Talk:Hadith of the pond of Khumm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith, a WikiProject related to the Hadith. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

[edit] Article has been returned to a neutral point of view

The article was written with a clear Shi'a bias. In fact, the Sunni position was stated by referring to a Shi'a website, namely Al-Islam.org which contains a polemical diatribe about how the Shi'a position can be proved from Sunni sources. Of course, the Sunnis reject these claims and believe that the Shi'a are taking the Sunni texts out of context and/or citing unauthentic sources. I, as a neutral party, agree that the Shi'as should share their viewpoint but they should not define the Sunni position for the Sunnis.

On the other hand, the Shi'a position was not clearly established in the sense that the full text of the Shi'a version was not given. So much time was taken refuting the Sunni stance that the Shi'a stance was not fully elaborated upon. Therefore, the article did not do justice for either side.

The article has been corrected and turned neutral by establishing both positions. I strongly urge both Sunnis and Shi'as to refrain from turning this into a debate. It is not a debate, but rather it is an article. Simply provide the viewpoint of each side, but there is no need to "refute" the other stance, as this is not a polemical website.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.3.130.17 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] clarification of use of "mutawaatir" required

there seems to be confusion within this article and the hadeeth of the two weighty things article with regards to what exactly is mutawaatir about these ahadeeth. as shown in the article, there are differences in the actual text of the narration, but the article claims there are such and such numbers of chains confirming this hadeeth. it seems to have confused the tawatur level of the recording of the event, and the actual status of the matn. the hadeeth can only be mutawaatir if the actual wording received from every chain is exactly the same. this does not seem to be the case as the article even explains that sunni texts do not include this sentence or that sentence in the narration. therefore the hadeeth cannot be claimed to be mutawaatir, at least from the sunni perspective . besides there is no point in quoting such and such number of chains if they are not confirmed to be genuine (i.e. sanad not filled with mukathibeen aka liars, or there being major gaps in transmission). a proper authority is needed from a verifiable source which confirms the tawatur status of the actual matn (i.e. not an OR library project from a non VERIF source)

please correct the expression and usage of the term mutawaatir which has been used in many similar articles. ITAQALLAH 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mutavatir is correct. This text describes it The Tradition of Ghadir and Its Continuity

and there are too many texts about this issue for example:[1], [2], [3]--Sa.vakilian 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

no, we are not disputing whether the event is mutawaatir or not. you can have a hundred companions narrating the event all with different riwaayah. what remains unproven is whether certain passages within the narration reach a level of tawatur, as the actual matn of certain parts is differed upon, because the various ahadeeth on this topic differ in their matn. thus, some parts may be considered weaker than others. to me, it seems like this amateur mickey mouse library project has simply skimmed through works without authentication, mentioning wherever the general narration pops up without noting variances in riwaayah. that sunnis dispute this is enough for it not to be unanimously declared mutawaatir lafdhee on WP. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In Sha Allah I want from my friend, who has great knowledge in Islamic issues to write his idea here.--Sa.vakilian 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

with all due respect, i do not have the time to spend debating friends and friends-of-friends. to claim the entire matn is tawatur lafdhee per all of the "sunni sources" cited by shi'ite polemicists is simply not established by any reliable source. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the Shia point of view if you are not a Shia, you have no right to tell us what our point of view is--Ali Soltani

I also think people do not understand word mawla and what it means, in Imam Nawawi's sharh (commentary of Sahih Muslim) he states; I specify twenty different meanings for mawla in Arabic. The Prophet himself indicated the multiplicity of senses by stating:

Do not say of anyone that he is your Mawla, Allah is your Mawla. Say he >is your Sayyid.

Thus Mawla can refer to the slave-owner as illustrated also by Sayyidina >Ali's word to the Ansar:

How can I be your Mawla [=owner] when you are all Arabs [= free men]?".

(Narrated by Ahmad with a chain of sound narrators as per al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id (9:128-129 #14610).)

This shows the possibility that some senses of Mawla are inapplicable to Sayyidina Ali and other senses are. In other words: it is an ambiguous term and the allusion to Sayyidina Ali's successorship in the mawla hadith is at best an ambiguous type of allusion.

What is the meaning of Mawla in the hadith stating Sayyidina Ali is the Mawla of the Believers? Imam Shafi`i explained the hadith to of Sayyidina Ali's muwalat refer to the pact of Islam between all the believers. Al-Sayyid Abdullah al-Talidi said:

- What is meant by patronage (muwalat) here is the patronage of love (mahabba), Islam, and support (al-nusra). It is not the patronage of imamate that is meant. For the latter sense differs from fact whereas the Prophet (saws) does not inform us of other than fact." This and no other, is the position of the massive majority of the learned and unlearned Muslims since the first century until now

Finally, to shut the case we will give you the saying of Sayyidina Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of Imam Zainul Abideen, and the senior member of the Ahly Bayt in his time who said:

- A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Khilafa of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), "Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali 'If i am Maula of someone , Ali is his Maula?'" He (Al Hasan) replied, "By Allah, if he meant the by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the prayer, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, 'Oh people! This is your protector after me.' The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people. If the business (of Imamat) had been as you say it is, and Allah and His Messenger had chosen Ali for this matter after the Prophet, then he would have been the person with the gravest error and wrong action since this would mean either that he ignored what the Messenger of Allah commanded him to do, or he would have made excuses to the people for having done so."