Chapter Five: The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as)
Ansar.org states:
It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect that they attribute kufr to Mu’awiyah because he fought Ali. However, the fact is that Al-Hasan bin Ali – and he is one of the infallible Imams according to the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth – made peace with Mu’awiyah…So, did the “infallible” Hasan made peace with a kafir and gave him the leadership?? Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the Prophet peace be upon him says: “My son is a master, and Allah may use him to make peace between two parties of Muslims.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Afflictions," #6629, vol.6]
Even if someone calls Muawiyah a Kaafir, then that is no insult on Imam Hasan (as) for making peace treaty with him, since our infallible Prophet (s) negotiated peace with the kaafirs at Hudaibiya, contrary to the criticisms of `Umar. Is Abu Sulaiman also now going to criticise Rasulullah (s)? Mu’awiya was professing that he was a Muslim (though his stance towards Ahlulbaut (as) has been contrary to his claim of being a Muslim), hence the agreement was indeed between two Muslim groups, but his subsequent conduct in breaching the conditions of the agreement bear testimony to the fact that he was a fasiq. Since Nawasib for centuries have been asking reasons on Imam Hassan’s stance of making peace with Muaiwyah, we shall now explain why Imam Hasan (as) made peace with Mu’awiya, and shall counter the claim that his making peace proves that Mu’awiya was the rightful khalifa.
Reply One
Why did the Prophet (s) make peace with the Kuffar of Makka at Hudaibya? The Makkan Kuffar were known for their bad character and evil nature, and yet the Prophet (s) made peace with such individuals. He made a binding covenant with the Kuffar, one which even meant (under the terms) that they would not perform Hajj rather only Umrah, and that any Kaafir that reverted had to be returned to his tribesman. On the written treaty the Prophet (s) even agreed to have his title’Prophet of Allah’ being removed. The treaty of Hudaibya was an act that even the brave lion Umar al Farooq vigorously opposed, so much so that he stated that he had ‘never doubted the Prophethood as much as he did on that day’. Why did the Prophet (s) enter into such an unjust pact which led to Umar doubting his Prophethood?
In the same way that the difficult situation meant that the Prophet (s) struck out his title from the document, it did not negate his truthful position, Imam Hasan (as) was likewise right for making peace with Mu’awiya. In the same way that the treaty of Hudaibaya did not change the station of the Kuffar as impure, the peace treaty with Mu’awiya, still maintained Imam Hasan’s position as on the right path, and further cemented Mu’awiya’s as a lying hypocrite. Imam Hasan entered into a peace treaty with Mu’awiya in the same way that Rasulullah (s) made one with the Kufffr of Makka. Whatever excuses these Nasibi offer for the Prophet (s) making peace with the Kuffar of Makka will also be advanced by us to explain the peace treaty Imam Hasan made with Mu’awiya.
Reply Two – The Prophet (s) saw the Banu Umayya climbing his Pulpit and this saddened him
This will be evidenced from the following Sunni works:
Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 169 Bab Tafseer al Qur’an
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 21, Dhkir Khilafah Hasan
Asadul Ghaba, Volume 2 page 14, Dhikr Hasan
Al Istiab, Volume 1 page 372
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 4 page 228 Dhikr Hasan
Maqatil al Husayn, Volume 1 page 135
Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 170 (al-Hakim said that the chain is Sahih)
Tarikh Kamil, Volume 3 page 207 Dhikr Hasan
Quruth al Ainayn, page 147
We read in Tirmidhi and Bidayah:
“When Hasan made peace with Mu’awiya, one individual stood up and said’You have blackened the face of the believers’. He replied’Do not get upset with me, the Prophet saw in a dream that the Banu Umayya were climbing on to his pulpit. Upon seeing them on his pulpit the Prophet (s) was very saddened, so al-Kauthar descended- it means a river in the paradise – and then descended “We have descended it in the night of Qadr, a night better than thousand month” {Qadr 1-3}. It will be owned by Bani Umayyad after you O Muhammad.”
The Prophet (s) saw the Banu Umayya climbing onto his pulpit. Mu’awiya is from the Banu Ummaya. It was incumbent on the Prophet (s) to explain how this sad state of affairs could be prevented, so as to prevent the Banu Ummaya from attaining power and occupying his seat.
The Prophet (s) witnessed this dream and yet offered no remedial solution to prevent this sad state of affairs. We appeal to justice. In the same way that after seeing this dream the Prophet (s) remained silent, on account of specific problems, Imam Hasan likewise adopted silence on account of problems when making peace with Mu’awiya. In the same way that the Prophet’s silence does not legitimise the reign of the Ummaya, the silence of Imam Hasan does not legitimise the reign of Mu’awiya.
Reply Three – Imam Hasan deemed Mu’awiya an unjust thief
We will prove this from the following Sunni works:
Matalib al Seul, Volume 2 page 17, Dhikr Hasan
Nazal al Abrar, page 81 Dhikr Hasan by Allamah Badkashani al-Harithi
Tadhkirathul Khawwas al Ummah, page 113
Nasa al Kifaya, page 58
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 81 Chapter 10, Part 1
al Istiab, page 372 Dhikr Hasan
Fusl al Muhimma, page 146 Dhikr Hasan
Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafiyee recorded in Matalib al Seul:
When the battle came to an end Imam Hasan gave a sermon wherein he said’People of Allah! You know that Allah (swt) guided the people through my grandfather, and saved you from error and took you out of Jahiliyya. Mu’awiya has fought me over that matter which is my right not Mu’awiya’s. I was worried about protecting the Ummah, and you gave me bayya on the condition that you make peace with whoever I make peace with and fight whosever I fight. I looked at the problems and made peace with Mu’awiya and put an end to war.
The comments of Imam Hasan (as) prove that Mu’awiya was not entitled to the Khilafath, rather he deemed him an unjust thief, and he made peace due to difficulties, and made peace like the Prophet (s) did with the Kufafr of Makka. In the same way objections and wrong interpretations cannot be brought for the Prophet (s) making peace with the Kuffar of Makka, the same is the case with Imam Hasan (as) making peace with Mu’awiya.
Reply Four – Imam Hasan (as) deemed the Khilafath to be his own right
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 343 Dhikr Hasan
Asad’ul Ghaba, Volume 2 page 15 Dhikr Hasan
Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 4 page 228 Dhikr Hasan
Tadhkiratul Khawas al Ummah, page 113 Dhikr Imam Hasan
Maqatil Husayn, page 134
Dhakayr al Uqba, page 140
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 300 Dhikr Imam Hasan
Seerat al Halbeeya, Volume 3 page 352
We read in ‘Maqtal Hussain’ and ‘Asadul Ghaba’ that Imam Hasan (as) said:
“Verily, the matter in which I and Muawiya disputed, either this is my right, and I left this in Muawiyah’s favour in order to protect the Ummah, or this is the right of a person who is more deserving for this post, hence I left this on account of that person”.
The words of Imam Hasan (as) prove that he (as) deemed caliphate to be his own right and did not deem Muawiyah to be eligible for that responsibility but since Muawiyah was a terrorist and wasnt hesitant in sheding the blood of innocents thus Imam Hassan (as) accepted the treaty which doesnt mean he accepted the caliphate of Muawiyah.
A Nasibi excuse and its reply
Here Nawasib may argue that Imam Hassan (as) mentioned ‘right’ (haq) through the words ‘Imma’ and ‘Aw’ which shows the possibility that he deemed the ‘right’ (haq) belonged to Muawiyah. To those Nawasib, we would like to remind them the verse of Holy Quran (34:24) which also contained the words ‘Imma’ and ‘Aw’.
[Yusufali 34:24] Say: “Who gives you sustenance, from the heavens and the earth?” Say: “It is Allah; and certain it is that either we or ye are on right guidance or in manifest error!”
If we look at this verse, apparently this shows that (godforbid) Prophet [s] was not sure about Him (as) being on guidance but that was certainly not the required meaning. Sometimes the aspect of eloquence and rhetorical demands that the addressee is addressed in a manner that may show dual meanings/possibilities. The manner in which the Prophet [s] adopted an either-or question in his statement, Imam Hassan (as) likewise adopted the manner in his statement. The Prophet [s] was tactically taunting the misguidance of the infdels similarly Imam Hassan (as) was actually taunting the misguidance of Muawiyah.
Reply Five – By making peace Imam Hasan (as) was able to show the Ummah that Mu’awiya was a hypocrite
This will be evidenced from the following esteemed Sunni works.
Fathul Bari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 13 page 65 Kitab al Fitan
Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 11 page 38 Bab Manaqib Ahl’l bayt
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 80 Dhikr 57 Hijri
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 37 Dhikr Hasan
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalaini records in Fathul Bari:
اني اشترطت على معاوية لنفسي الخلافة بعده
“Hasan said:’I placed a condition on Mu’awiya that I will become leader after Mu’awiya”
al Bidaya:
وقد كان معاوية لما صالح الحسن عهد للحسن بالأمر من بعده
“When Mu’awiya made peace with Hasan, he made a promise that leadership would go to Hasan after him”
Sahih Bukhari makes it clear that a hypocrite is one who makes a promise and then breaks it. The peace treaty exposed the hypocrisy of Mu’awiya, and his enmity to the family of Maula’Ali (as). The treaty was set up to show to the Ummah that he was a hypocrite and his breaking of this promise through the poisoning of Imam Hasan (as) made this absolutely clear. Allah (swt) says in Holy Quran (13:25)
But those who break the Covenant of Allah, after having plighted their word thereto, and cut asunder those things which Allah has commanded to be joined, and work mischief in the land;- on them is the curse; for them is the terrible home!
Mu’awiya’s renaging on his promise proves that he was a accursed one and a hypocrite (munafiq). The peace treaty rather than prove the faith of Mu’awiya exposes him as a hypocrite.
Reply Six – The peace treaty in the eyes of the Sunni Ulema
We shall evidence this from the following Sunni works:
Irshad al-Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol 10 page 190 Bab ul Fitan
Umda’tul Qari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, page 361
Mirqaat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 11 page 379, Bab Manaqib Ahl’ul bayt
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 370 Dhikr Hasan
Irshad al-Sari:
“Hasan did not leave worldly power on account of personal weakness, rather he made peace to avoid Fitnah and to quell hostilities”
Irshad al-Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol 10 page 198 Bab ul Fitan
The reference proves that the Sunni Ulema did not deem the treaty as proof that Mu’awiya was right; rather the Imam did it to prevent the further loss of life. The Nasibi’s claim that Mu’awiah obtained ijmaa is a lie. Ijmaa requires the consensus from the scholars of piety on an Islamic problem, but neither was Mu’awiya pious nor were those that supported his reign, his sidekicks Ibn Aas, Mughira bi Shubah, Ziyad, Marwan were devoid of piety.
