Ismaili Dictionary & Encyclopedia
Browse our comprehensive collection of words and terms. Use the alphabetical navigation or search to find specific entries.
In an earthen water-pot
Various Sources HaneEncyclopedia TopicCauses great harm, hit, beat
Various Sources HANIF Encyclopedia Topic"The word hanif (pl. hunafa) is derived from hanf, meaning an inclination in the forepart of the foot or inversion of the foot. A person having this distortion of the foot is called ahnaf. The singular word hanif occurs 10 times in the Koran (2:135, 3:67, 95; 4:125, 6:79, 161; 10:105, 16:120,123, 30:30), and the plural hunafa two times (22:31, 98:5). It occurs once as a synonym of muslim (3:67) and also in juxtaposition with the verb aslama (4:125). The exegetes of the Koran say that hanif in the age of ignorance signified an Arab adhering to the religion of Abraham and that title was also claimed by idolaters who only observed certain rites of that religion, such as pilgrimage to Mecca and circumcision. The verb tahannuf means pure exercise of religion in the pagan period.
The word hanif is used in the Koran to describe one who adheres to pristine monotheism. It is a descriptive name in the Koran for Abraham, and for those before Islam who by the purity and uprightness of their nature did not succumb to paganism and polytheism. The hunafa between Abraham and the time of the Prophet were thus the faithful representatives of the Abrahamic tradition during the age of ignorance.
The Koranic prototype of the ideal hanif is Abraham: "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, rather he was a hanif" (3:67). Thus, the hanifiyah was the faith of Abraham. Hanif is therefore one inclining to a right state or tendency. The word is often mentioned in connection not only with the name of Abraham, but the Prophet and his followers are also enjoined to be hanif. It seems to signify firmness in sticking to the right state, and has reference to the inclining to error on the part of both the Jews and the Christians: "Say: Nay (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the hanif (upright), and he was not one of the polytheists" (2:135), "And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely to God? And he is the doer of good and follows the faith of Abraham, the upright (hanif), and God took Abraham as a friend" (4:125), "Surely Abraham was an exemplar, obedient to God, upright (hanif), and he was not of the polytheists" (16:120), and "Say: God has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Abraham, the upright (hanif), and he was not one of the polytheists" (3:95). The Koranic Prophet too, is required to become a hanif by setting his face upright towards the true religion (10:105), and the same demand is also imposed on the rest of the people (22:31, 98:5).
Among the famous seekers of the Abrahamic hanifi religion, who are said to have lived in pre-Islamic Mecca were Waraqa bin Naufal, Ubaidulla bin Jahsh, Uthman bin al-Huwayrith and Zaid bin Amr bin Nufayl, Umayya bin Abi Salt, Quss bin Sa'idah, etc.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HankariEncyclopedia TopicThe one who drives
Various Sources HanoEncyclopedia TopicHit, beat
Various Sources Hans / HansaEncyclopedia TopicSwan, soul, momin
Various Sources Hans purushEncyclopedia TopicLord of the soul
Various Sources Hans ratanEncyclopedia TopicEssence of soul, jewel-like soul, king of pearls
Various Sources Hansa / HansEncyclopedia TopicSoul; necklace, laughter and humour
Various Sources Hansa dhariyunEncyclopedia TopicPossessing superior qualities
Various Sources Hansajina rajaEncyclopedia TopicThe king of the souls
Various Sources Hanse daEncyclopedia TopicOf soul
Various Sources Hanse da rajaEncyclopedia TopicKing of the souls, lord of the souls
Various Sources HansiEncyclopedia TopicLaughter
Various Sources HanslaEncyclopedia TopicSwan, momin
Various Sources HansloEncyclopedia TopicA horse of high breed
Various Sources HaNSLOName1. Horse (mystical) of Tara Rani* during Treta jug*. Was sacrificed and brought back to life during the Ghat Pat ceremony. 2. Also known as Dul dul* Hazart Ali's horse. (sv. Bourakh)
1. Cheval (mystique?) de Tara Rani* au Tréta Joug*. Sacrifié et rendu à la vie lors du Ghat Pat*. 2. Surnom de Doul Doul* le cheval de Hazrat Ali. (V. Bourakh)
Heritage Dictionary of ismailism, entry #229general HanSNINoun2e. catégorie de femme. V. PaDaMSI.
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #947general HanspuriEncyclopedia TopicThe city of the souls, one of the names of the city of Multan
Various Sources HaQAIQNounRéalité spirituelle, pluriel de HaQIQAT*. V. IBARaT, hautes doctrines religieuses appartenant aux prophètes.
