Question:
Did Amir Muawiyah’s (رض) governors oppress the subjects? And did Muawiyah (رض) have the head of the Prophet’s companion Ammar (رض) cut off? Also, what is the reality behind the claims that Muawiyah (رض) had political opponents, including Hassan (رض), poisoned to death for political aims?
Answer:
Alhamdulillah:
In today’s series, we will read, Insha’Allah, about the reality of the further allegations that rebel narrators have leveled against Amir Muawiyah (رض).
In the charge sheet prepared by rebel narrators and historians influenced by them against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), one point is that he gave his governors a free hand, and they used to oppress the people. Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) would not take any action against them, which caused the oppression of these governors to increase greatly.
This claim, made with such intensity, should have been substantiated with a mountain of incidents showing governors committing oppression. However, barely a few such incidents are found, upon which this claim is based.
Here, we will examine these very incidents. The six allegations made in this regard are in this order:
Now we will review each of these incidents in detail.
This is a false narration related to the era of Hazrat Ali (رض), which we have discussed in detail before. In it, not only Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) but also the army sent by Hazrat Ali (رض) is accused of carrying out massacres. You can review that there.
This is such a lie, stated in such a rejected (mardood) narration, that no historian other than Ibn Abd al-Barr has recorded it in his book. Even people like Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi, who were famous for making mountains out of molehills and spreading baseless rumors against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), did not notice it.
The chain of narration (sanad) is:
حدثنا أحمد بن عبدالله بن محمد بن علي قال حدثنا ابي قال حدثنا عبدالله ابن يونس قال حدثنا بقي بن مخلد قال حدثنا ابو بكر بن أبي شيبة قال حدثنا زيد بن الحباب قال حدثنا موسى بن عبيدة قال حدثنا زيد بن عبدالرحمن بن أبي سلامة عن أبي أرباب۔
This chain begins with two unknown individuals. One’s kunya is stated as Abu Arbab, and the other’s name is Zayd bin Abdurrahman. We could not find any details about them in the books of Rijal (biographical evaluation). It is possible that these gentlemen were also members of the rebel movement, whose purpose was to spread disinformation.
From the principles of Dirayat (content analysis), look: the selling of Muslim women in markets at the hands of Muslims is an event that would make the heart of the Muslim world tremble. If this had happened, hundreds of people would have seen this event, and then countless people would be narrating it. But apart from this one rejected narration, there is no mention of it in any other report. Even people like Abu Mikhnaf and Hisham Kalbi, whose life’s purpose was to promote hatred for Muawiyah (رض), are unaware of this.
Two such incidents related to the era of Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) are mentioned in history books.
We will examine them separately:
The First Incident: Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan
The first incident is attributed to Hazrat Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan (رضی اللہ عنھما). As we have mentioned above, Ziyad was the governor of the eastern provinces and ruled the territory up to Afghanistan while based in Basra. The governor of Kufa was Hazrat Mughira bin Shu’bah (رض), who passed away in 50/671. We have mentioned before that he used to work with great forbearance and prudence. The Kufan rebels took his softness as weakness and expressed their malice by showering him with pebbles during his sermon, but he still adopted gentleness.
We have mentioned regarding Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan (رض) that he had established such a degree of order in the eastern provinces that if even a rope was stolen in Afghanistan, he would get the report in Basra. Seeing this performance, Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) entrusted Kufa to him as well, which had become the most dangerous and difficult region in the Muslim world. The northern provinces were also controlled from here. When Ziyad came here, the people of Kufa treated him the same way they treated Hazrat Mughira (رض), meaning when he stood to give the sermon, the Kufan rebels showered him with pebbles too.
We narrate the details of this incident as stated by Tabari:
حدثني عمر، قال: حدثني علي، عن مسلمة بن محارب:
When Ziyad came to Kufa, he went to the minbar, praised Allah, and then said: “I was in Basra when this service was assigned to me. I intended to come here with two thousand soldiers from the Basra police, but then I thought that you are people of truth, and your truth has repelled falsehood many times. Therefore, I have come to you with only my family members.
Praise be to Allah! As much as people debased me, Allah elevated me. What people had wasted, Allah protected.”
When Ziyad finished the sermon and was still on the minbar, people started throwing pebbles at him. Ziyad sat there as long as the rain of pebbles continued. Then he called his special men and ordered them to close all the doors of the mosque. Then he said: “Every person should grab the man next to him. Absolutely no one should say, ‘I don’t know who was sitting next to me’?” After that, Ziyad had a chair placed for himself at the mosque door and called four people at a time, making them swear that none of them had thrown a stone. Whoever took the oath was released, and whoever did not take the oath was detained separately. These were all thirty men, and it is also said they were eighty men. Their hands were all cut off right there.
(Tabari. 4/1-73)
Consider the chain of narration. The first narrator’s name is Umar, but there must be thousands of men with this name. If other narrations by Tabari are examined, his name appears to be Umar bin Shabbah (173-262/789-875). He was also a major historian and ‘Akhbari’ (reporter). The third person is Muslimah bin Muharib, and his details are unknown. There is no mention of him in the books of Rijal as to whether he is reliable or not.
Regardless of the chain, even if the incident is accepted as true, a few points are worth considering. What concern does a common man have with throwing stones at the governor during a sermon? This was the same group of Uthman’s murderers and their supporters who had now made Kufa their base camp and were organizing their movement here. The challenge before Ziyad bin Abi Sufyan was to uproot this group. Hazrat Mughira (رض) had adopted a soft attitude towards them and limited himself to monitoring. This had emboldened them, and it had reached the point where they were even stoning the governor. What should have happened was that these people should have been caught and beheaded, but it was Ziyad’s “softness” that he settled for cutting off the hands of the people in this group. In this, too, he conducted a proper investigation and only cut the hands of those who refused to take the oath. If a man was not involved in the rebel movement, what prevented him from taking the oath? The rebels could have also saved themselves by taking a false oath, but the people whose hands were cut had reached such an extreme of rebellion that they openly admitted to being part of the rebel movement.
If anyone still calls this act of Ziyad “oppression,” then it can only be said about him that maintaining peace and order and suppressing rebellious movements is not an important task for him. This means that whoever prepares to rebel against the government, the government should put flower garlands around his neck, kiss his face, and present power to him on a platter. If this principle is accepted as correct, then this person should advise all governments in today’s world to do the same whenever a movement starts to rise against them. This person himself, whatever power he has, should leave it and hand it over to his opponents.
Yes, Ziyad can certainly be criticized for the fact that he could have given these rebels a slightly milder punishment. The problem was that a mild punishment was having no effect on their thick skins. Hazrat Mughira (رض) had already tried imprisoning them and verbally reprimanding them. But these people were not ceasing their rebellion in any way; rather, these punishments were increasing their strength, just as bacteria sometimes become stronger from antibiotics. The need was for strict action to be taken against them so that people would stop supporting them. Ziyad did just that, and this is what he should have done.
After this incident, Ziyad conducted detailed investigations into the Kufa rebel movement and, capturing its ringleaders, sent them to Syria. These people were put on trial, and many people testified about their activities. In punishment for this crime, they were all executed, and Hujr bin Adi was among them. You have read the details of this before.
The Second Incident: Ibn Ghaylan
First, we will narrate this incident from Tabari, and then we will present our commentary on it:
حدثنا الوليد بن هشام وعلي بن محمد:
In the same year (55/675), Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) dismissed Abdullah bin Amr bin Ghaylan from Basra and appointed Ubaidullah bin Ziyad as the governor of Basra. The reason was that Abdullah bin Amr was delivering a sermon on the minbar of Basra when a man, Khaybar bin Dahhak from Banu Dabbah (or Banu Dirar), threw a pebble at him. Abdullah had his hand cut off. The Banu Dabbah came and said that a mistake that was to be made by a man from our brotherhood has been made, and the governor has given him a suitable punishment. But now we fear that this news will reach the Amir al-Mu’mineen (Commander of the Faithful) and some punishment will befall a specific person or the brotherhood from there. Therefore, if you deem it appropriate, write a letter to the Amir al-Mu’mineen yourself and give it to us; we will send it with one of our own people. In it, write that the hand was cut on suspicion (of theft), the crime was not clear.
Abdullah bin Amr wrote the letter to Hazrat Muawiyah and gave it to them. This letter lay around for a year or six months. After that, Abdullah himself went to Muawiyah, or wrote and sent this incident. The Banu Dabbah also reached Hazrat Muawiyah and said: “Amir al-Mu’mineen! Abdullah has cut off our brother’s hand unjustly.” And this is his letter to you. Hazrat Muawiyah read the letter and said: “It is not correct to take Qisas (retribution) from my appointed governors. There is no way for that. Yes, if you say, I can arrange for Diyah (blood money).” These people agreed to the Diyah. Hazrat Muawiyah had the Diyah paid to them from the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury) and dismissed Abdullah bin Ghaylan.
(Tabari. 4/1-113)
Pay attention to the words in this incident, what danger the man’s brotherhood faced because his hand was cut off. Where this incident is narrated in Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya, their fear, as expressed to Ibn Ghaylan, is stated as: “If the Amir al-Mu’mineen finds out why you really cut his hand, he will do the same to him and his tribe as was done to Hujr bin Adi. For this reason, write us a document saying you cut our man’s hand on the basis of suspicion.” This clarifies the real story, that this person was, in fact, a member of the rebel movement. He was not punished merely for throwing a pebble, but because of his rebellious activities, and he deserved this treatment. His tribesmen made a fuss and got the governor to write a letter, and the governor, in his simplicity, wrote the letter and was then dismissed as punishment. If he had written the full situation to Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) at that time, this whole group would have met the same fate as Hujr bin Adi.
An objection is raised against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) because of his sentence: “It is not correct to take Qisas (retribution) from my appointed governors. There is no way for that. Yes, if you say, I can arrange for Diyah.” It is said that he had given his governors a free hand.
This is a general law not only in Islam but in the entire world, that if a judge makes a mistake in judgment and, for example, sentences a criminal to death, then Qisas is not taken from that judge. The possibility of error exists for everyone, and a judge is, after all, human. If a law is made that a judge will be retaliated against if an accused suffers harm due to the judge’s wrong decision, then no person will accept a position in the judiciary. Yes, if an error is found in the judge’s decision and it is known that he did not make the decision thoughtfully, disciplinary action can be taken against him, and he can be dismissed. Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) did just that and dismissed his governor. The information that reached him was that the governor had cut off a person’s hand on suspicion. This means he did not give the accused the benefit of the doubt where he should have. This is a mistake that any judge can make.
It should be clear that in that era, the principle of ‘Segregation of Duties’ had not been discovered, and the military, administration, and judiciary were all under the same governor.2 The governor was also the head of the provincial high court, and the responsibility of the central supreme court was entrusted to the Caliph.
Also, consider the chain of this incident. Tabari mentions only two narrators, one is Waleed bin Hisham, and the other is Ali bin Muhammad Al-Madaini (135-225/752-840). Madaini was born eighty or ninety years after this event. We do not know through which people this event passed to reach him. Furthermore, Madaini is also an ‘Akhbari’ about whom the opinions of the Muhadditheen (scholars of hadith) are mixed as to whether he is reliable or not. We could not find any mention of Waleed bin Hisham. Even in a large encyclopedia like Tahdheeb al-Kamal, we could only find three narrators named Waleed bin Hisham, and all three belong to the first century Hijri, and obviously, Tabari cannot narrate from people 150 years before his birth. We do not know what adulterations the narrators in between may have added to the story.
This shows that, in terms of its chain, this incident reached Tabari in an extremely weak manner.
Two incidents are found in the histories in this regard. One of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رضی اللہ عنھما) and the second of Amr bin Hamiq, who was a direct murderer of Hazrat Uthman (رض).
Regarding Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رضی اللہ عنھما), this narration exists in Musnad Ahmad:
Hanzhalah bin Khuwailid Al-Anbari states that I was with Hazrat Muawiyah when two men came arguing about the head of Hazrat Ammar, and each of them was saying, “I killed him.” Abdullah bin Amr (رضی اللہ عنھما) said: “Each of you is saying this to please his companion (i.e., about Hazrat Ammar), but I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: ‘O Ammar! A rebellious group (f’iah baghiyah) will kill you.'” Hazrat Muawiyah asked: “Then why are you with us?”
He replied: “My father complained about me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and he said: ‘Obey your father as long as you live, and do not disobey him.’ I am with you, but I have not fought.”
(Ahmad bin Hanbal. Al-Musnad. Bab Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas (رضی اللہ عنھما). Hadith 6538, 6929)
First point
Nowhere in this narration is it stated that Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) ordered the head of Hazrat Ammar (رض) to be cut off and brought. It only states that two men argued about his head, as to which wretched person had killed him. The claim that the first head cut off in the Islamic era was that of Hazrat Ammar is not correct. Rather, we have already quoted the narration in connection with the Battle of Jamal that before this incident, the killer of Hazrat Zubair (رض), Amr bin Jarmouz, also cut off his head and presented it before Hazrat Ali (رض), to which he (Ali) gave him the warning of Hell.
Second point
Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) mentions the martyrdom of Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رض) saying,
“He was killed in Siffin at the age of 91.”
(Tarikh Ibn Kathir, translation of Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya. Volume 7, Page 408)
The killers of Hazrat Ammar (رض) were not the Sahaba Karam from either of the two groups at the Battle of Siffin, neither Amir Muawiyah (رض) nor the supporters of Ali (رض), but rather the rebel faction (baaghi tola). This is because, according to grammatical rules, Al-Baghiyah (the rebellious) is an adjective for Al-Fi’ah (the group). This adjective-noun phrase is the subject (fa’il) of taqtuluka (will kill you). The existence of the subject must precede the verb, which means this group was already rebellious before [the act]; it did not become rebellious because it killed Hazrat Ammar (رض).
Third point
Historical evidence also shows that Hazrat Uthman (رض) had sent Hazrat Ammar bin Yasir (رض) to Egypt during his caliphate to ascertain the situation, and he never returned.
He was martyred in Egypt by the followers of Abdullah bin Saba (the Jewish hypocrite).
(For details, read the book: “Tahqeeq Khilafat o Malookiyat” (Investigation of Caliphate and Monarchy) (Author: Mahmud Ahmad Abbasi). This book was written in response to Maulana Maududi’s book “Khilafat o Malookiyat”.)
(Allah knows best what the reality is, but this much is certain: a great companion like Hazrat Ammar (رض) could not, under any circumstances, be martyred by a great companion like Amir Muawiyah (رض), nor is there any narration that states this.)
The incident of the killing of Amr bin Hamiq, which Tabari narrates from the chain of Hisham Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf, is as follows:
قال هشام بن محمد؛ عن أبي مخنف، وحدثني المجالد بن سعيد، عن الشعبي وزكرياء بن أبي زائدة، عن أبي إسحاق۔
(When Ziyad began the arrests related to the Kufa rebel movement,) Amr bin Hamiq and Rifa’a bin Shaddad left Kufa and reached Madain, and from there went to Mosul. Here, they hid in a mountain. The chief of the village, whose name was Abdullah bin Abi Balt’a, received news that two men were hiding at the foot of this mountain. He became suspicious of them… Amr was captured. They asked: “Who are you?” He said: “I am a person whom it is better for you to release, and if you kill me, it will be bad for you.” They asked him many times, but he did not tell.
Ibn Abi Balt’a sent Amr to the governor of Mosul, Abdurrahman Thaqafi. He recognized him as soon as he saw him and wrote to Hazrat Muawiyah about his situation. Hazrat Muawiyah wrote in reply: “Amr struck Hazrat Uthman nine times with his spear. I do not want to be unjust to him. He struck Hazrat Uthman nine times; you also strike him nine times.” Upon this order, Amr was brought out, and the nine strikes began, but he died on the first or second strike.
(Tabari. 4/1-92)
This shows that Amr was treated exactly as he deserved. The way the murderer of Hazrat Uthman (رض) was dealt with was pure justice. Even Hisham Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf, who fabricated narrations themselves to defame Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), made no mention of Amr’s head being cut off and presented.
