The Life of Imam Al-hasan Al-mujtaba
Chapter Xviii : the Stipulations of the Peacemaking
The historians have greatly differed over the one who had started making peace. Ibn Khaldun and a group of historians have maintained that it was Imam al-Hasan (a.s) who began that when he came to know that his affair became weak.[^1] Another group has maintained that it was Mu’awiya who started making peace after he sent him his companions’ letters containing perfidy and assassinating him whenever he wished and wanted.[^2] Al-Sibt bin al-Jawzi has mentioned that it was Mu’awiya who secretly corresponded with Imam al-Hasan and summoned him to make peace, but the Imam did not respond to him. Then he responded to him after that.[^3] Most likely it was Mu’awiya who hurried to make peace and took the initiative to it, because he was afraid that the Iraqis might return to their reason, for they were famous for the quick change in opinion. The reason for that it was Mu’awiya who started seeking peace was the Imam al-Hasan’s speech in al-Mada’in. In his speech he has mentioned: “Most surely Mu’awiya has summoned us to an affair in which there is neither glory nor justice!”
Anyway it is not important to examine that, because there would have been no harm on Imam al-Hasan if he had hurried to the peacemaking owing to the hard ordeals that surrounded and forced him to make peace. If it was Mu’awiya who had hurried to the peacemaking, also there would not have been harm on the Imam because of what we have explained about the reasons of the peacemaking. The most important thing is examining the stipulations
[^1] Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 186. In the book al-Isaba, it has been mentioned: “When Imam al-Hasan was stabbed with a sword, he summoned ‘Amru bin Salama al-Arjahi and sent him to Mu‘awiya and stipulated against him.” In the book al-Kamil, vol. 3, p. 205, it has been mentioned: “When Imam al-Hasan came to know that his companions scattered from him, he wrote to Mo’awiya.” Ibn Abi al-Hadeed, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol.4, p.8., has also mentioned that.
[^2] Al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Irshad, p. 170. Kashf al-Ghumma, p. 154. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26.
[^3] Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 206. In his book Fada’il al-Ashab, p. 157, al-Hajj Ahmed Afandi has mentioned: “Surely it is possible to gather the narrations and say that it was Mo’awiya who firstly corresponded with al-Hasan concerning the peacemaking. So al-Hasan secondly wrote to him and demanded what he (Mo’awiya) had mentioned.” Some sources have briefly mentioned the affair. In his book Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 192, al-Ya‘qubi has mentioned: “When al-Hasan came to know that he had no power and that his companions had scattered from him, he made peace with Mo’awiya.” Others than him have mentioned that.
the Imam made against his opponent. History is greatly different in respect of them. The historian’s statements are disordered about them. The following are some of their statements:
- A historian has mentioned that Imam al-Hasan sent two messengers to Mu’awiya. The messengers were Amr bin Salama al-Hamadani and Muhammad bin al-Ash‘ath al-Kindi to be sure of Mu’awiya’s situation and to know what he had. So Mu’awiya gave them the letter that reads as follows: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a letter to al-Hasan bin Ali, from Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan. Surely I have made peace with you for that you shall have the authority after me. To you belong Allah’s promise, His covenant, His protection, and the protection of His Apostle, Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, and the severest of what Allah took against any of His creatures from among the promises and covenants. I will seek against you neither a calamity nor a detested thing. I should give you a million dirhams from the public treasury every year. You shall have the land tax of Basra and Dar Abjard. You send to them your governors and to do with them asyou like. Abdullah bin ‘Umar, Amr bin Salama al-Kindi, Abdurrahman bin Samra, and Ibn al-Ash‘ath bore witness as to that. It was written in the month of Rabee‘ al-Aakhar, in the year 41 A. H.”
The document indicates that Mu’awiya has given al-Hasan three things:
- He appointed him as his hire apparent.
- The Imam shall have a million dirhams from the public treasury every year.
- He gave him two districts. The Imam had to send his governors to them and to do with them whatever he wished.
Imam al-Hasan kept Mu’awiya’s letter. So he sent to him a man from the Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The man’s name was Abdullah bin al-Harth bin Nawfal. His mother was Mu’awiya’s sister. The Imam said to him: “Go to your uncle and say to him: ‘If you gave security to the people, I would pledge allegiance to you.”
When Abdullah reached Mu’awiya, he told him about Imam al-Hasan’s task, which was seeking the general security to all the people. Mu’awiya responded to him. He stamped a parchment at the bottom. He gave the parchment to him and said: “Let al-Hasan write on it whatever he wishes.” So Abdullah returned carrying this absolute authorization to the Imam. So the Imam (a.s) wrote what he wanted from among the stipulations. We will mention the text of what he wrote when we deal with some of the narrations, for it does not differ from them. Dr. Taha Husayn has depended on this narration.[^1] [^1] Al-Fitnatu al-Kubra, vol. 2, p. 200.
- Al-Tabari and Ibn al-Athir have narrated another copy saying that Imam al-Hasan corresponded with Mu’awiya regarding the peacemaking and made some conditions against him; if Mu’awiya conformed to the conditions, he would make peace with him; otherwise, he would not conclude it. When the Imam’s letter reached Mu’awiya, he kept it. Before this letter came to him, he had sent the Imam a blank page stamped at the bottom and wrote to him: “Stipulate whatever you wish!” This document reached the Imam after he had sent Mu’awiya the document in which he wrote what he wanted. Then the Imam wrote on that blank page additional stipulations to the ones he had stipulated, and then he kept them. When he handed over the authority to him and asked him to fulfill the conditions he had stipulated, he (Mu’awiya) did not fulfill them and said to him: “You shall have what you had written and asked me to give to you. So surely I gave them to you when your letter came to me.” Al-Hasan (a.s) said to him: “And I stipulated when your letter came to me and gave me the covenant to fulfill that which was in it.” Accordingly, they differed over that. Mu’awiya did not fulfill anything to al-Hasan.[^1]
The narration has not mentioned to us the stipulations the Imam had made nor has it mentioned what he wrote on the blank page Mu’awiya had sent to him. However in his book Tarikh, Abu al-Fida’ has mentioned the conditions the Imam had made, saying: “And al-Hasan wrote to Mu’awiya and made some conditions against him and said: ‘If you responded to them, I would listen and obey.’ So Mu’awiya responded to them. The thing al-Hasan demanded was that Mu’awiya had to give him what was in the public treasury of Kufa, the land taxes collected from Dar Abjard of Persia, and not to curse Ali. But Mu’awiya did not respond to him concerning cursing Ali. So al-Hasan asked him not to curse Ali while he heard. Mu’awiya responded to him, and then he did not fulfill that to him.”[^2]
I (the author) think that what Ibn al-Athir and al-Tabari have mentioned is far from correctness. That is because if the conditions Imam al-Hasan lastly made were of great importance, then why did he neglect them and did not mention them at the beginning of the affair? If we overlooked that, then what was the benefit of writing them while Mu’awiya did not come to know them and did not acknowledge them? A part from that, Mu’awiya was at that stage ready to respond to anything the Imam demanded from him.
- Ibn ‘Abd al-Birr has narrated: “Surely Imam (al-Hasan) wrote to Mu’awiya and told him that he would pass the authority to him provided that he should
[^1] Al-Kamil, vol. 3, p. 205. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 93. [^2] Abu al-Fida, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 192.
not pursue any of the people of Medina, al-Hijaz, and Iraq because of anything that happened during the days of his father. Mu’awiya responded to him and was about to fly because of happiness. However he said: ‘I will not give security to ten people.’ So al-Hasan wrote to him again regarding them, but he (Mu’awiya) wrote back to him, saying: ‘Surly I have taken an oath that if I arrested Qays bin Sa‘d, I would cut out his tongue and cut off his hand!’ Al-Hasan wrote him back again (and said to him): ‘I will never pay homage to you while you demand Qays and other than him because of a certain result, whether it was great or small.’ So Mu’awiya sent him at that time a blank document and said: ‘Write whatever you wish and I will conform to it.’ So they made peace with each other. Al-Hasan stipulated that he should have the authority after him, and Mu’awiya conformed to all of that.”[^1]
The narration contains that the most important thing the Imam demanded is asking the general security to all his and his father’s companions. Without doubt this condition is among the first and most important conditions with the Imam. As for that the peacemaking happened in this manner, then I (the author) have doubt about that.
