Did Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) rejoice at the death of Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him)? And was Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) involved in his death?
One of the false objections and accusations made by Mirza Sahib against Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه is that Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه was happy over the death of Hazrat Hasan رضي الله عنه. Along with this, to create a wrong impression, it is also mentioned that Hazrat Hasan رضي الله عنه was poisoned through a conspiracy and was martyred, and this accusation is leveled against Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه. Although Mirza Sahib has stated this lie in many of his videos, under this topic, we will present only one of his videos, which is the most detailed video on this subject available on YouTube under the name:
Imam HASSAN ka QATIL kon ??? Reply to YAZEEDIs & NASBIs
Argument presented by Mirza Sahib:
The evidence that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه was happy over the death of Sayyiduna Hasan رضي الله عنه is this weak narration from Sunan Abu Dawood that you mention:
عَنْ خَالِدٍ، قَالَ: وَفَدَ الْمِقْدَامُ بْنُ مَعْدِ كَرِبَ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ، وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أَسَدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ قِنَّسْرِينَ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ لِلْمِقْدَامِ أَعَلِمْتَ أَنَّ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ تُوُفِّيَ، فَرَجَّعَ الْمِقْدَامُ فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ أَتَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً؟ قَالَ لَهُ: وَلِمَ لَا أَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً وَقَدْ وَضَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي حِجْرِهِ فَقَالَ: هَذَا مِنِّي وَحُسَيْنٌ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ، فَقَالَ الْأَسَدِيُّ: جَمْرَةٌ أَطْفَأَهَا اللّٰهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ الْمِقْدَامُ: أَمَّا أَنَا فَلَا أَبْرَحُ الْيَوْمَ حَتَّى أُغَيِّظَكَ وَأُسْمِعَكَ مَا تَكْرَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: يَا مُعَاوِيَةُ إِنْ أَنَا صَدَقْتُ، فَصَدِّقْنِي وَإِنْ أَنَا كَذَبْتُ، فَكَذِّبْنِي، قَالَ: أَفْعَلُ، قَالَ: فَأَنْشُدُكَ بِاللّٰهِ هَلْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْ لُبْسِ الذَّهَبِ؟ قَالَ نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَأَنْشُدُكَ بِاللّٰهِ هَلْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْ لُبْسِ الْحَرِيرِ؟ قَالَ نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَأَنْشُدُكَ بِاللّٰهِ هَلْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْ لُبْسِ جُلُودِ السِّبَاعِ وَالرُّكُوبِ عَلَيْهَا؟ قَالَ نَعَمْ، قَالَ: فَوَاللّٰهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ هَذَا كُلَّهُ فِي بَيْتِكَ يَا مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ: قَدْ عَلِمْتُ أَنِّي لَنْ أَنْجُوَ مِنْكَ يَا مِقْدَامُ، قَالَ خَالِدٌ: فَأَمَرَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ بِمَا لَمْ يَأْمُرْ لِصَاحِبَيْهِ وَفَرَضَ لِابْنِهِ فِي الْمِائَتَيْنِ، فَفَرَّقَهَا الْمِقْدَامُ فِي أَصْحَابِهِ قَالَ: وَلَمْ يُعْطِ الْأَسَدِيُّ أَحَدًا شَيْئًا مِمَّا أَخَذَ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ مُعَاوِيَةُ، فَقَالَ: أَمَّا الْمِقْدَامُ فَرَجُلٌ كَرِيمٌ بَسَطَ يَدَهُ وَأَمَّا الْأَسَدِيُّ فَرَجُلٌ حَسَنُ الْإِمْسَاكِ لِشَيْئِهِ۔
It is narrated from Khalid bin Ma’dan that Hazrat Miqdad bin Ma’dan (may Allah be pleased with him), Amr bin Aswad, and a man from the tribe of Banu Asad who was among the people of Qunaysrin came to Hazrat Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him). Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said to Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him): Do you know that Hasan bin Ali (may Allah be pleased with both of them) has passed away? Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) recited “Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un” (Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return). Then a man asked him: Do you consider this a calamity? He said: How can I not consider it a calamity when I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) holding him in his lap and saying: This (Hasan) is from me and Husayn is from Ali! The Asadi man (who had come with Hazrat Miqdad) said: He was a burning ember which Allah Almighty extinguished. Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Today I will anger you and say things that you will dislike. Then he said: O Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)! If I speak the truth, confirm it, and if I speak falsely, refute it. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: (Alright) I will do so. Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I swear by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade wearing gold? He said: Yes! Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) then said: I swear by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade wearing silk? He said: Yes! Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I swear by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade wearing the skins of wild animals and riding on them? He replied: Yes! Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), by Allah! I have seen all this in your house! Upon this, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him)! I knew that I would never be able to escape you. Khalid bin Ma’dan narrated that then Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered so much wealth for Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) that it was more than what was given to his other two companions, and the share of his son was fixed among two hundred people. Accordingly, Hazrat Miqdad (may Allah be pleased with him) distributed it among his companions, but the Asadi man did not give any of what he received to anyone. When this matter reached Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: Miqdad is a generous man who keeps his hand open, and the Asadi is one who guards his possessions well.