This shows that the false allegation was leveled against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) that he initiated the custom of cutting off heads and presenting them. This is also part of the same propaganda campaign adopted by the narrators of the rebel movement.
Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) is accused of poisoning three individuals to death:
Now we present an analysis of the narrations related to these three.
Malik bin Harith Al-Ashtar
It is well-known about Malik al-Ashtar that he was a prominent leader of the rebel movement.3 He was the ringleader of the party that attacked and martyred Hazrat Uthman (رض). After that, the group that surrounded Hazrat Ali (رض) and made a reprehensible attempt to rule in his name, he was the leader of this group. This was the very group that caused the Battle of Jamal and the Battle of Siffin. Based on these reasons, even if Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) had him killed, there was nothing wrong with it, as he deserved it. When two parties are at war, they do not offer prayers for each other’s well-being, nor do they express love and affection for one another. If the opposing army’s mastermind generals are killed by sending agents, it is not considered wrong under the ethics of war.
In Tabari, the details of his killing are stated by Abu Mikhnaf without any chain of narration, claiming that Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) appointed a non-Muslim farmer, whose name was Jayastar, for this task. Ashtar was on his way to become the governor of Egypt when he stopped at this Jayastar’s place, and the farmer gave him poison in honey, which he died immediately after drinking. Even if Abu Mikhnaf’s narration is accepted as true, this “accomplishment” of Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) is commendable, that he eliminated this mastermind of the rebel movement at a critical juncture. However, confirmation of this event is impossible because no one other than Abu Mikhnaf has narrated it.
Second point
Some people criticize the narrations in Tabari that describe Malik al-Ashtar as a ringleader of the rebel movement, and then they claim with great pomp that Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) had an “innocent” man poisoned. This method is incorrect. Malik al-Ashtar’s being a ringleader of the rebel movement is proven by so many narrations that it reaches the level of Tawatur (mass transmission). If those hundreds of narrations stating Malik al-Ashtar’s involvement in the rebel movement are to be considered false, then this one narration, in which the allegation of poisoning is leveled against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), should also not be accepted.
Abdurrahman bin Khalid bin Walid (رضی اللہ عنھما)
He was a close companion of Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), and regarding him too, a narration has been transmitted in Tabari with the chain:
حدثني عمر، قال: حدثني علي، عن مسلمة ابن محارب
In which an accusation is leveled against Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) that he had him poisoned to death. The reason given is that, like his illustrious father, he was very tough, and his prestige had grown greatly in the land of Syria. Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) felt politically threatened by him, so he had him poisoned at the hands of a Christian, Ibn Athal. When Khalid bin Abdurrahman found out about this, he killed Ibn Athal.
(Tabari. 4/1-72)
If you look at the chain of this narration, one is Ali bin Muhammad, and the second is Muslimah bin Muharib. There is disagreement among Muhadditheen about Ali bin Muhammad’s reliability, while the details of Muslimah bin Muharib are completely unknown. For this reason, this narration is not reliable at all.
Tabari has narrated this incident in the chapter for 46/666. After this very narration is the chapter for 47/667, which is very brief, and immediately after it, the chapter for 48/668 begins. At the very beginning of it, Tabari has listed the names of the officials for that year, which exposes the falsehood of this narration.
Tabari writes:
Then the year 48 Hijri began. Its events are mentioned here. In this year, Abu Abdurrahman Qayni spent the winter in Antioch, and Abdullah bin Qais Fazari fought the summer jihad. Malik bin Hubayrah Sakuni fought at sea, and Uqbah bin Aamir Juhani fought at sea with the people of Egypt, and the people of Madinah were also with them. The commander of the people of Madinah was Mundhir bin Zubair, and the commander-in-chief of all of them was Khalid bin Abdurrahman bin Khalid bin Walid.
