Shia's view on Ghadir Khumm produces the idea that Ali is the only legitimate successor directly after Muhammad. What is the Sunnis view on this? Why don't they consider Ghadir Khumm as serious as Shias do?


If we want to summarize, Ghadir Khumm, according to historical documents, is undoubtedly one of the most important and certain events in the history of the beginning of Islam and the time of the mission of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and the day of the completion of religion and the end of blessings. For many years, the thinkers of the Islamic world have mentioned, studied and studied the various dimensions of this great event. Shiite elders have emphasized the certainty of its occurrence and its implication on the Imamate and immediate caliphate of Ali (AS);

But Sunni writers have taken different positions. The views and positions of prominent Sunni historians on this definitive and crucial historical event, and its study and critique. Referring to the authoritative popular historical sources (Sunnis), we come across their different approaches to the subject of Ghadir: Some have accepted the event of Ghadir, but are opposed to the Shiite belief in its implication for the caliphate and Imamate of Imam Ali (as); Some people have only mentioned the hadith of Ghadir or the protest of Mawla Ali (AS) with a few of the companions who were present in Ghadir, and have not said anything about how and the quality of its occurrence; The other group either remained completely silent and did not mention Ghadir, or even explicitly denied it.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .