Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Imam Hassan gave bayah to muawiyah?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious
44 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

What were the 5 conditions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

To under the allegience, you need to understand the treaty. 

Why? 

Because bayah was on the conditions mentioned in the treaty. Their were 5 conditions. If those 5 conditions were respected, I concede that the bayah stands correct. But if not, then the bayah doesn't matter. It is void. 

One more thing, Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself was a legitimate standing Caliph and his period comes under the 30 years of Rashid Caliphs (from a Sunni perspective). So, his conditions in the treaty for the allegience are very crucial. If they are violated, the government of Muawiya loses it's credibility and the bayah itself is becomes invalid.

So, the bayah happened but the conditions never met (as it is clear from the history) so it invalidates the government of Muawiyah.

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

 

thanks for sharing that.   This is why I am now Sunni.  Because I stopped believing in the lies against the Sahaba

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

Salaam, 

I already said. It was not a pledge straight away but a diplomatic move to be accurate. 

And he was not given authority actually. His Caliphate was not more than a kingdom. 

I agree that a hypocrite cannot be given authority but it was not a give away. Is giving authority to a hypocrite based on a treaty also not correct? You need to consider the treaty actually. Without that, any argument on this is impossible. 

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

Item Two:

Authority should be for al-Hasan after him.4 If an accident happened to him, authority should be for his brother al-Husayn.5 Mu'awiya has no right to entrust anybody to it.6

Item Three:

He (Mu`awiya) should abandon cursing the Commander of the faithful and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the ritual formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him,7 and that he should not mention 'Ali except in a good manner.8

Item Four:

He (Mu'awiya) should excluded what is in the treasury of Kufa, that is five million (dirhams). So handing over authority does not include it (i.e., this sum of money). Mu'awiya should send al-Husayn one million dirhams a year, he should prefer the banu (children) of Hashim in giving and gifts to the banu `Abd Shams, and should divide one million (dirhams) among the sons of those who were killed with the Commander of the faithful at the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and should spend that from the taxes of Dar Abjard.9

Item Five:

"The people should be safe wherever they are in the earth of Allah; in Sham (Syria), Iraq, Hijaz, the Yemen, etc. He should give security to the black and the red (ones). He (Mu'awiya) should bear their slips, should not follow some of them for the bygone nor should he punish the Iraqis for their hostility."10

 

This treaty easily concludes that Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) didn't recognize the authority of Muawiya but recognized the real form of Caliphate which was missing in Muawiya. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

What were the 5 conditions?

 

9 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam, 

I already said. It was not a pledge straight away but a diplomatic move to be accurate. 

And he was not given authority actually. His Caliphate was not more than a kingdom. 

I agree that a hypocrite cannot be given authority but it was not a give away. Is giving authority to a hypocrite based on a treaty also not correct? You need to consider the treaty actually. Without that, any argument on this is impossible. 

The form of the Peace Treaty the two parties signed is as follows:

Item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

Item Two:

Authority should be for al-Hasan after him.4 If an accident happened to him, authority should be for his brother al-Husayn.5 Mu'awiya has no right to entrust anybody to it.6

Item Three:

He (Mu`awiya) should abandon cursing the Commander of the faithful and the practice of using the personal prayer (qunut) in the ritual formal prayer (salat) (as prayer) against him,7 and that he should not mention 'Ali except in a good manner.8

Item Four:

He (Mu'awiya) should excluded what is in the treasury of Kufa, that is five million (dirhams). So handing over authority does not include it (i.e., this sum of money). Mu'awiya should send al-Husayn one million dirhams a year, he should prefer the banu (children) of Hashim in giving and gifts to the banu `Abd Shams, and should divide one million (dirhams) among the sons of those who were killed with the Commander of the faithful at the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin, and should spend that from the taxes of Dar Abjard.9

Item Five:

"The people should be safe wherever they are in the earth of Allah; in Sham (Syria), Iraq, Hijaz, the Yemen, etc. He should give security to the black and the red (ones). He (Mu'awiya) should bear their slips, should not follow some of them for the bygone nor should he punish the Iraqis for their hostility."10

 

This treaty easily concludes that Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) didn't recognize the authority of Muawiya but recognized the real form of Caliphate which was missing in Muawiya. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, zahralzu said:

if he would've abided by the conditions we would probably have no problem with him :)

Also, Imam Husayn (عليه السلام) would become the next Caliph (or Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) if Alive) 

And Karbala wouldn't have happened. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bay3a also means "To come to an agreement", so it would depend on how it is said to determine what it means

 

Which would make a whole lot more sense, knowing that they were making a peace treaty

Edited by MaisumAli
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
45 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

...