(Tabari. 4/1-72)
Now the question arises: if Muawiyah had poisoned Abdurrahman, how could he have made his son, Khalid, the commander-in-chief of such important campaigns? If it is said that Khalid did not know about this conspiracy, this is incorrect, because the poison narration states that Khalid found out and he killed Ibn Athal. If he did not find out about the conspiracy, then how did the narrators find out? The central narrator of the report is Muslimah bin Muharib, about whom nothing is known as to who he is. It is entirely possible that he was also a member of that rebel movement and fabricated this narration merely to defame Hazrat Muawiyah (رض). It is also possible that Ibn Athal the Christian did poison Abdurrahman, but the instigator was actually the Roman Emperor, whose life Abdurrahman had made difficult on both land and sea.
Sayyidna Hazrat Hassan (رض)
There is no narration in Tabari regarding the death of Hazrat Hassan (رض). The story that has been propagated about his death is that his wife, Ja’dah bint Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, poisoned him because Yazid bin Muawiyah had promised to marry her if she poisoned him. This story is not narrated by Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Athir, or any other historian. It is merely a lie fabricated by the narrators of the rebel movement, but it is fabricated with such absurdity that no trace of it is found in any history book.
Ibn Al-Athir (555-630/1160-1233) has narrated this story in “Usd al-Ghabah” without any chain of narration.
The cause of his death was that his wife, Ja’dah bint Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, poisoned him. For forty days, a basin was kept beneath him in which he would relieve himself. This continued until he passed away. When his illness intensified, he said to his brother, Hussein (رضی اللہ عنھما): “My brother, I have been poisoned three times, but never like this. This has torn my liver.” Hussein asked: “My brother, who poisoned you?” He replied: “Why are you asking this question? Do you want to kill him? I will speak to Allah ‘Azza wa Jall about him.”
(Ibn Athir. Usd al-Ghabah. Bab Hassan bin Ali (رضی اللہ عنھما). 6/112. Maktaba Mishkat al-Islamia.)
Neither Ibn Athir nor anyone else has stated the chain for this claim that it was Ja’dah who gave the poison. It is not mentioned in any history book that Hazrat Hussein (رض) accused Ja’dah of the murder or leveled the accusation at Hazrat Muawiyah (رض). Even at the incident of Karbala, he did not, at the very least, accuse Yazid of having Hazrat Hassan (رض) poisoned. This shows that this story has no basis, and whoever fabricated it did so purely out of hatred for Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), and this accusation against the wife of Hazrat Hassan (رض) is also a complete lie. One reason for this could also be that Hazrat Hassan’s father-in-law, Ash’ath bin Qais, played a full role in ending the Battle of Siffin, for which the rebels carried out his character assassination. This same practice was later continued in the case of his daughter and the wife of Sayyidna Hassan.
According to Abu Mikhnaf’s own narrations, Hazrat Hussein (رض) continued to visit Hazrat Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنھما) every year after this tragedy, and he (Muawiyah) would give him gifts. Was it possible that he would consider Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) the murderer of Hazrat Hassan (رض) and still be his guest every year?
Alhamdulillah, in this matter, the rebel narrators have not fabricated any narration that shows that Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) ever treated Hazrat Hassan and Hussein (رضی اللہ عنھما) badly. On the contrary, historical narrations are full of the bright side of the mutual relations between Hassan, Hussein, and Muawiyah (رضی اللہ عنھم). We have mentioned above that when the caliphate of Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) was established, Hazrat Hussein (رض), along with his brother Hazrat Hassan (رض), used to visit him. He (Muawiyah) would honor them greatly, welcome them, and give them gifts. In a single day, Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) gave them two million dirhams.
(Ibn Asakir. 59/193)
Abu Mikhnaf writes: Muawiyah used to send one million dinars to Hussein (رض) every year, in addition to all kinds of gifts.
(Abu Mikhnaf. Maqtal al-Hussein Alaihis Salam. Qom: Matba’a Amir)
Here, the question arises: why was such a large sum given as a gift?
Some critics call this a “political bribe.” We seek refuge in Allah from the accusation of giving political bribes against Hazrat Muawiyah and of taking political bribes against Hazrat Hassan and Hussein (رضی اللہ عنھم).
