The Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa
“Muawiya would hand over the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa and the revenue of Darab Jerd (Darab Gard, a state in Iran) to Imam Hasan (as) so that he could meet his expenses and pay back his debt and other dues.” { Ibn. Khaldun, ‘Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun’, vol. 2, p. 186; Abdul Qadir Badran, ‘Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq’…Ibn. Asakir, Beirut, vol. 4, p.224; Ibn. Kathir, ‘Al bidayah wal Nihaya’, vol.8, p.15; Hafiz Dhahabi, ‘Tarikh Al Islam’; Dainwari – ‘Al Akhbar al Tiwal, Cairo, Dar Ahya al Kutub, 1960, p.218; Ibn. Khalkan – ‘Wafeeyat al ‘yan’, Qum, Manshurat al Razi, 1364 A.H., vol. 2, p.66; Ibn. Athir – ‘Al Kamil fi al Tarikh’, Beirut, vol. 2, p.446; Husayn Dayar Bakri – ‘Tarikh al Khamis’, vol. 2, p.390; Hafiz Dhahabi, ‘Al A’bar, vol. 1, pp.34-35; Tabari – ‘Tarikh al Tabari’, vol 3, p. 166; Ibn. S’ad – ‘al Tabaqaat al Kubra’, vol. 8,p.76, under publica tion. Dr.Abdus Salaam Tarmanini – ‘Ahdaas al Tarikh al Islami’,vol.1, p.420; Abdul Aziz Salim – ‘Tarikh al Daulatal Arabia,vol .2, p.337 ; Sayuti – ‘Tarikh al Khulafa’, Qum, p. 191.}
Before deciding whether this condition is true or false, it is necessary to study the relevant details.
The historian Tabari, and later Ibn. Athir, writes that Imam Hasan (as) wanted that Muawiya should hand over to him the money available in the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa. Muawiya agreed to this condition. At that time there were fifty lakh (five million) Dirham in that Bait-ul-Maal which (Imam) Hasan bin ‘Ali (as) took to Madina.
Dr. Husayn Muhammad Jafri and Syed Ahmed Shafai Qutbi, challenging this narration of the historian Tabari, writes:
“For two reasons, there seems to be no logical reason for this condition:”
“1. Till the time of the peace agreement, Imam Hasan (as) was the undisputed caliph of Kufa. Therefore, the Bait-ul-Maal was under his custody;”
“2. Hazrat ‘Ali (as) use to distribute all that was in the Bait-ul-Maal at the end of every week. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that within the few months of the caliphate of Imam Hasan (as), despite heavy war expenses and the disorder due to the martyrdom of Hazrat ‘Ali (as), fifty lakh (five million) Dirham would still be available in the Bait-ul-Maal.” {Husayn Muhammad Jafri – ‘The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam’, p.149.}
In a few narrations it is mentioned that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) had demanded that Muawiya should allow him to take as much money from Bait-ul-Maal as he wished so that he could repay the debt and other dues, while some others say that Imam Hasan (as) wanted that Muawiya should hand over the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa to him.