On the other hand, Imam Khomeini seemingly took a different line:

Quote

The fundamentals of Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision for the establishment and maintenance of [Twelvers Shi’a] Islamic Government rests on three key factors:

  1. Power [Governance] as reflected in today’s Twelvers Shi’a Islamic Government of Iran.
  2. Might [The Islamic military might] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHB0-_S_1ZQ
  3. Battles

The battles would be waged at any cost for the welfare of Islam,  the seizure of a certain facility ... the burning of a certain house ... (or) annihilation of a certain race [Tayefeh] whose existence [seems] harmful to Islam, [and] Muslims,” are all considered just order. As Khomeini stressed, these “distinct qualities are the essential part of a believer [a Shi’a Islamist] whenever he courageously performs justice with power, and shows no emotion.” ...

In 1943 or 1944, Ayatollah Khomeini “began his political career with typical Shi’a ambiguities.” In his first political tract, Kashf al-Asrar Kashf al-Asrar (The Unveiling of Secrets), he “denounced the recently deposed Reza Shah for a host of secular sins: for closing down seminaries, expropriating religious endowments, propagating anticlerical sentiments, replacing religious courts with state ones… If on rare occasions they (the Shia – ed.) had criticized their rulers, it was because they opposed specific monarchs, not the “whole foundation of monarchy.” He also reminded his readers that Imam Ali had accepted “even the worst of the early caliphs.”

“The most Khomeini asked in Kashf al-Asrar was that the monarch respect religion, recruit more clerics into Parliament (Majles), and ensure that state laws conformed with the sacred law. The sacred law, he argued, had prescriptions to remedy social ills; and the clergy, particularly the fuqaha, who specialized in the sacred law, were like highly trained doctors with knowledge of how to cure these social maladies.”

Khomeini “explicitly disavowed wanting to overthrow the throne and repeatedly reaffirmed his allegiance to monarchies in general and to “good monarchs” in particular. He argued that the Shi’a clergy had never opposed the state as such, even when governments had issued anti- Islamic orders, for “bad order was better than no order at all.

“However, one would search it in vain to find any discussion of such key subjects as revolution (enqelab), republic (jomhuri), martyrdom (shahdat), the oppressed masses (mostazafin), and even jurist’s guardianship (velayat-e faqih).

Khomeini retained traditional attitudes toward the state throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Even in 1963 when he emerged as the most vocal anti-regime cleric, he did not call for a revolution or for the overthrow of the monarchy.”

Ervand Abrahamian (Khomeinism 1993, pp.16-17)

Source

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Northwest said:

On the other hand, Imam Khomeini seemingly took a different line:

Source

An Iranian can reply this in a better way:

@Ashvazdanghe

I have read the lectures of Imam al Khomeini on wilayat al faqih in which he mentioned that the Ottomans though cruel but were still needed as their existence was a wall between imperialists and the Islamic world. 

So, his opinions on Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) situation completely fall in line with his stances. 

He didn't revolt against Reza Shah because Ayatullah Borujerdi (رضي الله عنه) stopped him from doing so who was the leading cleric in the Shia Islamic world from 1946 to 1961. It is written in the Biography of Imam al Khomeini by Dr.  Hamid Algar.

Edited by Zainuu
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, zahralzu said:

How to digest this?

First of all search that did Muawiyah pledged allegiance to Imam Hassan (عليه السلام)? Did he pledged allegiance to Imam Ali (عليه السلام)? If not, why? 

And if he himself not pledged allegiance, how would he dare to ask from Imam to pledge allegiance to him? 