As we have mentioned above, the importance of family size in Arab society was extraordinary, and social status was determined by it. Children were married off early, due to which it was common for one person to have fifteen or twenty children. At the age of 30-35, a person would become a grandfather. The Arabs’ age of youth was also long. It was common for people aged 70-75 to be so physically fit that they would travel long distances on horses and camels to lead in wars. Their sons would be in their fifties, grandsons in their thirties, and great-grandsons would have children while still in their teens. Thus, it was normal for a single person’s family to consist of two to two-and-a-half hundred individuals. The family was not limited to just these individuals; there were also heaps of male and female slaves who were treated not as slaves, but as family members. When these slaves were freed, they were declared a formal part of the family to elevate their social status. These people were called “Mawali” (singular: Mawla). In addition to this family, the support of the society’s poor was also the responsibility of these family heads. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d contains a detailed mention of the famous people of every family and their Mawali.
To support such a large family and other poor people, obviously, a very large sum of money would be needed. It was not that all these people sat idle and were a burden on their family head; they all worked on their family property in addition to engaging in trade. In the event of national needs, such as war, it was the duty of the family head to take the healthy men of his family and become part of the state army. The Rightly Guided Caliphs had devised a method of wealth distribution where the state income was given to the head of the family, who would then distribute it among the people of his family. If anyone had a complaint about this distribution, he could complain directly to the governor or the Caliph. For this, the head of each family had registers in which the family members were recorded. The books of “Ilm al-Ansab” (Genealogy) were written with the help of these very registers.
Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) also continued this system of wealth distribution. In his era, since the Muslim government had spread over sixty percent of the known world at that time, this wealth was also very large. It was not that anyone was oppressed in collecting this wealth. The major sources of this income were two:
You can imagine how much the income from the lands from Afghanistan to Morocco would be. The income of each region was distributed among the people of that region, and a portion of it was sent to the center. Then this same income was distributed among the Muslims of the center.
It is well-known about Hazrat Hassan and Hussein (رضی اللہ عنھما) that they spent very little of the gifts they received on themselves and spent most of the money on the needs of the common people. These gentlemen had stepped back from political affairs and dedicated themselves to the religious education of the people. Along with performing these scholarly services, they would also enter the political field when needed. Thus, Hazrat Muawiyah (رض) once prepared a major campaign whose purpose was to conquer the capital of the Roman Emperor, “Constantinople.” The head of this campaign was Yazid bin Muawiyah, and in this army, Hazrat Hussein, Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Zubair, along with the elderly companion Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (رضی اللہ عنھم), were included. Although Constantinople was not conquered, this campaign established the overwhelming awe of the Muslims over the Roman Emperor. During the siege, Hazrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (رض) passed away, and Yazid led his funeral prayer and buried him outside the walls of Constantinople according to his will. Later, the Christians built a shrine for him and began to pray for their wishes there. This shrine exists in Istanbul to this day.
Keeping this detail in mind, it is clearly visible that in the time of Hazrat Muawiyah (رض), all these companions were like one soul in many bodies. There was no malice among them, and all were a picture of أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ (Strong against the unbelievers, merciful among themselves). The ghali (extremist) narrators later fabricated stories and attributed them to them for their political purposes, which makes it seem as if Hazrat Hassan and Hussein (رضی اللہ عنھما) had given bay’ah to Hazrat Muawiyah only under compulsion, otherwise, (God forbid) their hearts were filled with malice and hatred for each other.
This picture is by no means worthy of the Hasanayn (Hassan and Hussein).
(And Allah the Almighty knows best what is correct.)
Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/783
Understand the Shari'ah stance on Muslim men/women marrying disbelievers (Kafir) or polytheists (Mushrik), with Quranic evidence, Hadith, and scholarly views… Read More
Learn the Sunnah way of wiping the head during Wudu for men and women with long hair, plus rulings on… Read More
Discover the Shari'ah status of sprinkling water on private parts post-Wudu, its Sunnah basis from Hadith, and whether Wudu remains… Read More
Detailed Shariah ruling: Praying bareheaded is completely valid and permissible for men; covering the head is Mustahab in daily life… Read More
Explore Sharia rulings on head shaving for men and women during Hajj/Umrah (Sunnah for men, trimming for women) and whether… Read More
Explore the Islamic perspective on Jahez (dowry), its permissible and impermissible forms, and whether Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) gave dowry to… Read More