Jump to content

Ghadir Khumm from the perspective of Orientalist scholarship

Add links
From Wikivahdat

The Event of Ghadir Khumm has been a subject of interest and debate within Western world|Western academic study of Islam, commonly referred to as Orientalism|Orientalist scholarship. The event, in which Prophet Muhammad declared at the pond of Khumm on 18 Dhu al-Hijjah, 10 AH (March 632 CE), "He whose master (Mawla|mawlā) I am, this Ali|ʿAlī is his master," holds central importance in Shīʿa doctrine regarding succession to Muhammad. Orientalist approaches to this event have evolved significantly over time—from near-total neglect in early Western biographies to critical examination and, more recently, broader historiographical acceptance of its historical core (Rizvi, 1996; Vaglieri, 1965)[1][2].

Historical overview of Orientalist engagement

Early neglect and omission

Early Western biographies of Muhammad largely ignored the Ghadir Khumm event. Scholars such as D. S. Margoliouth in Muhammad and the Rise of Islam (1905), Carl Brockelmann in History of the Islamic People (1939), and T. W. Arnold in The Caliphate (1965) made no reference to the event. Similarly, major collaborative works including The Legacy of Islam (1931), The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), and Gustave von Grunebaum's Classical Islam (1963) omitted any mention of Ghadir Khumm (Rizvi, 1996)[3].

According to L. Veccia Vaglieri, a contributor to the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, this omission occurred because Western scholars relied primarily on early Sunni sources such as Ibn Hisham, al-Ṭabarī, and Ibn Saʿd, which either passed over the stop at Ghadir Khumm in silence or mentioned it without recording Muhammad's discourse. Vaglieri notes that these early compilers "evidently feared to attract the hostility of the Sunnis, who were in power, by providing material for the polemic of the Shi'as who used these words to support their thesis of Ali's right to the caliphate" (Vaglieri, 1965, p. 993)[4].

Sceptical approaches

When Orientalist scholars did address Ghadir Khumm, many expressed scepticism about its authenticity, often attributing the tradition to Shīʿa invention. Ignaz Goldziher, a highly influential nineteenth-century Orientalist, wrote in his Muhammedanische Studien (1889–1890; English translation Muslim Studies, 1966–1971) that Shīʿa adherents "were concerned with inventing and authorizing traditions which prove Ali's installation by the direct order of the Prophet." Regarding the Ghadir tradition specifically, Goldziher described it as a tradition "which came into being for this purpose and is one of the firmest foundations of the theses of the 'Alid party" (Goldziher, 1971, p. 116)[5].

The first edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1911–1938), under the entry "Ghadir Khumm" written by the Danish Orientalist F. Buhl, similarly stated that the tradition "had its origin among the Shi'as" (Buhl, 1913, p. 136)[6]. Philip Hitti in his History of the Arabs (1964) referred to the event as a "Shi'ite tradition" in which the Prophet "allegedly" appointed ʿAlī as his successor (Hitti, 1964, p. 441)[7].

Shift toward recognition and historical authenticity

A significant shift occurred with the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1965), in which L. Veccia Vaglieri produced a substantially revised entry on Ghadir Khumm. Vaglieri affirmed the historicity of the event, stating:

"It is, however, certain that Muhammad did speak in this place and utter the famous sentence, for the account of this event has been preserved, either in a concise form or in detail, not only by Al-Yaʿqūbī, whose sympathy for the 'Alid cause is well-known, but also in the collection of traditions which are considered as canonical, especially in the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal; and the hadiths are so numerous and so well attested by the different isnāds that it does not seem possible to reject them." (Vaglieri, 1965, p. 994)[8]

Vaglieri further noted that the numerous ḥadīth reports on Ghadir, collected by scholars such as Ibn Kathīr with their complete chains of transmission, provide substantial evidence for the event's occurrence. This represented a significant departure from earlier Orientalist scepticism and aligned with the conclusions of later Western historians (Vaglieri, 1965)[9].

