The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as) - Muawiya [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

The peace treaty with Imam Hasan (as)

Ansar.org states:It is taken for granted for anyone who read something about the Imamiyah sect that they attribute kufr to Mu'awiyah because he fought Ali. However, the fact is that Al-Hasan bin Ali - and he is one of the infallible Imams according to the Shia, therefore whatever he says is truth - made peace with Mu'awiyahSo, did the "infallible" Hasan made peace with a kafir and gave him the leadership?? Or he made peace between two parties of Muslims as the Prophet peace be upon him says: "My son is a master, and Allah may use him to make peace between two parties of Muslims." [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Afflictions," #6629, vol.6]

We are not calling Mu'awiya kaafir, if for arguments sake he was, then that is no insult on Imam Hasan (as) for our infallible Prophet (s) negotiated peace with the kaafirs at Hudaibiya, contrary to the criticisms of Umar. Is Abu Sulaiman also now going to criticise Rasulullah (s)? Mu'awiya was professing that he was a Muslim, 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.

Mu'awiya took the Caliphate by force

Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah did not take the caliphate by force, but it was given to him by Al-Hasan bin Ali after peace occurred between them.

One needs to look at the historical background to understand why Imam Hasan (as) stood down. The circumstances were such that he had been forced into making a difficult choice peace or bloodshed, Mu'awiya used bribery and intimidation to "win over" Hasan (as)'s army and had posted his army outside Kufa (a clear pressure tactic). Mu'awiya summoned all the commanders of his forces in Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan to join him. Not long after, the Syrian leader marched against Hasan with an army of sixty thousand men, (Ibn A'tham, IV, p. 153). Clearly marching towards Imam Hasan (as) with a 60,000 force in no way demonstrates Mu'awiya wanted peace - he WAS preparing for battle. If his interest was just peace why not go alone with a handful of supporters? By bringing such a powerful force Mu'awiya was making his intention clear, that he intended to wrest the khilafth from Imam Hasan (as) willingly or unwillingly. Mu'awiya had used the threat of force as a bargaining chip, Imam Hasan (as) was placed under duress to hand over the caliphate, it was not willingly handed to Mu'awiya on silver platter rather Imam Hasan (as) was pressurised into yielding to Mu'awiya's demands.

In this regard the comments of defender of Mu'awiya Ibn Kathir Volume 8 page 17 are indeed of interest:

"The Sunnah is that there khalifa (Banu Umayya) be referred to as Kings, because Rasulullah (s) said that khilafth would last for thirty years, this would be followed by kingdom. This (khilafth) remained until the Rabi'ul Awwal 31 Hijri when Hasan was left with no other choice but to make peace with Mu'awiya"

Ibn Kathir's admission that Imam Hassan (as) was left with no choice but to make peace is clear proof that the khilafath was not happily handed over to Mu'awiya on a silver platter as Abu Sualiman would lead us to believe. The caliphate was indeed taken by the threat of 'force' - hence Imam Hasan (as)'s decision was to step aside to save further bloodshed, but that was NOT until he obtained Mu'awiya's signature to agree to certain key conditions.

The taking of Caliphate by force has also been acknowledged by late Deobandi Scholar Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi who writes:

"Kingship's foundation began with this change. Mu'awiya (ra) was not appointed with the consensus of the Muslims at large as was the case with his predecessors, if the Muslims were not happy with them they would have not taken the positions, despite this Mu'awiya wanted to be the Khalifa, he fought for this position, the Muslims were not pleased with his appointment. The people did not appoint him, he became by force and when he became Khalifa people had no other choice but to give him baya. If the people did not give him baya, they would not only lose their positions / ranks but also would have also lost their lives and would have been catastrophic for the system, people would rather give baya than confront this consequence. That is why after Imam Hasan (ra) stepped down the other Sahaba joined him so as to avoid the risk of civil War amongst Muslims. Mu'awiya was well aware of this strategy". [khilafat wa mulukiyyat, chapter 5, pages 158-159 citing Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya by Ibn Katheer, vol 8, page 132]

Mu'awiya's own admission that he took the Caliphate by force

Abu Sulaiman may insist that he did not take the caliphate by force, but this defence falls flat on its face when we in fact have the testimony of his master Mu'awiya who set out the means via which he attained power. Al Bidaya Volume 8 page 132 and Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 139 both record that:

"In the year of Jamaa, Mu'awiya entered Madina and gave a sermon from the Mosque pulpit stating 'I have become ruler over you. Although I know that you are unhappy with my rule and that your hearts bear enmity towards me, I have attained power via the sword".

