An article i have recently posted on the shia forum i use:
I have made a similar thread before, discussing one contention our brothers in the ahlus-sunnah have against the shia view of Ghadeer. As you know, our sunni brothers believe Ghadeer was solely a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute about Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s having intercourse with a slave girl , which caused enimity between him and a fraction (a percentage, not all, and we don't even know if most) of the 300 armed men sent to Yemen, which took place around or over a month earlier involving a dispute in how he handled the Khums. Indeed, many websites are set up with the title of the article 'Ghadeer exploded' or 'Rafidah holywood - ghadeer distortions' or 'You shia rafidah, come here and we will teach you about ghadeer'.
In refuting the shia narrative of Ghadeer, they ask - Why did Muhammed s.a.w not announce the declaration of Ali a.s at Makkah infront of all of the Pilgrims? Why did he announce it to the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar primarily, as well as those who were traveleing north of Makkah to towns other than Medina?
There are a number of ways to answer this - and my thread is not designed to answer this in any exhaustive or even sufficient manner. I believe in order to even approach the issue, one must take into account a few things (i have missed critical elements needed to address the claim made by our sunni brothers. I am only discussing one part)
1. Medina was the place Islam flourished, containing the ansaar and the Muhajiroon. The vast majority of the Sahaba converted in the last one, two , or three years of the life of Muhammed s.a.w. Many were enemies of the Prophet s.a.w for decades, before converting. During the first ten years of his prophethood, Muhammed s.a.w amassed very few followers in Makkah, and was persecuted severely. In Medina, during the next segment of his prophethood, Islam truly flourished. However, many companions still disobeyed him, fled from battles again and again even during his final years, and so the situation was far from perfect. As for the Makkans, many of them were enemies of Muhammed s.a.w for decades. Makkah only converted during the last two or so years of the life of Muhammed s.a.w. It is not as though the people of Makkah was life-long ardent followers. Many in Makkah only converted to save their lives, and because they had little choice. Many still had that hatred for Muhammed s.a.w. As for the muslims all over the rest of Arabia, who converted during the last year or so of the Prophet s.a.w's life, Islam never truly developed there are strong as it did in Medina. It takes time for such things to happen, and Islam was still in it's infancy in those areas. There was political uncertianity everywhere in Arabia, hypocrites in Makkah. Medina was probably the one place you could say with followers who had been with Muhammed s.a.w the longest, and spent the greatest ammount of time with him.
It speaks for itself that Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar, in Saqifah, along with a minority of the ansaar, never at all spoke about the right of the Makkans or those from other tribes around Arabia to have a hand in the issue of leadership. Rather, they believed the issue of leadership must be resolved firmly between the emigrants and the helpers, residing in Medina. The first five Caliphs, including Hasan a.s temporarily, all came from the emigrants and the helpers, or those who resided in Medina. Indeed, according to our sunni brothers, all four of the 'rightly guided caliphs' were chosen and eminated from the people of Medina.
If it was sufficient for Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, and a minority of the ansaar in medina, in the absence of the vast majority of the sahaba to choose , in secret the next leader, why do people question if Muhammed s.a.w declared infront of all of the sahaba who came with him, including the people who may have traveled north of Medina as well (to other parts of arabia) that Ali a.s is the rightful leader inbetween makkah and medina?
Reading through Tarikh At Tabari, i have also found a very interesting narration.
"Abd al- Raluman b. 'Awf came to me saying, "Today I saw a man1307 who came to the Commander of the Faithful [i.e., Umarj and said, 'I have heard so-and-so' saying: If the Commander of the Faithful is dead I would give my oath of allegiance to so-and- so,"-309 The Commander of the Faithful said that he would get up among the people that evening and warn them against the group of people who want to usurp their power." I said, "0 Commander of the Faithful, the pilgrimage brings together the riffraff and the rabble; they are the ones who will dominate over your assembly. I am afraid lest you should say something today which they might neither heed, nor remember, nor put it in its context and spread it everywhere; so wait until you come to Medina [which is) the place of refuge [dnr al-hijrah] and a seat of the sunnah. [There] you can confer privately with the Messenger of God's companions, both the Emigrants and the Ansdr. You i can say what you will with firmness, they will retain your words and interpret them properly." He replied, "By God, I will do it at the first opportunity which I get in Medina."
Points to make about the above:
One of the lovers of Hazrat Umar , and his close companion, tells him to wait before giving a speech on a crucial matter pertaining to leadership after him. His logic being during the Hajj, there are many who assemble from all over arabia, as well as the people of Makkah, among whom are people who may be hypcorites or misunderstand his word, or not take heed, or distort it for one reason or another or cause mischief (this is my intepretation). He therefore advises him to wait until he reaches Medina, so he can declare this important issue to the people who he deems to be far mor recipient, living in the 'seat of the Sunnah'. Therefore, Hazrat Umar himself waits till he reaches Medina, before giving this speech.
If Hazrat Umar, and his companion recognize the volatile political climate, the fact that hajj gathers people who are capable of causing mischief and chaos and distorting words and spreading vitriol, and that it would be better to convey the important words of leadership to the absolute centre of the muslim community in the land where Islam flourished the most, i say, why can't Muhammed s.a.w do likewise ?
Furthermore , Muhammed s.a.w did not declare Ali a.s at Medina, but on the way to Medina. There were still many companions and groups who would have travelled to areas north of Medina and journeyed with him. There may have been wisdom in thus, not declaring it at the Hajj in Makkah.
I am not assuming it was the reason, merely having a discussion on the potential possibilities.