Response to : who poisoned Hz Hasan r.a

[Proud Muslimah]

http://twelvershia.net/2014/07/30/response-to-who-
poisoned-imam-hasan-asws/

Assalamualaikum.. I posted this this article n its last part said that we call upon shias to bring authentic narrations.. This was the response : 

Mu’ajam al-Kabeer, Volume 3 page 119 Trl
Istiab, Volume 1 page 115Tadkhirat ul Khawwas, page
192Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208Maqatil al Talibeen,
Volume 1 page 20al Fusul al Muhimma, page 164Tarikh
Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 284Tarikh Khamis, Volume 2
page 294Shawahid un Nubuwwat, page 303Tarikh Abul
Fida, page 183, Dhikr Wafaat Hasanal Habib al Siyar,
Volume 1 page 81Hadahrat Ali, page 214, by Taha
HusaynSirrul Awliya, page 81Murujh al Dhuhab, Volume 3
page 5, Dhikr Khilafa Hasan bin Ali (ra)Rouzatul
Shouhdah, Volume 3 page 12Ayun al-Anba Fi Tabaqat al-
Atba, page 153Kitab Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page
5Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 47Siyar Alam
an Nubla, Volume 3 page 247

Fist of all, it should be made clear that there isn’t any
doubt that Imam Hasan (as) was poisoned and that too
by his wife Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath for which she was
rewarded with handsome amount of money. Imam Hakim
records in ‘Al-Mustadrak’ Volume 3 page 176:
“Qutada bin Du’ama al-Sedusi said that the daughter of
al-Ash’ath bin Qais poisoned al-Hassan bin Ali and she
was his wife, she received huge amount of money for
that.”
Neither Imam Hakim nor Imam Dhahabi advanced any
sort of objection to this tradition endorsing the
authenticity of the tradition. As for the person who was
actually behind the murder of Imam Hasan (as), Imam of
Ahle Sunnah Tabarani in his book Mu’ajam al-Kabeer,
Volume 3 page 119 Tradition 2628 has recorded a
tradition from some of the most authentic narrators of
Sunni sect:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻔﺺ ، ﺃﻥ ﺳﻌﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ ، ﻓﻴﺮﻭﻥ
ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻤﻪ
“Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hadarmi narrated from
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair from Yahyah bin Abi
Bakir from Shu’ba from Abu Bakr ibn Hafs who narrated
that Sa’ad and Hasan, son of Ali (may Allah be pleased
with both of them) died during the reign of Muawiya, and
it is believed that he (Muawiya) poisoned him (Hasan).”

All the narrators of the tradition are Thiqa (authentic), let
us present the views of the two biggest Rijal scholars of
Ahle Sunnah namely Ibn Hajar Asaqalani and Dahabi.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Al-Dahabi decalred
him ‘Thiqah Mutlaqan’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz v2, p662). Ibn
Hajar stated that people have authenticated him (Lisan
al-Mizan, v5, p233).Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair:
Al-Dahabi said:‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2, p439). Ibn
Hajar:‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p100). Yahya bin
Abi Bakir: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashef, v2, p362),
Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2,
p298).Shu’aba bin al-Hajaj: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt
Huja’ (Al-Kashef, v1, p485), Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p418). Abi Bakr bin Hafs:
Al-Dahabi said:‘al-Nisa’i authenticated him.’ (Al-Kashef,
v1, p546). Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1,
p487).
In Sirrul Awliya by S.M. Mubarak Alawi Karmani (Urdu
translation by Ijaz ul Haqq Quddoosi) page 81 it is stated:
“Imam Hassan (ra)’s wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath Kindi some
how managed to poisoned him on the orders of
Mu’awiya”.
Sirrul Awliya, page 81

In Tadkhirat au Khawwas, page 192 we read:
“Sho’ubi states that Mu’awiya sent a message to Jada
bint 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”.

Allamah Zamakshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208
notes that:
Mu’awiya reached an agreement with Jada bint 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’

Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab
Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5 states:
ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺩﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﻌﺪﺓ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﻷﺷﻌﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻢ
ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻭﻳﺰﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻓﺴﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻠﺘﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ
ﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻻﺑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻮﺿﻬﺎ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻟﻒ ﺩﺭﻫﻢ
Muawiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays
and issued her with an assurance that he would marry
her to Yazeed provided she administered poison to
Hasan. When she killed him, Muawiya gave her 100,000
Dirhams and said: ‘Yazeed is dearer to me, how can I be
sure that what transpired with the grandson of the
Prophet will not also happen to Yazeed?’
Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab
Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5 states:
ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺩﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﻌﺪﺓ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﻷﺷﻌﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻢ
ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻭﻳﺰﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻓﺴﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻠﺘﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ
ﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻻﺑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻮﺿﻬﺎ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻟﻒ ﺩﺭﻫﻢ
Muawiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays
and issued her with an assurance that he would marry
her to Yazeed provided she administered poison to
Hasan. When she killed him, Muawiya gave her 100,000
Dirhams and said: ‘Yazeed is dearer to me, how can I be
sure that what transpired with the grandson of the
Prophet will not also happen to Yazeed?’