Reply Seven – Mu’awiya was not well intentioned when he made peace with Imam Hasan (as)
If we read history, it becomes clear that Muawiyah’s heart was (as usual) impure and was not clear of bad intentions at the time of making treaty with Imam Hassan (as). We shall prove this from the following Sunni sources:
Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara, Book 20, Number 4553
Miskhat al Msaabih, Volume 2 page 166 Bab ul Fitan
Ash’at al Umaat, Volume 3 page 286 Kitab al Fitan
Mirqat Sharh Mishqat, Volume 1 page 114 Kitab al Fitan
Hujjatul Balagha, Volume 2 page 213
al Nihaya, Volume 2 page 109
Majm’a al Imthaal, Volume 2 page 386 Chapter 27
Minhaaj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 560
Fatwa Meheriya, page 145 by Syed Meher Ali
We read in Sahih Muslim:
It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked : Will there be a good time again after that bad time ? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one ? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time ? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no leader ? He said : Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state.
Ibn Tamiyah al-Nasibi stated about this hadith:
والخبر الثاني اجتماع الناس لما اصطلح الحسن ومعاوية لكن كان صلحا على دخن
“The second news is about the people who gathered when al-Hassan and Mu’awiya made treaty, but the treaty was based on malice”
Minhaaj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 560
Mullah Ali Qari wrote:
وبالخير الثاني ما وقع من صلح الحسن مع معاوية والإجماع عليه وبالدخن ما كان في زمنه من بعض الأمراء كزياد بالعراق
“The second news refers to the treaty that took place between Mu’awiya and Hasan, and Dakhan refers to some of Mu’awiya’s Governors like Ziyad in Iraq”.
Mullah Ali Qari says the word ‘Dakhan’ refers to Ziyad but fails to include his teacher Mu’awiya under this definition/word. These Nawasib try to legitimise the reign of a leader who came to power my making a peace that he has no support for, and the Prophet (s) used the term for one that referring to a hypocritical agreement. Shah Abdul Haq Dehalvi in his Sharh Mishkat stated:
‘Dakhan’ refers to a treaty involving dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Nawawi said in ‘Sharh Muslim’ Volume 6 page 227 that:
‘Dakhan’ among animals refers to a colour that is black and in this hadith it refers to a heart which is not pure and its impurity doesnt erase.
Ibn Atheer stated in ‘Al-Nihayah’ that ‘Hadna Ala Dakhan’ refers to:
“A treaty about which hearts are not pure”.
Shah Waliullah Dehalvi in ‘Hujjuthul Balagha’ stated:
“Dakhan refers to the peace treaty between Mu’awiya and Hasan”
Imam Hasan was the grandson of the Prophet, one of the members under the cloak of puritiy, the rightful leader and the master of the youth of paradise, He (as) was of pure intention when making peace, unlike Mu’awiya, later on proven by his flagrant violation of the conditions, killing of Imam Hasan (as) and showing happiness over His (as) murder. Thus, the fitlhy heart being referred to by the word ‘Dakhan’ was the heart of Muawiyah.
Reply Eight – Imam Hasan (as) made peace on account of pressure
Ibn Asakir in his authority work ‘Tareekh Damishq’ and Imam Dhahabi in ‘Siyar Alam Nubla’ Volume 3 page 269 records:
إلا وان معاوية دعانا إلى أمر ليس فيه عز ولا نصفة فان اردتم الموت رددناه عليه وحاكمناه إلى الله جل وعز بظبا ( 5 ) السيوف وان اردتم الحياة قبلناه واخذنا لكم الرضا فناداه القوم من كل جانب البقية البقية ( 6 ( فلما افردوه امضى الصلح
Hasan said: “Be informed that Mu’awiya has called us to such a treaty that is neither honourable nor is it based on justice. If you are ready for death then we will reject this offer, and answer the matter with our swords and leave the matter with Allah. If you like life then we can accept it. Upon saying this, the calls from all around were’Taqqiyyah, Taqqiyyah’ when the people left Hasan, he made peace”.
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 268
Ibn Asakir has used to the words ‘Baqqiyyah Baqqiyah’ but he said Dahabi has recorded it them as ‘Taqqiyah Taqqiyah’ in ‘Siyar Alam Nubla’ Volume 3 page 269 hence we used it likewise.
Imam Nawawi records:
فإن قيل فكيف خلع الحسن بن علي نفسه؟ قلنا لعله علم من نفسه ضعفا عن تحملها أو علم أنه لا ناصر له ولا معين فخلع نفسه تقية
“If it is been asked as how did Hassan bin Ali oust himself? We would reply that perhaps he figured out his inability due to weakness, or perhaps he figured out that he had no supporter hence he ousedt himself under Taqqiyah”.
Kitab al-Majmoa, Volume 21 page 29
We appeal to justice! The Taqiyyah mentioned above was the same Taqiyyah that a terrified / tearful Abu Bakr adopted in the cave, that the Prophet (s) adopted at Hudaibya where he had to delete the words ‘Prophet of Allah’ from the treaty doucment.
Reply Nine – If you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit kill him (hadeeth)
We will cite this Prophetic Hadeeth from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Mizan al-Itidal Volume 2 page 17; Volume 2 page 129 on the authority of Abu Said al Khudri; Volume 7 page 324 and Volume 8 page 74
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 133 Dhikr Mu’awiya
Kunzul Haqaiq, Volume 1 page 18
Tatheer al Janaan, columm on Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 62
Al Nasa al Kifaya page 35
Maqatil al Husayn, page 175
Tareekh Tabari, Volume 13 the events of 284 Hijri, the rule of Banu Ummayya
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 5 page 110 Dhikr Ubada bin Yaqoob
Tareekh al Baghdad, Volume 12 page 181 Dhikr bin Ubayd
Tabaqat by Ibn Sad, Volume 4 page 134-135
al Kamil fi Safa al Rijal, Volume 2 page 146 hadith number 343,
Ansab al Ashraf, Volume 5 page 136,
Waqt Sifeen, page 216 and 221
We read the following hadith in the above cited books:
اذا رايتم معاوية على منبري فاقتلوه
“If you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit then kill him”
Sheikh Muhammad bin Aqeel al-Hadrami (d. 1350 H) said in his book ‘al-Atab al-Jameel ala ahl al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel’ page 63 that the hadith is Sahih. An interesting event in connection with this event can be located in ‘Ansab al Ashraf’ Volume 5 page 136:
“On one occasion an Ansari individual wanted to kill Mu’awiya, the people said, ‘the sword can not be raised during the reign of Umar, they said that he should write to Umar and seek his consent. He replied ‘ I heard that Rasulullah had said: ‘If you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit then kill him’. The people confirmed that they had also heard the hadith, but said we have not carried out this action, so let us write to Umar on the matter, which they did, but Umar did not write back to resolve the matter, until he died”
We read in Maqatil al Husayn:
“Hussain said to Marwan: ‘My grandfather said: ‘Khilafah in the family of Abu Sufyan is haraam, since they embraced Islam after the conquest of Makka’. My grandfather also said: ‘When you see Mu’awiya on my pulpit then rip open his stomach’. The people of Madina failed to kill Mu’awiya, which is why Allah (swt) on account of His wrath gave them the leadership of Yazeed”.
We appeal to justice. If Mu’awiya had not become Khalifa after making peace with Imam Hasan (as), the Prophet (s) would not have issued an order that he be killed. It is clear that when the Prophet (s) dreamt of the Banu Ummayya climbing his pulpit like monkeys it referred to Mu’awiya, which is why he (s) wanted him to be killed. The leadership of anyone who has to be killed when attaining power, is unacceptable. Imam Hasan (as) made peace, that was it. The Prophet (s) deemed the Khilafath of Mu’awiya to be so unpalatable that he said he had to be killed the moment he sat on his throne. That makes all the arguments of Nasibis that the son of Hind’s reign was legitimate to sheer nonsense.
Reply Ten – Banu Zarqa cannot be Khalifas
We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Sunan Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 114 Kitab al Fitan
Sunan Abu Daud, Kirtab al Sunnah Volume 4 page 211
Asad ul Ghaba page 411 Dhikr Safiba Sahabi
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 131 Kitab Dhikr Sahaba
Tarikh al Khulafa page 199, Dhikr Mu’awiya
Tarikh al Khualafa:
“Sa’ad said to the Safina: ‘The Banu Umayya state that the Prophetic Khialfah is their right’. Safina said: ‘The Zarqa lie, they are Kings, and their first king was Mu’awiya’.
Safina did not recognise Mu’awiya as Khailifa after the peace with Hasan (as) rather he deemed him the first from a line of Banu Umayya kings, in exactly the same way that Ayesha compared Muawiya to the rule of Pharoah.
Reply Eleven – Imam Hasan (as) made peace to protect Muslim lives, property and honour, and thus provided an example for those people faced with difficult choices
We read in Tarikh ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 280 Dhikr Hasan:
قال يا مالك لا تقل ذلك أني لما رأيت الناس تركوا ذلك إلا أهله خشيت أن تجتثوا عن وجه الأرض فاردت أن يكون للدين في الأرض ناعي
“After Hasan made peace with Mu’awiya, Malik ibn Dhumr said: ‘You have blackened the face of the believers’ to which he [Hasan] replied: ‘Don’t say this! I feared that the Muslims would be exterminated from the earth. My desire is that some people will remain on the earth who will mention Islam to the people”
Tarikh ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 280
Ibn Kathir records the following clear cut words of Imam Hasan (as):
“Naeem bin Hamad has narrated that Ibn Fazeel has narrated from Sari bin Ismaeel narrated to us from Shaybi that Sufiyan bin al-Lail narrated to me that when Hasan bin Ali [ra] came Madina from Kufa, I said to him: ‘O the one who disgraced the believers’. He replied: ‘Dont say this! I heard Holy Prophet [s] saying that day and nights will not cease to end until Muawiyah becomes king, thus I knew that Allah’s ‘will’ had to take place, therefore I did not like bloodshed of Muslims taking place between me and him”
Al-Bidayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 974, under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiyah
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Habban in al-Thuqat, Volume 2 page 305 cites how ruthless and low Mu’awiya was prepared to stoop to seize power:
فاحتال معاوية في الحسن بن علىوتلطف له وخوفه هراقه دماء المسلمين وهتك حرمهم وذهاب أموالهم إن لم يسلم الأمرلمعاوية فاختار الحسن ما عند الله على ما في الدنيا وسلم الأمر إلى معاوية
Mu’awyia tricked Hassan bin Ali and issued a threat of shedding Muslim’s blood, sexually abusing them, and destroying their properties if he didn’t give up Caliphate in favour of him [Mu'awyia]. Hassan therefore chose what was with Allah over what is in the world and handed over Caliphate to Mu’awiya.
