The historians have greatly differed over the one who had started making peace. Ibn Khaldun and a group of historians have maintained that it was Imam al-Hasan (‘a) who began that when he came to know that his affair became weak1. Another group has maintained that it was Mu’awiya who started making peace after he sent him his companions’ letters containing perfidy and assassinating him whenever he wished and wanted2. Al-Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi has mentioned that it was Mu’awiya who secretly corresponded with Imam al-Hasan and summoned him to make peace, but the Imam did not respond to him. Then he responded to him after that3. Most likely it was Mu’awiya who hurried to make peace and took the initiative to it, because he was afraid that the Iraqis might return to their reason, for they were famous for the quick change in opinion. The reason for that it was Mu’awiya who started seeking peace was the Imam al-Hasan’s speech in al-Mada’in. In his speech he has mentioned: “Most surely Mu’awiya has summoned us to an affair in which there is neither glory nor justice!”

Anyway it is not important to examine that, because there would have been no harm on Imam al-Hasan if he had hurried to the peacemaking owing to the hard ordeals that surrounded and forced him to make peace. If it was Mu’awiya who had hurried to the peacemaking, also there would not have been harm on the Imam because of what we have explained about the reasons of the peacemaking. The most important thing is examining the stipulations the Imam made against his opponent. History is greatly different in respect of them. The historian’s statements are disordered about them. The following are some of their statements.

1. A historian has mentioned that Imam al-Hasan sent two messengers to Mu’awiya. The messengers were Amr Ibn Salama al-Hamadani and Muhammad Ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Kindi to be sure of Mu’awiya’s situation and to know what he had. So Mu’awiya gave them the letter that reads as follows: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a letter to al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali, from Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan. Surely I have made peace with you for that you shall have the authority after me. To you belong Allah’s promise, His covenant, His protection, and the protection of His Apostle, Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, and the severest of what Allah took against any of His creatures from among the promises and covenants. I will seek against you neither a calamity nor a detested thing. I should give you a million dirhams from the public treasury every year. You shall have the land tax of Basra and Dar Abjard. You send to them your governors and to do with them asyou like. Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, Amr Ibn Salama al-Kindi, Abdurrahman Ibn Samra, and Ibn al-Ash‘ath bore witness as to that. It was written in the month of Rabee‘ al-Aakhar, in the year 41 A. H.”

The document indicates that Mu’awiya has given al-Hasan three things:

1. He appointed him as his hire apparent.

2. The Imam shall have a million dirhams from the public treasury every year.

3. He gave him two districts. The Imam had to send his governors to them and to do with them whatever he wished.

Imam al-Hasan kept Mu’awiya’s letter. So he sent to him a man from the Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The man’s name was Abdullah Ibn al-Harth Ibn Nawfal. His mother was Mu’awiya’s sister. The Imam said to him: “Go to your uncle and say to him: ‘If you gave security to the people, I would pledge allegiance to you.”

When Abdullah reached Mu’awiya, he told him about Imam al-Hasan’s task, which was seeking the general security to all the people. Mu’awiya responded to him. He stamped a parchment at the bottom. He gave the parchment to him and said: “Let al-Hasan write on it whatever he wishes.” So Abdullah returned carrying this absolute authorization to the Imam. So the Imam (‘a) wrote what he wanted from among the stipulations. We will mention the text of what he wrote when we deal with some of the narrations, for it does not differ from them. Dr. Taha Husayn has depended on this narration4.

2. Al-Tabari and Ibn al-Athir have narrated another copy saying that Imam al-Hasan corresponded with Mu’awiya regarding the peacemaking and made some conditions against him; if Mu’awiya conformed to the conditions, he would make peace with him; otherwise, he would not conclude it. When the Imam’s letter reached Mu’awiya, he kept it. Before this letter came to him, he had sent the Imam a blank page stamped at the bottom and wrote to him: “Stipulate whatever you wish!” This document reached the Imam after he had sent Mu’awiya the document in which he wrote what he wanted. Then the Imam wrote on that blank page additional stipulations to the ones he had stipulated, and then he kept them. When he handed over the authority to him and asked him to fulfill the conditions he had stipulated, he (Mu’awiya) did not fulfill them and said to him: “You shall have what you had written and asked me to give to you. So surely I gave them to you when your letter came to me.” Al-Hasan (‘a) said to him: “And I stipulated when your letter came to me and gave me the covenant to fulfill that which was in it.” Accordingly, they differed over that. Mu’awiya did not fulfill anything to al-Hasan.

The narration has not mentioned to us the stipulations the Imam had made nor has it mentioned what he wrote on the blank page Mu’awiya had sent to him. However in his bookTarikh, Abu al-Fida’ has mentioned the conditions the Imam had made, saying: “And al-Hasan wrote to Mu’awiya and made some conditions against him and said: ‘If you responded to them, I would listen and obey.’ So Mu’awiya responded to them. The thing al-Hasan demanded was that Mu’awiya had to give him what was in the public treasury of Kufa, the land taxes collected from Dar Abjard of Persia, and not to curse ‘Ali. But Mu’awiya did not respond to him concerning cursing ‘Ali. So al-Hasan asked him not to curse ‘Ali while he heard. Mu’awiya responded to him, and then he did not fulfill that to him.”5

I (the author) think that what Ibn al-Athir and al-Tabari have mentioned is far from correctness. That is because if the conditions Imam al-Hasan lastly made were of great importance, then why did he neglect them and did not mention them at the beginning of the affair? If we overlooked that, then what was the benefit of writing them while Mu’awiya did not come to know them and did not acknowledge them? A part from that, Mu’awiya was at that stage ready to respond to anything the Imam demanded from him.

