Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

The Strength of the Army

History has recorded the evidence for a very long time that victory or defeat of an army does not depend on the number of its soldiers. When the soldiers are brave and determined to even sacrifice their lives for a great cause, then even small battalions can defeat a mighty army. The Holy Qur’an has clearly indicated this truth in the words of the sincere and devoted soldiers of Hazrat Talut:

"... How often, by Allah's permission, has a small army vanquished a mighty host. ..."(2:249).

The reason for the same is that there are so many factors which determine the success of an army, and its strength is one of these. Therefore, it is not possible to deny the importance of the strength of an army. However, it does not mean that success is sure just because the army is large.

As far as the question of the strength of the army of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) is concerned, some historians have recorded that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had marched from Kufa with an army of forty thousand to meet the sixty thousand strong army of Muawiya. Some accounts have even mentioned the strength of the army of the Imam (as) as seventy or ninety thousand.

It is, therefore, necessary that a realistic and critical analysis of the historical facts be undertaken to determine the truth or otherwise of the claim. Is it possible that such a large army existed in Kufa? Moreover, did Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) prefer peace over war despite having such a large army?

No doubt has been expressed about the strength of Muawiya's army. The historians agree that during the caliphate of Imam Hasan (as) he had come to attack Iraq with a large army of sixty thousand soldiers. But there is a big difference of opinion and doubt about the strength of the army of Imam Hasan (as) in historical records.

A number of historians have kept quiet about the total strength of his army. Moreover, those raising objections against it, contain so many obscure elements. What could be quoted with authenticity was only the strength of the vanguard brigade of the Imam (as) as nearly repetitive historical records show it to be twelve thousand. The history and the historians mentioning the same are:

'Tarikh al-Yaqubi;

'Tarikh al-Khamis' (Dayar Bakri);

'Al Bidiyah wal Nihaya' (Ibn. Kathir)

'Maqatil al Talibin' (Abul Faraj)

'Ansab al Ashraf' (Baladhuri

'Tarikh al-Islam' (Hafiz Dhahabi)

'Tajarib al Ummum' (Abu Maskuya)

'Tarikh-Ibn. Khaldun'

'Tarikh-Ibn. Asakir'

'Al Asaba fi Tamyiz al Sahaba' (Ibn. Hajar 'Asqalani)

'Tarikh al-Tabari (narration by Musa b. Abdel Rahman Masrooqi).

Only Zuhri's version in 'Tarikh al-Tabari' presents a different picture of the vanguard battalion, in which the following words need serious attention:"After deceiving Ubaidullah and (Imam) Hasan (as), Muawiya got busy in employing a ruse against a person who was more important in his view, having forty thousand soldiers under his command."1

If this version of Zuhri is accepted, then the total strength of the vanguard battalion comes to about fifty thousand, as earlier than Qais bin S'ad, Ubaidullah had escaped with eight thousand soldiers under his command. He is alone in mentioning this figure of the vanguard brigade, yet it is doubtful whether it had that much strength.

So, his account cannot be trusted. Not only in this case, but all his accounts relating to Ahlul Bayt (as) as well are considered doubtful by the researchers, the reason being that he used to write only what could meet with approval in the Umayyad court. We intend to throw more light about his accounts in subsequent chapters.

The well known account of the strength of the forces of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) is that these numbered forty thousand. Other accounts have also been recorded but researchers consider the number of more than forty thousand as an exaggeration. The following historical records support the well known version:

Al-Kamil Fi-al-Tarikh

"When the leader of the faithful, Hazrat ‘Ali (as), received certain information about Syrian intentions, forty thousand soldiers in his army had vowed to fight under his command till death. He was martyred while preparing to march on. When Almighty Allah takes a decision to act, no one can evade it. When after his death, the people had taken the allegiance to Imam Hasan (as), he learnt about Muawiya's planned attack and advanced with the army that had taken the vow with Hazrat ‘Ali (as)."

Al-Futuh Ibn Atham

"Muawiya marched towards Iraq with an army of sixty thousand soldiers. Hasan b. ‘Ali (as) sent letters to his governors instructing them to take defensive measures. General mobilization was ordered. Imam Hasan (as) advanced with a little less than forty thousand soldiers, appointing Mughira b. Noful as his representative in Kufa. He continued till the area called 'Dair Abdel Rahman'. Then he called Qais b. S'ad and giving him one thousand soldiers from his own army, set up the vanguard battalion with which Qais moved towards Syria."

