"The Shi˜ite interpretation of the Ghadir Khumm tradition that apparently emerged in the early decades of the second century consisted of two main ideas: first, that the Prophet’s words on this occasion established walåyah as an obligatory religious duty (faridah) withthe same importance as prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and pilgrimage, meaning that only with the practice of walåyah was one’s religion complete; and second, that Ghadir Khumm represented a Prophetic nomination of Ali and his descendants as the immediate political andspiritual successors to the Prophet, not only challenging the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar but also accusing them of flagrant disobedience to the Prophet—an idea which, as we observed previously, neither Ali himself nor most of his early followers seemto have held.The standard Shi˜ite presentation of the Prophet’s words at Ghadir Khumm as found in Imami hadith sources places them between the revelation of two separate Qur˘anic verses—Qur˘an V:67, “O Messenger! Make known that which has been revealed unto you from your Lord, for if you do it not, you will not have conveyed His message” and Qur˘an V:3, “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion, Islam.” The contextualization of the Prophet’s widely reported words on this occasion between these two Qur˘anic verses forms the basis of the Shi˜ite argument that the walåyah of Ali was divinely ordained, and therefore represented much more than a particular, sectarian, or religio-political affiliation: It was an intrinsic part of the very outward submission to the message of God in the Quran (islåm), and was, in fact, its perfection.There is good reason to believe that both the standard Shi˜ite interpretation of the Ghadir Khumm tradition and its contextualization between these two Qur˘anic verses [5:67 &5:3] was developed in the first decades of the second century.
tradition, while reportedly known and referenced in this early period,
was not explicitly invoked by ˜Alid supporters as a clear designation
of ˜Ali’s right to the caliphate, even if it was counted among his important
spiritual distinctions (fada'ill). Yet, it is strange that in the context
of the First Civil War—with ˜Ali’s leadership so widely under
attack, even as his followers made extraordinary spiritual claims on
his behalf—neither ˜Ali himself nor his followers are reported to have
made any reference to Ghadir Khumm specifically as evidence of his
right to the caliphate. Ali pleas for his legitimacy, as well as his
supporters’ arguments defending their loyalty to him, are based almost
exclusively on his personal virtues and his claim to precedence (såbiqah) in Islam. Even if Ghadir Khumm was not put forward as a legitimist argument by ˜Ali or his supporters, a number of passages in the historical accounts of this period seem to reflect the conceptualor terminological influence of the Prophet’s Ghadir Khumm statement. Recall Masudi’s report, cited above, in which ˜Ali reminds Talhah at the Battle of the Camel that the Prophet (PBUH) asked God to be “the friend of ˜Ali’s friend and the enemy of his enemy.” In a similar vein, one of Ali’s supporters, Zayd b. Suhan, claims, as he is dying at the Battle of the Camel, to have fought for Ali because, after hearing the Ghadir Khumm account from Umm Salamah, he feared that if he abandoned Ali, God would abandon him.
"Second, the references made to the Ghadir Khumm statement in these various incidents suggest something about the way the tradition was understood. The Prophetic endorsement of Ali on this occasionwas undoubtedly seen as a notable fadilah (claim to spiritual nobility)
that could be adduced on his behalf, sufficient to give pause even to his professed enemies, including Talhah and Mu˜awiyah. However,there is nothing in any of the references just cited to indicate that ˜Ali, or anyone else for that matter, considered the Ghadir Khumm event as direct evidence of his political designation as the Prophet’s successor. Even when Ali is allegedly defending his right to the leadership of the community at the shura—not just rhetorically, but as one of twopossible candidates to succeed the second caliph—he only cites the
Prophet’s words at Ghadir Khumm as one of a long list of merits
(fada'il) to which he could lay claim. Certainly if he and his early
supporters—like Abu Tufayl—recognized the event at Ghadir Khumm
as a clear designation of ˜Ali as the Prophet’s successor, then there
should have been no need to go on at length about his other merits. Moreover, while Ali often defends his legitimacy during his troubled caliphate in terms of the legality of his election as caliph it is onlywhen he is alone with one of the notables of Medina that he adduces the Ghadir Khumm tradition on his own behalf—and again, as a
warning against open enmity toward himself, not as proof of the legitimacy
of his political leadership of the community. These various
references, albeit primarily in Sunni sources, seem to belie the Shi˜ite
view that Ghadir Khumm represented both a political and a spiritual
appointment for Ali that was well-known to the Prophet’s companions,
and suggest that the more far-reaching Shi˜ite understanding of
the Prophet’s words at Ghadir Khumm represents a significant departure
from the way it was viewed, even by Alid supporters, in the first
Islamic century.
"But in the historical accounts of the rhetoric of the Alid camp during the First Civil War, it is this second part of the Ghadir Khumm statement, and the moral certitude that it apparently instilled in Ali followers, that is emphasized, while the idea that the statement represented a specific nomination of Ali as his immediate successor does not seem to have been voiced by anyone—not even by Ali himself."
