This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/academicquran by /u/Radiant-Hedgehog-695 on 2023-09-08 07:09:54.
For the longest time, I thought the Gathering of Khadir Khumm was one of the most reliably documented events in Islamic history. However, while I was reading through Aaron W. Hughes' Muslim Identities, I was struck by Hughes' doubts regarding its authenticity:
Despite the apparent authority of such hadiths, which seem to designate Ali clearly as Muhammad’s self-appointed successor, the fact of the matter is that they were written much later and likely date to the origins of the early Abbasid dynasty. This dynasty, it will be recalled, sought to legitimate itself through its claim of descent from the Hashim clan—the clan of Muhammad and Ali—as opposed to the clan of Abd Shams (the clan of Uthman and Muʿawiya, from which the Umayyad dynasty sprang). Like many of the earliest sources of Islam, hadiths extolling Ali’s claim to the caliphate are not necessarily historical documents, but rather attempts to make the past meaningful in the context of the present and in anticipation of the future. (Pages 118-119)
Even among Sunni scholars, there exist disagreements.
For example, Ibn Hazm writes in his Al-Fasl:
وأما من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فلا يصح من طريق الثقات أصلاً وأما سائر الأحاديث التي تتعلق بها الرافضة فموضوعة يعرف ذلك من له أدنى علم بالأخبار ونقلتها
As for [Ghadir Khumm], it is not authentic from the trustworthy narrators at all. As for the rest of the hadiths that the [Shiites] relate to, they are fabricated. This is known to whoever has the slightest knowledge of the reports and their narrations. (Page 116)
(I must mention that Ibn Hazm was probably too strict in his ratings of hadith reliablity.)
Ibn Taymiyyah writes in his Minhaj al-Sunnah:
أما قوله من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فليس هو في الصحاح لكن هو مما رواه العلماء وتنازع الناس في صحته فنقل عن البخاري وإبراهيم الحربي وطائفة من أهل العلم بالحديث انهم طعنوا فيه و ضعفوه ونقل عن احمد بن حنبل انه حسنه كما حسنه الترمذي وقد صنف أبو العباس بن عقدة مصنفا في جميع طرقه
As for [Ghadir Khumm], it is not in the Sahih books, but it is from what the scholars narrated, and they disputed its authenticity. It was narrated that al-Bukhari, Ibrahim Al-Harbi, and a group of scholars with knowledge of hadith criticized and weakened it. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tirmidhi considered it hasan [minimally authentic]. Abu Al-Abbas ibn Uqdah listed all of its chains. (Pages 319-320)
However, modern Islamic scholar al-Albani hits back at Ibn Taymiyyah, writing in his Collection of Authentic Hadith:
فمن العجيب حقاً أن يتجرّأ شيخ الإسلام إبن تيمية على إنكار هذا الحديث وتكذيبه...فلا أدري بعد ذلك وجه تكذيبه للحديث إلا التّسرّع والمبالغة في الردِّ على الشّيعة
It is truly astonishing that Ibn Taymiyyah dares to deny and belie this hadith...I do not know the reason for his denial of the hadith, other than haste and exaggeration in responding to the Shiites (Pages 263-264)
And in his Lives of Noble Figures, al-Dhahabi confirms the authenticity of the narration:
هذا حديث حسن عال جدّاً , ومّتْنُهُ فمتواتر
This is a extremely hasan hadith, and its matn [text] is mutawatir. (Page 335)
And of course, the elephant in the room is how this numerously reported hadith is mysteriously missing from most of the Sahih books.
For a hadith so widely narrated, why there remains disagreements in Sunni circles whether it's reliable? And is Hughes correct in his view that Ghadir Khumm may have been fabricated by Abbasids to strengthen their claims to Banu Hashim?