Tarikh al Khamis

"Abu 'Umru says that when Hazrat ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (as) was martyred, forty thousand persons took allegiance to Imam Hasan (as). Earlier, all these persons had vowed to fight till death along with his father, Hazrat ‘Ali (as). They liked Imam Hasan (as) more than his father and obeyed him more."

The same narration has been recorded in 'Dhakair-al-'Uqba' by Muhib al Tabari.2

In this regard, nearly all historical records contain the same account, i.e. that before his martyrdom, Hazrat ‘Ali (as) had organized an army of forty thousand soldiers for a decisive attack on Muawiya. After his martyrdom, people paid allegiance to Imam Hasan (as). These accounts maintain that as the people loved Imam Hasan (as) more than his illustrious father Hazrat ‘Ali (as), and obeyed him more, therefore, the number of men in his army was also forty thousand. However, they are cautious in this expression!

Objections

(1) The number of forty thousand soldiers in Kufa has a historical significance, as during that period the maximum number of soldiers has been mentioned as forty thousand. However, if it is true that forty thousand soldiers had vowed to fight till death under the command of Hazrat ‘Ali (as), and after his martyrdom had paid allegiance to his heir and elder son Imam Hasan (as).

Yet it cannot be assumed that all those persons had participated in the war along with Imam Hasan (as). At a critical time in the his story of Kufa when there was a new crisis every hour and every home was in mourning, how can it be said that all those who had paid allegiance had participated in the war when there is a time lag of five to six months between the allegiance and the start of war!

(2) After the declaration of war, Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) gave a sermon in the central mosque of Kufa. Historians write that the grandson of the Holy Prophet (saws) was watchful about the defeatist mentality of the people and their will to retreat. After the sermon, no one supported him till Adi b. Hatim, the leader of Tai tribe condemned the people for not rising to support the war.

From subsequent events like the 'movement of Hujr b. Adi' and the revolution of Imam Husayn (as), it becomes clear that the people were not at all willing for war in those conditions. Though they respected and loved Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) due to his eminent personality and being a close member of the household of the Holy Prophet (saws), but to love is one thing and to sacrifice all at the Imam's command is quite another. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is not possible for forty thousand soldiers to assemble for war.

(3) History should clearly indicate as to what was the strength of the army of Imam Hasan (as) at the time of departure from Kufa, what was the condition from 'Nakhaila' till the area of 'Dair Abdel Rahman' and what extra reinforcements reached the Imam at Madain. Not only is it that no clear details are available, but rather the reports are contradictory.

For that reason, so many historians have avoided to mention the correct figure. Ibn. Abi al Hadid writes that the Imam (as) marched with a large army from Kufa. The question arises: how large? An army of twenty to twenty five thousand may also be considered as very large!3

(4) If Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had an army of forty thousand, he would not limit the number of soldiers of the vanguard battalion to only twelve thousand, to fight Muawiya. For sure, he would have increased the number of soldiers in the vanguard unit. We feel that these doubts and objections are enough to show that the statement of forty thousand soldiers is weak.

Among the reliable historical versions, only Ibn. Atham has clearly mentioned that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had marched with an army less than forty thousand strong. Although his book 'Al Futuh' is one of the oldest reference books in this context, yet his statement in this respect is not acceptable.

In the same version, he writes that the vanguard unit of the Imam (as) had one thousand soldiers. We are of the view that no historian or researcher would agree with his above version.

The objection by Musayyab b. Najih Fazari

Musayyab b. Najih (or Najaih) rose and said: "May my life be sacrificed for you. I wonder how you gave allegiance to Muawiya when you had forty thousand soldiers under your command?"4

From the above objection, it has been concluded that forty thousand soldiers were fighting along with the Imam (as). But it is not certain that the same conclusion may be drawn from the above statement, as it is quite possible that Musayyab, due to his religious zeal and spirit, might have been trying to remind the Imam (as) how he had given allegiance when forty thousand soldiers in Kufa were accepting him as the real caliph and had paid allegiance to him.

From the versions relating to the observation of Musayyab b. Najih, it seems that he was stressing on the Imam (as) the desirability of restarting the war and was thinking that perhaps all the people could be readied again for war!