Salafi scholar Hasan bin Farhan al-Maliki who on page 72 of his book ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’ attests to the hidden benefit that came from the peace treaty:
صلح الحسن أفضل من تعرضه ومن معه من بقية أهل البيت ومحبيهم لمذبحة ينتهي فيها ذكر أهل البيت !! فصلح الحسن أتاح لهؤلاء المحبين الاختلاط بالناس ونقل أحاديث علي وفقهه وعلمه
“The peace treaty made by Hasan was better than his slaughter as well as that of the remaining Ahlulbayt members and their adherents, that would have brought about an end to remembrance of the Ahlulbayt!! Hasan’s peace making enabled their adherents to contact the people and transmit Ali’s traditions, jurisprudence and knowledge”
Our Imam (as) did not stop the war because he deemed Mu’awiya to be legally entitled to rule the Ummah, rather he did so to protect the life, honour and properties of Muslims. In the same way that our Prophet (s) made peace with the Makkan Kuffar to avoid Muslim bloodshed, Imam Hasan (as) did exactly the same when he made peace with Imam Hasan (as). The role of the Imam (as) is to set an example for the people so that future generations can rely on his decision making when faced with a difficult choice. We appeal to justice, was there not a more difficult choice that this one? The Imam (as) was giving up that which was his legitimate right, yet he weighed up the consequences, and felt that the less harmful / better option would be to vacate his seat, in doing so he set a precedent, with regards to how one should decide on a matter when faced with difficult choices, as has been attested to by Salafi scholar Hasan bin Farhan al-Maliki who on page 72 of his book ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’ said:
كما تعلم الناس من الحسن اختيار أخف الضررين
“Also the people learnt from Hasan, to opt for the less harmful option when faced with two matters”
Reply Twelve – According to Sunnies it is permissible to make peace with unjust people
We read in one of the esteemed Hanafi works ‘al Hidayah’ Volume 3 page 133, Kitab al Adab also in ‘Sharah Hidayah’ Volume 10 page 217:
ثم يجوز التقلد من السلطان الجائر كما يجوز من العادل لأن الصحابة تقلده من معاوية والحق كان بيد علي رضي الله تعالى عنه والتابعين تقلدوه من الحجاج وكان جائزا
“It is permissible to be appointed as a Judge by an unjust ruler, in the same way as it is the case of a just ruler. This is because the Sahaba were appointed Judges under Mu’awiya, even though the truth was with Ali [ra]. The Tabieen were appointed as Judges by Hajjaj, even though he was unjust”.
Hidayah contains the Fatwa that both Mu’awiya and Hajjaj were unjust and the Sahaba would accept the position of a judge from the unjust rulers. We appeal to justice. When the Sahaba made peace agreements with the unjust Mu’awiya and Hajjaj did they also become unjust in the process? If they did then we congratulate you for being the adherents of bulk of unjust companions. If they did not, then in the same way the Sahaba did not become transgressor / sinners for entering into such agreements, there was nothing wrong with Imam Hasan (as) making peace with unjust Mu’awiya. This Fatwa will be an eternal slap on the face of the Nasibis.
Reply Thirteen – The Tulqa cannot be khalifas
We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Asad’ul Ghaba, Volume 5 page 212 Dhikr Mu’awiya
al Nasa al Kifaya, page 153 Dhikr Sulh Hasan
al Isaba, Volume 3 page 414 Dhikr Mu’awiya
Aqd al Farid, Volume Volume 2 page 240
Asad’ul Ghaba:
“Umar said that caliphate will remain with the participants of Badr and the Tulqa and their children have no share in it”
Mu’awiya out of deperation embraced Islam after the conquest of Makka, and such people are deemed the’Tulqa’ and according to Umar such people have no right to become Khalifas. Shah Waliyullah commented in Izlatul Khifa, Volume 1 page 25 that:
“One who does not satisfy the conditions to be khalifa, but takes the seat by injustice is a sinner”
Based on these comments, we can conclude that Shah Waliullah deemed even Mu’awiya’s claim to be khalifa to constitute a sin. In this connection we read in al-Bidaya wa-al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 131, Dhikr Mu’awiya:
Aswad bin Yazeed narrated: ‘I heared Ayesha say: ‘Aren’t you surprised over a person who is from Tulaqa (freed captive) and yet he fights against the companions of Prophet regarding the issue of caliphate?’ Ayesha further stated: ‘And aren’t you surprised that this is Allah’s reign which He (swt) grants to good and bad and He (swt) made Pharoah King over the people of Egypt for 400 years, and similarly other infidel kings”.
Al-Bidayah (Urdu), Vol 8 pages 974-975, under the topic of Merits and virtuous of Muawiyah
Based on the comments of Ayesha, if Mu’awiya’s children deem their father to be a Khailfa of the Prophet (s) then they have perpetuated a major injustice.
Reply Fourteen – Mu’awiya took the Caliphate by force
Ansar.org states:
“Mu’awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hasan bin Ali after peace occurred between them.
One needs to look at the historical background to understand why Imam Hasan (as) stood down. The circumstances were such that he had been forced into making a difficult choice peace or bloodshed, Mu’awiya used bribery and intimidation to “win over” Hasan (as)’s army and had posted his army outside Kufa (a clear pressure tactic). Mu’awiya summoned all the commanders of his forces in Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan to join him. Not long after, the Syrian leader marched against Hasan with an army of sixty thousand men, (Ibn A’tham, IV, p. 153). Clearly marching towards Imam Hasan (as) with a 60,000 force in no way demonstrates Mu’awiya wanted peace – he WAS preparing for battle. If his interest was just peace why not go alone with a handful of supporters? By bringing such a powerful force Mu’awiya was making his intention clear, that he intended to wrest the khilafth from Imam Hasan (as) willingly or unwillingly. Mu’awiya had used the threat of force as a bargaining chip, Imam Hasan (as) was placed under duress to hand over the caliphate, it was not willingly handed to Mu’awiya on silver platter rather Imam Hasan (as) was pressurised into yielding to Mu’awiya’s demands.
The taking of Caliphate by force has also been acknowledged by late Sunni Scholar Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi who writes:
Kingship’s foundation began with this change. The khilafat of Mu’awiya (ra) was not of a kind wherein he was appointed by the Muslims…despite this Mu’awiya wanted to be the Khalifa, he fought in order to achieve the khilafat, and his khilafat was not dependent on the satisfaction/acceptance of the Muslims. The people did not appoint him as Khalifa, he became so by force and when he became Khalifa, people had no other choice but to give him bay’a. Had the people not given him baya at that time, it would have not meant that those people had to lose their positions / ranks rather it would have meant bloodshed and disturbance which could not have been given preference over peace and order. That is why after Imam Hasan’s (ra) abdication (in Rabi al-Awwal, 41 H) all the Sahaba, Tabayeen and Muslims agreed on his bay’a and that year was called ‘Aam al Jamaat’ because of considering the fact that at least civil war was made to an end. Mu’awiya was himself well aware of this position. He stated the following in his speech in the initial days of his Khilafat at Madina:
“By Allah, while taking charge of your government I was not unaware of the fact that you are unhappy over my taking over of government and you people don’t like it. I am well aware of whatever is there in your hearts regarding this matter but still I have took it from you on the basis of my sword… Now if you see that I am not fulfilling your rights, then you should be happy with me with whatever is there.”
khilafat wa mulukiyyat, chapter 5, pages 158-159 citing Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya by Ibn Katheer, vol 8, page 132
This negates the defence advanced by Abu Sulaiman as we hear from the mouth of Mu’awiya himself that his coming to power was via the sword i.e. physical force.
Reply Fifteen– Imam Hasan (as) said he had the right to kill Mu’awiya
We read in Nasa al Kifaya page 157, Dhikr Sulh Hasan:
“The Khawarij opposed the peace made between Mu’awiya and Hasan. Mu’awiya approached Hasan and said’Join us to fight them’. Hasan said’It was halal for me to make war with you, and I left this matter to protect the Muslim Ummah”.
We appeal to justice, the words of Imam Hasan (as), proves that he (as) did not deem the son of Hind to be the rightful khalifa, but rather the duty was to kill him, in the same way that at the time of the conquest of Makka, the Prophet (s) deemed it incumbent to kill Mu’awiya’s mother and Uthman’s brother. In the same way that the Prophet (s) spared their lives on account of personal reasons, Imam Hasan (as) likewise spared Mu’awiya due to specific reasons. The fact that Imam Hasan (as) maintained this stance even after making peace proves that he did not deem him to be the true Khalifa of the Prophet (s).
Reply Sixteen – Textual evidence from Quran
We read in Surah Anfal verse 061:
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
We shall now rely on the following Sunni commentaries of this verse:
Tafsir Mazhari, Volume 4 page 109
Tafsir Kabir, page 283
Tafsir Fathul Qadir, Volume 2 page 307
Tafsir Khazan, Volume 3 page 39
al Hidayah, Volume 1 page 381
We read in al Hidayah:
الإمام أن يصالح أهل الحرب أو فريقا منهم وكان في ذلك مصلحة للمسلمين فلا بأس به لقوله تعالى : { وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها وتوكل على الله } الأنفال : 61
When the Imam considers making peace with the Kuffar, a peace that will have some (hidden) reasonings for the Muslims, there is still no problem with making such peace, since Allah (swt) states’But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)’.”
We appeal to justice. Muawiya’s children allow for an Imam to make a difficult peace with the Kuffar. The Qur’an states that you can make peace with polytheists, and you cannot get worse than a polytheist! If you can make peace with the Kuffar, then Imam Hasan (as) was likewise entitled to make peace with Mu’awiya. It is dishonesty to deem such a peace to constitute bayya.
We read in Tafsir Khazan:
“If an Imam wishes to make peace with his enemies amongst infidels, and the Imam is strong enough to make war, then he can make peace for a year or less. If the strength lies with the Mushrikeen then it is permissible for the Imam to make peace for a ten year period but the timescale cannot exceed this, since the Prophet only made peace with the Kuffar for ten years”
Imam Hasan was the Khalifa of the Prophet (s), but did not command the same level of strength as the Prophet (s). When the Prophet (s) who was able to split the moon, was prepared to drop his weapons and make peace with the Kuffar then why the objection to Imam Hasan doing likewise? The treaty was so unbalanced that Umar began doubting his Prophethood. When the Prophet (s) was ready to make such peace, deeming the Muslims to be weak despite the presence of valiant lions of the caliber of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, then clearly there were some personal pressures on the Prophet (s). In the same way that the treaty of Hudaibiya cannot question the Prophethood of Muhammad (s), if Imam Hasan (s) made treaty with a hypocrite then no questions should be raised on his Imamate.
Reply Seventeen – Infallible ones under pressure from common men
When we say that Imam Hasan (as) was under pressure when he made treaty, the next question in fact an objection that comes from Nawasib is that how is it possible that a chosen one, the infallible one can be under pressure by an ordinary men and he is compelled to do a thing which he doesn’t like to do. The answer comes right from the Holy Book, we read in Surah Tauba verse 40:
[YUSUFALI: 009.040]
when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion; they two were in the cave
The followers of Mu’awiya try to deceive the people claiming that the Prophet (s) and Imam cannot be pressured, so what pressures were on Imam Hasan (as) to make peace with Mu’awiya? The Kuffar of Makka put such extreme pressure on the Prophet that he left his city of birth, Abu Bakr accompanied him and they hid in a cave. If taqqiya doesn’t mean to give in under pressure then what else does it mean? In the same way the Prophet (s) sought to save his life and that of Abu Bakr by hiding in the cave, Imam Hasan likewise made peace with Mu’awiya due to external pressures. In this connection we read in Surah Kahf how Khider killed a child, an act that Musa (as) was critical of, from which we can see that certain Men of Allah (swt) act in a manner that even prophets are unable to understand the reasoning. If people are unable to see why Imam Hasan (as) made peace, then it shouldn’t be an issue, after all the Ul’il Azm Prophet (s) Musa was unable to understand why Khider (as) killed a child.
The bay’a given to Mu’awiya
Abu Sulaiman writes:
“Al-Hasan bin Ali abandoned the caliphate for Mu’awiya and all the people gave the allegiance to Mu’awiya and none of the companions refrained in giving him the allegiance!”