3. Ibn ‘Abd al-Birr has narrated: “Surely Imam (al-Hasan) wrote to Mu’awiya and told him that he would pass the authority to him provided that he should not pursue any of the people of Medina, al-Hijaz, and Iraq because of anything that happened during the days of his father. Mu’awiya responded to him and was about to fly because of happiness. However he said: ‘I will not give security to ten people.’ So al-Hasan wrote to him again regarding them, but he (Mu’awiya) wrote back to him, saying: ‘Surly I have taken an oath that if I arrested Qays Ibn Sa‘d, I would cut out his tongue and cut off his hand!’ Al-Hasan wrote him back again (and said to him): ‘I will never pay homage to you while you demand Qays and other than him because of a certain result, whether it was great or small.’ So Mu’awiya sent him at that time a blank document and said: ‘Write whatever you wish and I will conform to it.’ So they made peace with each other. Al-Hasan stipulated that he should have the authority after him, and Mu’awiya conformed to all of that.”6

The narration contains that the most important thing the Imam demanded is asking the general security to all his and his father’s companions. Without doubt this condition is among the first and most important conditions with the Imam. As for that the peacemaking happened in this manner, then I (the author) have doubt about that.

4. Some historians have mentioned that Imam al-Hasan and Mu’awiya made peace with each other and had a mutual consent about what the following document has contained. They both signed it. This is its text: “In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is for which al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib has made peace with Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan. He has made peace with him that he should hand over the authority to him provided that he (Mu’awiya) should act according to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Apostle and the conduct of the righteous Caliphs. Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan has no right to entrust a covenant to anyone after him. Rather, the authority after him should be consultation among the Muslims. The people should be safe wherever they are of Allah’s earth, in their Sham, their Iraq, their Hijaz, and their Yemen. ‘Ali’s companions and followers should be safe in respect of their souls, properties, womenfolk, and their children. Allah’s promise and covenant and what He took against anyone from His creatures through fulfilling, and through what He gave of His Own Self be on Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan regarding that. He (Mu’awiya) should scheme neither secretly nor openly against al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali, his brother al-Husayn, and the members of the House of Allah’s Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family. He should not terrorize any of them in any of the horizons (regions). So-and-so has borne witness as to that. Enough for a witness is Allah!”7

This document is the best of the previous ones in explaining the way of making peace. It contains some important affairs that achieved many benefits to Muslims in general. I doubt that the document contains all what Imam al-Hasan demanded and wanted. In the following we will mention all the conditions the traditionists have mentioned even if they have not mentioned the whole of them. However some historians have mentioned some of them, and some others have mentioned another group of them. The two parties have confessed that each party has not mentioned all the conditions the Imam made. The conditions are as follows:

1. The Imam handed over the authority to Mu’awiya provided that he should act according to Allah’s Book, the Sunna of His Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family8, and the conduct of the righteous Caliphs9.

2. Mu’awiya had no right to entrust the authority to anyone after him. The authority after him would be for al-Hasan10. If something happened to him, the authority would be for al-Husayn11.

3. The general security should be given to the people in general; the red and the black of them were equal in it. Mu’awiya had to stand their slips and not to pursue any of them according to the past and not to punish the people of Iraq out of a grudge12.

4. (Imam al-Hasan stipulated) that he had not to call him (Mu’awiya) the Commander of the Faithful13.

5. That he did not have to bear witness in his presence14.

6. That Mu’awiya had to refrain from cursing Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful15; he had not to mention him except with good16.

7. That he had to repay rights to their owners17.

8. Mu’awiya had to give security to the followers of Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, and not to subject them to any detested thing18.

9. He had to divide a million dirhams among the children of those who were killed with his father (Imam ‘Ali) at the Battles of al-Jamal and Siffin, and he had to appoint that from the land tax of Dar Abjard19.

10. He had to give him what was in the Public Treasury of Kufa20, to settle his debts, and to give him a hundred thousand (dirhams) a year21.

11. He should not plot secretly and openly against al-Hasan, his brother al-Husayn, and the the Prophet’s progeny, may Allah bless him and his family. He should not terrorize any of them in any of the horizons (regions)22.

These are the stipulations and items of the peacemaking the traditionists have mentioned. As for that Imam al-Hasan stipulated all of them or part of them, we will mention that when we deal with studying and analyzing the stipulations. Before we end this chapter, we have to deal with the place and time of the peacemaking:

The Place Of The Peacemaking

As for the place where the peacemaking took place, it was at Maskan according to what the trustworthy sources have mentioned. At that place the peacemaking was concluded and carried out in the presence of a lot of people from among the Iraqi and Syrian armies. Some historian has mentioned that the peacemaking happened in Bayt al-Maqdis23. Another historian has mentioned that it was concluded at Adhruh of the land of Sham. These two statements are too irregular to depend on them.

