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-Hassan 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” Hassan 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 Mu’awiyah a Kaafir, then that is no insult on Imam Hassan (as) for making peace treaty with him, since our infallible Prophet (s) negotiated peace with the kuffars at Hudaibiya, contrary to the criticisms of `Umar. Is Abu Sulaiman also now going to criticize 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 Hassan (as) made peace with Mu’awiya, and shall counter the claim that his making peace proves that Mu’awiya was the rightful khalifa.
Why did the Prophet (s) make peace with the Kuffar of Mecca at Hudaibiya? The Meccan 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. In 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 Hassan (as) was likewise right for making peace with Mu’awiya. In the same way that the treaty of Hudaibiya did not change the station of the Kuffar as impure, the peace treaty with Mu’awiya, still maintained Imam Hassan’s position as on the right path, and further cemented Mu’awiya’s as a lying hypocrite. Imam Hassan entered into a peace treaty with Mu’awiya in the same way that Rasulullah (s) made one with the Kuffar of Mecca. Whatever excuses these Nasibi offer for the Prophet (s) making peace with the Kuffar of Mecca will also be advanced by us to explain the peace treaty Imam Hassan made with Mu’awiya.
We read in Sunan Abi Dawud 4647 and in Sunan Abi Dawud 4646 that:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.
Ibn Kathir makes it clear that Mu’awiya is not a Caliph but a king in his interpretation of this hadith. We read in al Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol. 11 pg. 143:
“It has been stated in the hadith that the Caliphate after him will be thirty years, then it will be kingdom, and the thirty years ended with Al Hassan Ibn Ali, and thus the days of Mu’awiya are the first days of kingdom, so he is the first of Islam’s kings and the best of them.”
Should our opponents require any more proof, we shall cite these words of Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas to Mu’awiya from Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Vol 10, pg. 390 - 391, Ansab Al Ashraf Vol 5, pg. 31, Tarikh Kamil Vol 3 pg. 9, Al Fusul al Muhimma, pg. 155:
“Peace be upon you, o King!”
We also read the words of Aisha as recorded in Mukhtasar Ta’rikh al-Dimishq, Vol 25 pg. 42, Dhahabi’s Siyar A'lam al-Nubala Vol. 3 pg. 143, and Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah Wal Nihaya Vol 11 pg. 430 - 431[1]:
Aswat bin Yazid said to Aisha: ‘Aren’t you surprised that this Mu’awiya is from Tulaqa (freed captive) and in Khilafat he fought the companions? Aisha replied ‘this Government and Kingdom, Allah (swt) gives leadership to both just and tyrannical, for 400 years in Egypt the enemies of God, Pharaoh ruled as did other Kafir Kings.”
These words are a real slap for these Nawasib who refer to Mu’awiya as the rightful Caliph.
This will be evidenced from the following Sunni works:
We read in Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith 3350, al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Vol 11, pg. 140, Dhikr Khilafat Hassan:
“When Hassan 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 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.”
We read in Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol 3 pg. 186 -187 (al-Hakim said that the chain is Sahih):
“[When Hasan made peace with Mu’awiya] One individual stood up and said: ‘You have blackened the face of the believers’. Hassan replied: ’Do not get upset with me, the Prophet saw in a dream that the Banu Umayya was giving sermon one after on to his (s) pulpit which made the Prophet (s) very saddened after which al-Kawthar 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.”. Subsequently we counted the period Banu Umayya ruled and we found that the period was neither more nor less than a thousand month.
As usual the condemnation of Banu Umayya’s rule has perturbed modern day Nawasib who often try to cast doubt on the authenticity of the above cited Hadith even though it has been declared as Sahih by Imam Hakim and Sunni Ulema have relied in this to evidence the knowledge of the Holy Prophet (s). To counter such nonsense, let us evidence how Sunni scholars wholeheartedly accepted the Hadith. Allamah Abdul Malik Shafi’i al Isami Makki stated in Simt un Nujoom al Awali fi Anba ul Awail wa al Tawali Volume 3 page 351:
وَفِي أَكثر التواريخ ذكرُوا أَن مُدَّة ملكهم ألف شهر لِأَن الْحسن بن عَليّ رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنْهُمَا حِين تكلمُوا عَلَيْهِ فِي تَسْلِيم الْأَمر إِلَى مُعَاوِيَة قَالَ {ليلةُ اَلقَدرِ خَير مِنْ ألفِ شهر}
The majority of the authors of history books have stated that the Umayyad tenure consisted of one thousand months and when someone argued over the stance of Hassan bin Ali for giving authority to Muawiya, Hassan recited ‘a night better than a thousand months’.”
Allamah Diyarbakri stated in Tarikh al-Khamis, Volume 2 page 324:
وآخرهم مروان الجعدى المشهور بالحمار وكانت مدّة خلافتهم نيفا وثمانين سنة وهى ألف شهر فعلم ما قال الحسن بن على بن أبى طالب لما قيل له تركت الخلافة لمعاوية فقال ليلة القدر خير من ألف شهر
The last ruler from Umayyads was Marwan bin al-Ja’di who was popularly known as Al-Hamaar and the period they remained in power for was about 80 years and some more years which is equal to one thousand months and this affirms the statement of Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib when he asked about abdicating caliphate in favor of Muawiya to which he had replied: ‘‘a night better than thousand month’.”’
Allamah Ismaeel Haqqi stated in Tafsir Ruh al-Bayan, Volume 10 page 483:
واعلمه انهم يملكون امر الناس هذا القدر من الزمان ثم كشف الغيب ان كان من سنة الجماعة الى قتل مروان الجعدي آخر ملوكهم هذا القدر من الزمان بعينه كما فى فتح الرحم
And Rasulullah had predicted that Banu Ummaya would rule over the people with knowledge of unknown that was subsequently proven as correct as the period starting from the year of Jamat [When Muawiya attained power] until the murder of Marwan al-Jaadi, who was their last caliph, turned out to be the same span of time as recorded in Fatah al-Reham.
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 Hassan likewise adopted silence on account of problems when making peace with Mu’awiya. In the same way that the Prophet’s silence does not legitimize the reign of the Ummaya, the silence of Imam Hassan does not legitimize the reign of Mu’awiya.
We will prove this from the following Sunni works:
Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafi'i recorded in Matalib al Seul, pg. 241, Dhikr Hassan:
Imam Hassan 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 whoever I fight. I looked at the problems and made peace with Mu’awiya and put an end to war.
The comments of Imam Hassan (as) prove that Mu’awiya was not entitled to the caliphate, rather he deemed him an unjust thief, and he made peace due to difficulties, and made peace like the Prophet (s) did with the Kuffar of Mecca. In the same way objections and wrong interpretations cannot be brought for the Prophet (s) making peace with the Kuffar of Mecca, the same is the case with Imam Hassan (as) making peace with Mu’awiya.
1. Al Isti'ab, pg. 182 Dhikr Al Hassan
2. Usdul Ghaba, pg. 276 Dhikr Hassan
3. Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol 13, pg. 273-274 Dhikr Hassan
4. Tadhkiratul Khawas al Ummah, Vol 2, pg. 23 Dhikr Imam Hassan
5. Maqatil Husayn, pg. 134
6. Dhakayr al Uqba, pg. 140
7. Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Vol. 2 pg. 300 Dhikr Imam Hassan
8. Seerat al Halabeeya, Vol. 3 pg. 352
We read in ‘Maqtal Hussain’ and Usdul Ghaba, pg. 276 Dhikr Hassan that Imam Hassan (as) said:
“Verily, the matter in which I and Mu’awiya disputed, either this is my right, and I left this in Mu'awiyah’s favor 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 Hassan (as) prove that he (as) deemed caliphate to be his own right and did not deem Mu’awiyah to be eligible for that responsibility but since Mu’awiyah was a terrorist and wasn't hesitant in shedding the blood of innocents thus Imam Hassan (as) accepted the treaty which doesn't mean he accepted the caliphate of Mu’awiyah.
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 Mu’awiyah. To those Nawasib, we would like to remind them of the verse of Holy Quran (34:24) which also contained the words ‘Imma’ and ‘Aw’.
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 the (god forbid) 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 infidels similarly Imam Hassan (as) was actually taunting the misguidance of Mu’awiyah.
This will be evidenced from the following esteemed Sunni works.
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Fathul Bari Vol 16, pg. 532:
إني اشترطت على معاوية لنفسي الخلافة بعده
“Hassan said:’I placed a condition on Mu’awiya that I will become leader after Mu’awiya”
Ibn Kathir records in Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 11, pg. 308:
وقد كان معاوية لما صالح الحسن عهد للحسن بالأمر من بعده
“When Mu’awiya made peace with Hassan, he made a promise that leadership would go to Hassan 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 Hassan (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 reneging on his promise proves that he was an accursed one and a hypocrite (munafiq). The peace treaty rather than prove the faith of Mu’awiya exposes him as a hypocrite.
We shall evidence this from the following Sunni works:
We read in Irshad al-Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol 10 pg. 198 Bab ul Fitan:
“Hassan did not leave worldly power on account of personal weakness, rather he made peace to avoid Fitnah and to quell hostilities”
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'awiyah obtained ijma 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 Ibn Shu'bah, Ziyad, Marwan were devoid of piety.
If we read history, it becomes clear that Mu’awiyah’s heart was (as usual) impure and was not clear of bad intentions at the time of making the treaty with Imam Hassan (as). We shall prove this from the following Sunni sources:
We read in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara, Book 20, Number 4553:
It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yamani 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.
Albaani recorded in Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 4245:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ فَارِسٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ نَصْرِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْيَشْكُرِيِّ، بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ قَالَ قُلْتُ بَعْدَ السَّيْفِ قَالَ " بَقِيَّةٌ عَلَى أَقْذَاءٍ وَهُدْنَةٌ عَلَى دَخَنٍ "
I (Hudhaifah) asked : Will any be spared after the use of the sword ? He replied: There will be a remnant with specks in its eye and an illusory truce.
By explaining the meaning of the insightful terms used in the Hadith, Albani mentioned:
عَلَى أَقْذَاءٍ " . يَقُولُ قَذَى . " وَهُدْنَةٌ " . يَقُولُ صُلْحٌ " عَلَى دَخَنٍ " . عَلَى ضَغَائِنَ .
The word aqdha' (sing. qadhan) means specks, hudnah means truce and dakhan means malice.
The prediction found in the aforesaid Hadith has been understood by scholars to be referring to the truce made between Imam Hassan (as) and Muawiya while the explanation of the terms used in the Hadith leads us to an irresistible conclusion that whilst a truce was successfully brokered it was based on malice. Obviously the malice cannot be attributed to Imam Hassan (as) being a member of the Ahlulbayt (as) from whom Allah (swt) has removed all impurities, it is Muawiya and his adherents whose intentions were tainted with malice at the time of the treaty which is why subsequently no condition of the treaty was abode by. The prediction can also be interpreted to mean that both the parties were not internally happy with one another and from the perspective of Imam Hassan (as), he was coerced into the treaty as we shall discuss later in this chapter. Ibn Taymiyya Al-Nasibi stated about this hadith in Minhaj al Sunnah, Vol 1, pg. 560:
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”
Ibn al-Mulqan stated in Al-Tozeh al-Sharah al-Jami al-Sahih, Volume 20 page 189:
ومنه حديثه: "على دخن" (2). وهو بفتح الدال والخاء وقيل: أراد أن النفوس لا تعاود ما كانت عليه قبل ما دخلها بسبب الفتنة. وقال صاحب "العين": الدخن: الحقد، ويوم دخنان: شديد الغيم، وكذا ذكر ابن سيده أن الدخن: الحقد
The words used in this Hadith are ‘Ala Dakhan’ and it has been said that it means that the nature of harmony that existed prior to the sedition would not remain the same after that (sedition). According to the author of Kitab al-Ain, the word ‘Dakhan’ means hatred and ‘Yum al-Dakhan’ means the day when there are dark clouds and Ibn Sayeda also stated that the word ‘Dakhan’ refers to hatred and malice.
Similarly Abu Zahra stated in Khatim al-Nabiyyin, Volume 1 page 170:
واقرأ قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام فى المعاهدات التى تعهد والنفوس على أحقادها ولا تستل منها سخائمها: «هدنة على دخن» فإن كل إنسان يفهم أن القلوب فاسدة، وأن الصلح الظاهرى لا يصيب الأحقاد التى طويت عليها القلوب [
“The Holy Prophet (s) spoke of future treaties and stated that the hearts of people shall bear hatred whilst such treaties are implemented and despite entering into the said treaties their hatred inter se shall not subside. Verily, every human being would come to know that the hearts are Fasid and the truce having been entered into outwardly cannot extinguish the hatred that was etched in their hearts”
Ibn Duraid al-Azdi stated in Jamharat ul Laghuat, Volume 1 page 581:
والدخن أَيْضا: فَسَاد فِي الْقلب من بَاقِي عَدَاوَة. وَفِي حَدِيث النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَآله وَسلم: هدنة على دخن
And word ‘Dakhan’ also means that there continues to remain Fasad in the hearts and an enmity also subsists as has been reported in Hadith that the truce will be based on Dakhan.
In Manzoor stated in Lisan al-Arab, Volume 13 page 435:
وَقَوْلُهُ هُدْنَة عَلَى دَخَنٍ أَي سكونٌ عَلَى غِلّ
“The Prophet’s statement that truce will be based on Dakhan means that although there may be an apparent calm, malice shall remain a constant presence.”
Allamah Abdul Fazal al-Maidani stated in Majma al-Imthaal, Volume 1 page 161:
وهذا معنى قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم "هُدْنَةٌ عَلَى دَخَنٍ" يضرب لمن يضمر أذى ويظهر صفاء
“The Prophet’s statement that truce will be based on Dakhan, this is an example that is cited for those who pretend purity whilst concealing hatred in their hearts”.
Ibn Faras stated in Mu'jam Maqayis al-Lughah, Volume 2 page 336:
فأما الحديث: هدنة على دخن، فهو استقرار على أمور مكروهة
‘The truce will be based upon Dakhan’ that means a truce shall be based on the terms and conditions that were actually disliked.
Those present day Nawasib to tend to depict a happily ever after fairytale ending on account of the treaty that occurred between Imam Hassan (as) and Muawiya, need to ponder over the prediction of Rasulullah (s) and the explanation rendered by esteemed Sunni scholars according to which enmity continued to remain in the hearts of both parties despite the apparent truce.
Mullah Ali Qari wrote in Mirqat Al-Mafateeh Sharih Mishkat Al-Masabeeh, Vol 8, pg. 258:
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 Hassan, 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 legitimize the reign of a leader who came to power by making a peace that he has no support for, and the Prophet (s) used the term for one that refers 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 Sahih Muslim’ Vol. 12 pg. 328 that:
‘Dakhan’ among animals refers to a color that is black and in this hadith it refers to a heart which is not pure and its impurity doesn't erase.
Ibn Athir stated in ‘Al-Nihayah’ pg. 301 that ‘Hadna Ala Dakhan’ refers to:
“A treaty about which hearts are not pure”.
Shah Waliullah Dehalvi in ‘Hujjatul Balagha’ Vol 3, pg. 331 stated:
“Dakhan refers to the peace treaty between Mu’awiya and Hassan”
Imam Hassan 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 Hassan (as) and showing happiness over His (as) murder. Thus, the filthy heart being referred to by the word ‘Dakhan’ was the heart of Mu’awiyah.
Ibn Asakir in his authority work Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Vol 13 pg. 268 and Imam Dhahabi in ‘Siyar A'lam Nubla’ Vol 3, pg. 269 records:
إلا وان معاوية دعانا إلى أمر ليس فيه عز ولا نصفة فان أردتم الموت رددناه عليه وحاكمناه إلى الله جل وعز بظبا ( 5 ) السيوف وان أردتم الحياة قبلناه وأخذنا لكم الرضا فناداه القوم من كل جانب البقية البقية ( 6 ( فلما افردوه أمضى الصلح
Hassan said: “Be informed that Mu’awiya has called us to such a treaty that is neither honorable 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 Taqiyyah, Taqqiyyah’ when the people left Hassan, he made peace”.
Ibn Asakir has used to the words ‘Baqqiyyah Baqqiyah’ but he said Dahabi has recorded it them as ‘Taqqiyah Taqqiyah’ in ‘Siyar A'lam Nubla’ Vol. 3 pg. 269 hence we used it likewise.
Imam Nawawi records in Kitab al-Majmu'a, Vol 21, pg. 29:
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 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 ousted himself under Taqiyah".
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 Hudaibiya where he had to delete the words ‘Prophet of Allah’ from the treaty document.
We will cite this Prophetic Hadith from the following esteemed Sunni works:
We read the following hadith in the above cited books:
إذا رأيتم 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’ pg. 100 that the hadith is Sahih. An interesting event in connection with this event can be located in ‘Ansab al Ashraf’ Vol 5 pg. 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 Mecca’. 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 Yazid”.
We appeal to justice. If Mu’awiya had not become Khalifa after making peace with Imam Hassan (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 Hassan (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 be sheer nonsense.
We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Imam Suyuti recorded in Tarikh al Khulafa pg.159, Dhikr Mu’awiya:
“Sa’ad said to Safina: ‘The Banu Umayya state that the Prophetic Khilafah is their right’. Safina said: ‘The Zarqa lie, they are Kings, and their first king was Mu’awiya’.
Safina did not recognise Mu'awiyah as Khalifa after the peace with Hassan (as) rather he deemed him the first from a line of Banu Umayya kings, in exactly the same way that Aisha compared Mu’awiya to the rule of Pharaoh.
We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
We read in Ibn Sa’ad’s Tabaqat al Kubra, Vol 3, pg. 317:
“Umar said that caliphate will remain with the participants of Badr then the participants of Uhud and the Tulaqa and their children have no share in it”
Mu’awiya out of deperation embraced Islam after the conquest of Mecca, and such people are deemed the’Tulqa’ and according to Umar such people have no right to become Khalifas. Shah Waliyullah commented in Izalatul Khifa, Vol. 1 pg. 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-Bidayah Wal Nihaya Vol 11 pg. 430 - 431[2]:
Aswad bin Yazid narrated: ‘I heard Aisha say: ‘Aren’t you surprised over a person who is from Tulaqa (freed captive) and yet he fights against the companions of the Prophet regarding the issue of caliphate?’ Aisha 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 Pharaoh King over the people of Egypt for 400 years, and similarly other infidel kings”.
Based on the comments of Aisha, if Mu’awiya's children deem their father to be a Khalifa of the Prophet (s) then they have perpetuated a major injustice.
We read in Tarikh ibn Asakir, Vol 13, pg 280 Dhikr Hassan:
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 Hassan made peace with Mu’awiya, Malik ibn Dhumr said: ‘You have blackened the face of the believers’ to which he [Hassan] 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”
Ibn Kathir records the following clear cut words of Imam Hassan (as) in Al-Bidayah Wal Nihaya Vol 11, pg. 430:
“Naeem bin Hamad has narrated that Ibn Fazeel has narrated from Sari bin Ismaeel narrated to us from Shaybi that Sufyan bin al-Lail narrated to me that when Hassan bin Ali [ra] came to Medina from Kufa, I said to him: ‘O the one who disgraced the believers’. He replied: ‘Don't say this! I heard Holy Prophet [s] saying that day and nights will not cease to end until Mu’awiyah 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”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hibban cites in his Kitab al-Thuqat, Vol 2, pg. 305 how low Mu’awiya was prepared to stoop to seize power:
فاحتال معاوية في الحسن بن علي وتلطف له وخوفه إراقة دماء المسلمين وهتك حرمهم وذهاب أموالهم إن لم يسلم الأمر لمعاوية فاختار الحسن ما عند الله على ما في الدنيا وسلم الأمر إلى معاوية
Mu'awiya tricked Hassan bin Ali[3] 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 the Caliphate to Mu’awiya.
Sunnii scholar Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki who in the footnote of pg. 68 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 Hassan 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!! Hassan’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, honor and properties of Muslims. In the same way that our Prophet (s) made peace with the Meccan Kuffar to avoid Muslim bloodshed, Imam Hassan (as) did exactly the same when he made peace with Imam Hassan (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 than 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 Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki who on pg. 68 of his book ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’ said:
كما تعلم الناس من الحسن اختيار أخف الضررين
“Also the people learnt from Hassan, to opt for the less harmful option when faced with two matters”
Allah (swt) says in Surah Anfal verse 61 of his Glorious Book:
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ۔۔۔
But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower
Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the said verse in Tafsir Ibn Kathir Vol 4, pg. 226 - 227 states:
Allah says, if you fear betrayal from a clan of people, then sever the peace treaty with them, so that you both are on equal terms. If they continue being hostile and opposing you, then fight them,
﴿ وَإِن جَنَحُواْ ﴾
(But if they incline), and seek,
﴿ لِلسَّلۡمِ ﴾
(to peace), if they resort to reconciliation, and seek a treaty of non-hostility,
﴿ فَٱجۡنَحۡ لَهَا ﴾
(you also incline to it), and accept offers of peace from them. This is why when the pagans inclined to peace in the year of Hudaybiyah and sought cessation of hostilities for nine years, between them and the Messenger of Allah he accepted this from them, as well as, accepting other terms of peace they brought forth. `Abdullah bin Al-Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said that the Messenger of Allah said,
« إِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي اخْتِلَافٌ أَوْ أَمْرٌ فَإِنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ أَنْ يَكُونَ السِّلْمَ فَافْعَل »
There will be disputes after me, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do so.
With this in mind, why did:
- Rasulullah (s) make peace with the Pagans at Hudaybiyah
- Imam Ali (as) make peace with the rebels at Siffeen?
- Imam Hasan (as) make peace with the insurgents six months into his tenure?
We can understand this when we read in Surah Baqarah verse 195:
وَأَنْفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلَا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ
And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.
The Sunni Scholar Sayyid Maḥmūd ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Ālūsī in his commentary of this verse in Tafsir-Rūh al-Ma'ānī Volume 2 page 78 states:
واستدل بالآية على تحريم الإقدام على ما يخاف منه تلف النفس ، وجواز الصلح مع الكفار والبغاة إذا خاف الإمام على نفسه أو على المسلمين
This verse gives evidence of the prohibition of taking such a step which may lead to loss of life, and it also proves that reconciliation with the infidels and rebels is permissible in situations where the Imam fears for own life and that of his Muslim subjects
In his commentary of Surah Baqarah verse 195 the Sunni Scholar Shaykh Jamal al-Din bin Muhammad Saeed bin Qasim al-Hallaq al-Qasimi wrote in Tafsir Al Qasmi Mahasin Ul Taveel Volume 1 page 481:
تدل الآية على جواز الهزيمة في الجهاد إذا خيف على النفس، وتدل على جواز ترك الأمر بالمعروف إذا خاف، لأن كل ذلك إلقاء النفس إلى التهلكة. وتدل على جواز مصالحة الكفار والبغاة إذا خاف الإمام على نفسه أو على المسلمين. كما فعله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عام الحديبية. وكما فعله أمير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام بصفين. وكما فعله الحسن عليه السلام من مصالحة معاوية
"This verse proves that it is permissible for a person to retreat from jihad when there is a fear then abandoning the good is permissible since such an approach will result in self destruction. It also evidences that when the Imam of the time fears for his own life or the lives of Muslims, he should reconcile with disbelievers and rebels as the Prophet (s) did in the year of Hudaybiyyah, and as did the Commander of the Faithful Ali did during the battle of Siffeen and Imam Hasan (as) made peace with Mu'awiyah."
We read in esteemed Hanafi works Sharh Fathul Qadir Vol 7, pg. 245 and Kanz Al Raiq Sharh Kanz Al Daqaiq, Vol 6, pg. 460:
ثم يجوز التقليد 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 a 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 Hassan (as) making peace with unjust Mu’awiya. This Fatwa will be an eternal slap on the face of the Nasibis.
Ansar.org states:
“Mu’awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hassan bin Ali after peace occurred between them.
One needs to look at the historical background to understand why Imam Hassan (as) stood down. The circumstances were such that he had been forced into making a difficult choice of peace or bloodshed, Mu’awiya used bribery and intimidation to “win over” Hassan (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 Hassan with an army of sixty thousand men, (Ibn A’tham, IV, p. 153). Clearly marching towards Imam Hassan (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 khilafat from Imam Hassan (as) willingly or unwillingly. Mu’awiya had used the threat of force as a bargaining chip, Imam Hassan (as) was placed under duress to hand over the caliphate, it was not willingly handed to Mu’awiya on silver platter rather Imam Hassan (as) was pressured 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 in khilafat wa mulukiyyat, chapter 5, pg.s 158-159 citing Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya by Ibn Katheer, vol 8, pg. 132:
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 Hassan’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 in your hearts regarding this matter but still I have taken 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.”
This negates the defense 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.
We read in Ansab Al Ashraf Vol 3, pg. 289:
“The Khawarij rose up against Mu’awiya, who sent a letter after Imam Hassan ordering him to return and fight the Kharijites, and their leader was Abul Hawsa Al Tai'i. Imam Hassan who had reached al-Qadisiyya, wrote back: 'I have abandoned the fight against you, even though it was my legal right, for the sake of peace and reconciliation of the Community. Do you think I shall fight together with you?"
We appeal to justice, the words of Imam Hassan (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 Mecca, 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 Hassan (as) likewise spared Mu’awiya due to specific reasons. The fact that Imam Hassan (as) maintained this stance even after making peace proves that he did not deem him to be the true Khalifa of the Prophet (s).
We read in Surah Anfal verse 61:
But if the enemy inclines 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:
1. Tafsir Mazhari, Vol. 4 pg. 109
2. Tafsir Kabir, pg. 283
3. Tafsir Fathul Qadir, Vol. 2 pg. 307
4. Tafsir Khazan, Vol. 3 pg. 39
5. al Hidayah, Vol. 1 pg. 381
We read in al Binaya Sharh al Hidayah Vol 7, pg. 114:
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. Mu’awiya’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 Hassan (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 Hassan 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 Hassan 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 Hassan (s) made treaty with a hypocrite then no questions should be raised on his Imamate.
When we say that Imam Hassan (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 Tawba verse 40:
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 Hassan (as) to make peace with Mu’awiya? The Kuffar of Mecca 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 taqiyya 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 Hassan 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 Hassan (as) made peace, then it shouldn’t be an issue, after all the Ulul Azm Prophet (s) Musa was unable to understand why Khider (as) killed a child.
Abu Sulaiman writes:
“Al-Hassan 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!”
On the issue of Imam Hassan (as) allegedly giving baya 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 pg. 86. The fact that agreement between the two sides was written on a piece of paper clearly alludes to the fact that a contractual agreement had been drawn up. Imam Hassan (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 finalized and agreed between the two sides. ba’ya as in exchange, now if Imam Hassan (as) was giving his ba’ya as in pledge, then why do Ahlul 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 pg. 9 admits:
“I have continued beyond the first four khulafa to include Hassan 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.
Ibn Kathir states in Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 11, pg 136 and 141:
۔۔۔فصالحه۔۔۔ وهو في ذلك هو البار الراشد الممدوح
“Verily Hassan made peace with Mu’awiya… and this peace is a praise worthy act”
Ibn Hajar Makki stated in his anti-Shia book Sawaiq al Muhriqah pg. 209:
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'awiya 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’awiya son of Abi Sufyan’
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in al Istiab, pg. 183:
عن الشعبي قال لما جرى الصلح بين الحسن بن علي ومعاوية
“Shaybi narrates when Hassan and Mu’awiya made a peace treaty..”
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Tahdhib al Tahdhib Vol 2, pg. 299 stated:
“Peace treaty took place between Mu’awiyah and Hassan in 41 Hijri during the month of Rabi al-Awwal”
Imam of Salafis Ibn Taymiyya while explaining a hadith in Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol 1, pg. 156 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 Hassan made peace with Mu’awiya but the nation of Mu’awiyah gave it the colour of an allegiance (bayah) and they did this propaganda to the extent that some historians while admitting 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 Meccan 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.
Abu Sulaiman rejects such narrator's excuses include the following:
“At those days, people were in an affliction, and their desires led 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 embraced 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:
First of all, it should be made clear that there isn’t any doubt that Imam Hassan (as) was poisoned and that too by his wife Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath for which she was rewarded with a handsome amount of money. Imam Hakim records in ‘Al-Mustadrak’ Vol 3, pg. 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 a 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 Hassan (as), Imam of Ahle Sunnah Tabarani in his book Mu’jam al-Kabir, Vol 3, pg. 71 Tradition 2694 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-Hadrami 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 Hassan, son of Ali (may Allah be pleased with both of them) died during the reign of Mu’awiya, and it is believed that he (Mu’awiya) poisoned him (Hassan).”
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 Dhahabi. Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadhrami: 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’ba bin al-Hajjaj: Al-Dhahabi 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, (Urdu) pg. 50 it is stated:
“Imam Hassan (ra)’s wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath Kindi somehow managed to poison him on the orders of Mu’awiya”.
In Tadhkirat al Khawwas, Vol 2, pg. 60 - 61 we read:
“Sh’ubi states that Mu’awiya sent a message to Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays that if you poison Hassan then I shall marry you to Yazid and in addition to this I shall give 100,000 dirhams. When Hassan was martyred Ja’da 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 Yazid since I want him to remain alive, had this matter not occurred then I would have married you to Yazid”.
Allamah Zamakshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar, Vol 6 pg. 156 - 157 notes that:
Mu’awiya reached an agreement with Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays, namely 100,000 dirhams if she poisons Imam Hassan. For two months Hassan 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 Fusul al Muhimmah pg. 156:
“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, Hassan remained alive for forty days”.
Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records in Al-Isti’ab, pg. 182:
وقال قتادة وأبو بكر بن حفص سم الحسن بن علي سمته امرأته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس الكندي.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.
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 Hassan was administered poison, via his wife Ja’da bint Ash'ath. One group has 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 Shawahid un Nubuwwat, pg. 303:
“It is commonly known among the people that his wife Ja’da administered poison to him upon the orders of Amir Mu’awiya.”
Ibn Asakir records in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol 13, pg. 284:
كان معاوية قد تلطف لبعض خدمه أن يسقيه سما
“Mu’awiya created a mixture via his servants, which was administered to Hassan.
Allamah Isma’il bin Abul Fida records in Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol 1, pg. 183
وتوفي الحسن من سم سقته زوجته جعدة بنت الأشعث قيل فعلت ذلك بأمر معاوية
“Hassan was killed via poisoning, administered by his wife Ja’da bint Ash'ath upon the orders of Mu’awiya”
Masudi records in Muruj al Dhahab, Vol 3, pg. 6:
وذكر أن امرأته جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس الكندي سقته السم، وقد كان معاوية دس إليها: إنك إن احتلت في قتل الحسن وجهت إليك بمائة ألف درهم، وزوجتك لمن يزيد، فكان ذلك الذي بعثها على مه، فلما مات وفى لها معاوية بالمال، وأرسل إليها: إنا نحب حياة يزيد، ولولا ذلك لوفينا لك بتزويجه .
His wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath gave him poison, Mu’awiya gave her this poison stating: ‘If you administer this poison and kill Hassan by mixing it in food, I will reward you with 100,000 Dirhams and marry you to Yazid’. When Hassan was martyred, Mu’awiya gave her 100,000 Dirhams , but on marrying Yazid, he said: ‘I value the life of Yazid’.
Abu Al Faraj Al Isfahani records in Maqatil al Talibeen, pg. 60:
ودس معاوية إليه حين أراد أن يعهد إلى يزيد بعده ، وإلى سعد بن أبي وقاص ما فماتا منه في أيام متقاربة. وكان الذي تولى ذلك من الحسن زوجته (جعدة) بنت الأشعث بن قيس المال بذله لها معاوية .
“Mu’awiya administered poison to him (Hassan) when he wanted to appoint Yazid, and poisoned Saad bin Abi Waqas and they both died in close days. The one who administered poison to al-Hassan was his wife Ja'da bint 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 their beloved Imams having Nasibi tendencies and influenced by the habit of question the authenticity of those traditions that affect the Sahaba namely Dhahabi in Siyar A’lam al Nubala Vol 3, pg. 274 and Ibn Kathir in Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 11, pg. 208 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, pg. 171 has recorded the biography of one of the closest physicians of Mu’awiya, namely Thamama bin Athaal. He was a prominent Christian Damascene and acted as the means by which Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya praised him immensely. During an era of Mu’awiya, 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 Mu’awiya through the above-mentioned doctor that includes Abdul Rahman Ibn Khalid bin Walid, the famous companion of Maula Ali bin Abi Talib namely Malik bin Ashtar (ra) etc. Then on pg. 174, 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
Hassan bin Ali (ra) died on account of poisoning during the reign of Mu’awiya. Mu’awiya connived with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays, the wife of Hassan who administered poison to him, on the condition that Mu’awiyah would marry her to his son Yazid. When Hassan died, she sent a request to Mu’awiya to fulfill the said promise to which Mu’awiyah replied he feared for the well being of Yazid.
Similarly Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Vol 6 pg. 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
Mu’awiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays and issued her with an assurance that he would marry her to Yazid provided she administered poison to Hassan. When she killed him, Mu’awiya gave her 100,000 Dirhams and said: ‘Yazid is dearer to me, how can I be sure that what transpired with the grandson of the Prophet will not also happen to Yazid?’
At this juncture we deem it apt to shed some light on Jada's family background as most of our opponents are unaware as to what sort of relationship she had with some notable ones. The learned Dhahabi, writes about her father Ash'ath bin Qays al-Kindi in Siyar a'lam-al-Nubala, Vol 2, pg. 37 - 39:
له صحبة ورواية
“He is a companion and there are traditions narrated through him”
and then his tarnishing the honor of companionship on pg. 39:
ارتد الأشعث في ناس من كندة ۔۔۔ لما قدم الأشعث 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 Bakr, he was unshackled and got his sister (Farwah Bint Abi Quhafa) married to him.”
Now, how did Ash'ath bin Qays repay this favor? We read in al Mu'jam-al Kabir, at-Tabarani, Vol 1, tradition # 649, pg. 237, Baghdad Edition)
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.
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 Majma al-Zawa'id, Vol. 9 pg. 512 has certified the tradition as authentic.
In Siyar a'lam-al-Nubala, Vol 2 pg. 40 - 41 Dhahabi 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.
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 Bakr poisoned Imam Hassan (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 the 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)?
Abu Sulaiman then seeks to use some logic as follows:
“…The truth is that Al-Hassan made peace with Mu’awiyah, and gave him leadership and allegiance. Therefore, for what reason would Mu’awiyah poison Al-Hassan?”
Mu'awiya, despite gaining power saw in Imam Hassan (as) a formidable opponent. As Abu Sulaiman admits Mu’awiya wanted Yazid to succeed him. This contradicted one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement with Imam Hassan (as) namely that in the event of Mu’awiya death the caliphate would RETURN to Hassan. See:
1. Fathul Bari Vol 16, pg. 532 Kitab al Fitan
2. Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Vol. 11 pg. 38 Bab Manaqib Ahlul bayt
3. Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya Vol 11, pg. 308 Dhikr 56 Hijri
4. al Istiab, pg. 181 Dhikr Imam Hassan
Mu’awiya had no intention to comply with this, to ensure the best approach would be to kill Imam Hassan (as) during his own lifetime. The famous commentary of Sunan Abu Dawood has been written by Allamah Shams ul Haq Haqqani which is known as ‘Awn al Ma'bud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud’ Vol 11, pg. 191 wherein he records:
لأن معاوية رضي الله عنه كان يخاف على نفسه من زوال الخلافة عنه
“Mu’awiya (ra) was afraid of losing his caliphate”
Late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi states in his commentary of Sunan Abu Dawood (Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 3 pg. 273 Hadith 731 (Quran Mahal, Opp. Molvi Musafir Khana, Karachi):
“As long as Imam Hassan (ra) lived, Mu’awiya was afraid of losing caliphate”
Renowned Egyptian academic Dr Taha Husayn in his book Ali wa Banooh’ (Ali and his sons) translated in Urdu as Ali, pg. 214 by Maulana Abdul Hameed Numani:
“By poisoning Hassan, Mu’awiya and Amr bin Aas had made the way clear for making Yazid the next khalifa”.
Similarly we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Maqatil al Talibeen, pg. 60:
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.
“Mu’awiya administered poison to him (Hassan) when he wanted to appoint Yazid, and poisoned Saad bin Abi Waqas and they both died in close days. The one who administered poison to al-Hassan was his wife Ja'da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays, for which she was rewarded with money, paid to her by Mu’awiya”
The sole reason that Mu’awiya sought to kill Imam Hassan (as) was so that he could renege on the peace he had made, and place his drunkard son onto the throne of Rasulullah (s). Our assertion is further strengthened when we take account of the fact that in ‘Al Imama wa al Siyasa' pg. 191 we learn:
“Al Ahnaf Ibn Qays said to Mu’awiya ‘As long as Hassan is alive the people of Iraq and Hijaz shall not give bayah to Yazid.”
Mu’awiya poisoned the Chief of the youth of Paradise Imam Hassan (as) to strengthen the seat of his Fasiq son Yazid. 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 Hassan (as), and in this connection we read in Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al Iman Vol. 1, Book 2, Number 32:
“The Prophet said, “The signs of a hypocrite are three:
Consider this Hadith and measure it against the way Mu’awiya acted when agreeing terms with Imam Hassan (as). He breached the terms, by planning to make Yazid Khalifa, during the lifetime of Imam Hassan (as), thus proving that he was a dishonest, untrustworthy liar.
Even if Abu Sulaiman refuses to accept this evidence, one thing is for certain – Mu’awiya’s reaction upon hearing the death of Imam Hassan (as) proves his evil nature. We will evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
Allamah Zamakhshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar, Vol 5, pg. 157 notes:
“Upon receiving news of Hassan’s death, Mu’awiya paid a prostration of thanks”.
Ibn Qutayba records in al Imama wa al Siyasa Vol 1, pg 196:
“Upon receiving news of Hassan’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 Tiwal, pg. 222, Dhikr Hassan:
Mu’awiyah (ra) got the news of Hassan’s (ra) death, Mu’awiyah was informed about this by Marwan the ruler of Madina. Thus Mu’awiyah called on Ibn Abbas [ra] who was there in Syria during those days. When he came, Mu’awiyah expressed condolence as well as pleasure over the death of Hassan. Therefore Ibn Abbas [ra] said:’Don’t be happy over the death of Hassan’.
Nuzlul Abrar:
“Upon receiving news of Hassan’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 ‘Hassan 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 Hayat al Haywaan, Vol 1, pg. 89 Dhikr Hasan and Allamah Diyar Bakri al-Maliki in Tarikh Khamees, Vol 2, pg. 294 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: ‘Hassan has died’.
Allamah Ibn Abd Rabih in ‘Iqd al Farid Vol 5, pg. 110 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 Hassan’s death, Mu’awiya became happy and made a prostration of thanks. He then sent a message to Ibn Abbas and summoned him. When Ibn Abbas came, although Mu’awiyah advanced his condolence for Hassan but he was happy over the death”
Maqatil al Husayn:
“Mu’awiya said: ‘News has reached me of the death of Hassan’, and he displayed signs of happiness”
Abul Fida recorded in Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol 1, pg. 183:
ولما بلغ معاوية موت الحسن خر ساجداً.
“When Mu’awiyah came to know about the death of al-Hassan, he performed a prostration of thanks”
Ibn Khalakan records in Wafiyat Al A'yan, Vol 2, pg. 66-67:
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 had been informed that Hassan had passed away. When Mu’awiya heard the news, he did Takbir and the people of Khadra area performed Takbir too and so did the people of 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 Ahlul bait expressing joy upon their deaths? Those that are happy at the tragedy that befalls the Ahlul bayt (as) adhere to the Sunnah of Mu’awiya.