Fact of the matter is that there was no question of "allegiance" put forward by Muawiyah. He simply asked for power (governance) which was given to him conditionally. Main conditions were:

1. He will rule according to Quran & Sunnah.

2. He doesn't nominate caliph and after his death, caliphate will return back to Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) or to Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)

I am not quoting other conditions at the moment as the above two conditions are sufficient to prove what I am trying to say. 

So this "temporary" transition of power doesn't include that Imam have to pledge allegiance (the way people pledge) to a temporary ruler. 

Secondly, it is not obligatory on us to accept any such narration or historical record which contradicts with the Quran. Technically, pledging allegiance means one is bound to be loyal to other & obey or follow (the commands of) other. 

Imam cannot pledge allegiance in the sense of obedience & following some one. And Qur'an is the نص for this statement.

So what the reports called pledge, must be referring to  the "Bayʿah" which is sometimes taken under a written pact given on behalf of the subjects by leading members of the tribe with the understanding that as long as the leader abides by certain requirements towards his people, they are to maintain their allegiance to him. "

Hassan-Muawiyah treaty" itself is a pact after which there is no need to pledging allegiance in the way Arabs used to pledge in those times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

image.png.53b6ef39bedec2d03397190356a8ca05.png 

9401 - 9400 - 9419 - الفضل غلام: محمد بن راشد يأتي في الفضل مولى محمد بن راشد " المجهول 9403 ".

المفيد من معجم رجال الحديث - محمد الجواهري - الصفحة ٤٥٨

Link: http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/3021_المفيد-من-معجم-رجال-الحديث-محمد-الجواهري/الصفحة_466

Narrator Fazal is Majhool.

And hadith of Manaqib Ibn Abi Talib has no chain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

item One:

Handing over authority to Mu'awiya provided that he should act according to the Book of Allah, the Sunna (practices) of His Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family,2 and the Sire (behavior) of the righteous Caliphs.3

this condition mentions the requirement to follow the sira of the 3 caliphs...is this not a huge problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, zahralzu said:

this condition mentions the requirement to follow the sira of the 3 caliphs...is this not a huge problem?

Not the three Caliphs, the righteous Caliphs which are four.

For this, we need to get into the historical context. 

Who are these Caliphs:

Abu Bakr 

Umar 

(both above, good or bad,  were popular in the masses because their reigns were stable and in the time of Umar, both empires were defeated)

Uthman (problems started here but Uthman still gained significance because he was assassinated by a group and after his death people made him a hero) 

Ali (عليه السلام)  (this was the main person Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) pointed out. But his enmity was huge because of the campaigns of character-assassination against him led by Muawiyah. So, including him alone would have raised questions on Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself (because Ali (عليه السلام) was his father and Syrians disliked him because of Muawiya's conspiracies))

So, being right would not suffice, being politically right was important. Aim was to unveil the hypocrisy of Muawiyah. So, their was a need to compare him with the Caliphs who were right in the eyes of the people. So that in the eyes of the people, if muawiyah violates the condition, he is humiliated.

When you want to expose the evil of someone, you don't set the barrier of righteousness to be too high. Rather it should be minimal so that if he doesn't achieve even that minimal barrier, that would make the case against him more stronger. 

Their are even more factors. The man who made Uthman a hero is also Muawiyah. By making an excuse of 'revenge'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Not the three Caliphs, the righteous Caliphs which are four.

For this, we need to get into the historical context. 

Who are these Caliphs:

Abu Bakr 

Umar 

(both above, good or bad,  were popular in the masses because their reigns were stable and in the time of Umar, both empires were defeated)

Uthman (problems started here but Uthman still gained significance because he was assassinated by a group and after his death people made him a hero) 

Ali (عليه السلام)  (this was the main person Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) pointed out. But his enmity was huge because of the campaigns of character-assassination against him led by Muawiyah. So, including him alone would have raised questions on Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) himself (because Ali (عليه السلام) was his father and Syrians disliked him because of Muawiya's conspiracies))

So, being right would not suffice, being politically right was important. Aim was to unveil the hypocrisy of Muawiyah. So, their was a need to compare him with the Caliphs who were right in the eyes of the people. So that in the eyes of the people, if muawiyah violates the condition, he is humiliated.

When you want to expose the evil of someone, you don't set the barrier of righteousness to be too high. Rather it should be minimal so that if he doesn't achieve even that minimal barrier, that would make the case against him more stronger. 