Reply One – The meaning of bayya
On the issue of Imam Hasan (as) allegedly giving ba’ya we should point out that ba’ya has two meanings “to make a contract” and “to pledge allegiance” see Hans Wehr’s Arabic – English Dictionary page 86. The fact that agreement between the two sides was written on a peace of paper clearly alludes to the fact that a contractual agreement had been drawn up. Imam Hasan (as) was offering his Leadership in return for the conditions that he had placed. With Mu’awiyah’s signature the baya was concluded, i.e. the contract was finalised and agreed between the two sides. ba’ya as in exchange, now if Imam Hasan (as) was giving his ba’ya as in pledge, then why do Ahl’ul Sunnah not regard Mu’awiya as a rightly guided khalifa as well? After all as Clarke in his translation of Suyuti’s ‘The Khalifas who took the right way’ on page 9 admits:
“I have continued beyond the first four khulafa to include Hasan ibn ‘Ali because as Suyuti saw him as the fifth of the khulafa”.
It is clear that the bayya was an agreement surrounding the peace treaty, nothing more. Thus the pathetic arguments of ‘Abu Sulaiman are baseless.
Reply Two – Nawasib have stupidly assumed that peace means bayya
al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 18 Dhikr Hasan
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 115
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 259
Matalib al Seul, Volume 2 page 26
Tadhkirathul Khawwas al Ummah, page 113 Dhikr Hasan
Murujh al Dhahab, Volume 3 page 8 Dhikr Hasan
Aqd al Farid, Volume 2 page 244
Asaf al Ra’ghbain, page 167 Dhikr Hasan
Nur al Absar, page 120 Dhikr Hasan
Dakhayr al Uqba, page 140 Dhikr Hasan
al Maarif, page 92, Dhikr Imam Hasan
Maqatil Husayn, page 134
Nazal al Abrar, page 82 Dhikr Hasan by Allamah Badkashani al-Harithi
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Volume 2 page 399
al Fusl al Muhimma, page 163
Tarikh Baghdadi, page 178, Dhikr Qaya ibn Sa’d
Akhbar al Tawal, page 118 Dhikr Hasan
Minhaaj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 560
Ibn Katheer states in Al Bidaya:
- فصالحه - وهو في ذلك هو البار الراشد الممدوح
“Verily Hasan made peace with Mu’awiya, and this peace is a praise worthy act”
Ibn Hajar Makki stated in his anti-Shia book Sawaiqh al Muhriqa:
ولما تصالحا كتب به الحسن كتابا لمعاوية صورته
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم هذا ما صالح عليه الحسن بن علي رضي الله عنهما معاوية بن أبي سفيان
When they made peace treaty, Hassan wrote a message to Mu’awyia the content of which was:
‘In the name of Allah the beneficent the merciful, this is what Hassan son of Ali made peace on with Mu’awyia son of Abi Sufyan’
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in al Istiab:
عن الشعبي قال لما جرى الصلح بين الحسن بن علي ومعاوية
“Shaybi narrates when Hasan and Mu’awiya made peace treaty..”
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb stated:
“Peace treay took place between Muawiyah and Hasan in 41 Hijri during the month of Rabi al-Awwal”
Imam of Salafies Ibn Tamiyah while explaining a hadith stated:
والخبر الثاني اجتماع الناس لما اصطلح الحسن ومعاوية لكن كان صلحا على دخن
“The second news is about the people who gathered when al-Hassan and Mu’awiya made treaty, but the treaty was based on malice”
We appeal to justice. Imam Hasan made peace with Mu’awiya but the nation of Muawiyah gave it the colour of an allegiance (bayah) and they did this propaganda to the extent that some historians while admiting it as a peace treaty gave it the touch of bayah also. The scholars have recorded the fact that peace was made between the parties. It is not necessary that you recognise the legitimacy and right to rule of one that you make peace with, otherwise we will have to believe that the Prophet (s) believed in the legitimacy of the Makkan Kuffar when making peace with them. At the time of the peace, Mu’awiya was not on the path of truth. Efforts to present this peace treaty as evidence that bayya was given and Mu’awiya was right is utmost stupidity on the part of Mu’awiya’s followers.
Mu’awiya’s poisoning of Imam Hasan (as)
Abu Sulaiman rejects such narration’s excuses include the following:
“At those days, people were in an affliction, and their desires leading their instincts, each sect attributing bad things to other sects. If a story was told about that, then we ought not to accept it unless just and trustworthy people narrated it”.
Many afflictions occurred during that time but the Ahl’ul Sunnah happily embrace narration about Abdullah bin Saba so why do they not happily accept this as a fact of history? Should we reject ALL narrations during that period? A number of the grand Sunni scholars HAVE recorded this. We will evidence this by relying on the following Sunni works:
Mu’ajam al-Kabeer, Volume 3 page 119 Tradition 2628
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 115
Tadkhirat ul Khawwas, page 192
Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208
Maqatil al Talibeen, Volume 1 page 20
al Fusul al Muhimma, page 164
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 284
Tarikh Khamis, Volume 2 page 294
Shawahid un Nubuwwat, page 303
Tarikh Abul Fida, page 183, Dhikr Wafaat Hasan
al Habib al Siyar, Volume 1 page 81
Hadahrat Ali, page 214, by Taha Husayn
Sirrul Awliya, page 81
Murujh al Dhuhab, Volume 3 page 5, Dhikr Khilafa Hasan bin Ali (ra)
Rouzatul Shouhdah, Volume 3 page 12
Ayun al-Anba Fi Tabaqat al-Atba, page 153
Kitab Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5
Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 47
Siyar Alam an Nubla, Volume 3 page 247
Fist of all, it should be made clear that there isn’t any doubt that Imam Hasan (as) was poisoned and that too by his wife Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath for which she was rewarded with handsome amount of money. Imam Hakim records in ‘Al-Mustadrak’ Volume 3 page 176:
“Qutada bin Du’ama al-Sedusi said that the daughter of al-Ash’ath bin Qais poisoned al-Hassan bin Ali and she was his wife, she received huge amount of money for that.”
Neither Imam Hakim nor Imam Dhahabi advanced any sort of objection to this tradition endorsing the authenticity of the tradition. As for the person who was actually behind the murder of Imam Hasan (as), Imam of Ahle Sunnah Tabarani in his book Mu’ajam al-Kabeer, Volume 3 page 119 Tradition 2628 has recorded a tradition from some of the most authentic narrators of Sunni sect:
عن أبي بكر بن حفص ، أن سعدا والحسن بن علي رضي الله تعالى عنهما ماتا في زمن معاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه ، فيرون أنه سمه
“Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hadarmi narrated from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair from Yahyah bin Abi Bakir from Shu’ba from Abu Bakr ibn Hafs who narrated that Sa’ad and Hasan, son of Ali (may Allah be pleased with both of them) died during the reign of Muawiya, and it is believed that he (Muawiya) poisoned him (Hasan).”
All the narrators of the tradition are Thiqa (authentic), let us present the views of the two biggest Rijal scholars of Ahle Sunnah namely Ibn Hajar Asaqalani and Dahabi. Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Al-Dahabi decalred him ‘Thiqah Mutlaqan’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz v2, p662). Ibn Hajar stated that people have authenticated him (Lisan al-Mizan, v5, p233). Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2, p439). Ibn Hajar: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p100). Yahya bin Abi Bakir: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashef, v2, p362), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p298). Shu’aba bin al-Hajaj: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt Huja’ (Al-Kashef, v1, p485), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p418). Abi Bakr bin Hafs: Al-Dahabi said: ‘al-Nisa’i authenticated him.’ (Al-Kashef, v1, p546). Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p487).
In Sirrul Awliya by S.M. Mubarak Alawi Karmani (Urdu translation by Ijaz ul Haqq Quddoosi) page 81 it is stated:
“Imam Hassan (ra)’s wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath Kindi some how managed to poisoned him on the orders of Mu’awiya”.
Sirrul Awliya, page 81
In Tadkhirat au Khawwas, page 192 we read:
“Sho’ubi states that Mu’awiya sent a message to Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays that if you poison Hasan then I shall marry you to Yazeed and in addition to this I shall give 100,000 dirhams. When Hasan was martyred Judh sent a message to Mu’awiya asking that he fulfil his side of the deal. Mu’awiya sent the money but said “I reject that matter of Yazeed since I want him to remain alive, had this matter not occurred then I would have married you to Yazeed”.
Allamah Zamakshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208 notes that:
Mu’awiya reached an agreement with Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays, namely 100,000 dirhams if she poisons Imam Hasan. For two months Hasan bled profusely, and he would state ‘I have been poisoned on several occasion before but on this occasion the poison has attacked my heart’
We read in Fusl ul Muhimma:
“Hassan came to Madina where he lived for about ten years. His wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath poisoned him, as Mu’awiya had promised Ja’da 100,000 Dirhams. After being poisoned, Hasan remained alive for forty days”.
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr in his esteemed work al-Istiab records:
وقال قتادة وأبو بكر بن حفص سم الحسن بن علي سمته امرأته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس الكندي.وقالت طائفة كان ذلك منها بتدسيس معاوية إليها وما بذل لها من ذلك وكان لها ضرائر والله أعلم
Qatada and Abu Bakr bin Hafs stated that Hasan was administered poison, via his wife Ja’da bint Ashath. One group have said that Mu’awiya have sent Ja’da the poison and upon administering this poison, Ja’da was rewarded”.
Anti-Shia scholar Maulana Abdur Rahman Jaami writes in Shawahid un Nubuwwa:
“This is commonly known amogn the people that his wife Ja’da administered poison to him upon the orders of Ameer Mu’awiya.”
Shawahid un Nubuwwat, page 303
Tarikh Ibn Asakir:
كان معاوية قد تلطف لبعض خدمه أن يسقيه سما
“Mu’awiya created a mixture via his servants, which was administered to Hasan.
Allamah Ismaeel bin Abul Fida in his famed work ‘Tarikh Abul Fida’ records:
وتوفي الحسن من سم سقته زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث قيل فعلت ذلك بأمر معاوية
“Hasan was killed via poisoning, administered by his wife Ja’da bint Ashath upon the orders of Mu’awiya”
Muruj al Dhahab:
His wife Ja’da bint Ashath gave him poison, Mu’awiya gave her this poison stating: ‘If you administer this poison and kill Hasan by mixing it in food, I will reward you with 100,000 Dirhams and marry you to Yazid’. When the Hasan was martyred, Mu’awiya gave her 100,000 Dirhams , but on marrying Yazid, he said: ‘I value the life of Yazid’.
Maqatil al Talibeen:
“Muawiya administered poison to him (Hasan) when he wanted to appoint Yazeed, and poisoned Saad bin Abi Waqas and they both died in close days. The one who administered poison to al-Hasan was his wife J’ada bin al-Ash’ath bin Qais, for which she was rewarded with money, paid to her by Mu’awiya”
And last but certainly not least for the present day Nawasib, since two of ther beloved Imams having Nasibi tendencies and influnced by the habit of question the authenticity of those traditions that affect the Sahaba namely Dhahabi and Ibn Katheer also recorded this fact without any objection:
وقد سمعت بعض من يقول: كان معاوية قد تلطف لبعض خدمه أن يسقيه سماً.
