Original post by TawheedI do have a few questions about the historical event of Ghadeer i would like to open to you, or others:
1. Muhammed s.a.w rebuked a few companions, before making a general statement where he explicitly addressed a group and told them not to blame Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with regards to the Khumms. He then spoke about the need for brotherhood and fairness between Muslims. Surely, after these three levels of admonishments, a fraction of the 300 sent to Yemen ought to have recognised that they were in the wrong ?
2. You love Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. And i am sure you will acknowledge that, from Makkah to Medina, he has only been the recipient of glittering praise for actual actions he has done, be it winning battles for the muslims, to a number of other praises. I am sure you and i agree there would have been no doubt among the Sahaba of the virtues and praises Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had. Hence, i am sure you agree that some among the group sent to yemen (so a fraction of the 300), did not hate Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, nor resented him, nor were they alien to his virtues. They only felt it was a bit hypocritial for him to do what he did with the booty, and sleep with a slave girl. So reminding them of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s's virtues generally speakin, would not have solved the issue.
If you have a close friend, and you and him are in a situation where a group of your other friends feels something your close friend did was wrong. Imagine if your close friend was already widely respected, if you had personally praised him with such strong praise for decades before the incident where the others felt he did wrong.
Would telling them he is your friend do anything to solve the incident ? Or is it more rational to directly address the issue at hand - because your other friends already know the virtues of your close friend and how good a friend he is to you, and what an individual he is. They however, want your judgement on an action he has done - and for you to discern whether it was right , or wrong. That is all. Would reminding him how good a friend he is to you, really help in a situation like that? Or would directly addressing the reason why they have fallen out be better?
3. Muhammed s.a.w a man who never left a city without leaving behind a govener, according to your opinion and point of view, died without appointing anyone behind, or giving any guidance or instruction about when to begin the process to choose the leader after him, or giving a system, a criteria, and a method. He completely ignored perhaps one of the most important aspects of his mission - life after him, and how Islam would continue, especially in the wake of a large power vacuum he has vacated.
We know , in America,there is a VP so that when the president dies (if ) there is a man in charge lest there is a power vacuum. Furthermore, if the vice president dies, you even have a designated president just in case. Across our world, the issue of succession of leadership is so vital, and so important, how could Muhammed s.a.w, arguably the man with the greatest political, religious, and socio-economic power vacuum of al l time die without adressing the issue of leadership after him?
Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar during their lives had the wisdom and intelligence to choose or deal with the issue of leadership after them. Hazrat Abu bakr chose Hazrat Umar, and Hazrat Umar drafted up a list of people who he stipulated must choose the leader, and he made rules, and sub-rules, meticulously planning the shura after him. Hazrat Uthman unfortunately, was unfairly killed and didn't have the time.
How could Muhammed s.a.w seem to not at all address the issue of Caliphat after him. And i mean directly, not anything subtle or inferred. Directly the way any government, be it a muslim or non-muslim goverment, does it. And as the Shaykhain did it too.