This negates the defence advanced by Abu Sulaiman as we hear from the mouth of Mu'awiya himself that his coming to power was via the sword i.e. physical force.

The bay'a given to Mu'awiya

Abu Sulaiman writes:

Ansar.org states:"Al-Hasan bin Ali abandoned the caliphate for Mu'awiya and all the people gave the allegiance to Mu'awiya and none of the companions refrained in giving him the allegiance!"

On the issue of Imam Hasan (as) allegedly giving baya we should point out that baya has two meanings "to make a contract" and "to pledge allegiance" see Hans Wehr's Arabic - English Dictionary page 86. The fact that agreement between the two sides was written on a peace of paper clearly alludes to the fact that a contractual agreement had been drawn up. Imam Hasan (as) was offering his Leadership in return for the conditions that he had placed. With Mu'awiyah's signature the baya was concluded, i.e. the contract was finalised and agreed between the two sides. Baya as in exchange, now if Imam Hasan (as) was giving his baya as in pledge, then why do Ahl'ul Sunnah not regard Mu'awiya as a rightly guided khalifa as well? After all as Clarke in his translation of Suyuti's 'The Khalifas who took the right way' on page 9 admits:

"I have continued beyond the first four khulafa to include Hasan ibn 'Ali because as Suyuti saw him as the fifth of the khulafa".

It is clear that the bayya was an agreement surrounding the peace treaty, nothing more. Thus the pathetic arguments of 'Abu Sulaiman are baseless.

Mu'awiya's poisoning of Imam Hasan (as)

Abu Sulaiman rejects such narration's excuses include the following:

Ansar.org states:"At those days, people were in an affliction, and their desires leading their instincts, each sect attributing bad things to other sects. If a story was told about that, then we ought not to accept it unless just and trustworthy people narrated it".

Many afflictions occurred during that time but the Ahl'ul Sunnah happily embrace narration about Abdullah bin Saba so why do they 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. You can find this in the following books that we shall cite as proof, but before expanding on this let us set the scene to prove Mu'awiya's motive:

Reasons behind the poisoning of Imam Hasan (as)

Abu Sulaiman then seeks to use some logic as follows:

Ansar.org states:"The truth is that Al-Hasan made peace with Mu'awiyah, and gave him the leadership and the allegiance. Therefore, for what reason would Mu'awiyah poison Al-Hasan?"

Mu'awiya despite gaining power saw in Imam Hasan (as) a formidable opponent. As Abu Sulaiman admits Mu'awiya wanted Yazeed to succeed him. This contradicted one of the conditions stipulated in the agreement with Imam Hasan (as) namely that in the event of Mu'awiya's death khilafath would RETURN to Hasan (as) (see Isti'ab, I, pp. 355 f. Usd al-ghaba, II, p. 14).

Mu'awiya had no intention to comply with this, to ensure the best approach would be to kill Imam Hasan (as) during his own lifetime. Renowned Egyptian academic Dr Taha Husayn in his book "'Ali wa banooh (Ali and his sons)" (translated in Urdu as Hadhrath 'Ali (ra) by Maulana 'Abdul Hameed Numani) on page 214 writes:

"by poisoning Hasan, Mu'awiya and Amr bin Aas had made the way clear for making Yazeed the next khalifa".

Hadhrath 'Ali page 214

The motive was there, so was the method as was the means, and Masudi in Muruj-ud Dhahab Volume 2 page 486 and in Sirrul Awliya by S.M. Mubarak Alawi Karmani (Urdu translation by Ijaz ul Haqq Quddoosi) page 81 it is stated:

"Imam Hassan (as)'s wife Ja'da bint e Ashas Kindi poisoned him on the orders of Mu'awiya".

Sirrul Awliya page 81

In Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 192 we read:

"Shuaby states that Mu'awiya sent a message to Jada binte al-Ash'ath bin al Qays that if you poison Hasan then I shall marry you to Yazeed and in addition to this I shall give 100,000 dirhams. When Hasan was martyred Judh sent a message to Mu'awiya asking that he fulfil his side of the deal. Mu'awiya sent the money but said "I reject that matter of Yazeed since I want him to remain alive, had this matter not occurred then I would have married you to Yazeed".