“Waqidi stated: I heard some people saying that Mu’awiyah secretly made one of his servants administer poison to him”
Shaykh Muwafiquddin Ahmed bin Qasim al-Khazarji popularly known as Ibn Abi Asiba (d. 668 H) in his authority work Ayun al-Anba Fi Tabaqat al-Atba, page 153 has recorded the biography of one of the closest physicians of Muawiya, namely Thamama bin Athaal. He was a prominent Christian Damascene and acted as the means via which Muawiya would access poison that he would use to eliminate his opponents. We read:
وكان ابن أثال خبيراً بالأدوية المفردة والمركبة وقواها وما منها سموم قواتل وكان معاوية يقربه لذلك كثيراً ومات في أيام معاوية جماعة كثيرة من أكابر الناس
Ibn Athaal was an expert in mixing unique mixtures of medicine and was well versed in their results and potencies and was hence well versed in the different types of lethal poisons, which is hence why Muawiya praised him immensely. During an era of Muawiya, a numerous Muslim personalities were killed on account of these poisons.
The said author cites the names of those individuals that succumbed to the poisons administered by Muawiya through the above-mentioned doctor that includes Abdulrehman bin Khalid bin Waleed, the famous companion of Maula Ali bin Abi Talib namely Malik bin Ashtar (ra) etc. Then on page 156, the author then references Tabari:
الحسن بن علي رضي اللَّه عنهما مات مسموماً في أيام معاوية وكان عند معاوية كما قيل دهاء فدس إلى جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس وكانت زوجة الحسن رضي اللَّه عنه شربة وقال لها إن قتلت الحسن زوجتك بيزيد فلما توفي الحسن بعثت إلى معاوية تطلب قوله فقال لها في الجواب أنا أضن بيزيد
Hasan bin Ali (ra) died on account of poisoning during the reign of Muawiya. Muawiya connived with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays the wife of Hasan who administered poison to him, on the condition that Muawiyah would marry her to his son Yazeed. When Hasan died, she sent a request to Muawiya to fulfill the said promise to which Muawiyah replied he feared for the well being of Yazeed.
Similarly Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5 states:
أن معاوية دس إلى جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس بأن تسم الحسن ويزوجها يزيد فسمته وقتلته فقال لها معاوية إن يزيد منا بمكان وكيف يصلح له من لا يصلح لابن رسول الله وعوضها منه مائة ألف درهم
Muawiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays and issued her with an assurance that he would marry her to Yazeed provided she administered poison to Hasan. When she killed him, Muawiya gave her 100,000 Dirhams and said: ‘Yazeed is dearer to me, how can I be sure that what transpired with the grandson of the Prophet will not also happen to Yazeed?’
Who was Ja’da bint Asha’ath bin Qays?
At this juncture we deem it apt to shed some light on Ja’da’s family background as most of our opponents are unaware as to what sort of relationship she had with some notable ones. The learned ad-Dhahabi, writes about her father Asha’ath bin Qays al-Kindi:
له صحبة ورواية
“He is a companion and there are traditions narrated through him”
and then his tarnishing the honor of companionship:
ارتد الأشعث في ناس من كندة – لما قدم بالأشعث بن قيس أسيرا على أبي بكر أطلق وثاقه وزوجه أخته
“He apostatized along with several clan members of Banu Kindah…When he was arrested and was brought to Abu Bakar, he was unshackled and got his sister (Farwah Bint Abi Quhafa) married to him.”
Now, how did Asha’ath bin Qais repay this favor?
فاخترط سيفه ودخل سوق الإبل فجعل لا يرى ناقة ولا جملا إلا عرقبه وصاح الناس كفر الأشعث ثم طرح سيفه وقال والله ما كفرت ولكن هذا الرجل زوجني أخته ولو كنا في بلادنا لكانت لنا وليمة غير هذه يا أهل المدينة انحروا وكلوا ويا أهل الإبل تعالوا خذوا شرواها
He unsheathed his sword and thereafter entered the market of Camels and without discriminating between male or female camels, proceeded to slice off their humps. People, thus exclaimed Asha’ath you have (yet again) become a disbeliever (kafir). He then threw his sword and said: ‘By God, I have not apostatized, but this person (your Caliph) has given his sister in marriage to me, and were we in our country, we would have also thrown a banquet. O citizens of Medina, slaughter and feast, O camel owners, come hereby and take revenge.
1. Siyar alam-al-Nubala,Volume 2, pages 38 39
2. al Mujam-al Kabir, at-Tabarani, v1, tradition # 649, p237, Baghdad Edition)
And take note that the editor to al-Mujam-al Kabir namely Mahshi Hamdi Abdulmajeed Salafi, has stated regarding this tradition:
“All narrators of this tradition are narrators of Sahih with the exception of Abd al-Momin bin Ali but he it Thiqa”
Along the same lines al-Haythami in Majmua al-Zawaid, Volume 9 page 115 has certified the tradition as authentic.
Dhahabi in the same work records a very humorous incident worth mentioning:
دخل الأشعث على علي في شيء فتهدده بالموت فقال علي بالموت تهددني ما أباليه هاتوا لي جامعة وقيدا ثم أومأ إلى أصحابه قال فطلبوا إليه فيه ف تركه
Asha’ath went to Ali for some work, however (due to his lowly stature) he began to threaten to kill Ali. Ali said: ‘You want me to fear death, I am not unnerved by it, bring forth a collar chain and a sharp knife’. Then Ali pointed towards his companions (i.e. arrest this man), but upon their intercession on Asha’ath behalf, Ali let him go.
Siyar alam-al-Nubala, Volume 2 pages 40 41
Despite his apostasy (Irtad) and disbelief (kufr) what was the reason behind giving him such benefits and grants? The daughter of this brother in law of Abu Bakar poisoned Imam Hasan (as) while Ja’da’s brother Muhammad was the key men to Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad and played a vital role against Muhammad bin Aqil (as). What shall we learn from warm and healthy relations the father of Ja’da had with the rulers and that of his policy of betrayal and hypocrisy towards Ali bin Abi Talib (as)?
Reasons behind the poisoning of Imam Hasan (as)
Abu Sulaiman then seeks to use some logic as follows:
“…The truth is that Al-Hasan made peace with Mu’awiyah, and gave him the leadership and the allegiance. Therefore, for what reason would Mu’awiyah poison Al-Hasan?”
Mu’awiya despite gaining power saw in Imam Hasan (as) a formidable opponent. As Abu Sulaiman admits Mu’awiya wanted Yazeed to succeed him. This contradicted one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement with Imam Hasan (as) namely that in the event of Mu’awiya’s death khilafath would RETURN to Hasan. See:
Fatah ul Bari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 13 page 65 Kitab al Fitan
Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 11 page 38 Bab Manaqib Ahl’l bayt
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 80 Dhikr 57 Hijri
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 37 Dhikr Imam Hasan
Mu’awiya had no intention to comply with this, to ensure the best approach would be to kill Imam Hasan (as) during his own lifetime. The famous commtentry of Sunan Abu Dawood has been written by Allamah Shams ul Haq Haqqani which is known as ‘Awn al Mabud Sharah Sunan Abu Dawud’ Volume 11 page 128 wherein he records:
لأن معاوية رضي الله عنه كان يخاف على نفسه من زوال الخلافة عنه
“Mu’awiya (ra) was afraid of losing his calipahte”
Late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi states in his commentary of Sunan Abu Dawood:
“As long as Imam Hasan (ra) lived, Muawiya was afraid of loosing caliphate”
Sunan Abu Dawood, Volume 3 page 273 Hadith 731 (Quran Mahal, Opp. Molvi Musafir Khana, Karachi)
Renowned Egyptian academic Dr Taha Husayn in his book ’Ali wa Banooh’ (Ali and his sons) translated in Urdu as “Ali (ra)” by Maulana Abdul Hameed Numani on page 214 writes:
“By poisoning Hasan, Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas had made the way clear for making Yazeed the next khalifa”.
Ali, page 214
Similarly we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work ‘Maqatil al Talibeen’ Volume 1 page 13:
ودس معاوية إليه حين أراد أن يعهد إلى يزيد بعده، وإلى سعد بن أبي وقاص سماً فماتا منه في أيام متقاربة. وكان الذي تولى ذلك من الحسن زوجته ” جعدة ” بنت الأشعث بن قيس لمال بذله لها معاوية
“Muawiya administered poison to him (Hasan) when he wanted to appoint Yazeed, and poisoned Saad bin Abi Waqas and they both died in close days. The one who administered poison to al-Hasan was his wife J’ada bin al-Ash’ath bin Qais, for which she was rewarded with money, paid to her by Mu’awiya”
Maqatil Talibeen, Volume 1 page 13
The sole reason that Mu’awiya sought to kill Imam Hasan (as) was so that he could renage on the peace he had made, and place his drunkard son onto the throne of Rasulullah (s). Our assertion is further strenghtned when we take account of the fact that in ‘Al Imama wa al Siyasia’ page 155 Dhikr bayya Yazeed we learn:
“An Iraqi tribal chief said to Mu’awiya ‘As long as Hasan is alive the people of Iraq and Hijaz shall not give bayya to Yazeed.”
Mu’awiya poisoned the Chief of the youth of Paradise Imam Hasan (as) to strengthen the seat of his Fasiq son Yazeed. Through this poisoning we can see a clear sign of Mu’awiya’s evil nature. He had no intention of honouring the honouring the promise that he had reached and signed as part of the peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as), and in this connection we read in Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al Iman Volume 1, Book 2, Number 32:
“The Prophet said, “The signs of a hypocrite are three:
1.Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
2.Whenever he promises, he always breaks it (his promise).
3.If you trust him, he proves to be dishonest. (If you keep something as a trust with him, he will not return it.)”
Consider this Hadith and measure it against the way Mu’awiya acted when agreeing terms with Imam Hasan (as). He breached the terms, by planning to make Yazeed Khalifa, during the lifetime of Imam Hasan (as), thus proving that he was a dishonest, untrustworthy liar.
Mu’awiya’s pleasure upon hearing about the death of Imam Hasan (as)
Even if ‘Abu Sulaiman refuses to accept this evidence, one thing is for certain – Mu’awiya’s reaction upon hearing the death of Imam Hasan (as) proves his evil nature. We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Akhbar al Tawaal, page 221, Dhikr Hasan
Aqd al Fareed, Volume 1 page 225 Dhikr Hasan
al Imama wa al Siyasia, page 159 Dhikr Hasan
Tarikh Khamees, Volume 2 page 294
Hayat al Haywaan, Volume 1 page 84 Dhikr Hasan
Tadhkiratul Khawaas, page 123 Dhikr Hasan
Nuzlul Abrar by Allamah Badkashani al-Harithi, page 85 Dhikr Hasan
Muruj al Dhahab, Volume 3 page 8, Wafaat Hasan
Habeeb al Syaar, Volume 1 page 19 Dhikr Hasan
Maqatil Hasnayn, Volume 1 page 140
Tayseer al Bari fee Sharh Sahih Bukhari as per ‘Maula aur Mu’awiya’ page 332
Dhurat ul Ma’arif, Volume 4 page 756 Dhikr Yazeed
Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 pages 186 & 209
Tareekh Abul Fida
Wafayat al-A’ayan, by Ibn Khalakan, Vol 2 page 67
Allamah Zamakshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar notes:
“Upon receiving news of Hasan’s death, Mu’awiya paid a prostration of thanks”.
Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 pages 186 & 209
al Imama wa al Siyasa:
“Ppon receiving news of Hasan’s death, Mu’awiya displayed such signs of pleasure that he made a prostration of thanks as did those with him”
Allamah Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Dawud Dinori records in ‘Akhbar al Tawaal’:
Muawiyah (ra) got the news of Hasan’s (ra) death, Muawiyah was informed about this by the Marwan the ruler of Madina. Thus Muawiyah called on Ibn Abbas [ra] who was there in Syria during those days. When he came, Muawiyah expressed condolence as well as pleasure over the death of Hasan. Therefore Ibn Abbas [ra] said:’Don’t be happy over the death of Hasan’.
Akhbar al Tawaal (Urdu), published by Urdu board Lahore.
Nuzlul Abrar:
“Upon receiving news of Hasan’s death, Mu’awiya recited Takbeer in a loud voice as did the people of Syria. Fakhra bint Qulaya asked’Why are you reciting Takbeer so loudly? Mu’awiya said’Hasan has died’. Fakhra then said “You are reciting a Takbeer of joy at the death of the son of Fatima?”. To which Mu’awiya said “Not on account of joy, rather comfort and ease has reached my heart”
Mu’awiya’s denial that he is happy is a pure lie, you only have comfort in your heart when you are happy, and a closed heart is on account of sadness. Allamah Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (d. 808 H) in ‘Hayaat al Haywaan’ and Allamah Diyar Bakri al-Maliki in ‘Tareekh Khamees’ recorded this narration:
Ibn Abbas approached Mu’awiya, and Mu’awiya said: ‘Do you know what happened to your household?’ Ibn Abbas said: ‘I am unaware of any thing, all I know is that you are happy, and I heard that you recited a loud Takbeer’. Mu’awiya said: ‘Hasan has died’.
Hayat al Haywaan, Volume 1 page 84 Dhikr Hasan
Tarikh Khamees, Volume 2 page 294
Allamah Ibn Abd Rabih in his esteemed book ‘Aqd al Fareed’ records the following incident:
ولما بلغ معاويةَ موتُ الحسن بن علي خر ساجداً لله ثم أرسل إلى ابن عباس وكان معه في الشام فعزاه وهو مُستبشر
“Upon receiving news of Hasan’s death, Mu’awiya became happy made a prostration of thanks. He then sent a message to Ibn Abbas and summoned him. When Ibn Abbas came, although Muawiyah advanced his condolence for Hasan but he was happy over the death”
Maqatil al Husayn:
“Mu’awiya said: ‘News has reached me of the death of Hasan’, and he displayed signs of happiness”
We read in Tareekh Abul Fida:
ولما بلغ معاوية موت الحسن خر ساجداً.
“When Muawiyah came to know about the death of al-Hasan, he performed a prostration of thanks”
Ibn Khalakan records:
ولما كتب مروان إلى معاوية بشكاته كتب إليه أن أقبل المطي إلى بخبر الحسن ولما بلغه موته سمع تكبيرا من الحضر فكبر أهل الشام لذلك التكبير فقالت فاختة زوجة معاوية أقر الله عينك يا أمير المؤمنين ما الذي كبرت له ؟ قال مات الحسن
When Marwan wrote a complaint to Muawyia, he mentioned that he has been informed that Hassan had passed away. When Muawiya heard the news, he did Takbir and the people of Khadra area performed Takbir too and so did the people Shaam. Thus Fathkita, Muwayia’s wife said: ‘O commander of believers, may Allah please you, for what you did Takbir?’ He replied: ‘Hassan has died’.
Is this type of love Allah (swt) commands his faithful to bestow on the Ahl’ul bait expressing joy upon their deaths? Those that are happy at the tragedy that befalls the Ahl’ul bayt (as) adhere to the Sunnah of Mu’awiya.
Mu’awiya’s not considering the death of Imam Hasan (as) as a calamity and the Sunni Ulema’s acknowledgement that this demonstrated his hatred towards the family of’Ali (as)
We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 32, hadith Number 4119:
Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib:
“Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnisrin went to Mu’awiyah ibn AbuSufyan.
Mu’awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hasan ibn Ali has died? Al-Miqdam recited the Qur’anic verse “We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.”
A man asked him: Do you think it a calamity? He replied: Why should I not consider it a calamity when it is a fact that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to take him on his lap, saying: This belongs to me and Husayn belongs to Ali?
The man of Banu Asad said: (He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished. Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike. He then said: Mu’awiyah, if I speak the truth, declare me true, and if I tell a lie, declare me false.
Allamah Shams ul Haq Azeem Abadi in his famed commentary on Sunan Abu Dawood commonly known as ‘Awn-ul-Mabood’ revealed the following about “a man” mentioned in the cited tradition of Sunan Abu Dawood. Allamah Shams ul Haq records:
فقال له فلان ) وفي بعض النسخ وقع رجل مكان فلان والمراد بفلان هو معاوية بن أبي سفيان رضي الله تعالى عنه والمؤلف لم يصرح باسمه وهذا دأبه في مثل ذلك وقد أخرج أحمد في مسنده من طريق حيوة بن شريح حدثنا بقية حدثنا بحير بن سعد عن خالد بن معدان قال وفد المقدام بن معد يكرب وفيه فقال له معاوية أيراها مصيبة الحديث
( أتعدها ) وفي بعض النسخ أتراها أي أنعد يا أيها المقدام حادثة موت الحسن رضي الله تعالى عنه مصيبة والعجب كل العجب من معاوية فإنه ما عرف قدر أهل البيت حتى قال ما قال فإن موت الحسن بن علي رضي الله عنه من أعظم المصائب وجزى الله المقدام ورضي عنه فإنه ما سكت عن تكلم الحق حتى أظهره وهكذا شأن المؤمن الكامل المخلص
“…Fa Qaala Lahu Fulan…”(And so-and-so said to him)
In some texts, the word “Rajul”(a man) occurs in the place of “Fulan”(so-and-so), and what is intended by “Fulan”is Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. The author (i.e. Imam Abu Dawood) did not let it be known, as this was his practise. Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) has reported in his Musnad through Haiwah ibn Shareeh, Baqiyyah, Baheer ibn Sa’d, from Khalid ibn Ma’dan who said: “And Muawiyah asked him whether he thought it was a calamity…”(the rest of the above hadeeth).
“…A-Ta’adaha…”(Do you consider this…?)
In some texts it is “A-Taraaha”(Do you see this…?), that is to consider. This means:’Do you regard, oh Miqdam, this event of the death of Al-Hasan as a calamity?’ Astonishment upon astonishment to Muawiyah. Surely he never recognised the status of the Ahlul-Bait, (Muawiyah) saying what he said. For surely the death of Al-Hasan ibn Ali (RA) is the greatest of tragedies. May Allah reward Miqdam, and may He be pleased with him, for he did not stay silent from speaking the truth, until he proclaimed it. And this is the sign of a genuine and pious believer.
Awn al Mabood Sharah Sunan Abu Dawood, Volume 11 page 127
Late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi in his commentary of this Hadeeth said:
“Muawiyah’s saying about the death of Imam Hassan (ra) that it was not a calamity was based on biasness against Ali and his progeny. May Allah keep us along with AhleBait on the day of judgement, and may Allah we are raised with them. Amin”
Sunan Abu Dawood, Volume 3 page 273 Hadith 731 (Quran Mahal, Opp. Molvi Musafir Khana, Karachi)
Despite this, Nasibies are still blind when it comes to the behaviour of Mu’awiya.
Paksitani Hanafi scholar Allamah Khalil Ahmad Chisti in his book Maula aur Mu’awiya citing Tayseer al Bari Sharh Bukhari states that it was actually Mu’awiya who said “He (Hasan) was a live coal which Allah has extinguished”.
Another Deobandi Hanafi scholar Malik Ghulam ‘Ali in his book “Khiafaat aur Mulukiyat par Aitrazaat ka Tajziya” [Analysis of criticism of the book Khilafat aur Mulukiyat] page 338 cites Waheed uz Zaman’s text Tayseer al-Bari in his discussion of this episode that:
“Ameer Mu’awiya’s heart was not pure with regards to the Ahl’ul bayt”.
Malik Ghulam Ali also in “Khiafaat aur Mulukiyat par Aitrazaat ka Tajziya” page 340 quoting further comments from ‘Awn Maboodh Sharh Sunan Abu Daud’ said as follows:
“Maulana Sham al Haqq Haqqani stated, Mu’awiya failed to recognised the esteemed station that had been afforded to the Ahl’ul bayt, he said such a thing at a time when Imam Hasan had died, this was a major tragedy and Miqdam recited the couplets of truth at that tragic time, he did not remain silent, and this is the sign of a pious momin. The comments of the man from the Asad tribe were said so as to please Mu’awiya. He went close to Mu’awiya and said ‘(He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished’. Such strong and obnoxious language was said before Mu’awiya (as with Hasan present he felt that some aspects of reign were in danger)”.
We agree with this assertion this was said by this Nasibi to please Mu’awiya. Notice how Mu’awiya at no point reprimands the individual for such a disgraceful comment. If this is not proof within itself that Mu’awiya supported this view, notice the comment of:
Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike.
He then proceeds some faults that he noticed in Mu’awiya. The man from Asad’s failure to ask permission BEFORE he slandered Imam Hasan (as) in the prsesence of Mu’awiya is clear proof that he was fully aware that such a comment would not offend Mu’awiya.
In this day and age these supporters of Mu’awiya seek to incite hatred against the Shi’a for they disrespect the Sahaba. We should point out to these Nasibis that their Imam Mu’awiya would disrespect the family of Rasulullah (s) and that insults about Imam Hasan (as) were said in his presence so as to please him.
Hanafi scholar Maulana Sultan Mahmood in his footnote of the Urdu translation of Sunan Abu Daud Voulme 3 page 273 states:
“Mu’awiya did not consider Imam Hasan’s martyrdom as a sad matter, this was on account of his animosity towards ‘Ali and his family”.
Sunan Abu Daud Voul. 3 page 273
Nasibi conjecture about Imam Hasan (as) receiving stipends from Muawiya’s government
Nawasib in one way or another have always sought to prove the validity of the Muawiyah’s reign but in vain. One of the feeble attempts in this regard is their notion that since Imam Hasan (as) took stipends from Muawiyah after the peace treaty, therefore it serves as a proof that according to Imam Hasan (as) the caliphate of Muawiyah was rightful.
Reply one
If an oppressor snatches a right of a oppressed person and afterwords the former returns some of the snatched quantitiy in installments to the latter, it doesnt mean that:
The oppressor is merciful towards oppressed person
The acceptance of some of the rights in installements by the opressed person doesnt mean that the remaining wealth in possesion of the oppressor has become legal.
Consider the example of occupied Palestine. The Palestinians have entered into an agreemnet with the Israeli occupiers, as a result of which they have returned certain land such as Gaza back to the Palestinians. The partial return of the Gaza strip does not mean that the Israeli occupation of other Palestinian land is lawful, the Israelis remain oppressors, and the Palestianians reamined oppressed.