Their are even more factors. The man who made Uthman a hero is also Muawiyah. By making an excuse of 'revenge'.

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

 

huseyn.jpg

huseyn1.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death? 

I don't know where it is recorded but I clearly smell fabrication. 

What is the chain? Who is the main narrator?

In my opinion, I cannot accept anything from Walid as true. A drunkard who prayed 4 rakah of Salaat al Fajr.

Moreover, it is From Maqtal al Hussain by Abu Muqnif. 

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi might shed some light on this.

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

image.png.3d1699cbf4a0443eb570bacb97fb3239.png

15723 - الوليد بن عتبة بن أبي سفيان:
لم يذكروه. هو عامل معاوية على المدينة. 

مستدركات علم رجال الحديث - الشيخ علي النمازي الشاهرودي - ج ٨ - الصفحة ١٠٨
Majhool along with his shajra e nasab

This guy worked for Muawiyah. How can his narrations be accepted? lol

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/23/2020 at 1:56 PM, zahralzu said:

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

A munafiq is one that shows outward characteristics of a Muslim, but inwardly has hatred for Islam.

Without proof they are treated as muslim.

Now that Muawiya has passed away and we can review his whole life. I'm more than confident to call him munafiq.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Abu Muhammad Al muhajir
On 11/23/2020 at 9:48 AM, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

No. The imams did not give bay3ah to muawiyah. A peace treaty and bay3ah are 2 entirely different things. Also they are ma3sumeen. If you say they gave bay3ah then their infallibility has been taken out. Ahlul bayt would never give bay3ah to a tyrant murtad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
On 12/5/2020 at 7:54 PM, Guest Abu Muhammad Al muhajir said:

No. The imams did not give bay3ah to muawiyah. A peace treaty and bay3ah are 2 entirely different things. Also they are ma3sumeen. If you say they gave bay3ah then their infallibility has been taken out. Ahlul bayt would never give bay3ah to a tyrant murtad.  

 

Peace treaty is only given between two armies that sit infront of each other and this was not the case here but Muwiya had rule over the entire lands and beyond Arabia. It was a Bayah. 

Also Muwiya certainly did fulfill his bayah to the Prophet and Allah which was to keep spreading Islam via Jihad conquests and expand territories which he and his progeny did. Millions converted out of their works and recieved the light of Allah. They just didn't sit there in Jerusalem doing nothing. They were warriors and conquerors. They did what is refered to today as the Muslim blitz krieg reaching in short span of time all the way to Spain and conquering entire of Spain, North Africa, all the way to Sindh (current day Pakistan) 

This religion is spread by two means the blood of the martyrs and the ink of the pen. The fact that Muwiya was a warrior rules him out as munafiq. What did we learn in the quran that the signs of the munafiqeen is there hatred towards battle because they have nifaq which makes them love this dunya and hate death but a true believer doesn't fear death literally and is willing to embrace death at any given time at the hands of the enemy of Allah.

All these campaigns cost a fortune and Muwiya and his progeny had to pay directly from the tax payers using alot of human resources and blood

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Muwiya had no time for people over-glorifying saints or doing the rounds in grave-worships but his task was much greater and it was to conquer the world and spread Islam in the name of Allah. Which he certainly did a great portion of it.

The problem with shiism is that they have plenty of doubt about Allah's verdict. Get hold of a Quran read it is that simple. Islam has no time for overglorifying saints or stuff like that this is a religion based upon strict monotheism. 

These people will not give you anything of dunya or akhira. We only have scholars in Islam and we certainly over-glorifying or take them besides Allah and in fact they themselves can be refuted with evidence. But there is no mere human who is holier then thou in Islam period. A mere human is a mere human. The religion is for Allah alone  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/22/2020 at 5:48 PM, zahralzu said:

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: 

https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs

https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ

I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance.

How to digest this?

The pledge was most likely a condition (if this pledge even happened) in the treaty. Imam al Hasan (عليه السلام) wanted to finish Muawiya (la), but he had his troops bribed by Muawiya (la). So, I would say this pledge was like the pledge of Ali (عليه السلام) to Abu Bakr. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...