[Ameen]

Well the gentlemen here will probably say that these narrations are weak, tiqqa, fabricated and therefore false, so we do not accept them. And the story will end here just in a few words. Why do they believe in such and how are they weak etc, do they have any criteria and procedure on the selection of hadiths and narrations, any principals, standards etc, I don't think we will get an explanation on this and get to hear it.

[Hani]

@Ameen, You think people here weaken narrations without criteria? SubhanAllah!

@Sister, Let's check this copy/paste job that they provided.

[Hani]

First of all, the challenge in our article was as follows:




"Even though this last narration is not evidence for Shias, we call upon Shias to provide a single authentic report from their sources linking Mua’wiyah to the death of Al-Hasan"




So they begin their answer by this list:

Mu’ajam al-Kabeer, Volume 3 page 119 Trl
Istiab, Volume 1 page 115Tadkhirat ul Khawwas, page
192Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208Maqatil al Talibeen,
Volume 1 page 20al Fusul al Muhimma, page 164Tarikh
Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 284Tarikh Khamis, Volume 2
page 294Shawahid un Nubuwwat, page 303Tarikh Abul
Fida, page 183, Dhikr Wafaat Hasanal Habib al Siyar,
Volume 1 page 81Hadahrat Ali, page 214, by Taha
HusaynSirrul Awliya, page 81Murujh al Dhuhab, Volume 3
page 5, Dhikr Khilafa Hasan bin Ali (ra)Rouzatul
Shouhdah, Volume 3 page 12Ayun al-Anba Fi Tabaqat al-
Atba, page 153Kitab Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page
5Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 47Siyar Alam
an Nubla, Volume 3 page 247

First of all, some of these are Sunni sources like Bidayah wal-Nihayah and al-Siyar, others are sources that are not accepted by Ahlul-Sunnah like Fara'id al-Simtayn and Murouj-ul-Dhahab who is a Mu`tazili with Tashayyu`, then you have sources such as "Rawdat-ul-Shuhada'" a Persian book Mulla Sabzawari an Iranian Shia scholar according to Aqa Buzruq, Mamaqani, `Abbas Qummi and other Shia scholars.




That's how you know we're dealing a brainless copy/paste job. Instead of bring a reliable narration from a Shia source, they gave us this cocktail of Madhahib and deviancy.




Second of all, we asked for a narration, the above is not a narration, it is a list of books and numbers. It could have been easier to answer our challenge by quoting just ONE narration.




They say:

Fist of all, it should be made clear that there isn’t any
doubt that Imam Hasan (as) was poisoned and that too
by his wife Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath for which she was
rewarded with handsome amount of money.

I personally doubt he was poisoned, I believe he had a cancer or inflammation in his stomach that caused him to spit "pieces of his liver". Since his ex-Shia had made several attempts on his life because he made piece with Mu`awiyah, then that is why he was paranoid and thought this was due to poison. In the authentic narration we provided in our article, we showed that neither Hasan or Husayn knew for sure who was behind it. Yet some genius Shia will now claim that he knows this.

Imam Hakim
records in ‘Al-Mustadrak’ Volume 3 page 176:
“Qutada bin Du’ama al-Sedusi said that the daughter of
al-Ash’ath bin Qais poisoned al-Hassan bin Ali and she
was his wife, she received huge amount of money for
that.”Neither Imam Hakim nor Imam Dhahabi advanced any
sort of objection to this tradition endorsing the
authenticity of the tradition.

Without referring back to that book I can tell you it's weak because al-Hasan died in 49AH in Madinah while Qatadah was born in 61AH and lived in Basarah.




This comment by the Shia shows that he has no idea what he's talking about. Also Dhahabi never wrote his book so specifically to "object", if al-Dhahabi doesn't write anything in his Talkhees this means he deems it weak.




I add, where does this report say it was Mu`awiyah?