The Year Of The Peacemaking

As historians have differed over the place where the peacemaking happened, they have differed over the time when it occurred. It was said that it was in the month of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, in the year 41 A.H. It was said that it was in the month of Rabee‘ al-Aakhar, and said that it was in the month of Jamadi al-Ula. According to the first date, Imam al-Hasan’s caliphate was five months and a half. According to the second date it was six months and some days. According to the third date it was seven moths and some days24. It was said that the peacemaking took place in the month of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, in the year 40 A.H25. Other than that was also said. The correct statement is that the period of his caliphate was six months according to what most historians have mentioned.

Anyway some historians have called that year, immortal in the world of sorrows, the Year of the Unity (‘Aam al-Jamaa‘a) because of that the word of the Muslims became united after the division and that unity was achieved after disagreement. However this name is contrary to the reality, for since that year the Muslims have fallen in great evil. Troubles have been poured upon them like the shadows of the dark night, to the extent that the principles of the religion have been changed. The laws of Islam have been altered.

The Islamic caliphate has come to a painful fate due to the fact that it has been handed down from father to son, from an oppressor to an oppressor, to the extent that the nation has been drowned into blood, tragedies, and sorrows. Al-Jahiz says: “Mu’awiya controlled the authority and overcame the remainder of the consultation and the community of the Muslims from among the Ansar and the Muhajreen in the year that was called the Year of Unity (‘Aam al-Jamaa’a). This was not a year of unity; rather, it was a year of division, overcoming, and compulsion; the year when the Imamate changed into Khousrowian dominion and the caliphate changed into a Caesarian office.”26

The door to oppression was widely opened from that year when the authority reached to the Khousrow of the Arabs (Mu’awiya). The Muslims, especially as it concerns the followers (Shi’a) of the family of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, met tiredness, oppression, and exhaustion the like of which history has never witnessed. Ibn Abi al-Hadid says regarding what befell the Muslims after the year of the peacemaking: “The believers had either fear for their blood or were homeless. They sought security but they did not find it.” After this inclusive oppression and exhausting tyranny, is it right to call that year the Year of Unity and Friendliness?

Study And Analysis

It is necessary for us to pause to examine the conditions Imam al-Hasan made against Mu’awiya; likewise, it is necessary to study and understand them even if generally, because they contain affairs of great importance that they endangered Mu’awiya’s victory, brought out disgrace to him, brought him out of the just rulers into unjust ones.

I (the author) believe in all the said conditions except two of them, which are that Imam al-Hasan would have the property in Kufa Public Treasury, and that Mu’awiya would give a yearly salary to him and his brother al-Husayn.

As for the first condition, it is far. That is because Imam al-Hasan was in charge of the possessions and the properties in the Kufan Public Treasury. He acted freely in respect of them. They were not veiled or withhold from him that he might make a condition on Mu’awiya to grant him an authority over them. I doubt that there were many properties in the Public Treasury. That is because the policy of Ahl al-Bayt required spending the properties on that which Islam had specified.

As for the second condition, it is incorrect, for Imam al-Hasan was in no need of Mu’awiya’s properties. If we accepted that, then there would be no harm on the Imam from taking them. That is because saving the Muslims’ properties from the unjust rulers is a necessary affair. We will explain that when we deal with the Imam’s travel to Damascus. I think that Mu’awiya gave these two stipulations at the beginning. However, some historian has imagined that they were among the conditions Imam al-Hasan had made.

Anyhow, the stipulations aimed at seeking general security and inclusive peace for all the Muslims. In the meantime they urged the Muslims to be alert and to free themselves from the Umayyad enslavement. Moreover they indicate that the Imam was skillful in keeping his lawful right, that Mu’awiya had usurped it, and that the Imam had not disposed of his right. As for the contents of the stipulations, they are as follows:

Mu’awiya Should Act According To Allah’s Book

Imam al-Hasan did not let Mu’awiya act freely in respect of the Muslims’ affairs. He stipulated that Mu’awiya should act according to the Book and the Sunna in respect of his policy and that of his governors. If he had come to know that Mu’awiya had followed the light of the Qur’an and Islam, he would not have stipulated that against him, and regarded that as among the most important conditions he imposed on him.

The Succession

Imam al-Hasan treated an important point. The point is the fate of the Islamic succession after Mu’awiya’s death. He stipulated on him that the caliphate after him would return to him (Imam al-Hasan) and his brother. Some sources have mentioned that the Imam stipulated that the caliphate should be consultation among the Muslims after Mu’awiya’s death. According to both statements, the Imam returned the caliphate to its high entity. He stipulated that on him because he had come to know his bad trends, that he would move the Islamic caliphate from its reality to a hereditary kingdom, and place it among his progeny the deviants, the criminals. As a result the Imam intended to enlighten the people and urge them to fight against Mu’awiya if he did that.

The General Security

The most important thing from among those stipulations Imam al-Hasan sought was spreading security and wellbeing among the Muslims whether they were black or red. This indicates that he had mercy and affection on all the Muslims. This stipulation also said that he should not follow after anyone because of the past, and should not punish the people of Iraq because of the past grudge. Al-Hasan stipulated that on Mu’awiya because he had come

to know that he would exhaust them and severely punish them as a sign of vengeance on that which issued from them during the days of Siffin.

