Written by Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amanpuri
The grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, the essence of Batool, the leader of the youth of Paradise, and the flower of the garden of Prophethood, our master, imam, and beloved Hasan ibn Ali رضي الله عنهما was poisoned, as Umair ibn Ishaq says:
«I entered with a man to visit Hasan ibn Ali to inquire about his health, and he kept telling that man: Ask me before you do not get a chance to ask me. The man said: I do not want to ask you anything, may Allah grant you health. He then got up, went into the private chamber, and then came out to us, saying: I did not come out to you until I expelled a piece of my liver which I turned over with this stick. Indeed, I have been given poison repeatedly, but nothing is more severe than this time. The next day, we went to see him, and he was in the market. Husayn came and sat by his head and said: O brother, who is your enemy? He said: Do you want to kill him? He said: Yes. He said: If it is the one I suspect, then Allah’s punishment is more severe upon him, and if he is innocent, then I do not like that an innocent person should be killed.»
“I and another man entered to visit Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali رضی اللہ عنہما. He رضی اللہ عنہما said to this man: Ask your question before you are unable to ask me. The man said: I do not want to ask you any question. May Allah grant you well-being. He رضی اللہ عنہما stood up and went to the restroom. Then he came out and came to us, then said: Before coming to you, I expelled a piece of my liver (through defecation). I was turning it over with this piece of wood. I have drunk poison many times, but it was never as severe as this time. The narrator says that when we came to him the next day, he رضی اللہ عنہما was in the state of dying. Sayyiduna Husain رضی اللہ عنہ came to him and sat near his blessed head and said: O brother! Who is the one poisoning you? He رضی اللہ عنہما said: Do you want to kill him? He said: Yes! He said: If that person is the one I think he is, then Allah is more severe in taking revenge. And if he is a bad person, then I do not want to kill a bad man.” (Musannif Ibn Abi Shaybah: 94, 93/15, Kitab al-Muhtadireen by Ibn Abi al-Dunya: 132, Al-Mustadrak by Al-Hakim: 176/3, Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr: 115/3, Tarikh Ibn Asakir: 282/13, and its chain is Hasan)
Who killed Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali رضي الله عنهما? A review of the narrations
The Shia claim that Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه was poisoned by Sayyiduna Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan رضي الله عنهما. This is an unfounded and baseless claim. A scholarly and investigative review of the Shia arguments is presented here:
Argument number 1
«Ibn Abd al-Barr said: Abu Zaid Umar bin Shabah and Abu Bakr bin Abi Khaythamah said: Musa bin Ismail narrated to us, who narrated from Abu Bilal from Qatadah who said: Al-Husayn entered upon Hasan and said: O my brother! I was given poison three times; I have never been given poison like this time. I feel my liver weakening. Hasan said: Who gave you poison, O my brother? He said: Do not ask me about this. Do you want to fight them? Their matter is with Allah. When he died, the news of his death was sent to Muawiyah, who said: How strange is Hasan, he drank a drink of honey with the water of Rome and met his end.»
Sayyiduna Hussain رضي الله عنه came to Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه and said: O brother! I have drunk poison several times, three times, but never have I been given it like this time. My liver is being consumed. Sayyiduna Hussain رضي الله عنه said: Brother! Who has given you poison? He replied: What is the meaning of your question about this? Do you intend to fight with them? I entrust them to Allah. When Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه passed away and the news of his death reached Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, he said: It is regrettable that Hasan drank a cup of honey with water from Rome and passed away. (Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr: 115/1)
Commentary:
Its chain of narration is very weak. Its narrator Muhammad bin Salim Abu Halal al-Rasbi (d. 167 AH) is considered “weak” by the majority.
Critics
(1) Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
قد احتمل حديثه إلّا أَنَّه يخالف في حديثه قتادة، وهو مضطرب الحديث عن قتادة.
“His hadith has been narrated, but it contradicts Qatada in his narration, and his narrations from Qatada are inconsistent.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 273/7)
(2) Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about Abu Hilal Rasibi’s narrations from Qatada. He replied: “There is weakness in it; this narrator is somewhat good.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 274/7, and its chain is authentic)
(3) Imam Ibn ‘Adi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
هذه الأحاديث لأبي هلال عن قتادة عن أنس كلّ ذلك، أو عامّتها غير محفوظة.
“These hadiths of Abu Hilal from Qatada from Anas, all or most of them, are not reliable.” (Al-Kamil by Ibn ‘Adi: 214/6, and in another copy: 2220/6)
The criticism of these three noble Imams is explanatory. This narration is also from Abu Hilal from Qatada, therefore it is “weak.”
(4) Imam Ibn Sa’d, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
فيه ضعف.
“There is weakness in it.” (Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 275/7)
(5) Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
ليس بقوي.