Ibne Qutaiba's narration

Ibn. Qutaiba Dinawari records that Sulaiman b. Sarad, who was a leader of Kufa and was not present in Kufa at the time, raising an objection against Imam Hasan (as), said: "I am very much surprised how you agreed to Muawiya's allegiance when you had one hundred thousand paid soldiers under your control."5

The learned scholar Sheikh Razi Ale Yasin, analysing the above observation by Ibn. Qutaiba, writes that the above account has been mentioned in 'Tanziatul Anbia', 'Manaqib Ibn. Shahr Ashub' and 'Bihar al-Anwar' in which the said number has been mentioned as forty thousand instead of one hundred thousand. Ibn. Qutaiba is alone in mentioning the figure of one hundred thousand just like he mentioned the word 'allegiance' instead of 'peace', which no one else had used.6

The speech by Ziyad Ibn Abih

During the caliphate of Imam Hasan (as), Ziyad b. Abih was his governor in Persia. When Muawiya wrote threatening letters to him, he made the following speech in reply: "The son of the liver-eater, the centre of malice, and the leader of opposition groups is threatening me through letters when there is the respect of two grandsons of the Holy Prophet (saws) between me and him.

There are seventy thousand (or according to one version, ninety thousand) soldiers with him (the Imam (as)), who are fully ready for battle. By God if he makes the mistake of attacking me, he will find me a very tough and brave fighter."7

The learned scholar Sheikh Razi Ale Yasin, giving a convincing reply to the false figure quoted in the above two accounts, writes: "The important point to note is that both these leaders were not present in Kufa during the period of the caliphate of Imam Hasan (as), i.e. beginning with the allegiance to the Imam (as) till the peace.

They had departed from Kufa two years earlier. Therefore, their statements lose much value due to the fact that they were not present on the spot to study the conditions prevailing in Kufa. It is possible that they may have guessed the figure of the army on the basis of earlier conditions prevailing in Kufa.

"Any way, the statements by the two are more emotional than based on reality. Ziyad b. Abih (Ubaid) was trying to frighten Muawiya by exaggerating the number of soldiers in the army while Sulaiman b. Sarad was unhappy about the peace by Imam Hasan (as).

"We are also aware that Sulaiman b. Sarad had very close association with Musayyab b. Najih. Therefore, it is not possible that the two had such widely varying views about matters relating to the Ahlul Bayt (as), i.e. one mentions the figure of forty thousand while the other says it was one hundred thousand.

The main reason for their different assessment is that one of them relied on Ibn. Qutaiba who had recorded so many accounts which could not be validated on the basis of research and critical analysis.

"Almighty God willed that these two leaders may get a practical answer to their objection to the Imam (as) and the negative view about the peace he made. In the movement of taking revenge for the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as), in 65 A.H., eighteen thousand residents of Kufa had paid allegiance to them, but at the critical time of the actual fight only three thousand one hundred persons were left with them.

After facing the defeatist tendency of the people by themselves, they might have truly realized the difficult situation that the Ahlul Bayt (as) had faced. While leading the 'Tawwabun' struggle, they were both martyred."8

After analysing all the versions and their weaknesses, regarding the strength of the army of Imam Hasan (as), we can conclude that history does not record the actual number of soldiers in the army of the Imam (as). Moreover, whatever historical records have been quoted, are unreliable.

Therefore, we cannot clearly state what the strength of the army might have been. However, through circumstantial evidence, the researchers estimate that it was not more than twenty thousand as the vanguard brigade had twelve thousand soldiers, while four thousand soldiers were with the Imam (as) himself, and another four thousand joined him in Madain. Thus, the total strength of the army comes to twenty thousand.9

Notes

1. Tabari - 'Tarikh al Tabari', Beirut, Darul Kutub al Ilmiah, 1988, vol 3, p. 168.

2. Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fi al Tarikh, Beirut: Dar Ahya al Turas, al Arabi, 1989, vol. 2, p.445; Husayn Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al Khamis', p.389; Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh, Hyderabad: Daira al Maa'rif al Uthmania, 1971, vol. 4, p.154; Muhib al Tabari - 'Dhakair al 'Uqba', Cairo, Maktaba al Qudsi, 1356 A.H., p.139.

3. Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, Cairo: Dar Ahya al Kutub al Arabia, 1962, vol. 16, p.39.

4. Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, vol. 16, p.15; Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh', vol. 4, p.164; Baladhuri - 'Ansab al Ashraf', vol. 3, p.44

5. Ibn. Qutaibah - 'Al Imamah wal Siyasah' Qum, Manshurat al Razi.

6. Sheikh Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', Qum, Manshuraat al Shareef Razi, 1994 , p.118.

7. Yaqubi - 'Tarikh al-Yaqubi, vol.2, p.218; Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fi al Tarikh, 1989, vol. 2, p.453.

8. Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', pp.119-120

9. Ibid.

Selection of the Leader

The researchers complain that a factual, analytical and critical study of the struggle between Imam Hasan (as) and Muawiya, as presented by history, has not yet been undertaken. Thus, a chapter on the early Islamic period remains dark, vague and unclear. A similar view has been expressed by the well known German orientalist J. Wellhausen. While analysing the period of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), he writes:

Events are recorded with confusion and fragmentation and that it is, therefore, difficult to place certain details of the episode in precise chronological order."1

The researchers are justified in their comment, as those trying to analyse the events during the period of Imam Hasan (as) come across many such different, confused statements about the events and contradictory narrations. Similar variation is also observed about the leadership of the vanguard brigade. From the occurrences after reaching Maskin, it seems that the difference is quite significant.

Rebuttal of another Misunderstanding

Some historians have written that the command of the vanguard brigade that Imam Hasan (as) had ordered to go to Maskin in the northern Iraqi area to check the advance by Muawiya, was given to Qais b. S'ad b. Abadah Ansari. The following historians have recorded it as such:2

Ibn. Atham - 'Al-Futuh',

Hafiz Dhahabi - 'Tarikh al-Islam-o-al-'abar,

Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al-Khamis',

Ibn. Hajar 'Asqalani - 'Al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahaba'

Ibn. Khaldun - 'Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun'

Abu ‘Ali Maskuya - 'Tajarib al Ummum'

Two versions have been given in 'Tarikh al-Tabari'. According to Zuhri's narration, Ubaidullah b. Abbas, the cousin of Imam Al-Mujtaba's father (i.e. his uncle) was in command of the vanguard brigade, while according to Musa b. Abdel Rahman's narration, the command was given to Qais b. S'ad.3

The historian Ibn. 'Asakir too, in his well known book 'Tarikhe Madinate Damishq' mentions two different versions. According to him, only Abul Safar has mentioned the name of Qais b. S'ad as the commander of the vanguard unit, while others have mentioned Ubaidullah b. Abbas as the commander.4

On the other hand, we also come across the historical records wherein it has been mentioned that though the leadership was given by Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) to Ubaidullah b. Abbas, Qais b. S'ad was appointed as his assistant and adviser. The following historians support this version:

Yaqubi - 'Tarikh al-Yaqubi'

Ibn. Kathir - 'Al bidayah wal Nihayah'

Baladhuri - 'Ansab al Ashraf'

Abul Faraj - 'Maqatil al Talibin'

Sheikh Mufid - 'Kitab al Irshad'

Ibn. Abi al Hadid - ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’

Ibn. Athir - 'Al Kamil fit Tarikh'

From the historical evidence available, it is not difficult to decide that initially the commander of the vanguard unit was Ubaidullah b. Abbas, but later the command was officially assigned to Qais b. S'ad. We will quote only two sources here:

(1) The war command of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) in which he ordered Ubaidullah to take the command of the vanguard brigade and appointed Qais b. S'ad and S'eed b. Qais as his advisers.

(2) The letter from Ubaidullah b. Abbas or Qais b. S'ad to Imam Hasan (as), after taking over the command of the vanguard brigade, in which they have mentioned the crisis faced by the leadership.5

From a historical point of view, the authenticity of the two documents and their accuracy is proved. However, the misunderstanding by some that Qais was the commander of the vanguard brigade was due to the main role played by Qais b. S'ad. For sure, during the caliphate of Hazrat ‘Ali (as) he had been the commander-in-chief of a very important brigade ‘the Shurta al Khamis' (the Thursday Soldiers).

Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had also not appointed Ubaidullah b. Abbas as the sole commander, but he had appointed Qais as his assistant and next in command. Due to later events, when Qais got the command, he was at the centre of all the events, which caused the historians to consider him as the commander of the vanguard brigade.

Some historians have raised objection that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) appointed Ubaidullah as the commander. In this respect, the following extract from 'Tarikh al-Tabari' etc., needs attention:

"When Hazrat ‘Ali (as) was martyred and the Iraqi people paid allegiance to Imam Hasan (as) as the caliph, it became evident that Imam Hasan (as) was not in favour of war. But he wanted to make a bargain for himself with Muawiya before making any agreement. Imam Hasan (as) knew that Qais b. S'ad would not agree with this view of the Imam (as). Therefore, he dismissed him and appointed Ubaidullah b. Abbas as the commander of the army."6

Two conclusions can be drawn from the above historical extract: 1) Imam Hasan (as) did not want a war (2) Before taking any decision about the consequences of peace, he wanted to extract something from Muawiya.