Mu’awiya Should Not Be Called The Commander Of The Faithful

Imam al-Hasan (‘a) refused to call Mu’awiya the Commander of the Faithful to deprive him of the religious authority over all the Muslims. Mu’awiya was not attentive to this dangerous stipulation. If he was not a commander over al-Hasan, he had, of course, no authority and command over the Muslims. According to that Mu’awiya was among the unjust, rebellious rulers. Through that he striped him of the office of the Imamate and caliphate, and proved that he (Mu’awiya) usurped this great office.

Witness Is Not Borne In The Presence Of Mu’awiya

This stipulation exposed and disgraced Mu’awiya. It indicated that he was among the tyrannical rulers. Witness, as the jurists have mentioned, would be borne in the presence of the legal judge as a part of his duty. If bearing witness was incorrect in the presence of Mu’awiya, then he was not a just ruler; rather, he was a tyrannical ruler; and the judgment of the tyrannical rulers was invalid and their conduct was not accepted in the viewpoint of the Islamic law. So it was incumbent of the community to remove them from this office to which sparing the blood, protecting the honor, and keeping the properties were entrusted. Through this stipulation Imam al-Hasan showed that he was the owner of a right, and that Mu’awiya usurped that right.

Mu’awiya Should Give Up Cursing Imam ‘Ali

Through this condition Imam al-Hasan (‘a) showed that Mu’awiya went too far in committing sin. He had come to know that Mu’awiya would not leave cursing Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, and degrading his dignity. So he (‘a) wanted to show the Islamic community that Mu’awiya was very reckless and did not take care of the Islamic affairs and teachings. Islam has made it forbidden to curse and disparage a Muslim. However Mu’awiya, Hind’s son, paid no attention to Islam. He openly cursed Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, after concluding the peacemaking. We will explain that when

we deal with Mu’awiya’s violating the stipulations of the peacemaking. It is clear that Imam al-Hasan exposed Mu’awiya through this stipulation and removed from him the thin cover with which he covered himself in the name of the religion.

The General Security

Imam al-Hasan (‘a) took great care of his and his father’s followers (Shi’a). He made peace with Mu’awiya to spare their blood and to protect them. He stipulated that Mu’awiya should not subject them to any detested thing. With him this condition was the most important and greatest of all other conditions. His Eminence late Aal Yaseen has said: “And he (Imam al-Hasan) sought protection with it (the agreement) to achieve security for his and his father’s followers (Shi’a) and to refresh their orphans. Through that, he wanted to reward them (the followers) for their steadfastness with him and their loyalty to his father. He also wanted to keep them as loyal to his creed and as sincere supporters, that he might strengthen his position and that of his brother on the day when the truth would return to its people.”27

Surely most of the conditions Imam al-Hasan made aimed at the interests of his followers, guaranteeing their rights, and turning them away from harm and detested things.

The Land Tax Of Dar Abjard

Imam al-Hasan stipulated on Mu’awiya special properties, that he might spend on his and his father’s followers. The properties were the land taxes of Dar Abjard28 The meaning of this specification is that some of the taxes collected to the state are called al-Fay’, which is the tax imposed on the lands conquered by force. Such a kind of tax is spent on the general interests and social affairs such as improving the army, establishing foundations, and the like from among the vital projects. Some properties are called alms, which are financial taxes Islam imposed on certain properties and kinds of imports on which the trade market in the world depends. Islam has imposed such a tax on the rich. This tax is taken from the rich and given to the poor to combat against poverty and to uproot misery.

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family, has said: “I have been commanded to take alms from your rich and give it to your poor.” As a result Imam al-Hasan hated to take such a kind of property for himself and his followers.It was forbidden for him to take such a kind of property, for it was forbidden for Aal al-Bayt to take alms. He (‘a) hated to give alms to his followers and decided to give them properties from Dar Abjard that was conquered by force; and that which was conquered by force was not considered as alms. Through that he chose to his followers some properties far from the suspicion. Dar Abjard belonged to the Muslims and it was obligatory on the Imam to spend its revenue on Muslims’ interests.

Mu’awiya Should Not Oppress Them

Among the stipulations of the agreement was that Mu’awiya should not oppress al-Hasan and al-Husayn. He should not harbor grudge against the Prophet’s progeny, may Allah bless him and his family, nor should he terrify any of them. He made such a condition due to the fact that he had come to know that Mu’awiya would plot against them through evil and cunning. Out of his grudge, Mu’awiya put poison into some food and offered it to Imam al-Hasan to eat it. We will explain that. Through this stipulation and the like from among the stipulations of the peacemaking, Imam al-Hasan wanted to remove the curtain from Mu’awiya, to show his defects and shortcomings, and to display that he had neither protection nor religiousness.

These are some of the stipulations of the peacemaking. They are full of elements of great importance. They indicate that Imam al-Hasan was skillful and had unique abilities in overcoming his opponent. In respect of this agreement, his Eminence late Aal Yaseen has said: “It is an act of truth to confess that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali had wonderful political abilities. In the light of what transmitted from him procedures and laws that are the best things the diplomatic tact has reached, appeared clearly in his traditions. If he had assumed the authority in a condition other than this condition, he would have been on the top of the experienced politicians and the Muslim, brilliant rulers. Neither the deprivation on some day nor the failure in some field through its reasons standing on the nature of time is a proof of weakness or a way to a criticism.