We read in Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 4131 and in Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal Vol 28, pg. 426:
Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib:
“Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnasrin went to Mu’awiyah ibn AbuSufyan.
Mu’awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hassan 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 al Mabood Sharah Sunan Abu Dawood, pg. 1883-1884 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 Qala 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 Mu’awiyah 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 Mu’awiyah asked him whether he thought it was a calamity…”(the rest of the above hadith).
“…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-Hassan as a calamity?’ Astonishment upon astonishment to Mu’awiyah. Surely he never recognised the status of the Ahlul-Bait, (Mu’awiyah) saying what he said. For surely the death of Al-Hassan 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.
Late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi in his commentary of this Hadith said Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 3 pg. 273 Hadith 731 (Quran Mahal, Opp. Molvi Musafir Khana, Karachi):
“Mu’awiyah saying about the death of Imam Hassan (ra) that it was not a calamity was based on biases against Ali and his progeny. May Allah keep us along with AhleBait on the day of judgment, and may Allah we are raised with them. Amin”
Despite this, Nasibis are still blind when it comes to the behavior of Mu’awiya.
Pakistani 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 (Hassan) 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] pg. 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 Ahlul bayt”.
Malik Ghulam Ali also in “Khiafaat aur Mulukiyat par Aitrazaat ka Tajziya” pg. 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 Ahlul bayt, he said such a thing at a time when Imam Hassan 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 Hassan 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 with some faults that he noticed in Mu’awiya. The man from Asad’s failure to ask permission BEFORE he slandered Imam Hassan (as) in the presence 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 Hassan (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 Dawud Vol. 3 pg. 273 states:
“Mu’awiya did not consider Imam Hassan’s martyrdom as a sad matter, this was on account of his animosity towards Ali and his family”.
Nawasib in one way or another has always sought to prove the validity of the Mu’awiyah’s reign but in vain. One of the feeble attempts in this regard is their notion that since Imam Hassan (as) took stipends from Mu’awiyah after the peace treaty, therefore it serves as a proof that according to Imam Hassan (as) the caliphate of Mu’awiyah was rightful.
If an oppressor snatches a right of an oppressed person and afterwords the former returns some of the snatched quantity in installments to the latter, it doesn't mean that:
● The oppressor is merciful towards oppressed person
● The acceptance of some of the rights in installments by the oppressed person doesn't mean that the remaining wealth in possession of the oppressor has become legal.
Consider the example of occupied Palestine. The Palestinians have entered into an agreement 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 Hassan (as) was the true successor of Holy Prophet [s] and was the rightful owner of all the wealth while Mu’awiyah was the ruler at that time and was an usurper, if he returned some of that wealth to Imam Hassan [a] in installments, that doesn’t make his usurped caliphate to be referred to as a rightful caliphate.
Prophet Musa (as) was brought up in the house of Pharaoh from the infancy and was dependent upon the provisions and wealth provided to him by Pharaoh. Despite this, the prophet remained a prophet and the infidel remained an infidel. Similarly, Imam Hassan (as) kept taking stipends from the treasury during the rule of Mu’awiyah but the rightful Imam remained a rightful Imam and the oppressor remained an oppressor.
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 Hassan (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.
The treasury (Bait al Maal) was not the personal property of Mu’awiya rather it is established for the development and prosperity of the Muslims and from that house, whatever Mu’awiya would send to Imam Hassan (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 Hassan (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.
Having provided these logical arguments, let us now cite a Sunni source which serves as the final nail in the coffin of Nasibi ‘evidence’ of Imam Hassan a[s] supposedly accepting the caliphate of Mu’awiya. An esteemed Sunni Muhadith, Faqih and commentator Shaykh Abu Bakar Ahmed bin Ali Jasas Razi (d. 370) records in his authority work Ahkam al Quran al Jasas, Vol 1 pg. 88 (Beirut):
“Hassan Basri, Saed bin Jubayr, Shau’bi and all Tabi’een 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 Ashath, 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 [Umayyad rulers]. Pirior to them, people had the same behavior with M’uawiya when he became ruler after the murder of Ali (as). And so Hassan and Hussain & the companions (sahaba) of that time (also used to take stipends from Mu’awiya), they were not friendly to him, in fact they used to do Tabbarra on him [Mu’awiya] 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.”
Whilst the explanation 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 in Ihya Ulum-id-din, Vol 2, pg. 78 - 79:
“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 Saeed Khudri, 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 tyrant governor Hajjaj. Imam Shafi'i 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 lawful things. He himself did not accept it out of a greater sense of piety. When Imam Hassan came to caliph Mu’awiyah, the latter gave him four lac dirhams which he accepted. These sages used to accept properties of tyrant rulers. The supporters of the above opinion say that some of the sages did not accept it out of a great sense of piety. This does not show that it is illegal.”
Having discussed the topic of Imam Hassan (as) receiving stipends from Mu’awiya, 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 Mu’awiya and never fought alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as) particularly when he waged war against Mu’awiya.
We have already cited Sunni opinions that deem it permissible for people to take stipends from tyrants, and the same precedent applies in relation to Aqeel (ra).
If present day Nawasib suggest that Aqeel did not have a positive opinion of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) but did have such of Mu’awiya then they should know that their own spiritual father Mu’awiya held that very misapprehension as we read in Muruj al-Dhahab, Vol 3, pg. 36:
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'awiya as a visitor, thus Mu'awiya welcomed him and felt happy for his visit because he chose him over his brother. Mu'awiya was hence extremely patient and tolerant towards him. Then he (Mu'awiya) 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'awiya said to him: ‘O Aba Yazid, if you were not a visitor, I would have given you a painful reply’.
We read in al-Isti’ab, pg. 585 - 586:
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'awiya 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’.
We read in al-Istiab, pg. 585 - 586:
كان عقيل أكثرهم ذكراً لمثالب قريش فعادوه لذلك وقالوا فيه بالباطل ونسبوه إلى الحمق واختلقوا عليه أحاديث مزورة
“Aqeel was the individual who 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 Umayyah 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 Umayyah ancestors.
The reason Aqeel didn’t participate in the battles of Jamal, Siffin and Naharwan alongside Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was due illness as attested to by Imam Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam, Vol, 4 pg. 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 Muta, we therefore hear nothing of him after the Fath (conquest of Mecca).’
Since we have, in this chapter, discussed the evil stance of Mu’awiya towards Imam Hassan (as), it is relevant at this point to also shed some light on the relationship that between Mu’awiya 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 Khutbat-e-Jail alleged that the Shias of Iraq invited Imam Hussain (as) to rise against Mu’awiya but the Imam (as) sided with Mu’awiya and turned down their request.