Zamakshari in Rabi' ul Abrar notes that on page 208 Volume 4:

Mu'awiya reached an agreement with Jada binte al-Ash'ath bin al Qays, namely 100,000 dirhams if she poisons Imam Hasan. For two months Hasan bled profusely, and he would state 'I have been poisoned on several occasion before but on this occasion the poison has attacked my heart'

Mu'awiya's pleasure upon hearing about the death of Imam Hasan (as)

Even if 'Abu Sulaiman refuses to accept this evidence, one thing is for certain - Mu'awiya's reaction upon hearing the death of Imam Hasan (as) proves his evil nature. Zamakshari in Rabi' ul Abrar notes that on page 186 & 209 Volume 4:

"upon receiving news of Hasan's death, Mu'awiya paid a prostration of thanks (Sajdah e Shukr)".

Rabi' ul Abrar Vol. 4 page 186 & 209

Is this type of love Allah (swt) commands his faithful to bestow on the Ahl'ul bait expressing joy upon their deaths?

We will inshallah cite this reference later in another context for the moment analyse the 'respect' that is afforded to Imam Hasan (as) in the presence of Mu'awiya:

We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 32, hadith Number 4119:

Narrated Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib:

"Khalid said: Al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib and a man of Banu Asad from the people of Qinnisrin went to Mu'awiyah ibn AbuSufyan.

Mu'awiyah said to al-Miqdam: Do you know that al-Hasan ibn Ali has died? Al-Miqdam recited the Qur'anic verse "We belong to Allah and to Him we shall return."

A man asked him: Do you think it a calamity? He replied: Why should I not consider it a calamity when it is a fact that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to take him on his lap, saying: This belongs to me and Husayn belongs to Ali?

The man of Banu Asad said: (He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished. Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike. He then said: Mu'awiyah, if I speak the truth, declare me true, and if I tell a lie, declare me false.

Paksitani Hanafi scholar Allamah Khalil Ahmad Chisti in his book Maula aur Mu'awiya citing Tayseer al Bari Sharh Bukhari states that it was actually Mu'awiya who said "He (Hasan) was a live coal which Allah has extinguished".

Another Deobandi Hanafi scholar Malik Ghulam 'Ali in his book "Khiafaath aur mulukiyath phur itrizath ki tajzeeya" page 338 cites Wahidudeen az Zaman's text Tayseer al Bari in his discussion of this episode that:

"Ameer Mu'awiya's heart was not pure with regards to the Ahl'ul bayt".

Malik Ghulam 'Ali also in "Khiafaath aur mulukiyath phur itrizath ki tajzeeya" page 340 quoting 'Awn Maboodh Sharh Sunan Abu Daud' said as follows:

"Maulana Sham al Haqq Haqqani stated, Mu'awiya failed to recognised the esteemed station that had been afforded to the Ahl'ul bayt, he said such a thing at a time when Imam Hasan had died, this was a major tragedy and Hadhrat Miqdam recited the couplets of truth at that tragic time, he did not remain silent, and this is the sign of a pious momin. The comments of the man from the Asad tribe were said so as to please Mu'awiya. He went close to Mu'awiya and said '(He was) a live coal which Allah has extinguished'. Such strong and obnoxious language was said before Mu'awiya (as with Hasan present he felt that some aspects of reign were in danger)".

We agree with this assertion this was said by this Nasibi to please Mu'awiya. Notice how Mu'awiya at no point reprimands the individual for such a disgraceful comment. If this is not proof within itself that Mu'awiya supported this view, notice the comment of:

Al-Miqdam said: Today I shall continue to make you angry and make you hear what you dislike.

He then proceeds some faults that he noticed in Mu'awiya. The man from Asad's failure to ask permission BEFORE he slandered Imam Hasan (as) in the prsesence of Mu'awiya is clear proof that he was fully aware that such a comment would not offend Mu'awiya.

In this day and age these supporters of Mu'awiya seek to incite hatred against the Shi'a for they disrespect the Sahaba. We should point out to these Nasibis that their Imam Mu'awiya would disrespect the family of Rasulullah (s) and that insults about Imam Hasan (as) were said in his presence so as to please him.

Hanafi scholar Maulana Sultan Mahmood in his footnote of the Urdu translation of Sunan Abu Daud Voulme 3 page 273 states:

"Mu'awiya did not consider Imam Hasan's martyrdom as a sad matter, this was on account of his animosity towards 'Ali and his family".

Sunan Abu Daud Voul. 3 page 273