2. Ideas on the Pledge of Allegiance
In his book 'Usul al-Kafi, p. 61, Mohammed b. Ya'qub al-Kulayni, may Allah have mercy on Him, has narrated: "Indeed Al-Hasan stipulated that he should not call Mu'awiya Commander of the faithful (Amir al-muminin)."
In his book Ilal al-Shara p. 81, Mohammed b. Ali b. Babawayh said: "Indeed Al-Hasan stipulated that he should not testify that eh called Mu'awiya the Commander of the faith."
These two reports are cautious of recomgnizing the the correctness of the succesion of Mu'awiya and of the pledge of allegiance to Him. Therefore Al-Hasan handed over goverment to Mu'awiya, not the succesion to authority.
As for the words of al-Daynwary in his book al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, that Al-Hasan pledged allegiance to Mu'awiya for the Imamate, they oppose, first of all, Mu'awiya abilities which we have already mentioned to show the relationship between him and the succession and the competence of the pledge of allegiance over the Muslims. Also these words oppose the declarations of Al-Hasan who refused the succession of Mu'awiya, whether in his previous sermons or in his clear reservations in these two reports.
Concerning the matters of Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya, al-Daywari indicates plain partiality that was inappropriate for such a historian who lived in the third century when there was neither Mu'awiya nor his bribes nor his claims. However, these words resulted from the emotional motive that urged most of our historians. So al-Daynwary said again: "Neither Al-Hasan nor al-Husayn saw evil or misfortune more horrible than usurping the throne unjusty? Again I wonder: are these the criteria of al-Daynwary?
If we want to look for an excuse for those who hastened to mention the pledge of allgiance (to Mu'awiya), we will say that they were affected by the propagation which was still heard. In the history of Islam there is no matter more prominent than transferring authority
( 251 )
from the grandson of the prophet to a freed prisoner from the freed prisoners who were known for their near history. For this reason, love controlled those who denied the Peace Treaty to the extent that they elaborated tis annotations and footnotes. So they destorted what happened and forged that which did not happen. They used their imagination to give ideas of the plege of allegiance to Mu'awiya.
Through these fabricated ideas, the Umayyads were able to take the reins of government after the event of peacemaking.
That is because the Peace Treaty was the pillar on which their claims for the worthiness of the claimed succession was based. For this reason the Muslims thought that Umayyads were not worthy of the succession nor was the succession appropriate for them.
Connerning that the Muslims depend on the words of Sufayna the servant of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless Him and his family: "The banu (sons) of al-Zarqa have told lies. Rather they are kings. Mu'awiya is the first of them."
Then the superficial knowledge of our Muslim hostorians of the history of Islam played an important role in this respect. So they regarded this make up story as an actual fact. Very few of them refrained from curiosity in speech. Moreover, some of them exceeded the fact, so they mixed the ideas to the extend that they said that Al-Hasan recognized openly the pledge of allegiance to Mu'awiya. These mixed ideas made some of them go into fabrication and loss that are inappropriate for the manhood of the Muslims person who writes about a grandson of his great Prophet, may Allah bless Him and his family. Besides these mixed ideas endangered historical honesty. Accordingly, some of such a kind of historiains have claimed that Al-Hasan sold the succession to authority for money.
Now, we are in no need to answer the claims of the liars.
If we want to understand the reconciliation which the two parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) accepted, first we must depend on the meaning of the pledge of allegiance and the meaning of the Imamate as they are, and then we must depend on the reports of the event and the declarations of those who are specialist in the matter.
( 252 )
There are many proofs for his fact, so it leaves no room for doubt.
In the past the people resorted to the sayings of the old historians to understand the past events, namely they resorted to the historians who were contemporary with those events or came after them in a short period of time. This way led the later generations to different ideas and various parties. That happened in Muslim society and religion. That is because the authorities of this history were under the influence of the ideas and the parties which they were unable to avoid during their times. At that time it was difficult for a certain author to avoid, in what he wrote, the emotional effects that took part in forming his literary works and in managing his solcial acts and interests. From here the sorrowful sensible worry appeared in many matters of the Islamic history.
It is an act of truthfulness to say that the story of the pledge of allegiance with which the matter of Al-Hasan was defamed was the result of that influence under which the historians had written their ideas. So they were either partial in writing down this story as a real truth to gain an immediate interest or they were ignorant of the reality. Thus they thought that the declaration of handing over the authority in the text of the Peace Treaty would permit them or help them enlarge the claim of the yielding to the plege of allegiance. However, the historians did not know that the succession, as a Divine office, was not liable to any bargaining or handing over. Also the times could not change it through peacemaking or arbitration.