The reality is that Imam Hassan (as), whilst writing down his views about Mu’awiya, 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 Mu’awiya to be a just and rightful caliph. Dhahabi summarizes these authentic reports in his words as follows in Siyar A'lam-al-Nubala Vol. 3, pg. 291-292:
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 Mu’awiya. 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 Mu’awiya, whilst Mu’awiya also gave regards and respected him. After the death of Hassan, Mu’awiya appointed his son Yazid as crown prince for the purpose of caliphate, which deeply hurt Hussain and rightly so, on his part. Thus Hussain, Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr and Ibn Zubair did not pledge allegiance to Yazid’s right to caliphate until Mu’awiya forced and coerced them to pay their allegiance to Yazid. They were overwhelmed and helpless in front of the strength and force of the ruler of the time.
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 Mu’awiya. Those people mentioned that they were aware of his stance and that of his brother, Imam Hassan. Dhahabi recorded Imam Hussain’s (as) response Siyar A'lam-al-Nubala Vol. 3 pg. 294:
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”
Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Mu’awiya that he feared that Hussain would become the center of tumult for him (Mu’awiya) and cause him major difficulties. We read in Siyar alam-an-Nubala, Vol. 3 pg. 294 and Tarikh Al-Islam, Vol. 5 pg. 6:
Mu’awiya 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. Like other typical Nasibi authors, Azam Tariq likewise alleged that both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (as) deemed Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya, thus implying that it was correct to pursue a course of Jihad against Mu’awiya 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), Mu’awiya symbolized the worst 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.
Azam Tariq writes in his book Khutbat Jail, pg.s 334-335:
“Now with Hadhrat Ameer Mu’awiya’s death approaching, he announced Yazid as his heir to save the Ummah from separation and divergence and obtained the allegiance 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 Mu’awiya’s last will to Yazid, as recorded in Jila al-Ayoun pg. 431 by the great Shia Mujtahid 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 the Prophet's body and he has been brought up through the Prophet's flesh and blood. I am aware that the people of Iraq will 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”
This will of Mu’awiya has been derived from the non-basic books of Ahle Sunnah and these words were not spoken by Mu’awiya to his son Yazid to support and protect Imam Hussain (as) it was merely part and parcel of the dirty politics that Mu’awiya adhered to. Ironically, as usual, the ill-advised author has stuttered and copied this narration dishonestly by omitting the following text:
“Mu’awiya’s intention with this will was the protection of Yazid the empire'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 Yazid.”
Jila al-Ayun, pg. 324, printed in Iran
Furthermore, it has already been narrated before that Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya himself intended to violently deal with Imam Hussain how can he insist that his son behave respectfully? Mu’awiya’s real intention can be gauged from the contents of his will as recorded by Dhahabi in Siyar A'lam-al-Nubala, Vol 3, pg. 295:
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 Mu’awiya’s time of death approached, he asked for Yazid. He bequeathed Yazid 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 and betrayed his brother’.
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 and Syria who served as a conduit for Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya 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 above mentioned opinion evidence that Mu’awiya 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, Mu’awiya had himself made a firm decision to kill Imam Hussain (as). Had Allah not favored Imam Hussain (as), he would have been martyred in Mecca in 56 A.H instead of Karbala In 61 A.H. but it was the Imam’s far-sightedness and situational analysis that neutralized Mu’awiya’s evil machinations had the Imam (as) not acted in this manner Mu’awiya would have no doubt disposed of him during his own reign. Yazid was taught in this will not to abstain from shedding Hussain’s blood to enable the stability of his reign. Yazid followed this lesson to the hilt and sent thirty people dressed as pilgrims to Mecca so that they could assassinate Hussain (as) even if he was circumambulating the Kaba. One can therefore conclude with certainty that Mu’awiya aided and abetted Hussain’s, murder, had he not done so, his death threats would have been otiose. However, Mu’awiya’s all time heartiest wish was fulfilled by his son Yazid.
In the previous pg.s we have mentioned that according to Imam Dhahabi, Imam Hussain, Ibn Zubair and Ibn Abi Bakr had maintained silence over Yazid’s allegiance on account of their being coerced into doing so. Dhahabi explains in Siyar A'lam-al-Nubala Vol. 3, pg. 137-138 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 Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya over the issue of Yazid's allegiance. Eventually, Mu’awiya said: ‘I will make an announcement and you will not negate it otherwise I will kill you’. Then Mu’awiya gave a sermon and pretended as if those people had agreed to pledge their allegiance to Yazid. These people remained quiet and did not negate Mu’awiya.
The incident has been reported by Dhahabi so as to flatter Mu’awiya and has also been reported by other prominent Sunni scholars such as Ibn Athir in a more elaborate manner. Mu’awiya called the above mentioned personalities who were against the allegiance of Yazid 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 Mu’awiya 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 a sword, and that he beheads them as soon as their lips move. The four individuals therefore remained quiet on account of Mu’awiya’s threats and their silence thus implying that they had paid allegiance to Yazid. When Mu’awiya left Madina right after this operation, the people came to ask these people individually as to why they had now pledged to Yazid 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 Mu’awiya and shortened this incident but has failed to hide the truth. His peculiar words are as follows in Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Vol 11, pg. 307:
استدعى كل واحد من هؤلاء الخمسة فأوعده وتهدده بانفراده
“Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya gave a sermon to the people whilst these personalities sat by the pulpit. People pledged their allegiance to Yazid whilst they remained sitting and watching everything. They did not agree or disagree because Mu’awiya had already threatened and oppressed them.”
How can a person stop his son from murdering Hussain (as) when he himself came close to implementing that very act? Some wills of Mu’awiya 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 Mu’awiya was an enemy of the Ahlulbayt (as) but Mu’awiya ’s character could not remain hidden as he was aware that Yazid’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 are part and parcel of being a dishonest, conniving politician. The truth however is that historical facts cannot be hidden like this.
We are told that an individual should not express pleasure at the death of his enemy. Yet the heart of Mu’awiya bin Hind was filled with such hatred towards the family of the Prophet (s), that he expressed joy at the death of Imam Hassan (as), and made a prostration of thanks. One who behaves in such a manner is clearly an enemy of the Ahlul bayt (as). One who refuses to silence insolence towards Imam Hassan (as) when hearing of his death, is content with such comments and will only have such patience on account of his hatred of Imam Hassan (as). Hence calling such a person Radhinathallanho (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyidina causes pain to the Prophet (s) and constitutes opposition to the Deen.
In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on pg. 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 Ahlul bayt (as) experienced a problem is in the eyes of Shah Abdul Aziz apostasy, then what view should we hold of Mu’awiya who poisoned Imam Hassan (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 apostasy? We leave it to Mu’awiya's spiritual descendants to pass a verdict on the son of Hind in light of the Shah’s Fatwa.