Chapter 19: Imam Al-Husayn’s Attitude

The attitude of Imam al-Husayn, the master of martyrs (‘a) toward the affair of the peacemaking was like that of his brother Imam al-Hasan (‘a). Imam al-Husayn was perplexed and astonished at his brother’s attitude. However after he had studied the attitude, he came to know that the conclusion of a truce was necessary and making peace (with Mu’awiya) was a must. (He also came to know that) it was not an act of wisdom nor was it an act of logic to open a door to war against Mu’awiya, for such a war would bring about bad complications to Islam, misfortunes and disasters to the Muslims, because the army that went with them became divided. In the previous chapters we have referred to the flagrant treason of most military commanders and leaders, their joining Mu’awiya’s camp, their readiness to assassinate Imam al-Hasan or hand him over as a captive. So how was it possible for Imam al-Hasan to battle against Mu’awiya through these treacherous forces who had harbored grudges against him and waited for an opportunity to kill him?

Imam al-Husayn (‘a) thought that his brother had to respond to the peacemaking and not to fight against Mu’awiya because of the bitter factors that surrounded him, to the extent that it made it impossible to overcome Mu’awiya and to win a victory over him. So the peace Imam al-Hasan made was obligatory, and there was no way other than it, as we have explained in the reasons of the peacemaking. So how was it possible for Imam al-Husayn to oppose his brother in respect of that and not to agree with him on that?

Some historian claimed that al-Husayn disliked what his brother did, and that he said to him: “I adjure you before Allah that you should not believe Mu’awiya’s speech and deny your father’s speech!”

Imam al-Hasan answered him: “I am more knowledgeable of the matter than you are.”29

They have also narrated that al-Hasan said to his cousin Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far: “I have an opinion, and I want you to follow me in respect of it.” Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far asked him: “What is it?”

“I think that I have to go to Medina and reside in it,” said al-Hasan, “I will leave this affair to Mu’awiya. For the trouble has lasted. Blood has been shed because of it. kinship have been cut off, and the fortified borderline cities have been closed.”

Abdullah Ibn Ja‘far confirmed his viewpoint saying: “May Allah reward you with good on behalf of the community of Muhammad; and I am with you.”

Then he sent for al-Husayn. When he was before him, he said to him: “I have an idea and I want you to follow me in respect of it.”

“What is it?” asked al-Husayn.

He mentioned to him his viewpoint in respect of that.

Al-Husayn opposed him angrily and said to him: “I seek refuge for you with Allah from that you deny ‘Ali in his grave and believe Mu’awiya!”

So al-Hasan was displeased with his speech and said to him: “By Allah, when I want an affair, you oppose me (and suggest) other than it! By Allah, I have intended to throw you into a house and imprison you in it, that I may carry out my affair!”

When al-Husayn came to know that his brother was angry and serious in the affair, he withdrew from his idea and abdicated his opinion. Then he said to him with a faint voice: “You are the oldest of ‘Ali’s children. You are my caliph. Our command follows your command. Therefore, do whatever seems to you!”30

Without doubt all of that was fabricated. It was completely false, because Imam al-Husayn was knowledgeable of the factors and the reasons that forced his brother to make peace with Mu’awiya. Definitely his opinion about the peacemaking agreed with that of his brother. He did not oppose it nor did he differ with his brother on it. When Imam al-Hasan concluded the peacemaking, a group of the leaders and the great figures came to al-Husayn. They asked him to violate what his brother had concluded with Mu’awiya and to fight against him. However he refused that and refrained (from responding to them). If his opinion had been different from that of his brother, he would have responded to them in respect of that. When Imam al-Hasan passed away, a group of the leading persons in Iraq sent al-Husayn many letters and asked him to declare the revolt against the Umayyads. But he refused to respond to them and said to them: “As long as Mu’awiya is living, I will not move through all things. When he dies, I will consider the matter.”31

Surely his refraining from undertaking the affair as long as Mu’awiya was alive frankly indicates that he thought that concluding a truce and timely peacemaking was necessary, because the revolt would not succeed and the sacrifice would achieve nothing as long as Mu’awiya was alive, for he would clothe it in a garment that would bring it out of the frame of the reform, as we have already explained. Yes, without doubt the peacemaking left in al-Husayn’s soul bitter sorrow and exhausting sadness. In the meantime it left in al-Hasan’s soul agony and sadness. But what would they both, peace be on them, do as long as the circumstances were not appropriate for them to fight against Mu’awiya?

These stories were fabricated and incorrect that it has been mentioned in the second narration that Imam al-Hasan said to his brother al-Husayn: “When I want (to do) an affair, you oppose me in respect of it!”

Surely this severe speech is a proof of the fabrication, for the ideals prevented Imam al-Husayn (‘a) from opposing and disobeying his brother. They both were brought up under the care of the great legislator (the Prophet), and he supplied them with his ideals, education, and guidance, to the extent that they were a true copy of him. Therefore, how was it possible for him to oppose his brother’s orders and not to obey him in respect of the affair that brought about a general interest to the Muslims in general?

Surely Imam al-Husayn magnified and respected his brother. He did not oppose him in anything. His grandson Imam al-Baqir (‘a) narrated about al-Husayn’s great reverence and respect toward his brother, saying: “Al-Husayn did not speak in the presence of al-Hasan as a sign of respect toward him.”32

After this respect and magnification, was it right for al-Hasan to say to his brother: “When I want (to do) an affair, you oppose me in respect of the affair?”