Methodological critiques of Orientalist approaches

Shīʿa scholars have offered sustained critiques of how Orientalists studied both Shīʿism generally and Ghadir Khumm specifically. Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi have argued that Orientalist approaches were shaped by several factors (Al-Sadr et al., 1996)[10]:

  • Reliance on non-Shīʿa sources: Western scholars largely accessed Islamic history through Ottoman, Cairene (Egyptian), and Indian paths of entry into Islamic studies, none of which led to centres of Shīʿa learning. Consequently, they studied Shīʿism primarily through heresiographical works written by Sunni opponents (Rizvi, 1996)[11].
  • Compound bias: The precommitment of many early Orientalists to Judeo-Christian religious frameworks, combined with the inherent Sunni bias in the sources they consulted, produced what Rizvi terms a "compounded bias" against Shīʿa interpretations of early Islamic history (Rizvi, 1996, Chapter 3)[12].
  • Misrepresentation of Shīʿa practices: The Dictionary of Islam (1965) by Thomas Hughes contained an erroneous description of Ghadir celebrations involving dough and honey images representing the first three Rightly Guided Caliphs—a practice unknown within mainstream Shīʿa tradition. Rizvi, a Shīʿa scholar writing from personal experience, noted that despite studying and living in Shīʿa communities for decades, he had "yet to see, hear or read about the dough and honey ritual of Ghadir" (Rizvi, 1996, citing Hughes, 1965)[13].

Contemporary academic perspectives

Recent Western scholarship has moved toward more nuanced positions. Najam Haider, in Shi'i Islam: An Introduction (2014), notes that while Shīʿa groups differ in their understanding of Ghadir Khumm's implications, the event itself holds a special place in Shīʿa historical memory. Zaydīs participate in celebrations of Ghadir despite not requiring explicit designation of an Imām, while Ismāʿīlīs and Twelvers affirm the event as evidence of ʿAlī's formal designation as the Prophet's rightful successor (Haider, 2014)[14].

Wilferd Madelung (1997) and Fred Donner (2010) have accepted the event as historical while noting that textual evidence can accommodate multiple legal-political interpretations regarding the precise meaning of mawlā in the seventh-century Arabian context (Madelung, 1997; Donner, 2010)[15][16].

See also

References

  1. ↑ Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  2. ↑ Vaglieri, L. V. (1965). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993–994). Brill.
  3. ↑ Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  4. ↑ Vaglieri, L. V. (1965). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993–994). Brill.
  5. ↑ Goldziher, I. (1971). Muslim Studies (Vol. 2). Aldine Publishing Company. (Original work published 1889)
  6. ↑ Buhl, F. (1913). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st ed., Vol. 2, p. 136). Brill.
  7. ↑ Hitti, P. K. (1964). History of the Arabs (7th ed.). Macmillan.
  8. ↑ Vaglieri, L. V. (1965). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993–994). Brill.
  9. ↑ Vaglieri, L. V. (1965). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993–994). Brill.
  10. ↑ Al-Sadr, M. B., Sachedina, A. A., Rizvi, S. M., & Khimjee, H. (1996). Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  11. ↑ Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  12. ↑ Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  13. ↑ Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  14. ↑ Haider, N. (2014). Shi'i Islam: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  15. ↑ Madelung, W. (1997). The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge University Press.
  16. ↑ Donner, F. M. (2010). Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam. Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

  • Buhl, F. (1913). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st ed., Vol. 2, p. 136). Brill.
  • Donner, F. M. (2010). Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam. Harvard University Press.
  • Goldziher, I. (1971). Muslim Studies (Vol. 2). Aldine Publishing Company. (Original work published 1889)
  • Haider, N. (2014). Shi'i Islam: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hitti, P. K. (1964). History of the Arabs (7th ed.). Macmillan.
  • Madelung, W. (1997). The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge University Press.
  • Rizvi, S. M. (1996). "Orientalists and the Event of Ghadir Khumm". In A. A. Sachedina (Ed.), Ghadir. Ansariyan Publications.
  • Vaglieri, L. V. (1965). "Ghadir Khumm". In Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 993–994). Brill.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivahdat.com/w/index.php?title=Ghadir_Khumm_from_the_perspective_of_Orientalist_scholarship&oldid=3594"