By the same logic we say that Imam Hasan (as) was the true successor of Holy Prophet [s] and was the rightful owner of all the wealth while Muawiyah was the ruler at that time and was an usurper, if he returned some of that wealth to Imam Hasan [a] in installments, that doesn’t make his usurped caliphate to be referred to as a rightful caliphate.
Reply Two
Prophet Musa (as) was brought up in the house of Firown from the infancy and was dependent upon the provisions and wealth provided to him by Firown. Despite this, the prophet remained a prophet and the infidel remained an infidel. Similarly, Imam Hasan (as) kept taking stipends from the treasury during the rule of Muawiyah but the rightful Imam remained a rightful Imam and the oppressor remained an oppressor.
Reply Three
Yusuf (as) was a prophet, but remained in the house of a Kafir King and relied on his wealth throughout his childhood and a time came when He (as) was appointed by the Kafir King as the supervisor of provisions, even then the Prophet remained a Prophet and the infidel remained infidel. Similarly, even if Imam Hasan (as) accepted stipends from the wealth of the state, what harm was in it? The Imam remained an Imam and the transgressor remained a transgressor.
Reply Four
The treasury (Bait al Maal) was not the personal property of Muawiyah rather it is established for the development and prosperity of the Muslims and from that house, whatever Muawiyah would send to Imam Hasan (as), would be used by him (as) to meet his basic needs with the remainder distributed to the poor, orphan and needy ones, thus Imam Hasan (as) used to take the right of the people from an usurper and oppressor and would ensure it reaches the hands of those legally entitled to receive it.
Reply Five
Having provided these logical arguments, let us now cite a Sunni source which serve as the the final nail in the coffin of Nasibi ‘evidence’ of Imam Hasan a[s] supposedly accepting the caliphate of Muawiyah. An esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work:
“Hasan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all Tabayeen used to take stipends from oppressors, but not because they were friends with them or deemed their reign as legitimate, rather they used to take it because it was their own right which was in the hands of oppressors and Fajir people. How could this happen on the basis of friendship when they were confronted with Hajjaj via sword, four thousand Qura (scholars) who were the best and jurists amongst the Tabayeen fought against Hajjaj at Ahwaz under the leadership of Abdur Rehman bin Muhammad bin Ashas, and then fought Hajjaj in Basra and then at the places of Deer Jamajam near Furaat in Kufa. They had broken their allegiance with Abdul Malik bin Marwan, they used to curse and do Tabbara on them [Ummayad rulers]. Pirior to them, people had the same behavior with Muawiyah when he became ruler after the murder of Ali (as). And so Hasan and Hussain & the companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to take stipends from Muawiyah), they werent friendly to him, in fact they used to do Tabbarra on him [Muawiyah] in the same manner as Ali (as) used to do (tabbarra) till Allah (swt) took Ali to paradise and Ridhwan. Thus, accepting the position of a judge and taking stipends from them [oppressors] does not mean that those people were on friendly terms with them or accepted their rulership.”
Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Volume 1 pages 86-87 (Beirut)
Whilst the explaination advanced by an esteemed Sunni scholar shall suffice to shut the filthy mouths of Nawasib, we shall corroborate our stance by citing the words of one of the scholars of their own camp namely Imam Ghazzali:
“There were many among the companions who lived up to the time of tyrant rulers and used to accept properties from them. Such were Abu Hurairah, Abu Sayeed Khodri, Zaid bin Sabei, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Jarir bin Abdullah, Anas bin Malik and others. Some of them received from caliphs Marwan and Yazid bin Abul Malik, some from the turant governor Hajjaj. Imam Shafeyi received once from caliph Harun Rashid one thousand dinars. Imam Malik also received them from different caliphs. Hazrat Ali said: ‘Whatever a ruler gives you, he gives out of lawful things. He himself did not accept it out of greater sense of piety. When Imam Hasan came to caliph Muawiyah, the latter gave him four lac dirhams which he accepted. These sages used to accept properties of tyrant rulers. The supporters of above opinion say that some of the sages did not accept out of great sense of piety. This does not show that it is illegal.”
Ihya Ulum-id-din, Volume 2 page 98
Nasibi accusation on Aqeel bin Abi Talib
Having discussed the topic of Imam Hassan (as) receiving stipends from Muawiya, we deem it an appropriate place to also discuss a similar dogma heold by Nawasib regarding the brother of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) namely Aqeel bin Abi Talib (as). Some Nawasib elements are of the view that Aqeel did not have good relationships with his brother Ali bin Abi Talib (as), and took stipends from Muawiya and never fought alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as) particularly when he waged war against Muawiya.
Reply One – We have already provided an array of replies about accepting stipends from a tyrant
We have already cited Sunni opinions deem it permissible for people to take stipends from tyrants, and the same precedent apples in relation to Aqeel (ra).
Reply Two – Aqeel always held Ali (as) to be on the right path as compared to his views on Muawiya
If present day Nawasib suggest that Aqeel did not have a positive opinion of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) but did have such of Muawiya then they should know that their own spiritual father Muawiya held that very misapprehension as we read in Muruj al-Zahab, Volume 1 page 364:
وفد عليه عَقيلُ بن أبي طالب منتجعاً وزائراً، فرحّبَ به معاوية، وسُر بوروده، لاختياره إياه علىِ أخيه، وأوْسَعَه حلماَ واحتمالاً،فقال له: يا أبا يزيد، كيف تركت علياَ؟ فقال: تركته على ما يحبُّ اللّه ورسوله والفيتك على ما يكره اللّه ورسوله، فقال له معاوية، لولا أنك زائر منتجع جنابَنَا لرددت عليك أيا يزيد جوابَاَ تألم منه
Aqeel went to Mu’awyia as a visitor, thus Mu’awyia welcomed him and felt happy for his visit because he chose him over his brother. Mu’awyia was hence extremely patient and tolerant towards him. Then he (Mu’awyia) said: ‘O Aba Yazid, how did you leave Ali?’ He (Aqeel) replied: ‘I left him in that same situation wherein Allah and his messenger loved him while I have met you in that same wherein Allah and his messenger abhor you’. Thus Mu’awyia said to him: ‘O Aba Yazid, if you were not a visitor, I would have given you a painful reply’.
We read in al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 1079:
ويزعمون أن معاوية قال يوماً بحضرته: هذا لولا علمه بأني خير له من أخيه لما أقام عندنا وتركه. فقال عقيل: أخي خير لي في ديني وأنت خير لي في دنياي
“They claim that once Mu’awyia said in his (Aqeel’s) presence: ‘If he didn’t believe that now I was better than his brother he would not reside with us.’ Thus Aqeel said: ‘My brother is better for me for my religion whilst you are better for me for my life / world’.
Reply Three – The Bani Umaya fabricated texts to cast aspersions over Aqeel’s relationship with Ali (as)
We read in al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 1079:
كان عقيل أكثرهم ذكراً لمثالب قريش فعادوه لذلك وقالوا فيه بالباطل ونسبوه إلى الحمق واختلقوا عليه أحاديث مزورة
“Aqeel was the individual who that cited the most defects of the Quraish, they hence bore enmity towards him and attributed false things to him and claimed that he was a fool and they fabricated false traditions about him.”
In light of this fact, we can deduce that it was the Bani Umaya that fabricated false stories about Aqeel so that they could attack the position of Ali bin Abi Talib (as). It is indeed ironic that the doubts that the today’s Nawasib cast regarding Aqeel are on account of the very propaganda that was first perpetuated by their Bani Umaya ancestors.
Reply Four – Aqeel didn’t participate in battles alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as) due to illness
The reason Aqeel didn’t participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was due illness as attested to by Imam Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam, Volume 4 page 84:
ثم هاجر اول سنة ثمان ثم عرض له مرض بعد شهوده غزوة مؤتة فلم نسمع له بذكر في الفتح ولا ما بعدها
‘Then he migrated in the beginning of the 8th year, and fell ill after attending the battle of Mota, we therefore here nothing of him after the Fatah fateh (conquest of Makka).’
Refuting the Nawasib claim that there existed a reciprocal warmth, respect and affection between Imam Hussain (as) and Muawiya
Since we have, in this chapter, discussed the evil stance of Muawiya towards Imam Hassan (as), it is relevant at this point to also shed some light on the relationship that between Muawiya and Imam Hussain (as) as the Nawasib have strove to paint a happy picture in this regard. One such example comes from Azam Tariq the slain leader of the terrorist organization who in his book Khutbaat-e-Jail alleged that the Shias of Iraq invited Imam Hussain (as) to rise against Muawiya but the Imam (as) sided with Muawiya and turned down their request.
The reality is that Imam Hassan (as), whilst writing down his views about Muawiya, had already expounded his reasons for not rising against him and Imam Hussain (as) likewise reiterated that same stance, namely that he did not deem Muawiya to be a just and rightful caliph. Dhahabi summarizes these authentic reports in his words as follows:
بلغنا أن الحسين لم يعجبه ما عمل أخوه الحسن من تسليم الخلافة إلى معاوية بل كان رأيه القتال ولكنه كظم وأطاع أخاه وبايع وكان يقبل جوائز معاوية ومعاوية يرى له ويحترمه ويجعله فلما أن فعل معاوية ما فعل بعد وفاة السيد الحسن من العهد بالخلافة إلى ولده يزيد تألم الحسين وحق له وامتنع هو وابن أبي بكر وابن الزبير من المبايعة حتى قهرهم معاوية وأخذ بيعتهم مكرهين وغلبوا وعجزوا عن سلطان الوقت
We have become aware of the fact that Hussain was unhappy with Hassan’s handing over the caliphate to Muawiya. Hussain’s opinion was that a war should be raged upon Muawia but he remained temperate and patient and showed obedience to his brother and gave allegiance to Muawiah. He would accept stipends from Muawiya, whilst Muawiya also gave regards and respected him. When after the death of Hassan, Muawiya appointed his son Yazeed as crown prince for the purpose of caliphate, that deeply hurt Hussain and rightly so, on his part. Thus Hussain, Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakar and Ibn Zubair did not pledge allegiance to Yazid’s right to caliphate until Muawiya forced and coerced them to pay their allegiance to Yazeed. They were overwhelmed and helpless in front of the strength and force of the ruler of the time.
Siyar aalam-al-Nubala Volume 3 pages 291-292
Following the death of Imam Hassan (as), Mussayib bin Najbah and various other people approached Imam Hussain (as) and suggested that he wage war against Muawiya. Those people mentioned that they were aware of his stance and that of his brother, Imam Hassan. Imam Hussain (as) then stated to them:
أرجو أن يعطي الله أخي على نيته وأن يعطيني على نيتي في حبي جهاد الظالمين
“I hope that Allah will reward my brother for his intention and reward me for my love of Jihad against oppressors”
1. Siyar aalam-al-Nubala Volume 3 page 294
2. Tahdheeb by Ibn Asakir, Volume 4, page 330
Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Muawiya that he feared that Hussain would become the centre of tumult for him (Muawiya) and cause him major difficulties. Muawiya responded by penning an admonishing letter to Hussain (as):
… فكتب إليه الحسين أتاني كتابك وانا بغير الذي بلغك جدير وما أردت لك محاربة ولا خلافا وما أظن لي عذرا عند الله في ترك جهادك وما أعلم فتنة أعظم من ولايتك …
“A person who has alleged his allegiance and attested in the name of Allah should fulfill his promise. I have been informed that a few people from Kufa have invited you to wage war against me. You have already tested these people; they did not stand with your father and brother. Hence, be afraid of Allah and honor your promise and if you plan against me, I shall wage war against you”. Hussain wrote to him: ‘I have received your letter. What you have heard is not worthy of my standards. I haven’t made any intention of waging a war or opposing you but I think that Allah will not accept any excuse for not waging a war (Jihad) against you, according to me there is no bigger sedition than your government’.