Dr. Taha Husayn has depended on this fabricated narration, saying: “He (al-Husayn) disliked the peace his brother made and intended to oppose (him). So his brother warned him through shackling him with the iron until the peacemaking was concluded.”

And he said: “And al-Husayn criticized the peacemaking, for it was a denial to his father’s line of conduct.”

And he also said: “He (al-Husayn) saw the loyalty to his brother as a right, so he was loyal to him and obeyed him as he had obeyed his father before. I have no doubt that, during these years he spent in Medina after the peace his brother made, he felt burning desire for the opportunity that would enable him to resume the jihad (in the place) where his father had left.”33

As for Dr. Taha Husayn’s saying “He (al-Husayn) disliked the peace his brother made and intended to oppose (him). So his brother warned him through shackling him with the iron…. He criticized the peacemaking. For it was a denial to his father’s line of conduct.” This speech is refuted by that if he had disliked that, then he would have responded to the Kufans when they intended to fight against Mu’awiya after the peacemaking had been concluded, and that he would have declared the revolt against him after his brother’s death. Besides if the peacemaking had been contrary to the line conduct of Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) al-Husayn would not have kept silent, for keeping silence from saying the truth is cowardliness and sin.

If (the peacemaking) had been contrary to the conduct of Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, which was extension to that of Allah’s Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family, al-Hasan (‘a) would not have concluded the peacemaking. Yes, al-Husayn hankered after jihad as the thirsty hankered after water. His heart harbored exhausting sorrow and sadness. Also his brother shared him all his ordeals and sorrows. They both waited for an appropriate opportunity to revolt against the Umayyad government. However the opportunity through which the victory and the conquest were hoped was not available as long as Mu’awiya was alive, because opening a door to war against him would bring about a grievous damage to Islam and the Muslims.

A thing has remained. We have not mentioned the thing in the reasons for the peacemaking. It is that why did Imam al-Hasan not open a door to the war against Mu’awiya even if he had neither supporters nor helpers and to die a martyr just as his brother, the master of the martyrs (‘a) had done? Those who criticized the peacemaking maintained this vague error. Let one of the Imams of the Muslims, who is late Aayat Allah Sayyid Abd Al-Husayn Sharafuddeen, answer the question. He has removed the cover from it in an article entitled Thawrat al-Husayn Sadaa li Sulh al-Hasan (Al-Husayn’s revolt is the echo of al-Hasan’s peacemaking”. The article was published in most of the local newspapers. We will mention the whole article, for it has an additional benefit. He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Since the past it has been in myself that I (have to) take care of researching this problem in a research that rebels from Abu Muhammad (al-Hasan) this vague error in the souls of those unable to understand history with a correct understanding. Many of these people do not resort to a science source as to weigh this group from among Ahl al-Bayt and to subjugate their movements in the two states of their ebb and flow to the Highest Principle (Allah), for He rendered them obedient to serving Him and annihilate their selfness in His selfness. So they contracted when He desired the contraction to them, and they also expanded when He desired the expansion to them.

“It has been in my soul that I (have to) refute this vague error from Abu Muhammad (al-Hasan) through establishing this scientific balance that makes clear this act and remove its veil. But the incoming, heavy, endless businesses have turned me away from that which is in myself in respect of that. Now, I will summarize the hint to this vague error and refute it. It may be that this seed becomes a plant. I will take care of that which makes it grow when the opportunity comes; otherwise, one of these shiny pens dipped in the hearts of the free and the minds of the religious scholars from among the servants of facts…will make it grow. As for the vague error, it is as old as the feeble sight in those who apparently take things. As for those who are familiar with the history of al-Hasan (‘a) they know that some of his companions had criticized him for his refraining from fighting against Mu’awiya. So he was then about to be the victim of that trouble, and to the extent that one of his special associates rudely greeted him, saying: ‘As-salamu ‘alayka O you who have abased the faithful!’”

“Perhaps they had an excuse because of their enthusiasm…

“That might be. But, now, we do not want to apologize to them; rather, we want to prove the part of this vague error from the first to see that it comes successively from him. It appears from time to time, some times on the tongue of his friends and some times on the tongue of his opponents; and it, here and there, does not appear but to indicate the ignorance of these and those.

“So when we weigh his peacemaking (‘a) and his war, the scale of the peacemaking outweighs. That is when the observed criterion is taken into consideration. And be, if you wished, material or spiritual to exceed through your faith and understanding the rage of the sensible and the visible.

“In the first place, be material and discuss the war of al-Hasan. The army felt defeat before entering war. Mu’awiya invaded it. The army had resisted (Imam) ‘Ali before, while ‘Ali had a military morale; the earth shook out of fear of it. In addition to his other morale the like of which Imam al-Hasan did not enjoy in the souls of his contemporaries by virtue of his following his father.

“Yes, you have the right to say that it was incumbent on al-Hasan to be martyred and to die dear. However, reconsider the history of this period that you may see that martyrdom gives one of the meanings of going out (in revolt). So at that time there was no national, stable fact, nor was there a firm tentative spirit that martyrdom might be according to the decided rules; and there is nothing, in this condition, more insignificant than death that helps against its doer and cause him to die another time.