At that time there were said to be seventy lakh (seven million) Dirham in the Bait-ul-Maal of Kufa which Imam Hasan (as) is alleged to have taken with him to Madina. Muawiya had promised to give him an additional sum of ten lakh (one million) Dirham per annum. In “Mukhtasar-al-Jame’ ” it is even alleged that Imam Hasan (as) had sold the caliphate to Muawiya for fifty lakh (five million) Dirham and had taken the commitment that he would pay a similar amount annually to the Imam (as). {Husayn Dayar Bakri – ‘Tarikh al Khamis’, vol. 2, p.390.}
According to the historian Dinawari, Imam Hasan (as) had demanded that, apart from Bait-ul-Maal, the revenue of an Iranian state Darab Jard would be reserved for him a sum of twenty lakh Dirham (two million) would be given to his younger brother Imam Husayn (as) and Bani Hashim would be given preference over Bani Abde Shams. Also, that these conditions had been included in the Peace Agreement. The condition about Darab Jard’s revenue has also been mentioned by other historians. {Ibn. Khaldun, ‘Tarikh Ibn. Khaldun’, vol. 2, p. 186; Abdul Qadir Badran, ‘Tahzib Tarikhe Damishq’…Ibn. Asakir, Beirut, vol. 4, p.224; Ibn. Kathir, ‘Al bidayah wal Nihaya’, vol.8, p.15; Hafiz Dhahabi, ‘Tarikh Al Islam’; Dainwari – ‘Al Akhbar al Tiwal, Cairo, Dar Ahya al Kutub, 1960, p.218; Ibn. Khalkan – ‘Wafeeyat al ‘yan’, Qum, Manshurat al Razi, 1364 A.H., vol. 2, p.66; Ibn. Athir – ‘Al Kamil fi al Tarikh’, Beirut, vol. 2, p.446; Husayn Dayar Bakri – ‘Tarikh al Khamis’, vol. 2, p.390; Hafiz Dhahabi, ‘Al A’bar, vol. 1, pp.34-35; Tabari – ‘Tarikh al Tabari’, vol 3, p. 166; Ibn. S’ad – ‘al Tabaqaat al Kubra’, vol. 8,p.76, under publica tion. Dr.Abdus Salaam Tarmanini – ‘Ahdaas al Tarikh al Islami’,vol.1, p.420; Abdul Aziz Salim – ‘Tarikh al Daulatal Arabia,vol .2, p.337 ; Sayuti – ‘Tarikh al Khulafa’, Qum, p. 191.}
All these narrations have so many inaccurate statements that the researchers doubt whether such a large amount could have been demanded from Muawiya and consider these narrations as weak. Those mentioning such narrations have used the Arabic words “qeel or yaqal” which is a clear indication that these are weak narrations.That is why a large number of historians do not even mention these conditions. Apart from the above, many objections can be raised against these narrations:
(1). Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) was the caliph of Islam. Is it possible that he was so indebted that he needed such a large amount for its repayment while the Bait-ul-Maal of Muslims was under his own control?
(2). In the Bait-ul-Maal, along with booty, there is also the amount of propitiatory offerings and Zakat. Is it possible that Imam Hasan (as), being one of the Ahlul Bayt on whom propitiatory offerings are forbidden, had considered it lawful to use the money from Bait-ul-Maal for his personal expenses? Had he done so, would the other members of the household of the Holy Prophet (saw) not have objected?
(3). It is a hard historical fact that huge sums had been offered to the Imam (as) by Muawiya so that he may abdicate caliphate in favour of Muawiya, but he declined Muawiya’s politics of bribery and faced him boldly. He clearly indicated that if he had the love of wealth and coveted worldly power and authority, Muawiya would never have been able to snatch the same from him.
In the light of these hard facts, there is no doubt that the weak narrations, particularly those that he sold the caliphate in exchange for a certain amount and put the condition that Bani Hashim be given a higher status than Bani Umayyah, are unreliable. The fact is that in the dignified and pious life of the grandson of the Holy Prophet (saws) there is no chance of such behaviour.
In authentic narrations about him it has been stated that twice he had distributed all that he had among the needy. Similarly, in his character and manners there is no indication that he might have aired family status and ignored the principle of equality in the distribution of money from Bait-ul-Maal.
<<<<About Marriage>>>>
According to his grandson, Abdullah ibn Ḥasan a.s, he usually had four wives, the limit allowed by the law.Stories spread out on this subject and have led to the suggestions that he had 70 or 90 wives in his lifetime, along with a harem of 300 concubines. According to Madelung, and as per my studies however, these reports and descriptions are “for the most part vague, lacking in names, concrete specifics and verifiable detail; they appear to defame the Ahele Bait and work in the favour of people who are enmey to Ahele Bait and they appear to be spun out of the reputation of al-Hasan as a mitlaq, now interpreted as a habitual and prodigious divorcer, some clearly with a defamatory intent.” Living in his father’s household, “Ḥasan was in no position to enter into any marriages not arranged or approved by him,” says Madelung. According to Ebn Saa’d (pp. 27–28), whose information seems to be more reliable, however, Hasan had 15 sons and 9 daughters from six wives and three named mahaziya.
Aal-e-Qutub Aal-e-Syed Abdullah Shah Ghazi 