Muawiya And Imam

[Hadrami]

According to shia, he was a kafir, tyrant, one of the most evil person ever and he was responsible for many atrocities against ahlulbayt, but why did husayn ra did not revolt against his rule even after hasan ra passed away which was close to a decade? Was it because after a decade of his rule husayn ra realise that muawiya did a good job in leading the nation?

[iceman]

According to shia, he was a kafir, tyrant, one of the most evil person ever and he was responsible for many atrocities against ahlulbayt, but why did husayn ra did not revolt against his rule even after hasan ra passed away which was close to a decade? Was it because after a decade of his rule husayn ra realise that muawiya did a good job in leading the nation?

Hussain didn't even revolt against Yazeed, never mind about his father. Ever asked yourself this question? What are your thoughts on this? What is with you and revolting? Why does one have to openly revolt and turn it into mayhem to show their disapproval?

[Hadrami]

PS SHUT UP AMEEN!!  Looks like your question marks are back 😂😂

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

Well, Al Hassan abdicated the ruler ship to Muawiya as per the treaty the two signed. As part of the agreement Hassan would retire out of politics and Muawiyah would be the caliph of the Ummah. It's unheard of in Islamic history that every individual person has to come up and place his fist in the Caliph's hand for allegiance. Ulama understood Hussayn's silence and retirement as well, as an acceptance of Muawiya as the ruler

[iceman]

According to shia, he was a kafir, tyrant, one of the most evil person ever and he was responsible for many atrocities against ahlulbayt, but why did husayn ra did not revolt against his rule even after hasan ra passed away which was close to a decade? Was it because after a decade of his rule husayn ra realise that muawiya did a good job in leading the nation?

"According to shia, he was a kafir"
 
Can you back this up with references?

[Hadrami]

i will try again one more time....SHUT UP AMEEN!!  😂😂

[iceman]

i will try again one more time....SHUT UP AMEEN!!  😂😂

You can try as many times as you want as such. If you really want me to shut up then all you got to do is put up. Put your words where your mouth is. Any references to back YOUR CLAIMS?

[iceman]

Well, Al Hassan abdicated the ruler ship to Muawiya as per the treaty the two signed. As part of the agreement Hassan would retire out of politics and Muawiyah would be the caliph of the Ummah. It's unheard of in Islamic history that every individual person has to come up and place his fist in the Caliph's hand for allegiance. Ulama understood Hussayn's silence and retirement as well, as an acceptance of Muawiya as the ruler

Why did the treaty take place? What brought it on? What were the terms and conditions of that treaty and who placed those terms and conditions? Both sides or just one side and the other accepted it? This is what you need to put forward and discuss then we will get the bigger picture and what really went on.

[iceman]

SEHIH BUKHARI
Volume 3, Book 49, Number 867 :
Narrated by Al-Hasan Al-Basri
By Allah,

Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Muawiya. Amr bin Al-As said (to Muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents." Muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?"

Then Muawiya sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of 'Abd-i-Shams called 'Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, "We, the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)."

They said to Al-Hasan, "Muawiya offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace." Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be responsible for it." So, what-ever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will be responsible for it for you." So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Muawiya. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side.

The Prophet was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.enoble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him."

[iceman]

According to Jafri, historians like Ya'qubi and Al-Masudi do not mention the terms of peace treaty at all. Other historians such as Dinawari, Ibn Abd al-Barr and Ibn al-Athir records different accounts of the conditions. And the timing of the blank sheet sent by Muawiyah to Hasan was confusing in Tabari's account. The most comprehensive account, which explains the different ambiguous accounts of other sources, according to Jafri, is given by Ahmad ibn A'tham, which must have taken it from al-Mada'ini.

Madelung's view is close to that of Jafri when he stipulates that Hasan surrendered the reign over the Muslims to Muawiya on the basis that "he act in accordance with the Book of God, the Sunnah of His Prophet and the conduct of the righteous caliphs. Muawiyah should not be entitled to appoint his successor but that there should be an electoral council (Shura); the people would be safe, wherever they were, with respect to their person, their property and their offspring; Muawiyah would not seek any wrong against Hasan secretly or openly, and would not intimidate any of his companions.

The letter was testified by Abd Allah ibn al-Harith, and Amr ibn Salima and transmitted by them to Muawiyah for him to take recognition of its contents and to confirm his acceptance. Hasan, thus, surrendered his control of Iraq in Rabi II 41/August 661 after a reign of seven months.

Is the above true and how true is it? Who put down the terms and conditions of the treaty and who accepted them?

[iceman]

PEACE TREATY

Before starting a discussion on the peace treaty, it is considered necessary to state that the historians have very boldly tried to keep the world in the dark about the clauses and the relevant details of the peace treaty. Was the treaty between Imam Hasane Al-Mujtaba and Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, signed in 41A.H, so unimportant that its details may be ignored? The researchers agree that not only are there surprising disagreements on the issue but there are so many ambiguities and misunderstandings as well.

The historians themselves mention that the grandson of the Holy Prophet (saw) had himself advanced many conditions, had taken so many commitments and assurances and had only then agreed to peace.These terms, which had been proposed by Imam Hasan were in the interest of Muslim Ummah in general and the treaty was signed with the witnesses of prominent personalities of Iraq and Syria. Before going into the details of the treaty, it is essential to briefly review the historical sources.

The historians Masudi and Yaqubi do not mention the terms at all. Similarly, Ibn. Hajar 'Asqalani and Hakim Naishapuri do admit that (Imam) Hasan had made peace only after so many terms had been agreed and commitments and assurances given, but do not mention the details of what those conditions were.

A similar attitude can be noticed in the narration of 'Sahih-e-Bukhari' in which the details beginning with the coming of the delegations till the signing of the agreement have been given, but when the point of the terms and conditions is reached then the issue is evaded by writing 'etc. etc.' but it is accepted that the Syrian delegation had accepted all the terms and conditions of Imam Hasan.

Abul Faraj Isphahani also does not take keen interest in the issue. After mentioning three conditions he says that other terms and conditions had also been suggested by Imam Hasan (as) which the delegation sent by Muawiya had accepted. The historian Tabari records the treaty like other issues relating to Imam Hasan giving two different narrations by Zuhri and 'Awana bin Hakam.

Zuhri, instead of describing the details, tries to create some misunderstanding. As against him, Tabari records three conditions directly from 'Awana bin Hakam and the fourth indirectly. The historian Dinawari has mentioned four conditions but his sources are quite different from others. Ibn. Abi-al-HAdid takes three conditions from Madaini and the fourth one is incidentally considered as a separate issue which is taken from Madaini himself.

A more or less similar attitude has been adopted by the rest of the historians who have considered it sufficient to record one, two or at best three terms, but none of them considers it essential to describe the text of the treaty or the details of the resolutions which had been agreed to after so many exchanges and meetings between the two delegations.

Among the old historical records only 'Al-Futuh' of Ibn. Atham Kufi and 'Ansabul Ashraf' by Baladhuri contain the text of the treaty and five terms and conditions are mentioned in it. Outwardly, one may conclude that these were the only terms agreed upon. However, a thorough search of other records reveals that the picture is quite different as there were other conditions too!

In such a situation, neither any one historical source can be totally relied upon nor the general conditions mentioned here and there can be taken as true. Only after great effort and deep research about the available sources and the circumstances prevailing at that time, can the correct terms and conditions of the treaty can be determined.

[Hadrami]

another copy & paste job. Ameen, you will never changed. A true shia bot 😂😂