“He is not a strong narrator.” (Al-Du’afa by Nasai: 202)
(6) Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
Weak.
“He is a weak narrator.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 274/7)
(7) Imam Yazid bin Zurai says that he is nothing. (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 7/273, and his chain is authentic)
He also says:
I deliberately distanced myself from Abu Hilal.
“I have deliberately distanced myself from Abu Hilal.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 273/7, and his chain is authentic)
(8) Imam Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan did not narrate from him. (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 273/7, and his chain is authentic)
(9) Imam Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
And Abu Hilal was a truthful elder, except that he made many mistakes unintentionally, to the extent that he began to raise mursal narrations without knowing it. He mostly narrated from his memory, so due to the weakness of his memory, anomalous narrations entered his hadith.
(Al-Majruhin by Ibn Hibban: 295/2, 296)
(10) Imam al-Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
“They have taken his hadiths, even though he was not one with a strong memory.” (Musnad al-Bazzar: 1796)
(11) Imam Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
“His status is truthful, he was not a very strong narrator.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil Ibn Abi Hatim: 274/7)
(12) Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned him in his book Al-Du’afa (482-483, 324).
(13) Imam ‘Aqeeli, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned him in his book Al-Du’afa al-Kabir (74/4).
Mu‘addileen
(1) Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, said he is trustworthy. (As’ilat al-Hakim: 468)
This statement contradicts Imam Darqutni’s own statement, therefore it is rejected.
Imam Darqutni says that he is a “weak” narrator. (Al-‘Ilal: 40/4, referencing Mawsu‘at Aqwal al-Darqutni)
(2) Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked:
“Do you prefer Salam bin Miskin or Abu Hilal?” He said: “Abu Hilal is closer to the muhadditheen.”
(Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil Ibn Abi Hatim: 274/7)
This statement contradicts and opposes the majority’s criticism and is unacceptable.
(3) Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
كان سليمان بن حرب جيّد الرأی فی أبی هلال الراسبيّ
“Sulaiman bin Harb had a good opinion of Abu Hilal al-Rasbi.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 274/7, and its chain is authentic)
(4) Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
ليس بصاحب كتاب، ليس به بأس.
“He was not a book owner. There is no harm in him.” (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 274/7, and its chain is authentic)
This statement contradicts the Imam’s own statement, therefore it is to be disregarded.
The Imam himself says:
لم يكن له كتاب، وهو ضعيف الحديث.
“He did not have a book, and his hadith is weak.” (Tarikh Ibn Abi Khaythama: 2205)
(5) Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, called him trustworthy. (Tahdhib al-Kamal: 16/319)
This statement is rejected because the conditions of his narrator Abu Ubaid al-Ajri could not be found.
(6) Imam Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi used to narrate from him, and he probably narrated from trustworthy narrators.
(7,8,9) Imam Ibn Khuzaymah (2044), Imam Abu Awana (4013), and Imam Hakim (4/333) authenticated his hadith and declared him trustworthy.
It is established that Abu Hilal al-Rasbi al-Basri is considered “weak” by the majority.
Especially when it is narrated from Qatadah, it is “weak,” therefore Hafiz Alai رحمه الله‘s statement that the majority have authenticated it (Faiz al-Qadeer lil-Munawi: 381/6) is not correct.
As for the later scholars, such as Hafiz Dhahabi رحمه الله (Al-Ibar: 77/1), Hafiz Ibn Hajar رحمه الله (At-Talkhees: 85/3), Hafiz Haithami رحمه الله (Majma’ az-Zawa’id: 197/5), Busiri (Misbah az-Zujajah: 1518), Allama Qurtubi (At-Tadhkirah: 383), etc., their declaring it trustworthy is not acceptable compared to the earlier scholars.
The second point is that Qatadah bin Du’amah is a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) in its chain, therefore the narration is “weak.” The principle is that when a trustworthy mudallis narrates in a form other than “an” or “qala” (I heard or he said) outside of Bukhari and Muslim, it is considered “weak.”
Imam Ibn Abdul Barr رحمه الله says:
Qatadah if he does not say: “I heard,” and his narration is contradicted by trustworthy narrators, then no proof is established from him.
(At-Tamhid li Ibn Abdul Barr: 307/3)
The third point is that Qatadah bin Du’amah’s hearing from the two Hasanain Kareemain is not established, therefore this statement is disconnected (munqati’), and a disconnected narration is not proof.
Argument number 2
«وقال الهيثم بن عدی : دسّ معاوية إلی ابنة سهيل بن عمرة امرأة الحسن مأة ألف دينار علی أن تسقيه شربة بعث بها إليها ففعلت.»