Where is it stated that Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was happy at the death of Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him)? Or any indication that Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) had any conspiracy behind his death? All this is just your own words; otherwise, there is nothing like this in it. Moreover, this narration is weak; it has been declared weak by Sheikh Shoaib Al-Arna’oot and Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Amanpuri Sahib, which is fundamentally correct! And the explanation of those, like Allama Albani and Zubair Sahiban, who have declared it authentic, is coming ahead, InshaAllah!
This narration is weak due to the deceit of Baqiyah bin Walid!
Mirza Sahib has stated this principle countless times that a narration with ‘an’ from a mudallis without explicit indication of sama’ is weak and not established; rather, such narrations are considered fabricated narrations. He says it is an established principle that a narration with ‘an’ from a mudallis is weak, and there is consensus among the muhaddithin on this. It is to be noted that in its chain there is a narrator named “Baqiyah bin Walid” who is a mudallis, and the muhaddithin have declared his tadlis as the worst kind of tadlis. Here, the narration is being transmitted with the phrase ‘an’.
The chain of this narration is as follows:
حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْحِمْصِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ عَنْ بَحِيرٍ عَنْ خَالِدٍ۔ Imam Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says about Baqiyah:
وكان كثير التدليس عن الضعفاء والمجهولين وصفه الائمة بذلك۔
“He used to practice tadlis much more than weak and unknown narrators; the noble imams have described this characteristic of his.”
Therefore, since this is a medallas and the narration is in the form of ‘an’, the narration is weak. However, Mirza Sahib has made every effort to establish this narration and in this video has claimed that the rest depends on the specification of the narration of sama’ from his teacher “Bahir”. That is, although it is medallas, when narrated from Bahir, even if it is stated in the form of ‘an’, the narration is still correct. But in this entire video, the engineer has not presented a single argument for this, the details of which follow. Therefore, according to the principle stated by the engineer himself, this narration of Abu Dawood is weak.
For the specification of sama’, he used to explain the method of Musnad Ahmad as follows:
حَدَّثَنَا حَيْوَةُ بْنُ شُرَيْحٍ حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ [حَدَّثَنَا بَحِيرُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ] عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ قَالَ وَفَدَ الْمِقْدَامُ بْنُ مَعْدِي كَرِبَ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ لِلْمِقْدَامِ أَعَلِمْتَ أَنَّ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ تُوُفِّيَ؟ فَرَجَّعَ الْمِقْدَامُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ أَتَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً؟ فَقَالَ: وَلِمَ لَا أَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً وَقَدْ وَضَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي حِجْرِهِ وَقَالَ: ”هَذَا مِنِّي وَحُسَيْنٌ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ“۔
Khalid bin Ma’dan narrates that Hazrat Muqadam bin Ma’dan رضي الله عنه and Amr bin Aswad came to Hazrat Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه. Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه said to Hazrat Muqadam رضي الله عنه: Do you know that Hasan bin Ali رضي الله عنهما has passed away? Hazrat Muqadam رضي الله عنه recited “Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un.” Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه asked him: Do you consider this a calamity? He said: How can I not consider it a calamity when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم used to hold him in his lap and said: This (Hasan) is from me and Husain is from Ali.