To understand clearly handing over the authority which has been mentioned in the first item in the Peace Treaty, we must depend on our method to conclude seriousness from the joking of the historians. So we must study this brief explanation through the two parties themselves.
3. Handing over the Authority
From what we have already mentioned, we have understood that Mu'awiya said to his son Yazid concerning the members of the House (ahl al-Bayt), peac be on them: "Indeed the right is their right.
( 253 )
Also we have known that Mu'awiya wrote to Al-Hasan to pave the way to peacemaking: "the matters are not settled without youy, and you are not disobeyed in a certain matter."
Also we have understood that Mu'awiya said after the Peace Treaty: "We have accepted it for authority."
Also we have known that Mu'awiya addressed the people from the pulpit of Kufa on the day when arrived in it: "I have not fought against you to make you pray, nor to fast, nor to make the pilgrimage, nor to pay Zakat (alms). Rather I have fought against you so that I might have power over you."
Also we have understood that Al-Hasan b. Ali denied the succession to authority before Mu'awiya, so the latter kept silent and did not answer the former.
Therfore we must know that when Mu'awiya accepted the Peace Treaty for authority, he denied it to be succession for Himself. That was when he said: "I have not fought against you to make you pray, nor to pay Zakat (alms)." Here Mu'awiya indicated that he was not the successor of religion. However, he was a king in the life in this world. He was indifferent to perfoming prayers and paying Zakat. Rather he indended to plot against the people. Mu'awiya said to Al-Hasan: "The matters are not settled without you." Also he said to his son Yazid: "The right is their right." Thus he recognized the high position of Al-Hasan and his autority which was not disobeyed in a certains matter. That was the position of the succession to authority. At that time it was necessary for Mu'awiya to keep silent when Al-Hasan denied his succession clearly and accused Him of lying when he claimed it for Himself without worthiness.
Accordingly, where is the handing over of the succession to authority which the historians claimed?
There is another thing that indicates clearly that Mu'awiya was not the successor. That was when he smiled at Sa'd b. Abu Waqas on the day when the latter came to the former and said to Him: "King, as- Salamu alayka!, and did not say: "Commander of the faithful."' The deep meaning of this phrase indicates cleary that Mu'awiya wanted to
( 254 )
admit his error when he wanted to take the authority as war booty, not as means between the Muslims and their Prophet, may Allah bless Him and his family. For this reason Mu'awiya was worthy of the words of Sa'd, whom Mu'awiya was unable to trick, when he said to Him: "By Allah, I dislike to call Mu'awiya the Commander of the faithful as I called Him (ie, Ali) with that" He meant that Mu'awiya was inappropriate for this title that grew on the prohibited blood, the black discords, and the corrupt times.
In accordance with this explanation, Sa'd understood that Al-Hasan handed government to Mu'awiya and nothing else. This should be understood according to the language of the Koran (ie, the Arabic language) on the succession or the language of the two contracting parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) in the Peace Treaty. When the great Muslim researcher, Sayyid Amir Ali al-Hindi, may Allah have mercy on Him, studied the Peace Treaty, he called it the abdication from authority."
1
Some of what Al-Hasan, peace be on Him, said to those who blamed Him for making peace with Mu'awiya is: "Abu Amir, don't say that I have humiliated the believers. Rather I hd hated to kill them for the authrity."
2
Also Al-Hasan said to another companion of his: "I have made these (the Umayyads) quarrel with each other over the authority of the world, of which I am in no need."
3
In this way we see that the two parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) agreed on that the battle for which they advanced against each other with their two enemies was for the authority. This means that the peace which they concluded in their treaty was for the authority.
____________
1. Amir Ali al-Mukhtasar Tarikh al-Arab wa al-Tamaddin al-Islam, p.61.
2. Ibn Kuthayr, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol.8, p.19.
Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin al-Amili, Ayan al-Shi'a, vol.4, p.52. Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak.
3. Ahmed Shahab al-Din al-Asqalani, al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Shahaba, vol.2, p.12.
( 255 )
For they made peace today with each other for what they diffrered over yesterday, In this viewpoint that was standing between the two parties, throught these declarations or on the day when they made peace with each other, there is no mentioning of the succession to authority whether concerning handing it over or receiving it.
Then, in these declarations, we find them (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) agreed on preferring one of them to the another for the posion without which matters would not be decided. It was the position that permitted Al-Hasan to say the followiing words concerning Mu'awiya, namely, it was as if that Al-Hasan appointed Mu'aiwya to an office while the latter was at that time present at the meeting of the former: He (Mu'awiya) is more knowledgeable in his affair and more thankful (to us) for appointing Him to this matter."
1 He meant the matter of the authority.
I (ie, the author) wonder: Do you see the great difference between this position of Al-Hasan and what the pedantic ones imagined when they explained handing over the authority as handing over the succession to authority (Khilafa)?
We think that this idea was a mistake which an author made with intention. Then the authors learned it from Him without intention. In such a way many mistakes have been made in history. These mistakes have distorted the facts of history, changed some of its splendor, and doubled the efforts of the researchers. Then if you take care of your subject through checking its references, you will find that it belongs to one origin, and then if you check the origin, you will find it belongs to one origin.
As for the nominal succession, we don't oppose it even it was taken my Mu'awiya and those who claimed it for themselves or took it by weapon or inherited it from those who claimed and took it.
If it is true that the community permitted Mu'awiya to derive the succession to authority from the claim and the power of the weapon, then there will be no doubt in the term.
____________
1. Al-Bayqahi, al-Muhasin wa al-Masawi, vol.1, p.64.
( 256 )
According to this idea, no wonder when Mu'awiya was the successor of the influence and authority, and Al-Hasan b. Ali was the successor of the prophet and the partner of the Koran.
No wonder when what has been mentioned in some texts, if we suppose that the narration is correct and safe from distortion, is the practical usage of the words (al-Khilafa) in its new meaning!
4. The Fate of the Succession to Authority after Mu'awiya
Mu'awiya sent letters to Al-Hasan to pave the way to make peace with Him. In these letters the fate of the Succession to authority was clearly limited. For exampl, Mu'awiya asked Al-Hasan to hand over the authority for his lifetime. Thus he said: "the authority will be for you after me."
1 "you are the worthiest of all people of it.
In this way the text has been mentioned in the Peace Treaty.
In such a way the people understood the reconciliation, namely, they understood it as taking the authority by force throughout the lifetime of Mu'awiya who was about thirty years older than Al-Hasan. It was expected that Mu'awiya would die befor Al-Hasan. In this way the truth would return to its proper place. Noteworthy Al-Hasan was still at the beginning of his middle age or at the end of his youth. However, the evil pans had certain considerations that did not depend on the criteria. the plain item cnercerning the worthiness of Al-Hasan of the succession to authority after Mu'awiya was the most prominent of all items of the Peace Treaty. The people knew that for ten years. However, the hostile propagation covered it. Besides the historians distorted it. Thus some of them said: "Mu'awiya had no right to appoint anyoune (to the succession to authority)." The other were so kind that they formed it according to their own ideas when they said: "The succession to authority after Mu'awiya would be a Muslim consulatative committee." As for the truthful historians, they have narrated it (the Peace Treaty) as it is. The professional historians have
____________
1. Ibn Abu al-Haddid, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 13.
( 257 )
forgotten that distorting the fact in the text does not avail them in changing the reality during the practical stage. That is because it was impossible for the Muslims, whether throught the consultative commitee or the like, to ignore the grandson of the the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless Him and his family. Of course, that would have happened if Al-Hasan had remained alive on the day when Mu'wiya died and the Muslims had been free to elect the successor or to exchange views freely. Accordingly, the authentic narration and the distorted one, rather the three claimed froms of the one narration would have been practically limited if Al-Hasan had remained alive.
Therefore to evade the historical honesty was for nothing but for the cooperation with the ruling authority to pave the way to pledge allegiance to Yazid.
The skillful historian had abolished the textual nomination of al-Hassan and changed it into the consultative commitee. He had adopted the best way of fabrication and distortion. However, he forgot that he added nothing to the aims which he wished for his friend (ie, Mu'awiya) who abolished them both. That is bexause the consultative committee which the historian meant does not concern the election of the successor to authority, rather it concerns the affairs which the caliph or the head of the Muslims manages. Such was the first legislation of the consultative committee on the day when Allah, the Glorified, said: "And take counsel with them in the affair." For this reason Allah praised the Muslims when He said: "And their rule is to take counsel among themselves."
The verse is clear in negating leadership whcih the people made or rather it does not impose it on the people.
This historian and the other historians used their imaginations when they thought that the matter of election depended on the Book (ie, the Koran). For this reason A'isha, the Prophet's wife, summoned the people to the consultative committee she did not attribute it to Allah, the Great and Almighty. Rather she attributed it to Umar, b. al-Khattab. Besides if she had found a way to ascribed it to Allah, she would have followed it, for that would have supported her proof very much. So when she entered Basra, she said: "I think that you should
( 258 )
look for those who had killed Uthman to kill them as they had killed Him.