“Heitham bin Uday said: Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) incited the wife of Hasan, the daughter of Suhail bin Amrah, with one hundred thousand dinars to give him a drink of poison which he sent to her, and she did so.” (Ansab al-Ashraf by Ahmad bin Yahya al-Baladhuri: 3/59)
Comment:
This narration is “fabricated” (a collection of lies).
Its narrator Heitham bin Uday is unanimously considered a “liar” and “abandoned in hadith.” Yet the Shia and the despicable Sunnis embrace his narrations wholeheartedly.
Argument number 3
The Imam Ibn Saad said: I am Muhammad bin Umar: from Abdullah bin Jaafar from Abdullah bin Hassan who said: Al-Hasan bin Ali was a man who married many women, and the concubines were the least favored by him. There was hardly a woman he married whom he did not love and cherish. It is said that he was poisoned, then recovered, then poisoned again and recovered, and then the last time he was poisoned fatally. When death approached him, the doctor who was attending him said: This man has had poison cut through his intestines. Al-Husayn said: O Abu Muhammad! Tell me who poisoned you? He said: Why, my brother? He said: I will kill him, by Allah, before I bury you, or I will not be able to do so, or it will be in a land where I will have to seek him out. He said: O my brother! This world is but fleeting nights, leave it until I meet him with Allah. But he refused to name him. I have heard some say that Muawiyah had cunningly arranged for one of his servants to poison him.
Abdullah bin Hasan narrates that Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali رضی اللہ عنہ used to marry many women. The women could spend very little time with him. Almost all the women whom he married loved him. It is said that he was poisoned, but he survived. Then he was poisoned again, but he survived again. When it was the last time, he passed away from it. When the time of his death approached, the physician came towards him and said: This is a man whose intestines have been eaten away by poison. Husayn رضی اللہ عنہ said: O Abu Muhammad! Tell me who poisoned you? You رضی اللہ عنہ asked: Why, O brother? Husayn رضی اللہ عنہ said: By Allah, I will kill him before you are buried, or I will not be able to do so, or he will be in such a land where it will be difficult for me to enter. Upon this, Hasan رضی اللہ عنہ said: O my brother! This world is based on a few fleeting nights. Leave this person; I will meet him with Allah. Saying this, he refused to reveal his name. I have heard from some people that Muawiyah رضی اللہ عنہ had incited a servant of Husayn رضی اللہ عنہ to poison him. (Tarikh Ibn Asakir: 282/13, 283)
Comment: This narration is extremely “weak.”
Its narrator Muhammad bin Umar Al-Waqidi is a “liar.”
There is another defect in it as well.
Evidence number 4
Abu Bakr bin Hafs narrates:
«Tuffiya al-Hasan bin Ali wa Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas fi ayyām ba’da ma maḍā min imārat Mu’āwiya ‘ashr sanīn, wa kānū yarawna annahu saqqāhumā samma.»
“Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) and Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) died ten years after the rule of Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him). People thought that Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) had poisoned both of them.” (Maqāl al-Ṭālibīn by Abi al-Faraj Ali bin al-Husayn al-Asbahani: p. 20)
Comment: This narration was fabricated by the accursed Satan, which fell into the hands of the Rafidah. They have used it as evidence for their religion and belief.
(1) The author of the book is Umayyad Shia. His reliability is not established.
His student Muhammad bin Abi al-Fawaris says:
Wa kāna qabl an yamūt ikhtalaṭ.
“He became confused before his death.” (Tārīkh Baghdād by al-Khatīb: 398/11)
(2) Regarding its narrator Ahmad bin Ubaidullah bin Ammar, Imam Khateeb Baghdadi says:
وكان يتشيّع.
“He belonged to the Shia sect.” (Tarikh Baghdad: 252/4)
Hafiz Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
من رؤوس الشيعة.
“He was among the leaders of the Shia.” (Mizan al-I’tidal by Zahabi: 118/1)
Even the lowest degree of authentication is not established for him.
(3) Its main narrator is Isa bin Mehran. Hafiz Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, says about him:
رافضيّ، كذّاب.
“He was a Rafidhi and a great liar.” (Mizan al-I’tidal by Zahabi: 324/3)
Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi says that he was a liar. (Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil: 290/6)
Imam Ibn Adi says:
حدّث بأحاديث موضوعة مناكير، محترق في الرفض.
“He narrated many fabricated and rejected hadiths. He was an extreme Rafidhi.” (Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi: 260/5)
He also says:
والضعف بيّن علی حديثه
“Weakness is evident in his hadith.” (Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi: 261/5)
Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
رجل سوء، ومذهب سوء.