As for the person who was
actually behind the murder of Imam Hasan (as), Imam of
Ahle Sunnah Tabarani in his book Mu’ajam al-Kabeer,
Volume 3 page 119 Tradition 2628 has recorded a
tradition from some of the most authentic narrators of
Sunni sect:
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻔﺺ ، ﺃﻥ ﺳﻌﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ
ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ ، ﻓﻴﺮﻭﻥ
ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻤﻪ
“Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hadarmi narrated fromMuhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair from Yahyah bin AbiBakir from Shu’ba from Abu Bakr ibn Hafs who narratedthat Sa’ad and Hasan, son of Ali (may Allah be pleasedwith both of them) died during the reign of Muawiya, andit is believed that he (Muawiya) poisoned him (Hasan).”

So their evidence that Mu`awiyah killed him was because he died in his reign? That sounds more like conjecture and guesswork than evidence. Besides the report says at the end "And they see that he(Mu`awiyah) had poisoned him." I ask: Who is this "They"? This is not the author's opinion nor the narrator's opinion, he's referring to a group of people whom he never specified.




Also he did not witness this event as Abu Bakr bin Hafs is a late narrator, he narrates from the likes of `Abdullah bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna bin al-Hasan al-Sibt bin `Ali ibn abi Talib. There's a large gap between him and al-Hasan bin `Ali or Sa`d or Mu`awiyah.

All the narrators of the tradition are Thiqa (authentic), let
us present the views of the two biggest Rijal scholars of
Ahle Sunnah namely Ibn Hajar Asaqalani and Dahabi.
Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hadrami: Al-Dahabi decalred
him ‘Thiqah Mutlaqan’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz v2, p662). Ibn
Hajar stated that people have authenticated him (Lisan
al-Mizan, v5, p233).Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numair:
Al-Dahabi said:‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2, p439). Ibn
Hajar:‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p100). Yahya bin
Abi Bakir: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashef, v2, p362),
Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2,
p298).Shu’aba bin al-Hajaj: Al-Dahabi said: ‘Thabt
Huja’ (Al-Kashef, v1, p485), Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p418). Abi Bakr bin Hafs:
Al-Dahabi said:‘al-Nisa’i authenticated him.’ (Al-Kashef,
v1, p546). Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1,
p487).

All of this doesn't matter and we won't even double check it because Abu Bakr bin Hafs is a late narrator.

In Sirrul Awliya by S.M. Mubarak Alawi Karmani (Urdu
translation by Ijaz ul Haqq Quddoosi) page 81 it is stated:
“Imam Hassan (ra)’s wife Ja’da bint Ash’ath Kindi some
how managed to poisoned him on the orders of
Mu’awiya”.

She somehow managed to poison him? Just like the author of this book somehow traveled in time and saw this? This is no evidence.

In Tadkhirat au Khawwas, page 192 we read:
“Sho’ubi states that Mu’awiya sent a message to Jada
bint 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”.

There's no one called "Sho'ubi" we assume they mean `Amir al-Sha`bi. This book also seems to be Tadhkirat-ul-Khawas by Sibt ibn al-Jawzi who died in 654AH. Neither is the book reliable nor is the author reliable and no one takes Hadith from such late books. Besides where's the chain? Sibt ibn al-Jawzi never met "al-Sho`ubi" there's like 400 years between them or something.

Allamah Zamakshari in Rabi’ ul Abrar, Volume 4 page 208
notes that:
Mu’awiya reached an agreement with Jada bint 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’

No chain? We just take Zamakhshari's word for it? Even though he died 538AH?

Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab
Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5 states:
ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺩﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﻌﺪﺓ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﻷﺷﻌﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻢ
ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻭﻳﺰﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻓﺴﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻠﺘﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ
ﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻻﺑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻮﺿﻬﺎ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻟﻒ ﺩﺭﻫﻢ
Muawiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays
and issued her with an assurance that he would marry
her to Yazeed provided she administered poison to
Hasan. When she killed him, Muawiya gave her 100,000
Dirhams and said: ‘Yazeed is dearer to me, how can I be
sure that what transpired with the grandson of the
Prophet will not also happen to Yazeed?’
Mutahar bin Tahir al-Maqdasi in his esteemed work Kitab
Al-Bada wal-Tarikh, Volume 6 page 5 states:
ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺩﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﻌﺪﺓ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺍﻷﺷﻌﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺴﻢ
ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻭﻳﺰﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻓﺴﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻠﺘﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ
ﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻻﺑﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻮﺿﻬﺎ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻟﻒ ﺩﺭﻫﻢ
Muawiya conspired with Ja’da bint al-Ash’ath bin Qays
and issued her with an assurance that he would marry
her to Yazeed provided she administered poison to
Hasan. When she killed him, Muawiya gave her 100,000
Dirhams and said: ‘Yazeed is dearer to me, how can I be
sure that what transpired with the grandson of the
Prophet will not also happen to Yazeed?’

Another really late book with no chain... Do these folks understand our challenge? Of course they don't since they're ignorant, the proof of ignorance is this dumb copy/paste job, this guy clearly has no clue what he's posting.




Besides the author states this as an opinion, he says he either died from a poison dagger during Tawaf or because his wife placed poison etc...
و توفي الحسن في سنة تسع و أربعين و هو ابن سبع و أربعين سنة و اختلفوا في سبب موته فزعم قوم أنه زج ظهر قدمه في الطواف بزجٍ مسمومٍ و قال آخرون أن معاوية دس إلى جعدة بنت الأشعث بن قيس بأن تسم الحسن




So far what I'm seeing, they failed the challenge and there still is no proof.

[Proud Muslimah]

True…n that's how they're spreading lies..   JazakAllahu khairan kaseera!

[Hani]

I want to ask the Imamiyyah, al-Hasan gave Mu`awiyah Bay`ah, al-Hasan was the one to convince Husayn to stop fighting, al-Hasan gave legitimacy to Mu`awiyah's reign and he abandoned Khilafah altogether and lived peacefully in Madinah, he never opposed Mu`awiyah nor did he ask anyone to rebel against Mu`awiah, on the contrary he stopped them from fighting against Mu`awiyah.

Al-Hasan died in 49AH after forty days of sickness, Mu`awiyah became Caliph around 40AH and his Caliphate ended in 60AH.

Question: What does Mu`awiyah benefit from suddenly killing al-Hasan AFTER TEN YEARS  of his Caliphate?

[Rationalist]

Question: What does Mu`awiyah benefit from suddenly killing al-Hasan AFTER TEN YEARS  of his Caliphate?

Didn't they have an agreement that after Muawiyah dies Imam Hassan (as) will take over? Since, Imam Hassan (as) is gone now there is no need to fulfill that deal.

[Hani]

Nope, they never had that deal, that's actually made up. al-Hasan gave up authority and didn't wish to be in that position to begin with, if he wanted it for himself he wouldn't have given it to Mu`awiyah in the first place.

[Rationalist]

If you have the time, can you review this book?
I was told it was a good book.

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001463.pdf

[Furkan]

Is there an article about Hassan and muawiya, the pact, etc...

[Hani]

If you have the time, can you review this book?
I was told it was a good book.

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001463.pdf

I can see from the title that the book is about Tawallee of Mu`awiyah, which is not something I am doing at the moment, I simply do not see a reason that he would suddenly kill al-Hasan.

I add, if some were to say "He killed him so his son may become Caliph" I say: This is stupid and makes no sense, because al-Husayn was still alive and all of `Ali's Shia would have simply went for al-Husayn if al-Hasan died, also there were other candidates such as ibn `Umar and ibn al-Zubayr and no one harmed any of them.

On the other hand, the Khawarij (ex-Shia) of `Ali and al-Hasan had every reason to kill him as they viewed him as an apostate for making peace with Mu`awiyah. They didn't have this hatred against Husayn because Husayn was against peace, nor did they have against other candidates for Caliphate such as ibn `Umar or ibn al-Zubayr as they didn't care for this. On top of that there are precedents recorded in history books of his own Shia trying to kill him for what he did.

Are you seeing my perspective now?

[Proud Muslimah]

Shias have a strange argument abt the pact.. they liken it to Sulah e Hudaibiya , n say it wasn't a bayah that Hz Hasan r.a gave..

[Furkan]

Yes, so i hope there is some authentic stuff on TS

[Hani]

Shias have a strange argument abt the pact.. they liken it to Sulah e Hudaibiya , n say it wasn't a bayah that Hz Hasan r.a gave..

thats their excuse, which opposes all books of history.

[Ameen]

Shias have a strange argument abt the pact.. they liken it to Sulah e Hudaibiya , n say it wasn't a bayah that Hz Hasan r.a gave..

thats their excuse, which opposes all books of history.

If they were just excuses and not in history books the, the Shias wouldn't believe in them and put them forward.

What ever they put forward they provide references from the same history books the Ahle Sunnah use. The only thing is what ever Shias put forward Sunnis always and on every occasion challenge the authenticity of this and that.

And when asked what is you criteria/procedure regarding authenticity so we can put something forward according to that then we have silence.

There has to be a base on which you discuss and debate like Shia Imamah, prove it from the Quran. The Quran is the base here and this is how one goes ahead.

What is your criteria/procedure of authenticity??? because everything we seem to put forward is unauthentic and unreliable.

[Hani]

My friend most Shia believe anything they hear in Husayniyyat, I've experienced this many times and it's obvious to anyone.

[Ameen]

My friend most Shia believe anything they hear in Husayniyyat, I've experienced this many times and it's obvious to anyone.

Well this is where you are wrong and experience can be good as well as bad. You still speak with a mind set and I would like you to open your mind and then look in to things and speak.

[Ameen]

If you have the time, can you review this book?
I was told it was a good book.

http://al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001463.pdf

I can see from the title that the book is about Tawallee of Mu`awiyah, which is not something I am doing at the moment, I simply do not see a reason that he would suddenly kill al-Hasan.

I add, if some were to say "He killed him so his son may become Caliph" I say: This is stupid and makes no sense, because al-Husayn was still alive and all of `Ali's Shia would have simply went for al-Husayn if al-Hasan died, also there were other candidates such as ibn `Umar and ibn al-Zubayr and no one harmed any of them.

On the other hand, the Khawarij (ex-Shia) of `Ali and al-Hasan had every reason to kill him as they viewed him as an apostate for making peace with Mu`awiyah. They didn't have this hatred against Husayn because Husayn was against peace, nor did they have against other candidates for Caliphate such as ibn `Umar or ibn al-Zubayr as they didn't care for this. On top of that there are precedents recorded in history books of his own Shia trying to kill him for what he did.

Are you seeing my perspective now?

I've seen your perspective and it's about, " I can't see Muavia (ra) doing this or that" rather than looking at it with an open mind. This is the problem with most people that they don't think even and straight to begin with, be it Sunni or be it Shia.

First of all it's about getting rid of your opponents when ever the opportunity is available and when ever you get a chance. A man who has fought 72 battles with the father and is linked to his assassination can't be linked to the sons murder??? This is strange.

Secondly be it Ibne Umar or Ibne Zubair, neither of them were a threat to Muavia (ra) and his plans concerning his successor. Nor did any of these two speak out and against Muavia (ra) or his admin, about anything.

Thirdly you said Hussain (as) wasn't for peace, now this is absolutely ridiculous. I am surprised at your thinking and how you got to this thought. If Hussain (as) wasn't for peace then he would have easily gone along with the theory that his brother was murdered and blamed and rebelled against Muavia (ra) over it. Or would have easily accused Muavia (ra) of harbouring or not doing enough to catch the killers.

Do you get me??? All the excuses that Aisha (ra) and Muavia (ra) used to accuse, blame and rebel against the fourth Khalif about the murder of Usman (ra) could have been used by Hassan (as) and Hussain (as), during the murder of Ali (as) and the controversy surrounding Hassan's (as) death.

Fourth if Hussain (as) wasn't for peace then why did he take his family with him rather than assembling an army on the way out of Madina???

[Hani]

^ And that's what happens when someone doesn't read history books, seriously how clueless can you be? Those are some of the most ignorant remarks I have ever read.

Do you need me to comment on how dumb this stuff really is? Okay, let's go.

I've seen your perspective and it's about, " I can't see Muavia (ra) doing this or that" rather than looking at it with an open mind. This is the problem with most people that they don't think even and straight to begin with, be it Sunni or be it Shia.

Open mind? So says the Shia guy who adopts literally the standard typical Shia version of history and won't budge from it even for an inch. You're the most close-minded person on this forum as far as I'm concerned.

First of all it's about getting rid of your opponents when ever the opportunity is available and when ever you get a chance. A man who has fought 72 battles with the father and is linked to his assassination can't be linked to the sons murder??? This is strange.

What opponents? The opponents who handed you the Caliphate and sat quietly and calmly and convinced `Ali's supporters to stop rebelling against Mu`awiyah and was loyal and obedient? When? after 10 years and right in the middle of his Caliphate?


Mu`awiyah linked to his father's assassination? Which hole did you extract this "link" from? Mu`awiyah was almost killed by those same assassins you say he's linked to.

Secondly be it Ibne Umar or Ibne Zubair, neither of them were a threat to Muavia (ra) and his plans concerning his successor. Nor did any of these two speak out and against Muavia (ra) or his admin, about anything.

Oh no they were not a threat! They were only popular and loved and influential and senior Sahabah whose fathers were major political figures! Add on top of that, they refused to give Yazeed Bay`ah during the reign of Mu`awiyah himself! But they're not a threat! Only Ahlul-Bayt are a threat Salavaat!


Did you know that Mu`awiyah was funded by zionist petro-dollars!!? Could it be!? King Fahad's plan all along!


Not to mention Husayn which you've completely ignored in that dumb remark of yours. And Muhammad bin `Ali. 20 years were not enough for Mu`awiyah to take out Husayn who was just sitting there chilling in Madinah!


Read what your own dumb lunatic websites "Shiapen" quote:



“O my son, I have arranged everything for you, and I have made all the Arabs agree to obey you. No one will now oppose you in your title to the caliphate, but I am very much afraid of Husayn b. Ali, Abd Allah b. ‘Umar, Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, and Abd Allah b. az- Zubayr. Among them Husayn b. Ali commands great love and respect because of his superior rights and close relationship to the Prophet. I do not think that the people of Iraq will abandon him until they have risen in rebellion for him against you. As far as possible, try to deal with him gently. But the man who will attack you with full force, like a lion attacks his prey, and who will pounce upon you, like a fox when it finds an opportunity to pounce, is Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr. Whenever you get a chance, cut him into pieces.”
Iqd al Fareed, Volume 4 page 226


Then you jump and say: "neither of them were a threat to Muavia (ra) and his plans concerning his successor" And I swear to God that you don't know what you're talking about most of the time!

Thirdly you said Hussain (as) wasn't for peace, now this is absolutely ridiculous. I am surprised at your thinking and how you got to this thought. If Hussain (as) wasn't for peace then he would have easily gone along with the theory that his brother was murdered and blamed and rebelled against Muavia (ra) over it. Or would have easily accused Muavia (ra) of harbouring or not doing enough to catch the killers.

Husayn didn't rebel against Mu`awiyah because he had given him Bay`ah and because unlike your crazy impious scholars Husayn does not accuse people of things without evidence nor did al-Hasan accuse Mu`awiyah!  If he were a filthy man like your scholars and historians, he would have accused Mu`awiyah and blamed it on him in order to play it for his advantage and overthrow Mu`awiyah.

All the excuses that Aisha (ra) and Muavia (ra) used to accuse, blame and rebel against the fourth Khalif about the murder of Usman (ra)

Only a Jahil such as yourself would believe `A'ishah and those with her accused `Ali of murdering `Uthman and rebelled against him because of that. As for Mu`awiyah he refused to give Bay`ah until `Uthman's killers were dealt with, it was the Shamis who mainly accused `Ali of killing `Uthman.

Fourth if Hussain (as) wasn't for peace then why did he take his family with him rather than assembling an army on the way out of Madina???

Because you do not read so you don't know about the narrations where Husayn was against giving Mu`awiyah Bay`ah and he wished to continue the fight of his father, it was al-Hasan who convinced him rather ordered him to offer Bay`ah and accept Mu`awiyah in order to end the Fitnah. As for him taking his close family members, this is the biggest sign that he had no peaceful intentions, WHO THE HECK ARE WE KIDDING HERE!? Seriously, have you opened ONE book of history in your life? If you did you'd know that `Iraqis promised Husayn to protect him and give him Bay`ah and fight against Yazid in order to overthrow him and hand authority to Husayn. WHICH PART OF THIS IS PEACEFUL!? What type of romantic crap are they feeding you in the Husayniyyah son?


Husayn sent his cousin Muslim to secretly investigate the intention of the Koufans, why all the secrecy of he was planning something "peaceful"? Then he took his family and left to `Iraq where he believed his supporters to be, then you know what those supporters did and the entire matter was a horrid failure.


Mu`awiyah's plan to give succession to his son had VERY obvious obstacles: `Abdullah bin al-Zubayr, `Abdullah ibn `Umar, Husayn bin `Ali, Hasan bin `Ali, `Abdullah bin `Abbas, `Abdul-Rahman bin Abu Bakr etc... None of whom were killed or harmed. Only one of these people actually had enemies who were trying to kill him, that is al-Hasan whose previous supporters turned on him and declared Takfeer on him the same way they did his father, then they killed him.

[MuslimK]

Ameen doesn't know anything. If you quote something from Mufeed or Saduq he will ask you to prove that these people were Shia.