As far as the stand taken by Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) about the war is concerned, we have already explained it in earlier chapters and no doubt remains about the same. Yet, we would like to make a brief comment.

Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), just like his father, considered it his prime duty to fight the rebellious group and he considered himself to be the rightful claimant and heir to the caliphate, but due to a number of problems, which have earlier been mentioned, he did not want to start the war himself in the given disturbed conditions. But that did not mean that he did not want to fight even a defensive war!

That is why, as soon as he got the information about Muawiya's advance, he made the declaration of war and started large scale propagation for the same. His sermon in the Kufa mosque about readiness for war and his taking the limited army to the camp in 'Nakhaila' outside the city, the same day, is a clear proof that he was taking appropriate steps for war.

Reliable historical records show that it was not Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) but the people who were reluctant to fight and disappointed their Imam. If Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) was really inclined towards peace from the beginning, he would neither have threatened Muawiya with the consequences nor would have stuck to his firm stand till the end. Rather, he could have easily replied to Muawiya's offer of peace at some appropriate moment and would have presented him with his own conditions!7

Moreover, the above extract was from Zuhri's narration and it reflected his own ideas. Researchers complain that he was partial. We will discuss this aspect in detail in subsequent chapters. Similarly, we will reply to the second conclusion referred to above, while discussing the 'peace treaty'.

Some historians, prominent among them being Ibn. Kathir, have written that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) was against the war but the views of the supporters of war and the Iraqi people prevailed over his own view they gathered a large number of people after which the grandson of the Holy Prophet (saws) had to decide in favour of war.8

There is no doubt that the religious devotees and the supporters of war had tried to pressurize the Imam (as) right from the beginning for war and had wanted the allegiance to him to be paid on the condition that he would consider the war against the rebels as the main goal of his caliphate. But the true Islamic caliph had turned it down and allowed them to pay allegiance only on following the Holy Book and the Sunnah.

The historians have no doubt that ultimately the extremist group as well had agreed to the Imam (as)'s firm and rightful stand and gave allegiance on that basis. As they could not prevail over the Imam (as) at that critical moment, it was impossible for them to prevail over the Imam (as) after he had duly taken over as the caliph.

The reliable historical records show that the decision for defensive war was taken by Imam Al-Mujtaba (as). The religious group had supported him in this regard which was appreciated by the Imam (as) and he had prayed to the Gracious God to bestow His blessings on them. This shows that on this issue there was no difference of opinion between him and the religious group.

The basic question that remains, and the answer to which would put an end to all objections and misunderstandings, is: on what considerations did Imam Hasan (as) appoint Ubaidullah as the commander of the vanguard brigade when persons like Qais b. S'ad b. Abadah Ansari were present in the army, whose military experience, sincerity towards the Ahlul Bayt (as), and honesty had already been tried?

The learned scholar Razi Ale Yasin (RA), through a comprehensive analysis, gives four answers to this question:

Scholar Raazi Aale Yasin's analysis about the leader's selection

First answer

The scholar Razi Ale Yasin writes that when Imam Hasan (as) wanted to select Ubaidullah for the leadership, he had bound him down to consult Qais b. S'ad and S'eed b. Qais. This is clearly stated in his war command or the agreement. This way he did not allow the leadership to be confined to one person, which would not be prudent, but appointed a supreme committee of three persons who were the most capable persons in the army.

If he had given preference to Qais b. S'ad over the other two, or over other companions, and had confined the leadership to one person, it was likely that other persons like him who had similar status, were sincere and had a shining record in the religious war ('jihad') and otherwise, would feel jealous.

Among those were Hazrat Aboo Ayub Ansari, Hujr b. Adi Kandi, Adi b. Hatim Tai and some others. In such a situation, it was the best policy for Imam Hasan (as) to prefer the cousin of his father, who was also the cousin of the Holy Prophet (saws), and to bind him to consult Qais b. S'ad and S'eed b. Qais. In this approach there was no danger of any rivalry or disagreement.

The Second Reply

The scholar Sheikh Razi, giving the second reply, writes that in the circumstances it was necessary for Imam Hasan (as) that the selected leader be from the Hashemi family. The point may be explained thus: after the declaration of war in Kufa, the people had shown reluctance and half-heartedness which was the beginning of a bad omen for Imam Hasan (as).

So, it was essential for him to adopt such a policy which would provide a good answer to any current or future criticism or objection. It was easy for the people to blame Imam Hasan (as) if they would see any weakness in his army or would notice any lack of fighting spirit in the soldiers.