“He was a bad man and his sect was also bad.” (Al-Du’afa wa al-Matrukoon by Darqutni: 418)
Imam Khateeb Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
Isa ibn Mihran was among the devils of the Rafidah and their cursed ones. I came across a book authored by him that contained attacks on the Companions, declaring them misguided, disbelievers, and sinners. By Allah, my hair stood on end when I looked at it, and I was greatly astonished by the fabricated hadiths contained in that book…
(Tarikh Baghdad by Khateeb: 11/167)
Warning:
While writing about his conditions in Lisan al-Mizan (4/407), a copyist mistakenly wrote “wa lahiqahu Ibn Jarir” (Ibn Jarir met him) instead of “wathaqahu Ibn Jarir” (Ibn Jarir authenticated him).
Presenting this liar’s narration against Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه is equivalent to shedding the blood of justice. It is astonishing that these people are heedless of the Day of Reckoning. Do they think that there will be no questioning about the writings made by their own hands and the words uttered by their tongues against the noble Companions?
Argument number 5
Umeir bin Ishaq narrates:
«كنت مع الحسن والحسين في الدار ، فدخل الحسن المخرج ، ثمّ خرج ، فقال : لقد سقيت السمّ…»
“I was with Hasan and Husayn رضي الله عنهما in the house. Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه entered the doorway, then came out and said: I have been given poison to drink…” (Maqal al-Talibin by Abi al-Faraj al-Asbahani, Shi’i Umayyad: p. 20)
Comment:
The meaning and implication of this fabricated narration are the same, and the reasons are exactly the same as those in the previous narration.
Argument number 6
Ibn Ja’dah says:
Ja’dah bint al-Ash’ath ibn Qays was married to Hasan ibn Ali. Yazid deceived her by saying that if she poisoned Hasan, he would marry her. She did so. When Hasan passed away, Ja’dah demanded Yazid to fulfill his promise. He said: “By Allah, we did not choose you for Hasan, so how could we choose you for ourselves?” (Tarikh Ibn Asakir: 284/13, Al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi: 226/5)
Commentary:
This is a false story.
(1) Its fabricator is Yazid bin Iyad bin Ja’dah Al-Laithi. Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, Imam Ali bin Al-Madini, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Nasai, Imam Ibn ‘Adi, Imam Abu Zur’ah Al-Razi, Imam Abu Hatim Al-Razi, Imam Saji, Imam Juzjani, Imam Amr bin Ali Al-Fallas, and others have criticized him with words such as “weak, fabricator of hadith” and “abandoned hadith.” There is not even the slightest word of authentication established about him.
(2) Regarding his second narrator, Muhammad bin Khalaf bin Al-Marzban Al-Ajri, none of the earlier scholars among the hadith masters used any word of authentication; rather, Imam Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
هو أخباري، لين.
“He was a historian and a weak narrator.” (Sawaalat Al-Sahmi: 104)
Therefore, it is not correct for Hafiz Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) to classify him as truthful. (Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala: 264/14)
Evidence number 7
«عن أم موسى أن جعدة بنت الأشعث ابن قيس سقت الحسن السمّ، فاشتكى منه شكاة، قال: فكان يوضع تحته طست وترفع أخرى نحو من أربعين يوما.»
“Umm Musa narrates that Ja’dah bint al-Ash’ath ibn Qays poisoned Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him). He fell ill because of it. A vessel was placed under him and another was taken away. This continued for about forty days.” (Tarikh Ibn Asakir: 284/13)
Commentary:
Its chain of narration is “weak.”
The identification of the narrator named Ya’qub is required, and also his hearing from Umm Musa is needed.
Summary:
The narrations in which it is mentioned that Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) or Yazid poisoned Sayyiduna Hasan ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with both of them) have been proven false. If anyone has any other chain of narration besides these, they should present it to us. We will analyze it.
Chain of narration is a trust. Presenting weak and unsupported narrations and basing one’s beliefs and actions on them is not the practice of the people of truth. Also, presenting weak and baseless narrations against the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) is not correct, as it falls under suspicion. Suspicion is the greatest falsehood.
The second point is that these false traditions are also contrary to the beliefs of the Rafidi Shias, because it is written in the authentic books of the Shia religion:
إنّ الأئمّة يعلمون متي يموتون، وإنّهم لا يموتون إلّا باختيارهم.
“The Imams know when they will die, and they only die by their own choice.” (Usul al-Kafi al-Kulaini: 1/258, Al-Fusool al-Muhimmah by Al-Jurjani: p. 155)
Mulla Baqir Majlisi Sahib writes:
لم يكن إمام إلّا مات مقتولا أو مسموما
“There is no Imam except that he died either by being killed or poisoned.” (Bihar al-Anwar by Majlisi: 43/364)
When their belief is that the Imams are aware of the unseen, then why was Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) not aware that there was poison in that food?
To say that Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) poisoned Sayyiduna Hasan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) is a great lie and accusation, because all the traditions in this regard are fabricated and self-invented. Wa Allahu A’lam, wa ‘Ilmuhu Ahkam.