- Some historians have mentioned that Imam al-Hasan and Mu’awiya made peace with each other and had a mutual consent about what the following document has contained. They both signed it. This is its text: “In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is for which al-Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib has made peace with Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan. He has made peace with him that he should hand over the authority to him provided that he (Mu’awiya) should act according to Allah’s Book and the Sunna of His Apostle and the conduct of the righteous Caliphs. Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan has no right to entrust a covenant to anyone after him. Rather, the authority after him should be consultation among the Muslims. The people should be safe wherever they are of Allah’s earth, in their Sham, their Iraq, their Hijaz, and their Yemen. Ali’s companions and followers should be safe in respect of their souls, properties, womenfolk, and their children. Allah’s promise and covenant and what He took against anyone from His creatures through fulfilling, and through what He gave of His Own Self be on Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan regarding that. He (Mu’awiya) should scheme neither secretly nor openly against al-Hasan bin Ali, his brother al-Husayn, and the members of the House of Allah’s Apostle, may Allah bless him and his family. He should not terrorize any of them in any of the horizons (regions). So-and-so has borne witness as to that. Enough for a witness is Allah!”[^2]
[^1] Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 370. [^2] Ibn al-Sabbagh, al-Fusool al-Muhimma, p. 145. Al-Arbali, Kashf al-Ghumma, p. 170. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10. p. 115. Fada’il al-Ashab, p. 157. Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqa, p. 81.
This document is the best of the previous ones in explaining the way of making peace. It contains some important affairs that achieved many benefits to Muslims in general. I doubt that the document contains all what Imam al-Hasan demanded and wanted. In the following we will mention all the conditions the traditionists have mentioned even if they have not mentioned the whole of them. However some historians have mentioned some of them, and some others have mentioned another group of them. The two parties have confessed that each party has not mentioned all the conditions the Imam made. The conditions are as follows:
The Imam handed over the authority to Mu’awiya provided that he should act according to Allah’s Book, the Sunna of His Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family,[^1] and the conduct of the righteous Caliphs.[^2]
Mu’awiya had no right to entrust the authority to anyone after him. The authority after him would be for al-Hasan.[^3] If something happened to him, the authority would be for al-Husayn.[^4]
The general security should be given to the people in general; the red and the black of them were equal in it. Mu’awiya had to stand their slips and not to pursue any of them according to the past and not to punish the people of Iraq out of a grudge.[^5]
(Imam al-Hasan stipulated) that he had not to call him (Mu’awiya) the Commander of the faithful,[^6]
That he did not have to bear witness in his presence,[^7]
[^1] This condition has been mentioned in the document we have mentioned. It has also been mentioned by Ibn Abi al-Hadeed in his Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol.4, p. 8. [^2] Bihar al-Anwar, vol.10 p. 115. Al-Nasaa’ih al-Kafiya, p. 159 (second edition). He quoted it from Fath al-Bari and Saheeh al-Bukhari. [^3] Al-Isaba, vol. 1, p. 329. Al-Sha‘rani, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, p. 23. Al-Dimyari, Hayat al-Hayawan, vol. 1, p. 57. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol.2, p.229. Al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Lughat wa al-Asmaa’, vol. 1, p. 171. Al-Qunduzi, Yanabee‘ al-Mawadda, p. 293. It has been mentioned in it: “The authority after him would be consultation among the Muslims.” [^4] Jamal al-Hasani, ‘Umdat al-Talib fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib, p. 52. [^5] Al-Dinyawari, p. 200. Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. [^6] Ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkirat al-Khawas, p. 206. [^7] A‘yan al-Shia, vol. 4, p. 43. 6. That Mu’awiya had to refrain from cursing Imam Ali, the Commander of the faithful;[^1] he had not to mention him except with good,[^2] 7. That he had to repay rights to their owners.[^3] 8. Mu’awiya had to give security to the followers of Imam Ali, the Commander of the faithful, and not to subject them to any detested thing.[^4] 9. He had to divide a million dirhams among the children of those who were killed with his father (Imam Ali) at the Battles of al-Jamal and Siffin, and he had to appoint that from the land tax of Dar Abjard.[^5] 10. He had to give him what was in the Public Treasury of Kufa[^6] , to settle his debts, and to give him a hundred thousand (dirhams) a year.[^7] 11. He should not plot secretly and openly against al-Hasan, his brother al-Husayn, and the the Prophet’s progeny, may Allah bless him and his family. He should not terrorize any of them in any of the horizons (regions).[^8]
These are the stipulations and items of the peacemaking the traditionists have mentioned. As for that Imam al-Hasan stipulated all of them or part of them, we will mention that when we deal with studying and analyzing the stipulations. Before we end this chapter, we have to deal with the place and time of the peacemaking:
[^1] A‘yan al-Shia, vol. 4, p. 43. [^2] Maqatil al-Talibiyyin, p. 26. Ibn Abi al-Hadeed, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 15. [^3] Ibn al-Sabbagh, al-Fusool al-Muhimma, p. 144. Ibn Shahrashub, al-Manaqib, vol. 2, p. 167. [^4] A‘yan al-Shia, vol. 4, p. 43. Al-Tabari, Tarikh, vol. 6, p. 97. ‘Ilal al-Sharaaiya‘, p. 81. [^5] Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 101. Tarikh Duwal al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 52. Al-Imam wa al-Siyasa, p. 200. Ibn ‘Asakir, vol. 4, p. 221. It has been mentioned in it that Mo’awiya had to give al-Hasan the land taxes of Bisa and Dar Abjard. [^6] Tarikh Duwal al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 53. [^7] Jawhart al-Kalam fi Madh al-Sada al-A‘laam, p. 112. [^8] Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 10, p. 115.