“Really the Islamic life was relapsing and changing into a hereditary monarchy. The ambitions were drafted in the king’s stirrup, escaping from the borders of the caliphate. However it was still keeping the means of Islam and its apparent principle through the opportunism Mu’awiya formed through his cunning. This is by itself can be an excuse for al-Hasan through two sides:

“1. It was his excuse in respect of the peacemaking, for the world supported Mu’awiya through stripping him of his (al-Hasan’s) cousin and commander of his army.

“2. Then it was his excuse in respect of refraining from martyrdom, for that itself was not the circumstance of martyrdom, for he was able to transform it.

“Then which material benefit would have been through death if al-Hasan had chosen it as these people want, except that he would help Mu’awiya against himself alive and dead?

“Surely I can see nothing more indicative of al-Hasan’s greatness than this material policy that limited his attitude in this manner during the most dangerous period during which Islam passed. So it was the nucleus of overthrowing and exposing the Umayyad government; likewise, it was the material of that great (gun) powder that exploded through the martyrdom of al-Husayn, peace be on him. That was the explosion. Had it not been for this attitude of al-Hasan, Mu’awiya would have undertaken a supreme authority whose results the people would not know; and al-Husayn would not have been able (to achieve) the immortal sacrifice for the immortal creed.

“You were material, now try to be spiritual and discuss the war of al-Hasan that all the considerations may come together for you to show you the superiority of the scale of the peacemaking.

“Al-Hasan was not among those who sought authority for authority; rather, he was among those who wanted the caliphate to be a means for reform, establishing justice and peace among the people. I do not think that this spiritual thought lacks its material proof, for his father and his grandfather proved in Islam that it was so; and he had, before Islam, inheritance rises as a proof for that he belonged to a reformative origin that did not seek influence if it was in no need of doing good.

“From here it was easy for him to abdicate the caliphate, for he lived during a period of time that was unable to show good during that suppressed generation yearning for the pleasures from which it took more than its sufficiency at Mu’awiya’s dining tables. Rather it was incumbent on him to abdicate (the caliphate), for he had no ability to overcome the obstacle

of subjugating the rushing Umayyads. That is because his abdicating (the caliphate) came according to the plan his principles had made.

“Those who criticized him for his abdicating (the caliphate) were not greater than him in feeling the pain of the abdication; it was he who was injured. However it was the huge sacrifice that urged him to stand the pain of the refraining that his high ideals and good principles had written against him.

“It was a sacrifice that was not less, if it was not more, than that of al-Husayn, peace be on him. Now, be whatever you wish to be. Be material or be spiritual, for, at last, you will reach a wonderful result; it is that al-Hasan’s peacemaking was among the great sources of al-Husayn’s liberating revolt, and that the essence of the sacrifice was one with the two Imams even if their appearances were different.

“The truth is that the Day of al-Taff (the Battle of Karbala’) was an echo to the Day of al-Mada’in. May Allah bless the two masters of the youths of the Garden and make the Muslims make use of their memories, the renewer, the new, make the Arabs and the Muslims follow their guidance in this difficult stage of theirs.”34

The opinion of his Eminence Sayyid Sharaf al-Deen is trustworthy, confirmed by proofs, and supported by scientific speech in all its sides. The truth is that if Imam al-Hasan had sacrificed his life, then his sacrifice would have been useless, would not have established the truth nor would have it changed falsehood. That is because through his cunning and deception, Mu’awiya would regard al-Hasan as responsible and regard himself as innocent of committing the crime. He would say to the people: “Surely I summoned al-Hasan to make peace (with me), but he refused (all things) except war. I wanted him to live, but he wanted me to be killed. I wanted to spare blood, but he wanted to destroy the people between me and him….” Mu’awiya had such abilities through which he would show himself as just and fair. In this manner al-Hasan’s sacrifice would be useless.

As for al-Husayn, his immortal sacrifice was suitable to its appropriate circumstance and was in harmony with the requirements of the time. That is because the sinful one, Yazid, had none with him to manage his affairs and to deter him from his recklessness and vainglory. That is because that group of people on whom Mu’awiya depended to run his affairs such as Amr Ibn al-‘Aas, al-Mughira, and the like from among the crafty Arabs perished. None of them remained with him; for this reason Imam al-Husayn (‘a) declared his successful revolt that brought about an inevitable end to the Umayyad state.

Generally speaking, al-Hasan’s peacemaking and al-Husayn’s martyrdom were based on a deep thought taken from the inspiration of their grandfather, the Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family. Had it not been for al-Hasan’s peacemaking and the martyrdom of his brother, Islam would have gone forever. This has been declared by Imam Kashif al-Ghita’ in his introduction to the book. He, may Allah have mercy on him, has said: “It was incumbent on Imam al-Husayn and his companions to revolt against the tyrannical one of his time (Yazid Ibn Mu’awiya) during those circumstances. They all were killed, and the rest of Imam al-Husayn’s family, who were the family of Allah’s Apostle, were taken as prisoners of war. This was incumbent on him according to the technique of policy, the laws of victory and prudence regardless of the divine commands and the eternal will. It was also incumbent on al-Hasan (‘a) during his conditions to make peace with the tyrannical one of his time (Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan). Had it not been for the peace treaty of al-Hasan and the martyrdom of al-Husayn, Islam would have had neither a name nor a trace, and the efforts of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, the good, the blessing, the guidance, and the mercy he had brought for people would have been lost.”