1
At last many definite contexts do not accept this text (ie, the subject of the study) but the autthentic narration which we have mentioned in the second item in the form of the Peace Treaty. That is because:
1. The letter of Mu'awiya to Al-Hasan, peace be on Him, have indicated that as e have said before.
2. It is appropriate for the conditions which Al-Hasan Himself had made as we have mentioned in the Blank Page.
3. It is the most famous report, for it have been narrated many times.
4. The second item with the clear text was very famous throughout the lifetime of Al-Hasan, peace be on Him, to the extent that it became the proof in many sermons and speeches.
For example, Sulayman b. Sirt refered to it in what he had mentioned to Al-Hasan after the Peace Treaty. Jariya b. Qaddama had mentioned it to Mu'awiya to denote that it was a well known decree concerning the right of Al-Hasan to the authority after him. al-Ahnaf b. Qays had mentioned it as an axiomatic thing when he delivered a speech to refute the pledge of allegiance to Yaazid. At that time, through this speech, he addressed Mu'awiya Himself before a large gathering.
He (i.e., al-Ahnaf b. Qays) said: "you have known that you had not conquered Iraq by forece, nor had you overcome it. However, you have made pledge with Al-Hasan b. Ali before Allah to hand over the authority to Him after you. So if you fulfill (your pledges), then you are appropriate for fulfillment. If you break (your pledges), then you will do wrong to (Al-Hasan). By Allah, behind Al-Hasan there are quick horses, strong arms, and sharp swords. Indeed if you approach Him in in a single span of perfidy, you will find behind Him a span of the outstretched arms of victory. you known that the Iraqis have not loved
____________
1. Farid Wajdi, Da'irat Ma'arif al-Qarn al-Ishrin, vol.4, p.535.
( 259 )
you since they hated you."
1 There are many examples similar to this one.
5. The Rest of the Items
You may see, till now, that our study on the prominent points in the items of the Peace Treaty have not exceed two items, namly the first and the second items.
As for the third item, in chapter 14, we discussed the Blank Page which Mu'awiya had sent to Al-Hasan, peace be on Him to write on it whatever he wanted of conditions. In chapter 16, the speech about this Page is the context that indicates that reports of the peace Treaty are in the interest of Al-Hasan more than they are in the interest of his opponents. In accordance with this, the third item means nothing but that it prevents Mu'awiya absolutely from cursing the Commander of the faithful ( Imam Ali), peace be on him, whether Al-Hasan is present or absent. What some historians added to it, such as that the Commander of the faithful should not be cursed when Al-Hasan was present or heard that,
2 is not taken into consideration, nor is it appropriate for the essence of the Peace Treaty. That is because the two parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) were making real peace and permanent mutual understanding.
As for the fouth item, it was, in fact, a connected exception of the material things which should be handed to Mu'awiya according to the Peace Treaty. This means that the Peace Treaty gave Mu'awiya whatever he wanted of property with the exception of the sums of money which have been mentioned in this item. Al-Hasan chose to take these sums of money for Himsef, his brother, and his Shi'a
____________
1. You find all this sermon and the references concerning it in chapter 20 when we will mention the way that faciliated the pledge of allegiance to Yazid.
2. Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 162. After that he said: Then he (Mu'awiya) did not fulfill it, too."
( 260 )
(followers). These sums of money were from his rights. He disposed them according to the authorization of Allah, the Most High. He chose these sums of money from the legal land taxes, namely from the land taxes of Dar Abjard.
1 For he did not want to subject Him self to suspicions.
I (i.e., the author) say: This explanation is different from that of those who treated unjustly the position of Al-Hasan b. Ali, peace be on them, when they misunderstood the reality of these sums of money. So they regarded them as a cost of the succession to authority, Al-Hasan as a seller, and Mu'awiya as a buyer. It is better for such narrow minded people not to discuss the matters that show the reader their narrow- mindedness, so they wrong themslves before they wrong their subjects.
We have already mentioned the meaning of the succession to authority and Mu'awiya's abilities. Thus it is enough for us to say that this prattle is impossible. So there is no need to repeat it again.
As for the fifth item, it will be explained in the chapters that follow.
____________
1. In his book (al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh vol. 3,p. 162), b. al-Athir said: "As for the land taxes of Dar Abjard, the people of Basra stopped them." They said: "These land taxes are ours. We do not give them to anyoune." Also he said: "They stopped them according to Mu'awiya's order."
