Thursday 29 June 2017
Why did Imam ”Hassan” [AS] compromise with “Muawiyah” and entrust caliphate to him?
ID: 459 Publish Date: 20 November 2016 - 11:56 Count Views: 245
Question & Answer » Imam Hasan
Why did Imam ”Hassan” [AS] compromise with “Muawiyah” and entrust caliphate to him?

To prove that Imam “Hassan” [AS] has entrusted caliphate to “Muawiyah”, Sunni should prove these four issues?

1: they should prove that Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s allegiance with “Muawiyah” has been real not showy.

2: they should prove that Imam “Hassan” [AS] gave up on caliphate for “Muawiyah”.

3: Imam “Hassan” [AS] swore allegiance with “Muawiyah” voluntarily, not by force.

4: if Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s allegiance has been conditional, they have to prove that “Muawiyah” lived up to conditions.

Of course, they can’t do so.

But about Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s compromising, some points must be discussed:

First point:

The word “Treaty” is written in historical books not “allegiance”, and they’re quite different than each other:

قال يوسف ] بن مازن الراسبي [ : فسمعت القاسم بن محيمة يقول: ما وفي معاوية للحسن بن علي صلوات الله عليه بشيء عاهده عليه

I heard from “Ghasim bin Mahimmah” who said: “Muawiyah” didn’t live up to his “Treaty” with “Hassan bin Ali”.

 Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200

في كلام له (عليه السلام) مع زيد بن وهب الجهني قال (والله لأن آخذ من معاوية عهداً أحقن به دمي وآمن به في أهلي خير من أن يقتلوني...)

It’s amongst “Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s talks with “Zaid bin Wahab” that Imam said: swear by god if I get a treaty from “Muawiyah” through which I can protect myself and family, I’ll be better than me getting killed.

“Saykh Tabarsi”- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p69

( فوالله لان أسالمه... ) في كلام له عليه السلام مع زيد بن وهب

Swear by god if I sign peace treaty with him…

“Saykh Tabarsi”- al-Ihtijaj, v1, p69

فلما استتمت الهدنة علي ذلك سار معاوية حتي نزل بالنخيلة

When peace treaty was completed, “Muawiyah” moved till he got to “Nakhilah”.

“Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid”- al-Irshad, v2, p14

And amongst issues that prove the opinion of Shia is what all historians say while mentioning the incidents of the year 41 AH, they say: “Hassan’s treaty” not “Hassan’s allegiance”.

Second point:

Difference between worldly ruling on people and divine Imamate is clear. Even if we assume that Imam “Hassan” has entrusted worldly ruling to “Muawiyah” for any reason, that doesn’t mean that he’s given up on Imamate position {which is the position of people’s guidance}, but he can’t remove himself of this position at all or appoint another guy. This position is divine and god will give to anyone he wants.

This well-known narrative is amongst narratives that mention to this issue clearly:

الحسن والحسين امامان قاما أو قعدا

 “Hassan” and “Hussein” are Imams, whether they arise or not.

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p211

Third point:

If this point is proved, It can direct our analyzing of this matter to the correct direction and it’s that Imam “Hassan” [AS] had to accept allegiance. And if this matter is proved, Muawiyah’s caliphate couldn’t be considered as legitimate with such allegiance.

في كلام له (عليه السلام) مع زيد بن وهب الجهني قال (والله لأن آخذ من معاوية عهداً أحقن به دمي وآمن به في أهلي خير من أن يقتلوني...)

It’s amongst “Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s talks with “Zeyd bin Wahab” that Imam said: swear by god if I can get a treaty from “Muawiyah” through which I can protect myself and family, It’ll be better than me getting killed.

“Saykh Tabarsi”- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p69

This narrative is apart from narratives in which the treason of commanders of Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s army and tribes’ chiefs have been mentioned, they wanted to either kill Imam “Hassan” or give him to “Muawiyah”.

“Saykh Tabarsi”- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p69

And also narratives in which this point has been said that if this peace weren’t made, they’d kill all Shi’as. 

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200 /// “Dhahabi history”- Muawiyah’s treaty, Hadith No. 41

And also Imam “Hassan” has likened this peace to prophet [PBUH]’s compromising with unbelievers and says that it’s for Islam’s protection:

في كلام يخاطب به أبا سعيد فيقول له: علة مصالحتي لمعاوية علة مصالحة رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله لبني ضمرة وبني أشجع، ولأهل مكة حين انصرف من الحديبية

The reason of my peace with “Muawiyah”, is the same as the reason of Prophet [PBUH]’s peace with Bani “Zamrah” and Bani “Ashja’” and people of “Mecca” when he was returning from “Hudaybiyyah”.

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200

Fourth point:

One of the oppressions towards history is that the contents of Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s peace treaty have not been cited exactly, but after referring to historical resources we could collect some of them. This much can show us the nature of this treaty:

1: “Muawiyah shouldn’t call himself commander of the faithful:

2: one can’t testify in front t of him.

3: “Muawiyah” has no right to sue Shi’as of “Ali” [AS].

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200// 

4: he has to divide one million dirhams between the children of dead in battles of “Jamal” and “Siffin”.

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200// al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, v3, Hadith No.41

5: they shouldn’t insult commander of faithful Ali [AS].

Shaykh “Saduq”, Elal al-Sharayi’, v1, p200// “Al-Dhahabi”- Siyar A’lam al-Nubala- v3, p264

So, Imam “Hassan” [AS]’s peace with “Muawiyah” couldn’t be consider as his withdrawing from Imamate or even caliphate and entrusting it to “Muawoyah”.

Good Luck. 

 

 



Share
* Name:
* Email:
* Comment :
* Security code:
  

Latest Articles
Most Comments
Most viewed
Index | Contact us | Archive | Search | Link | List Comments | About us | RSS | Mobile |