1. Siyar alam-an-Nubala, Volume 3 page 294
2. Tareekh Al-Islam, Volume 2 page 341
Like other typical Nasibi authors, Azam Tariq likewise alleged that both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (as) deemed Muawiya a just and rightful caliph. This lummox and his delusional forefathers have lied. As per the aforementioned words of a great Sunni scholar, Imam Hussain (as) had in fact declared that Muawiya:
was most worthy of being fought against or killed
was unjust and he, the Imam (as) would have no excuse before Allah for not waging a war (Jihad) against Muawiya, thus implying that it was correct to pursue a course of Jihad against Muawiya but circumstances prevented him from doing so.
was at the helm of the most seditious form of Government, whilst the Quran stipulates:
Tumult is worse than the act of murder. Keep waging war on these non-believers until tumult is no more.
Hence, according to Imam Hussain (as), Muawiya was symbolized the worse form of sedition; he was the incarnation of tumult, that thus rendered his Government and his being at its helm to be the epitome of sedition. Unfortunately, Imam Hussain (as) had very few trustworthy supporters and delegates and therefore desisted from waging jihad.
Muawiya’s will for his son Yazeed
Azam Tariq writes in his book Khutbat Jail, pages 334-335:
“Now with Hadhrat Ameer Muawiya’s death approaching, he announced Yazid as his heir to save the Ummah from separation and divergence and obtained theallegiance from all the Islamic Kingdom however Hadhrat Hussain, Hadhrat Abdulah bin Zubair (ra) and a few other companions of the Prophet did not pledge their allegiance to Yazid. That is why at the time of his death, Hadhrat Ameer Muawiya’s last will to Yazid, as recorded in Jila al-Ayun page 431 by the great Shia Mujhtahid Mullah Baqir Majlisi is as follows:
‘But you are aware of the relation and affinity of Hussain with the Holy Prophet (s) i.e. he is part of Prophet’s body and he has been brought up through Prophet’s flesh and blood. I am aware that the people ofIraqwill call him and will not help him, they will abandon him. If you overwhelm him, then do recognize his rights and respect and do remember his status and affinity to the Prophet of Allah. Do not impeach him for his acts and do not break the terms that I have strengthened with him during this time and beware not to hurt him in any manner”
Reply
This will of Muawiya has been derived from the non-basic books of Ahle Sunnah and these words were not spoken by Muawiya to his son Yazeed to support and protect Imam Hussain (as) it was merely part and parcel of the dirty politics that Muawiya adhered to. Ironically, as usual, the ill-advised author has stuttered and copied this narration dishonestly by omitting the following text:
“Muawiya’s intention with this will was the protection of Yazeed the impure’s government and country as he was very much aware of the fact that after the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, instability will plague the government and all, believers and hypocrites alike would abandon Yazeed.”
Jila al-Ayun, page 324, printed inIran
Furthermore, it has already been narrated before that Muawiya personally wrote to Imam Hussain and within that correspondence stated:
فإنك متى تكدني أكدك
“if you plan against me, I shall wage war against you”
When Muawiya himself intended to violently deal with Imam Hussain how can he insist that his son behave in a respectful? Muawiya’s real intention can be gauged from the contents of his will as recorded by Dhahabi:
ولما حضر معاوية دعا يزيد فأوصاه وقال انظر حسينا فإنه أحب الناس إلى الناس فصل رحمه وارفق به فإن يك منه شيء فسيكفيك الله بمن قتل أباه وخذل أخاه
When Muawiya’s time of death approached, he asked for Yazeed. He bequeathed Yazeed and said: ‘Keep an eye on Hussain. He is the most favorite personality amongst the people. Treat him nicely and adopt kind behavior towards him. If he does something (against you) then Allah will be sufficient for you through those people who through Allah killed betrayed his brother’.
Siyar aalam-al-Nubala, Volume 3 page 295
Muwaiya’s use of the term “through those people” clearly alludes to the fact that he was referring to the Nawasib and traitors from Kufa andSyriawho served as a conduit for Muawiya via which he was successfully able to remove the Imam (as) from power, oppress him and thereafter execute him.
In light of the above reference, we can ascertain that Muawiya opined that:
Allah helped him by killing Hussain’s father Ali bin Abi Talib (God forbid) and dishonoring Hassan unlike him (God forbid).
Allah would enable his son to prevail over Hussain via the same people (God forbid).
Allah would facilitate the same end to Hussain via the same hypocrites and traitors that his father and brother faced.
Can the abovementioned opinion evidence that Muawiya afforded respect towards Imam Hussain and left a will that his son behave in an impeccable, decent manner towards him? If anything one can deduce from the advice a suggestion to kill Imam Hussain should he seek to rise up. The will dictating an inference to kill the Imam (as) is a later issue, the fact is, during his reign, Muawiya had himself made a firm decision to kill Imam Hussain (as). Had Allah not favored Imam Hussain (as), he would have been martyred in Makkah in 56 A.H instead ofKarbalain 61 A.H. but it was the Imam’s far-sightedness and situational analysis that neutralized Muawiya’s evil machinations had the Imam (as) not acted in this manner Muawiya would have no doubt disposed of him during his own reign. Yazeed was taught in this will not to abstain from shedding Hussain’s blood to enable the stability of his reign. Yazeed followed this lesson to the hilt and sent thirty people dressed as pilgrims to Makkah so that they could assassinate Hussain (as) even if he was circumambulating the Kaba. One can therefore conclude with certainty that Muawiya aided and abetted Hussain’s, murder, had he not done so, his death threats would have been otiose. However, Muawiya’s all time heartiest wish was fulfilled by his son Yazeed.
Muawiya threatened to kill Imam Hussain (as)
In the previous pages we have mentioned that according to Imam Dhahabi, Imam Hussain, Ibn Zubair and Ibn Abi Bakar had maintained silence over Yazid’s allegiance on account of their being coerced into doing so. Dhahabi explains the details as to how they were forced and rendered helpless:
ثم اعتمر سنة ست وخمسين في رجب وكان بينه وبين الحسين وابن عمر وابن الزبير وابن أبي بكر كلام في بيعة العهد ليزيد ثم قال إني متكلم بكلام فلا تردوا علي أقتلكم فخطب وأظهر أنهم قد بايعوا وسكتوا ولم ينكروا
Then Muawiya intended to perform Umrah during the month of Rajab in 56 A.H. Hence, discussions were held between Hussain, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubair, Ibn Abi Bakar and Muawiya over the issue of for Yazeed’s allegiance. Eventually, Muawiya said: ‘I will make an announcement and you will not negate it otherwise I will kill you’. Then Muawiya gave a sermon and pretended as if those people had agreed to pledge their allegiance Yazeed. These people remained quiet and did not negate Muawiya.
Siyar aalam-al-Nubal,a Volume 3 pages 137-138
The incident that has been reported by Dhahabi so as to flatter Muawiya and has also been reported by other prominent Sunni scholars such as Ibn Athir in a more elaborate manner. Muawiya called the abovementioned personalities who were against the allegiance of Yazeed and threatened them and made it clear that he would address the people and that they were not to utter a single word either to endorse or negate him, a failure to do so would result in their necks being removed before their lips moved. To evidence this intention Muawiya summoned the commander of his special armed troops and ordered that these people sit by the pulpit and that a soldier be assigned on both sides, left and right, of each of these people with sword, and that he beheads them as soon as their lips move. The four individuals therefore remained quite on account of Muawiya’s threats their silence thus implying that they has paid allegiance to Yazeed. When Muawiya left Madina right after this operation, the people came to ask these people individually as to why they had now pledged to Yazeed when they had hitherto not done so? It was at that point that they revealed the real situation and told the entire incident.
Similarly, all time favorite scholar of Nawasib namely Ibn Kathir has unsurprisingly also favored Muawiya and shortened this incident but has failed to hide the truth. His peculiar words are as follows:
استدعى كل واحد من هؤلاء الخمسة فأوعده وتهدده بانفراده
“Muawiya called those five people individually and threatened them”
Then we read:
ثم خطب معاوية وهؤلاء حضور تحت منبره، وبايع الناس ليزيد وهم قعود ولم يوافقوا ولم يظهروا خلافا، لما تهددهم وتوعدهم
Then Muawiya gave a sermon to the people whilst these personalities sat by the pulpit. People pledged their allegiance to Yazeed whilst they remained sitting and watching everything. They did not agree or disagree because Muawiya had already threatened and oppressed them.”
Al-Bidayah wal- Nihayah, Volume 8, pages 79-80
How can a person stop his son from murdering Hussain (as) when he himself came close to implementing that very act? Some wills of Muawiya bin abi Sufian that have been recorded in the history works have been influenced by craftiness, dishonesty and hypocrisy so that the people of later times would not know that that Muawiya was an enemy of the Ahlulbayt (as) but Muawiya ’s character could not remain hidden as he was aware that Yazeed’s government would not last long in the presence of Imam Hussain (as). In light of this reality, he sought to teach him fraudulent excuses and tricks that is part and parcel of being a dishonest, conniving politician. The truth however is that historical facts cannot be hidden like this.
Concluding this chapter
We are told that an individual should not express pleasure at the death of his enemy. Yet the geart of Mu’awiya bin Hinda was filled with such hatred towards the family of the Prophet (s), that he expressed joy at the death of Imam Hasan (as), and made a prostration of thanks. One who behaves in such a manner is clearly an enemy of the Ahl’ul bayt (as). One who refuses to silence insolence towards Imam Hasan (as) when hearing of his death, is content with such comments and will only have such patience on account of his hatred of Imam Hasan (as). Hence calling such a person Radhinathallanho (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyidina causes pains to the Prophet (s) and constitutes opposition to the Deen.
Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, “One that expresses happiness at the suffering of Ahl’ul bayt (as) is a murtad”
In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263:
“What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who disrespect the family of the Prophet and the descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such individuals as Murtad”.
If expressing happiness on the day that the Ahl’ul bayt (as) experienced problem is in the eyes of Shah Abdul Aziz apostacy, then what view should we hold of Mu’awiya who poisoned Imam Hasan (as), and expressed happiness upon hearing that the Imam was dead? We have Mu’awiya’s happiness at the death of the Imam (as) from a plethora of esteemed Sunni works. We thank the Shah and appeal to those with logic to think, who comes within this Fatwa of apostacy? We leave it to Mu’awiya’s spiritual descendants to pass verdict on the son of Hind in light of the Shah’s Fatwa.
15%
Author: Answering-Ansar.org
