the people because when the ayah was revealed, the method of delivering the message was jihad i.e. fighting with swords. It is not possible that it is meant that He (swt) will protect you from those envious of Ali (ra) in making the Khilafah for him i.e. protect you according to their view from Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and their like as the protection in the ayah is from the people not believers. The meaning of “the people” is specified to be the disbelievers by His statement in concluding the ayah:

So this promise from Allah (swt) to His Messenger (saw) to protect and preserve him from the harm of disbelievers in conveying what was revealed to him specifies that the meaning of the conveyance in the ayah is the conveyance of the message of Islam. It has been said that there is no meaning in His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” while he is conveying in practice. The response to this is that this command to convey does not depart from one of two matters: Either the Messenger has concealed the message without conveying it, or there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed so the absence of conveyance to them is considered the absence of conveyance to the world. It is impossible for this command to mean his concealing a specific rule revealed to him which he did not convey or conveyance of one rule without which the message is not complete because the concealment of one rule will denigrate the Messenger’s (saw) Prophethood and his message like the concealment of the entire message, so it is impossible for it to mean the concealment of one specific rule. Also the ayah says:

This negates the conveyance which means that he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule, in particular the conveyance of one rule is considered the conveyance of the message. The Messenger (saw) from the first day onwards conveyed the rules according to their revelation such that the conveyance of each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule; rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him to not convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah (swt) commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger (saw) after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger (saw) fought with in spreading the da’wa until that time, so the treaty with them would perhaps lead one to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger (saw) fought the Jews at Khayber, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement:

And:

And:

And:

As for the hadith of the house as narrated in Kanz al-‘Ammal and as explained in Nahj al-Balagha, it is summarised as followed: When

was revealed, The Messenger (saw) called Ali (ra) to prepare food and call the family of Abd al-Muttalib so Ali (ra) executed these commands. After the people had become satisfied and relaxed, the Messenger stood before them speaking:

This is the summary of the hadith of the house as narrated by those who depend upon it as evidence.

Al-Bukhari narrated the incident of the day when

Was revealed (saying) that the Messenger (saw) stood upon (Mount) Safa, without mentioning the preparation of food. Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad two hadiths, one about the preparation of food without mentioning it was the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed and another mentioning that the preparation of food was on the day the ayah was revealed. We will show these texts first then explain what they contain.

Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) who said: When

This indicates that the incident of the preparation of food was not on the day in which “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed as it does not concur with what occurred in the hadith’s text. Ahmad bin Hanbal said in his Musnad: ‘Affan related to us that Abu Awana related to us from Uthman bin al-Mughira from Abu Sadiq from Rabi’a bin Najidh from Ali (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) gathered or called Banu Abd al-Muttalib in all their groups to eat and drink. He prepared for them a quantity of food which they ate until they were satisfied. He said: The food remained as if it had not been touched. Then he called for a saffron drink which they drank until they will full, and the drink remained as if it had not been touched. Then he (saw) said:

This clarifies that there is no moment in this incident of the revelation of “And warn your nearest kinsfolk”, and that the Messenger (saw) offered Islam to them so that whoever became a Muslim would become his brother and companion and that he did not say anything to Ali (ra).

As for the second narration, Ahmad bin Hanbal narrated in his Musnad: “Aswad bin Amir related to us that Shareek related to us from Al-‘Amash from Al-Minhal from ‘Ibad bin Abdullah al Asadi from Ali who said: When the ayah “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” was revealed, the Messenger (saw) gathered the family of his house. Thirty people gathered; they ate and drank then he (saw) said to them:

The word inheritor or Khalifah does not appear in these two texts in any way at all. Rather it is only the word Khalifah which appears restricted to his family, and the Khilafah over the family is not the Khilafah in the post of rule or leadership nor does it have any relationship with that. These are the texts which came in the Saheeh books, and they came in numerous narrations with similar wordings and unified meanings, and there did not appear in any of them the words inheritor or Khilafah. There has never appeared, either via any of the compilers of the Saheeh (books of ahadith) or any of the trustworthy narrators, in even one hadith the word(s) inheritor of Khalifah in any way at all either in relation to Ali or anyone else, so the evidence falls due to the absence of any evidence for it in the Saheeh books.

