Ideas on the Pledge of Allegiance

In his book 'Usul al-Kafi, p. 61, Mohammed b. Ya'qub al-Kulayni, may Allah have mercy on Him, has narrated: "Indeed Al-Hasan stipulated that he should not call Mu'awiya Commander of the faithful (Amir al-muminin)."

In his book Ilal al-Shara p. 81, Mohammed b. Ali b. Babawayh said: "Indeed Al-Hasan stipulated that he should not testify that eh called Mu'awiya the Commander of the faith."

These two reports are cautious of recomgnizing the the correctness of the succesion of Mu'awiya and of the pledge of allegiance to Him. Therefore Al-Hasan handed over goverment to Mu'awiya, not the succesion to authority.

As for the words of al-Daynwary in his book al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, that Al-Hasan pledged allegiance to Mu'awiya for the Imamate, they oppose, first of all, Mu'awiya abilities which we have already mentioned to show the relationship between him and the succession and the competence of the pledge of allegiance over the Muslims. Also these words oppose the declarations of Al-Hasan who refused the succession of Mu'awiya, whether in his previous sermons or in his clear reservations in these two reports.

Concerning the matters of Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya, al-Daywari indicates plain partiality that was inappropriate for such a historian who lived in the third century when there was neither Mu'awiya nor his bribes nor his claims. However, these words resulted from the emotional motive that urged most of our historians. So al-Daynwary said again: "Neither Al-Hasan nor al-Husayn saw evil or misfortune more horrible than usurping the throne unjusty? Again I wonder: are these the criteria of al-Daynwary?

If we want to look for an excuse for those who hastened to mention the pledge of allgiance (to Mu'awiya), we will say that they were affected by the propagation which was still heard. In the history of Islam there is no matter more prominent than transferring authority from the grandson of the prophet to a freed prisoner from the freed prisoners who were known for their near history. For this reason, love controlled those who denied the Peace Treaty to the extent that they elaborated tis annotations and footnotes. So they destorted what happened and forged that which did not happen. They used their imagination to give ideas of the plege of allegiance to Mu'awiya.

Through these fabricated ideas, the Umayyads were able to take the reins of government after the event of peacemaking.

That is because the Peace Treaty was the pillar on which their claims for the worthiness of the claimed succession was based. For this reason the Muslims thought that Umayyads were not worthy of the succession nor was the succession appropriate for them.

Connerning that the Muslims depend on the words of Sufayna the servant of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless Him and his family: "The banu (sons) of al-Zarqa have told lies. Rather they are kings. Mu'awiya is the first of them."

Then the superficial knowledge of our Muslim hostorians of the history of Islam played an important role in this respect. So they regarded this make up story as an actual fact. Very few of them refrained from curiosity in speech. Moreover, some of them exceeded the fact, so they mixed the ideas to the extend that they said that Al-Hasan recognized openly the pledge of allegiance to Mu'awiya. These mixed ideas made some of them go into fabrication and loss that are inappropriate for the manhood of the Muslims person who writes about a grandson of his great Prophet, may Allah bless Him and his family. Besides these mixed ideas endangered historical honesty. Accordingly, some of such a kind of historiains have claimed that Al-Hasan sold the succession to authority for money.

Now, we are in no need to answer the claims of the liars.

If we want to understand the reconciliation which the two parties (ie, Al-Hasan and Mu'awiya) accepted, first we must depend on the meaning of the pledge of allegiance and the meaning of the Imamate as they are, and then we must depend on the reports of the event and the declarations of those who are specialist in the matter.

There are many proofs for his fact, so it leaves no room for doubt.

In the past the people resorted to the sayings of the old historians to understand the past events, namely they resorted to the historians who were contemporary with those events or came after them in a short period of time. This way led the later generations to different ideas and various parties. That happened in Muslim society and religion. That is because the authorities of this history were under the influence of the ideas and the parties which they were unable to avoid during their times. At that time it was difficult for a certain author to avoid, in what he wrote, the emotional effects that took part in forming his literary works and in managing his solcial acts and interests. From here the sorrowful sensible worry appeared in many matters of the Islamic history.

It is an act of truthfulness to say that the story of the pledge of allegiance with which the matter of Al-Hasan was defamed was the result of that influence under which the historians had written their ideas. So they were either partial in writing down this story as a real truth to gain an immediate interest or they were ignorant of the reality. Thus they thought that the declaration of handing over the authority in the text of the Peace Treaty would permit them or help them enlarge the claim of the yielding to the plege of allegiance. However, the historians did not know that the succession, as a Divine office, was not liable to any bargaining or handing over. Also the times could not change it through peacemaking or arbitration.

To understand clearly handing over the authority which has been mentioned in the first item in the Peace Treaty, we must depend on our method to conclude seriousness from the joking of the historians. So we must study this brief explanation through the two parties themselves.

Adopted from the book: "Sulh al-Hasan (a.s.)" by: "Sheykh Radi al-Yasin"