The Place of the Peacemaking
As for the place where the peacemaking took place, it was at Maskan according to what the trustworthy sources have mentioned. At that place the peacemaking was concluded and carried out in the presence of a lot of people from among the Iraqi and Syrian armies. Some historian has mentioned that the peacemaking happened in Bayt al-Maqdis.[^1] Another historian has mentioned that it was concluded at Adhruh of the land of Sham. These two statements are too irregular to depend on them.
The Year of the Peacemaking
As historians have differed over the place where the peacemaking happened, they have differed over the time when it occurred. It was said that it was in the month of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, in the year 41 A.H. It was said that it was in the month of Rabee‘ al-Aakhar, and said that it was in the month of Jamadi al-Ula. According to the first date, Imam al-Hasan’s caliphate was five months and a half. According to the second date it was six months and some days. According to the third date it was seven moths and some days.[^2] It was said that the peacemaking took place in the month of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, in the year 40 A.H. [^3] Other than that was also said. The correct statement is that the period of his caliphate was six months according to what most historians have mentioned.
Anyway some historians have called that year, immortal in the world of sorrows, the Year of the Unity (‘Aam al-Jamaa‘a) because of that the word of the Muslims became united after the division and that unity was achieved after disagreement. However this name is contrary to the reality, for since that year the Muslims have fallen in great evil. Troubles have been poured upon them like the shadows of the dark night, to the extent that the principles of the religion have been changed. The laws of Islam have been altered. The Islamic caliphate has come to a painful fate due to the fact that it has been handed down from father to son, from an oppressor to an oppressor, to the extent that the nation has been drowned into blood, tragedies, and sorrows. Al-Jahiz says: “Mu’awiya controlled the authority and overcame the remainder of the
[^1] Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2, p. 323. Al-Bustani, Da’irat al-Ma‘rif, vol. 7, p. 38. [^2] Abu al-Fida’, Tarikh, vol. 1, p. 193. [^3] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 2, p.299. In the book al-Isti‘ab it has been mentioned: “Imam (al-Hasan) handed over the authority to Mo’awiya in the half of Jamadi al-Ulaa, in the year 41. A. H. All those who said that it was in the year 40 A. H. are mistaken.” In Sina’s history: “Imam al-Hasan abdicated the caliphate on the 26th of Rabee‘ al-Thani, in the year 41 A. H.”
consultation and the community of the Muslims from among the Ansar and the Muhajreen in the year that was called the Year of Unity (‘Aam al-Jamaa’a). This was not a year of unity; rather, it was a year of division, overcoming, and compulsion; the year when the Imamate changed into Khousrowian dominion and the caliphate changed into a Caesarian office.”[^1]
The door to oppression was widely opened from that year when the authority reached to the Khousrow of the Arabs (Mu’awiya). The Muslims, especially as it concerns the followers (Shia) of the family of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and his family, met tiredness, oppression, and exhaustion the like of which history has never witnessed. Ibn Abi al-Haddeed says regarding what befell the Muslims after the year of the peacemaking: “The believers had either fear for their blood or were homeless. They sought security but they did not find it.” After this inclusive oppression and exhausting tyranny, is it right to call that year the Year of Unity and Friendliness?