It is said that Baqiyah has explicitly stated the hearing from Bahir in this! But it should be noted that this method is also weak. Before going into detail, let us clarify here Mirza Sahib’s cunning and duplicity that whenever Mirza Sahib quotes any narration from Musnad Ahmad, he always cites Allama Shoaib Al-Arna’oot’s authentication that he declared it authentic or good. Many examples of this can be seen in Mirza Sahib’s research paper. But why is it that Mirza Sahib never mentioned Sheikh Shoaib’s authentication at this point? The reason is that in the authentication of Musnad Ahmad, he has declared this narration weak. Your words are:
اسناده ضعيف، بقية وهو ابن الوليد مدلس ويسوي، وقد عنعن۔
“Its chain is weak, Baqiyah Ibn Walid is a muddallis, and Tadlis Taswiyah was practiced, and it is being narrated in the form ‘an’.”
However, despite always concealing the truth, Mirza Sahib is a truthful and very just scholar. Thus, at the beginning of this same video, while acting humble, he says: “Alhamdulillah, the way truthfulness is being demonstrated on this platform is perhaps unparalleled, and if you find any example, please do let me know.”
Anyway, here Sheikh Shoaib Al-Arna’oot’s declaring this narration weak is absolutely correct. Although Baqiyah, by saying “hadathana” from his Sheikh, has explicitly stated his hearing, remember Baqiyah was not an ordinary muddallis but practiced Tadlis Taswiyah.
In Tashwiyah, a mudallis does not only omit his own teacher from the chain of narration but also omits a weak narrator between two trustworthy narrators above him, and uses words like “qala” or “an” between these two trustworthy narrators. Therefore, the narration of such a mudallis is only acceptable if he explicitly states that he heard from his teacher, and also explicitly states that his teacher heard from his teacher, and so on, meaning that the entire chain includes words like “hadathana,” “akhbarana,” and “sami’tu,” etc., so that it can be known that all these narrators actually heard from each other and no weak narrator was omitted in between. If anywhere in the chain words like “an” or “qala” appear, then the narration is fundamentally weak.
Mirza Sahib keeps repeating the deception that the narration with ‘an’ (عن) from the narrator is weak, perhaps he only knows this, whereas this (Tadlees Taswiyah) is even more dangerous, and its conditions are even stricter. And the one most responsible for this deception is considered to be Baqiyyah ibn Walid. Therefore, the narration in Musnad Ahmad with “Bahir from Khalid” is still present, so this chain is also weak.
Before proceeding further, it is important to draw attention to one point: both the narrations from Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad are before you. Consider whether the statements found in Musnad Ahmad are also present in Abu Dawood’s narration? Even if we assume that the narration in Abu Dawood, which is narrated from Baqiyah ‘An, is weak, then the book from which you are citing the specification of the hearing (sama’)—which you claim has an authentic chain—why then is the weak chain narration presented instead of the authentic narration from Musnad Ahmad? Its chain is fundamentally weak. This is because it provides more material for Mirza Sahib to criticize Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). In Musnad Ahmad, such statements do not exist that specify the hearing from Baqiyah. And only that narration can be authentic which does not specify the hearing of the narrator (mudallis), whereas the narration that specifies the hearing is weak. Moreover, the narration without the specification of hearing contains additional statements. So how can this narration be considered authentic?
In any case, our point is that Baqiyah bin Walid was not an ordinary muddler but rather practiced tadlis taswiyah (a specific type of hadith concealment), and for this, it is not sufficient to merely specify that he heard from his teacher. The principle for one who practices tadlis taswiyah is that he uses words like “sama’tu” (I heard), “hadathana” (he narrated to us), or “akhbarana” (he informed us) throughout the entire chain of narration. The following Imams and Muhaddithin have accused Baqiyah bin Walid of tadlis taswiyah and explicitly stated that he would omit any severely weak narrator from any part of the chain:
