The ahadith which have come down to us, which state the circumstances of its revelation, may be divided into four categories:

The first three categories do not contradict one another. They may all be speaking of the same thing, the only difference between them being that each of the three of them deals with a specific aspect of the revelation of the verse. The ahadith of the first category speak of the place and the incident of the bedouin; those of the second category inform us what steps Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam took after the revelation of the verse; while the solitary narration in the third category informs us that his uncle ‘Abbas used to be amongst those who used to guard him.

It is only with the fourth category that a problem is encountered. The ahadith of first three categories all concur on the fact that the verse was revealed after the Hijrah. However, the introduction of the name of Abu Talib into the circumstances of revelation places it well before the Hijrah. So here we have a contradiction.

Closer inspection of the isnads of the two narrations in question reveals problems with the reliability of some of their narrators. We may thus conclude that this version is unacceptable, firstly on account of the fact that it contradicts more authentic material, and secondly because it has been handed down to us through unreliable chains of transmission.

² ² ²

The above is a very brief synopsis of the narrated material surrounding the 67th verse of Surah al-Ma’idah which is to be found in the well-known works on tafsir. Our intention in presenting this synopsis is to give the reader a general overview of the narrations contained in the major sources of tafsir, and especially narrated tafsir (at-tafsir bil-ma’thur). This has the advantage of demonstrating to the objective observer the incongruity of narrations Shi‘i propagandists have been known to latch on to in their mission to convince the Ahl as-Sunnah that the Qur’an does in fact speak of the Imamah of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Talib, and that this claim is borne out by the mufassirin of the Ahl as-Sunnah themselves.

In Shi‘i propagandist works we encounter another category of narrated material, other than the four we have mentioned here. In this fifth category of narrated material we find the revelation of the verse being linked to the stopover at Ghadir Khumm on the return journey to Madinah after the Farewell Hajj. The claim they make in this regard is quite simple and straightforward: They claim that this verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir Khumm in connection with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.

The Shi‘i propagandist is ingenious. Being an expert in the art of misrepresentation, he presents this narration to the unsuspecting Sunni public as if it is the only material which exists on the revelation of the verse. He knows that most— if not all— of his listeners or readers are laymen who first of all do not know any Arabic; and even if they do, they do not have access to the books on tafsir.

Being thus assured that they will never discover his dishonesty in concealing the existence of alternative material on the issue, he goes ahead to convince his listener or reader that the quotation which he has supplied him with is the unadulterated truth. He emphasises the fact that he has taken this quotation not from a Shi‘i source, but from a Sunni one. The Sunni reader/listener is thus left with the impression that what he is getting is the truth, since it comes, in a manner of speaking, from the horse’s mouth.

The source given for the above claim is the book Asbab an-Nuzul by Abul Hasan al-Wahidi. (Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an, p. 204) Al-Wahidi narrates most of the material in his book with their complete isnads. Therefore, quoting material from al-Wahidi without stating the nature of the isnad on the authority of which he has quoted is basically an act of deception. It is relatively easy to deceive the public with such quotations, since they lack a proper understanding of the nature of quotation by isnad. The lay person looks only to the author of the book, and not to the chain of narrators on whose authority the author narrates. To deceive him is therefore quite simple.

To understand exactly how illogical this approach is we need to compare it with a parallel case. Let us assume we have a book on science. This book quotes the theory of an earlier scientist about the invalidity of whose theories there exists consensus amongst the experts in the field. Note that the author of the book merely quotes that theory; he does not lend his own weight to it by defending or supporting it. The question now is: can we take this particular theory and ascribe it to the author of the book, and omit any reference to the fact that he is merely quoting, and not supporting it? We very obviously cannot do so, and if we do so we will be dishonest.

Similarly, quoting from al-Wahidi without mentioning that he narrates it on the authority of a chain of narrators, and without proving the authenticity of the chain of narrators is also dishonest. When we encounter a quotation from al-Wahidi the first question we need to ask ourselves is: Is it narrated with an authentic chain of narration? This question can only be answered by referring back to the original book.

In the book Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an we find that this statement, which ascribed to Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri radiyallahu ‘anhu, is narrated via a chain of narration which runs as follows:

Thus, the statement “al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri” is extremely elliptical, since it completely omits any reference to the fact that what al-Wahidi narrates is narrated on the authority of the nine persons who stand between himself and Abu Sa‘id. Only when the reliability of these nine persons is proven may we with confidence say that “al-Wahidi narrates from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri”.

Critical scrutiny of the isnad reveals the following flaws:

This is then the state of the narration which Shi‘i propagandists so brazenly thrust in the faces of their Sunni readers or listeners.

There is another narration which holds connection with this one. It was originally documented in the tafsir of Abu Bakr Ibn Mardawayh (died 410 AH), but his tafsir is no longer extant. It has been preserved, albeit without isnad, by as-Suyuti in his book ad-Durr al-Manthur. (vol. 2 p. 298) The text of this narration runs as follows:

This narration, as can be clearly seen, has come down to us stripped of its chain of narration. The chain of narration is usually regarded as the chief indicator of authenticity.

However, it is not the only indicator. In the absence of the isnad, which would have pinpointed the exact person responsible for this blatant forgery, we still have the significant fact that this narration assails the sanctity of the Qur’an.

This narration contains an addition to the wording of the verse which is not to be found amongst any of the qira’at (variant readings) of the Qur’an, neither the mutawatir readings nor the shadhdh ones. In fact, it can be found nowhere except in a single, lone narration preserved without isnad in a work of the fifth century. The work of Ibn Mardawayh is in no way free from narrations by the extremists of the Shi‘ah. We have earlier seen, in the case of ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi, how Shi‘i narrations crept into Sunni compilations as early as in the days of the Tabi‘in.

Classical Shi‘i works like the tafsirs of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi and Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi, the Kitab al-Qira’at of Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sayyari, al-Ihtijaj by Ahmad ibn ‘Ali at-Tabarsi, the book al-Manaqib by Ibn Shahrashub and the book Kashf al-Yaqin by Ibn Tawus all contain narrations which state that the name of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu was mentioned in this verse, but “they” (meaning the Sahabah radiyallahu ‘anhum) removed it from there. (Mulla Husayn Nuri Tabarsi, Fasl al-Khitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al-Arbab, cited by Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, ash-Shi‘ah wal-Qur’an pp. 215-217)

It is therefore not at all inconceivable that this narration found its way into the tafsir of Ibn Mardawayh through an isnad going back to its Shi‘i originator.

But let us now look at the issue from a different angle. Let us for a moment assume that the name of Sayyiduna ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu was in fact mentioned in this verse, and the matter which Allah ordered Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam to convey to the Ummah was Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s imamah, an issue so important that failure to convey it would be tantamount to complete failure. This scenario fits snugly into the Shi‘i picture of the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. There is a stark difference between the Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah in the way either of them conceives of the Sirah, or life history, of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam. It is the contrast between failure and sucess.

To the Ahl as-Sunnah, the mission of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam was a successful one, the most successful mission of any messenger of Allah. And nowhere is his success reflected more clearly than in his followers. He succeeded in establishing Islam upon earth, and Iman in the hearts of his followers. His followers were of such a caliber that they earned praise from Allah Himself, in the Qur’an, the Tawrat as well as the Injil. Therefore, when Allah says to His Messenger, “Convey, and I will protect you against the people,” it is impossible that those “people” could be the same people who stand so highly praised in the Holy Scriptures. The people against whom Allah promised to protect him could therefore have been none but the unbelievers.

To the Shi‘ah, on the other hand, the Sirah of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is incessantly clouded by fear, doubt and suspicion. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is constantly having to cajole and blandish his followers in fear that they might openly turn against him. With the exception of a minute group of persons consisting of his daughter, her husband, their two infant sons and three or four others, he cannot trust anyone. His wives, their fathers, the husbands of his other daughters, his closest friends, his scribes, his military commanders— all of them are tainted with hypocrisy, and eagerly await the moment of his death to usurp power. In short, two decades of tireless effort has brought him nothing but a handful of sincere followers; the rest are all hypocrites. He is under continuous pressure from this sea of hypocrisy which surrounds him, and he is forced to take recourse to taqiyyah (meaning to act or speak falsely for the sake of convenience).

In the case of this verse he is hesitant to announce that Allah has decreed ‘Ali to be his successor; so hesitant that he has to be sounded a severe warning about it and given the assurance that he will be protected from harm. A contemporary Shi‘i scholar, Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, writes:

To the Shi‘ah, therefore, the “people” against whom Allah would protect him were none other than his own companions. The people with whom he lived and who stood by his side, who shared his happiness and grief, who assisted him in times of hardship, who were ever ready to sacrifice their lives and their posessions for him and for his cause — these same people were in reality his enemies whom he was afraid to offend. In the Shi‘i view of Sirah, and in their opinion about the circumstances under which the verse was revealed, these were the people against whom Allah had to protect His Messenger.

But ultimately, even though his person was protected against them, his mission was thwarted by those very same “enemies”, and a struggle of twenty three years ended in disgraceful failure (na‘udhu billah) when this entire commwhich he had given twenty three years of his life to build, reverts back into kufr, with the exception of a mere handful.

It is for this reason that we will conclude here by saying that acceptance of this kind of narrations is tantamount to subscribing to a view of Sirah wherein Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam is reduced to one of the most unsuccessful leaders who ever lived. That view of Sirah, as much as it might be camouflaged and paraphrased, lies at the very heart of Shi‘ism.

_______________________

ed. Muhammad Rida al-Mamaqani, Mu’assasat Al al-Bayt, Beirut 1411/1991