Yes, had it not been for al-Hasan’s peacemaking and al-Husayn’s martyrdom, Islam would have been destroyed and its standard would have been folded, because through his peacemaking, al-Hasan (‘a) exposed Mu’awiya and showed his fragrant enmity toward Islam and the Muslims. Likewise, through his sacrifice and martyrdom, al-Husayn (‘a) destroyed the Umayyad state. He put an end to it and to all the oppressive dictators. He gave creative lessons to all the reformers who want to revolt against oppression, tyranny, and selfishness.

• 1. Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 186. In the book al-Isaba, it has been mentioned: “When Imam al-Hasan was stabbed with a sword, he summoned ‘Amru Ibn Salama al-Arjahi and sent him to Mu‘awiya and stipulated against him.” In the book al-Kamil, vol. 3, p. 205, it has been mentioned: “When Imam al-Hasan came to know that his companions scattered from him, he wrote to Mu’awiya.” Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol.4, p.8., has also mentioned that.
• 2. Al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Irshad, p. 170. Kashf al-Ghumma, p. 154. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26.
• 3. Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 206. In his book Fada’il al-Ashab, p. 157, al-Hajj Ahmad Afandi has mentioned: “Surely it is possible to gather the narrations and say that it was Mu’awiya who firstly corresponded with al-Hasan concerning the peacemaking. So al-Hasan secondly wrote to him and demanded what he (Mu’awiya) had mentioned.” Some sources have briefly mentioned the affair. In his book Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 192, al-Ya‘qubi has mentioned: “When al-Hasan came to know that he had no power and that his companions had scattered from him, he made peace with Mu’awiya.” Others than him have mentioned that.
• 4. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 200.
• 5. Abu al-Fida, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 192.
• 6. Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 370.
• 7. Ibn al-Sabbagh, al-Fusool al-Muhimma, p. 145. Al-Arbali, Kashf al-Ghumma, p. 170. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10. p. 115. Fada’il al-Ashab, p. 157. Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqa, p. 81.
• 8. This condition has been mentioned in the document we have mentioned. It has also been mentioned by Ibn Abi al-Hadid in his Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol.4, p. 8.
• 9. Bihar al-Anwar, vol.10 p. 115. Al-Nasa’i al-Kafiya, p. 159 (second edition). He quoted it from Fath al-Bari and Sahih al-Bukhari.
• 10. Al-Isaba, vol. 1, p. 329. Al-Sha‘rani, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, p. 23. Al-Dimyari, Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. 1, p. 57. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol.2, p.229. Al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Lughat wa al-Asmaa’, vol. 1, p. 171. Al-Qunduzi, Yanabee‘ al-Mawadda, p. 293. It has been mentioned in it: “The authority after him would be consultation among the Muslims.”
• 11. Jamal al-Hasani, ‘Umdat al-Talib fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib, p. 52.
• 12. Al-Dinyawari, p. 200. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26.
• 13. Ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 206.
• 14. A‘yan al-Shi’a, vol. 4, p. 43.
• 15. A‘yan al-Shi’a, vol. 4, p. 43.
• 16. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 15.
• 17. Ibn al-Sabbagh, al-Fusool al-Muhimma, p. 144. Ibn Shahrashub, al-Manaqib, vol. 2, p. 167.
• 18. A‘yan al-Shi’a, vol. 4, p. 43. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 97. ‘Ilal al-Sharaaiya‘, p. 81.
• 19. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 101. Tarikh Duwal al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 52. Al-Imam wa al-Siyasa, p. 200. Ibn ‘Asakir, vol. 4, p. 221. It has been mentioned in it that Mu’awiya had to give al-Hasan the land taxes of Bisa and Dar Abjard.
• 20. Tarikh Duwal al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 53.
• 21. Jawhart al-Kalam fi Madh al-Sada al-A‘laam, p. 112.
• 22. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115.
• 23. Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p. 323. Al-Bustani, Da’irat al-Ma‘rif, vol. 7, p. 38.
• 24. Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 193.
• 25. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 2, p.299. In the book al-Isti‘ab it has been mentioned: “Imam (al-Hasan) handed over the authority to Mu’awiya in the half of Jamadi al-Ulaa, in the year 41. A. H. All those who said that it was in the year 40 A. H. are mistaken.” In Sina’s history: “Imam al-Hasan abdicated the caliphate on the 26th of Rabee‘ al-Thani, in the year 41 A. H.”
• 26. Al-Ghadir, vol. 10, p. 227.
• 27. Sulh al-Hasan, p. 258.
• 28. Dar Abjard is a wide land of Persia on the borders of al-Ahwaz. The Muslims conquered it by force.
• 29. Usd al-Ghaba, and the like.
• 30. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh, vol. 4, p. 21.
• 31. Al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Irshad, p. 206. Others than him have mentioned that.
• 32. Ibn Shahrashub, al-Manaqib, vol. 2, p. 143.
• 33. Al-Fitnah al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 213. Professor Mahmud al-‘Aqqad has depended on these fabricated narrations in his researches on the father of martyrs (Imam al-Husayn).
• 34. Al-Saa‘a Newspaper, no. 908 (concerning Imam al-Husayn, the master of martyrs, peace be on him), the third year. The article was also published in al-Ghari Magazine, no. 11 (regarding Imam al-Husayn, peace be on him), the ninth year.