It is also possible that if the vanguard brigade had suffered defeat at the hands of Muawiya, they would have argued that if the commander was from the family of the Imam (as) he would have faced the adverse situation in a more determined, cool and calculated manner, and the result would not have been the same.

Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, the selection of the Hashemi leader was an important and sane decision. No one in the army of Imam Hasan (as), neither Qais b. S'ad, nor S'eed b. Qais nor anyone else was more keen and determined to fight Muawiya, than Ubaidullah, as he was full of anger against Muawiya.

In fact he was burning with rage to take revenge from Muawiya, as two innocent children of his had fallen victim to the murder and plunder by the army which Muawiya had sent to Yemen under the command of Basar b. Abi Artat. This incident is one of the darkest in history and is very well known. So it was appropriate that the command of the vanguard brigade should be given to an aggrieved one who would be very determined to fight the murderer of his children.

The major part of the vanguard brigade which Imam Hasan (as) had formed to fight Muawiya, consisted of the remaining soldiers who had been organized by the leader of the faithful Hazrat ‘Ali (as) to fight Muawiya. Hazrat ‘Ali (as) had appointed Qais b. S'ad the commander of that army and Qais had been its leader all the time.

It would be a realistic assessment that such relation between the leader and his soldiers is significant and it is easy for a leader who has extraordinary influence over the soldiers to take independent decisions at any time by distancing the army under his command from the central command of the Imam (as).

This was such a delicate issue which required caution. Though we respect Qais, we cannot deny his personal inclination to take independent decisions. We cannot forget the day when he got the leadership and standing among the soldiers he gave them the choice to decide between two alternatives:

(1) The peace of Imam (as) which included allegiance to Muawiya;

(2) To continue the war without the specific order of the Imam (as).

There could be no better strategy than to not give the command to such a personality but to still keep him as a political and military adviser, thus benefiting from his ability and intelligence. So, in the given conditions, Imam Hasan (as) made the best decision.

However, the appointment of Qais b. S'ad as the deputy commander by the Imam (as), does not contradict his political policy, as firstly, he would have to maintain the decisions taken by the earlier command, thus he would not be able to make quick changes to the war scene.

Secondly, it was likely that the Imam (as) would himself reach Maskin by that time and would take full control himself, as he had informed the commander that he intended to reach there very soon. After that, what was the problem in appointing Qais as the deputy commander?!9

Notes

1. S.H.M. Jafari - 'The Origin and Early Development of Shia Islam', Qum, Ansarian Publications, p.137.

2. Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh, Hyderabad: Daira al Maa'rif al Usmania, 1971, vol. 4, p.154; Dayar Bakri - 'Tarikh al Khamis', Beirut, Muassasah Sh'aban, vol. 4 pp. 389-390; Ibn. Khaldun, ‘Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun’, Beirut, Muassasah A'la mi, 1971, vol. 2, p. 186; Abu ‘Ali Maskuya - 'Tajarib al Ummum', Tehran, Dar Sarosh, 1987, vol. 1, p. 386; Hafiz Dhahabi, 'Tarikh Al Islam, Beirut, Darul Kutub al Arabi, 1987, 'Ahde Khulfae Rashidin', p.6; Ibn. Hajar Asqalani - 'Al Asabah fi Tamyiz al Sahaba; Egypt, Matb'a Mustafa Muhammad, 1939, vol. 1 p.329.

3. Tabari - 'Tarikh al Tabari', Beirut: Darul Kutub al Ilmiah 1988, vol 3, p. 164-65.

4. Abdul Qadir Badran, 'Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq al Kabir' Beir ut, Darul Ahya al Turas, 1987, vol 4, p.223.

5. Ibn. Abi al Hadid, ‘Sharh al-Nahjul Balaghah’, vol. 16, pp.22; Sheikh Mufid - 'Kitab al Irshad'vol. 2 p. 9; Ibn. Atham - 'Al Futuh, vol. 4, p.157.

6. Tabari - 'Tarikh al Tabari', vol 3, p.165; Abu ‘Ali Maskuya - 'Tajarib al Ummum', vol.1, p. 385.

7. References have been quoted in the earlier chapters.

8. Ibn. Kathir, 'Al bidayah wal Nihaya', vol.8, p.14; H.A.R.Gibb and Kramers, Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam: Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1974, p.135.

9. Razi Ale Yasin - 'Sulh-ul Hasan', Qum, Manshuraat al Shareef Razi, 1414 A.H., pp.108-111