As for the text narrated by those who contend about the appointment of Ali which they named the hadith of the house, this text with this narration (riwayah) is rejected in its meaning (Dirayah).A hadith is rejected in its dirayah based on its meaning, and its narration based on its chain. So if it is rejected in its chain or meaning then it cannot be considered and it falls as evidence. As for rejecting its meaning, this is due to many reasons including:

Firstly: In this hadith it appears that the Messenger (saw) sought the assistance of the family of Abd al-Muttalib in his da’wa with the condition that the rule became theirs after them. This is void from two aspects: firstly, this contradicts the Messenger’s statement and action in the incident in which he refused the request from the tribe that the rule becomes theirs after him if they become Muslims to which he replied:

Ibn Hisham narrated in his book of the Sirah of the Prophet (saw): Ibn Ishaq said that Az-Zuhri narrated that he met Banu Amr bin Sa’sa’ah so he invited them to Allah ‘azza wa jalla and offered himself to them. One man among them, whom they called Bayjirat bin Furra, said to him: By Allah, if I were to take this youth from the Quraysh, I will eat (i.e. conquer) the Arabs through him. Then he said: What if we were to pledge to support your matter then Allah will grant you victory over those who oppose you. Will the rule be with us after you? He said: “The rule is for Allah and He places it where He wills.” He said: So he said to him: Will we sacrifice our throats for you, then when Allah (swt) grants you victory the rule becomes for someone else? Then we have no need of your matter, and they rejected him.” How can the Messenger (saw) say: “The matter belongs to Allah and He will place it where He wills” i.e. the matter of the Khilafah and the rule after him, yet he says to Banu Abd al-Muttalib:

Is this not a clear contradiction? Inevitably, it is necessary that one of these two statements be rejected. Since it is said of the hadith of the house that it occurred when

Was revealed i.e. the third year of the messenger ship and the hadith:

when the Messenger (saw) offered himself to the tribes i.e. in the tenth year after the messenger ship and therefore after the hadith of the house; so it is the hadith of the house which is rejected. As for the second side, it is that the Messenger (saw) in this hadith offered something to the disbelievers so that they may become Muslims, rather he offered them the greatest thing which is the Khilafah after him over all Muslims as the price for their entering into Islam. This contradicts the Messenger’s action in his da’wa and the Shari’ah rules. The Messenger would invite people to Islam because it is the correct deen and it has never been narrated from him, even through a weak hadith that he offered anything whether small or large to a kafir in exchange for his entering into Islam. As for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are Muslims who are given from the zakat in order to strengthen the State through them, not kuffar who are given so that they enter Islam. Nor is it allowed to give something to kuffar in exchange for their entering Islam.

Secondly: The hadith mentions that the Messenger (saw) prepared a wedding feast and meal for kuffar in order to invite them to Islam, and he gathered them around a meal so that they may enter Islam and he did not prepare food for Ali (ra) who had already accepted Islam. So if these people reject Islam and reject that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for Islam, there is no place there for Ali (ra) for giving his acceptance as he is not being invited to Islam because he is already a Muslim, and there is no speech addressed to him. This is why there is no place in this gathering such that he says to him:

Since he is not the target of the address or the negotiation. Thirdly: The hadith mentions that the group rejected Islam, and despite him repeating his offer they persisted in rejecting Islam and rejecting that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for entering Islam. They remained kuffar so how could the Messenger (saw) say to them in addressing them:

Commanding them with hearing and obeying him while he knows they are kuffar who have rejected Islam? And how could he be the Khalifah among them while they are kuffar?

Fourthly: The narration they narrate says:

This is an address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words started with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khalifah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khalifah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khalifah over you.” Thus he is not the Khalifah for the Muslims as is depicted by the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khalifah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.

Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its narration (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (saw) did not explicitly state making Ali (ra) the Khalifah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (saw) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger (saw) designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger (saw) left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want in relation to the person but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khalifah.

As for the error in the views that the Messenger (saw) designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali (ra) for it. Those who say that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali (ra), so if their evidence does not apply in respect to Ali (ra) it also naturally does not apply in respect to his descendants due to the proof not applying in respect to him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali (ra) by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger (saw) are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all indicate praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its failing in argument has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it.