Study and Analysis
It is necessary for us to pause to examine the conditions Imam al-Hasan made against Mu’awiya; likewise, it is necessary to study and understand them even if generally, because they contain affairs of great importance that they endangered Mu’awiya’s victory, brought out disgrace to him, brought him out of the just rulers into unjust ones.
I (the author) believe in all the said conditions except two of them, which are that Imam al-Hasan would have the property in Kufa Public Treasury, and that Mu’awiya would give a yearly salary to him and his brother al-Husayn.
As for the first condition, it is far. That is because Imam al-Hasan was in charge of the possessions and the properties in the Kufan Public Treasury. He acted freely in respect of them. They were not veiled or withhold from him that he might make a condition on Mu’awiya to grant him an authority over them. I doubt that there were many properties in the Public Treasury. That is because the policy of Ahl al-Bayt required spending the properties on that which Islam had specified.
As for the second condition, it is incorrect, for Imam al-Hasan was in no need of Mu’awiya’s properties. If we accepted that, then there would be no harm on the Imam from taking them. That is because saving the Muslims’ properties from the unjust rulers is a necessary affair. We will explain that when we deal with the Imam’s travel to Damascus. I think that Mu’awiya gave these two stipulations at the beginning. However, some historian has [^1] Al-Ghadir, vol. 10, p. 227.
imagined that they were among the conditions Imam al-Hasan had made.
Anyhow, the stipulations aimed at seeking general security and inclusive peace for all the Muslims. In the meantime they urged the Muslims to be alert and to free themselves from the Umayyad enslavement. Moreover they indicate that the Imam was skillful in keeping his lawful right, that Mu’awiya had usurped it, and that the Imam had not disposed of his right. As for the contents of the stipulations, they are as follows:
Mu’awiya should act according to Allah’s Book
Imam al-Hasan did not let Mu’awiya act freely in respect of the Muslims’ affairs. He stipulated that Mu’awiya should act according to the Book and the Sunna in respect of his policy and that of his governors. If he had come to know that Mu’awiya had followed the light of the Qur’an and Islam, he would not have stipulated that against him, and regarded that as among the most important conditions he imposed on him.
Imam al-Hasan treated an important point. The point is the fate of the Islamic succession after Mu’awiya’s death. He stipulated on him that the caliphate after him would return to him (Imam al-Hasan) and his brother. Some sources have mentioned that the Imam stipulated that the caliphate should be consultation among the Muslims after Mu’awiya’s death. According to both statements, the Imam returned the caliphate to its high entity. He stipulated that on him because he had come to know his bad trends, that he would move the Islamic caliphate from its reality to a hereditary kingdom, and place it among his progeny the deviants, the criminals. As a result the Imam intended to enlighten the people and urge them to fight against Mu’awiya if he did that.
The general Security
The most important thing from among those stipulations Imam al-Hasan sought was spreading security and wellbeing among the Muslims whether they were black or red. This indicates that he had mercy and affection on all the Muslims. This stipulation also said that he should not follow after anyone because of the past, and should not punish the people of Iraq because of the past grudge. Al-Hasan stipulated that on Mu’awiya because he had come to know that he would exhaust them and severely punish them as a sign of vengeance on that which issued from them during the days of Siffin.
Mu’awiya should not be called the Commander of the faithful
Imam al-Hasan (a.s) refused to call Mu’awiya the Commander of the faithful to deprive him of the religious authority over all the Muslims. Mu’awiya was not attentive to this dangerous stipulation. If he was not a commander over al-Hasan, he had, of course, no authority and command over the Muslims. According to that Mu’awiya was among the unjust, rebellious rulers. Through that he striped him of the office of the Imamate and caliphate, and proved that he (Mu’awiya) usurped this great office.
Witness is not borne in the presence of Mu’awiya
This stipulation exposed and disgraced Mu’awiya. It indicated that he was among the tyrannical rulers. Witness, as the jurists have mentioned, would be borne in the presence of the legal judge as a part of his duty. If bearing witness was incorrect in the presence of Mu’awiya, then he was not a just ruler; rather, he was a tyrannical ruler; and the judgment of the tyrannical rulers was invalid and their conduct was not accepted in the viewpoint of the Islamic law. So it was incumbent of the community to remove them from this office to which sparing the blood, protecting the honor, and keeping the properties were entrusted. Through this stipulation Imam al-Hasan showed that he was the owner of a right, and that Mu’awiya usurped that right.
Mu’awiya should give up cursing Imam Ali
Through this condition Imam al-Hasan (a.s) showed that Mu’awiya went too far in committing sin. He had come to know that Mu’awiya would not leave cursing Imam Ali, the Commander of the faithful, and degrading his dignity. So he (a.s) wanted to show the Islamic community that Mu’awiya was very reckless and did not take care of the Islamic affairs and teachings. Islam has made it forbidden to curse and disparage a Muslim. However Mu’awiya, Hind’s son , paid no attention to Islam. He openly cursed Imam Ali, the Commander of the faithful, after concluding the peacemaking. We will explain that when we deal with Mu’awiya’s violating the stipulations of the peacemaking. It is clear that Imam al-Hasan exposed Mu’awiya through this stipulation and removed from him the thin cover with which he covered himself in the name of the religion.
The general Security
Imam al-Hasan (a.s) took great care of his and his father’s followers (Shia). He made peace with Mu’awiya to spare their blood and to protect them. He stipulated that Mu’awiya should not subject them to any detested thing. With him this condition was the most important and greatest of all other conditions. His Eminence late Aal Yaseen has said: “And he (Imam al-Hasan) sought protection with it (the agreement) to achieve security for his and his father’s followers (Shia) and to refresh their orphans. Through that, he wanted to reward them (the followers) for their steadfastness with him and their loyalty to his father. He also wanted to keep them as loyal to his creed and as sincere supporters, that he might strengthen his position and that of his brother on the day when the truth would return to its people.”[^1]
Surely most of the conditions Imam al-Hasan made aimed at the interests of his followers, guaranteeing their rights, and turning them away from harm and detested things.
The land tax of Dar Abjard
Imam al-Hasan stipulated on Mu’awiya special properties, that he might spend on his and his father’s followers. The properties were the land taxes of Dar Abjard[^2] The meaning of this specification is that some of the taxes collected to the state are called al-Fay’, which is the tax imposed on the lands conquered by force. Such a kind of tax is spent on the general interests and social affairs such as improving the army, establishing foundations, and the like from among the vital projects. Some properties are called alms, which are financial taxes Islam imposed on certain properties and kinds of imports on which the trade market in the world depends. Islam has imposed such a tax on the rich. This tax is taken from the rich and given to the poor to combat against poverty and to uproot misery. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family, has said: “I have been commanded to take alms from your rich and give it to your poor.” As a result Imam al-Hasan hated to take such a kind of property for himself and his followers.It was forbidden for him to take such a kind of property, for it was forbidden for Aal al-Bayt to take alms. He (a.s) hated to give alms to his followers and decided to give them properties from Dar Abjard that was conquered by force; and that which was conquered by force was not considered as alms. Through that he chose to his followers some properties far from the suspicion. Dar Abjard belonged to the Muslims and it was obligatory on the Imam to spend its revenue on Muslims’ interests.
[^1] Sulh al-Hasan, p. 258. [^2] Dar Abjard is a wide land of Persia on the borders of al-Ahwaz. The Muslims conquered it by force.
Mu’awiya should not oppress them
Among the stipulations of the agreement was that Mu’awiya should not oppress al-Hasan and al-Husayn. He should not harbor grudge against the Prophet’s progeny, may Allah bless him and his family, nor should he terrify any of them. He made such a condition due to the fact that he had come to know that Mu’awiya would plot against them through evil and cunning. Out of his grudge, Mu’awiya put poison into some food and offered it to Imam al-Hasan to eat it. We will explain that. Through this stipulation and the like from among the stipulations of the peacemaking, Imam al-Hasan wanted to remove the curtain from Mu’awiya, to show his defects and shortcomings, and to display that he had neither protection nor religiousness.
These are some of the stipulations of the peacemaking. They are full of elements of great importance. They indicate that Imam al-Hasan was skillful and had unique abilities in overcoming his opponent. In respect of this agreement, his Eminence late Aal Yaseen has said: “It is an act of truth to confess that al-Hasan bin Ali had wonderful political abilities. In the light of what transmitted from him procedures and laws that are the best things the diplomatic tact has reached, appeared clearly in his traditions. If he had assumed the authority in a condition other than this condition, he would have been on the top of the experienced politicians and the Muslim, brilliant rulers. Neither the deprivation on some day nor the failure in some field through its reasons standing on the nature of time is a proof of weakness or a way to a criticism.