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #44general HarEncyclopedia TopicPlough, each one
Various Sources HaraiEncyclopedia TopicLost, wasted, squandered
Various Sources Harakh / HirakhEncyclopedia TopicDeep happiness, bliss, too much happiness, happiness
Various Sources HarakhiyaEncyclopedia TopicBecame happy, became joyous, pleased
Various Sources HaRAM ZADAHNoun(Du persan haram zadeh = bâtard), enfant. Descendance illégitime.
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #640general HaranEncyclopedia TopicDeer
Various Sources HaraniEncyclopedia TopicA collection of three stars by which people used to determine the time of ibadat, deer
Various Sources HARB AL-FIDJAREncyclopedia TopicThe word harb is derived from h-r-b means to fight, and harb al-fijar means a war of transgression. The Prophet took part in the battle at the age of twenty, between the Qoraish and the Qais, which goes under the name of harb al-fijar, so called because it was fought in the sacred months when warfare was forbidden. But his part in it was not that of actual fighting, but only of handing over arrows to his uncles.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HardeEncyclopedia TopicIn the heart
Various Sources HardeoEncyclopedia TopicMischievous
Various Sources HareEncyclopedia TopicWith
Various Sources HareEncyclopedia TopicWill remove, will snatch; removes
Various Sources Harfe harfeEncyclopedia TopicEvery letter, word by word, letter by letter
Various Sources HariEncyclopedia TopicPeasant, farmer
Various Sources Hari lejoEncyclopedia TopicObtain, earn
Various Sources HariyaEncyclopedia TopicLost, green, necklace, verdant, prosperous
Various Sources HaRIYANounVert, humide, frais, mouillé. "HaRIYA BHI HaRIYA aNE SOUKA BHI HaRIYA..."
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #573general HariyalaEncyclopedia TopicVerdant
Various Sources HarkheEncyclopedia TopicWith love, with happiness, happily
Various Sources HaRMaTNoun1. Hanuman*, 2. Femme.
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #284general HaRNINounBiche. "HaRNI DHaWRAWE BAL..." (biche allaite son enfant).
Heritage Dictionary of Ismailism, entry #574general HaroEncyclopedia TopicLeave, waste, lose
Various Sources HarovarEncyclopedia TopicIn all sides, everywhere, brimful
Various Sources HaruadaEncyclopedia TopicVerdant, flourishing, prosperous
Various Sources Has hasEncyclopedia TopicSmiling, while laughing
Various Sources HASADEncyclopedia TopicThe word hasad means envy or jealousy. It occurs four times in the Koran, denoting a human emotion that begrudges others and wishes them ill for what they possess. Its best illustration is in the Koran (113:5): "And from the evil of an envier when he envies" (wa-min sharrin hasidin idha hasada), where the divine protection is sought from "the envy of an envier." This envy is grouped with other kinds of evil, such as the evil of "darkness" (sharr ghasiq) and the evil of those "who blow upon knots" (wa-min sharri l-naffathati fi l-uqad). A polemical context, which provides another instance of the use of the word hasad, is 2:109, where it is mentioned that the People of the Book out of hasad wish to turn the believers back into disbelievers. The verb "to envy" (hasada) is also employed in 4:54 in reference to this same group who "were given a portion of the book", wherein it is asked, "Do they envy people for what God has given to them out of his favour?" (am yahsuduna l-nasa ala ma atahumu llahu min fadlihi). This is a theme especially developed in the life of the Prophet in his relation to the Jews of Medina, whose refusal to convert is portrayed as resulting from envy. In 48:15, those not permitted to accompany the Prophet and his followers when they set out to collect booty present themselves as the targets of envy. The term hasad is not used explicitly in 12:8, which is described how Joseph's brothers resent what they perceive as their father Jacob's preference for Joseph and his brother, the verse nonetheless seems to imply the notion in the brothers' reaction.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HASAN ALA ZIKRIHI'S SALAM (557-561/1162-1166), 23RD IMAMEncyclopedia Topic"Hasan Ali, or Abu'l Hasan, surnamed Zikrihi's Salam (peace be on his mention) was born in Alamut. He is reported to have born in 539/1145, but according to another tradition, he was born in 536/1142. The historians call him Hasan II with a view to count Hasan bin Sabbah as Hasan I in the series of Alamut's rulers, while other make his father, Imam al-Kahir as Hasan I and Hasan II to him in the list of Alamut's Imams.
His other titles were Maliku'r riqab (Lord of the slaves), Maliku'l qulub (Lord of the hearts), Malik as-Salam (Lord of peace), Hasan-i Kabir (Hasan, the great) and Qaim al-Qiyama (Lord of resurrection). Among the Iranian sources, he is widely known as Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam, and in the Syrian sources, he is called Aqa dhikrihi al-Salam. Mustapha Qazwini writes in Tarikh-i Guzida (ed. by Nicholson, Leiden, 1910, p. 523) that, "He was also known as Kura Kiya (Lord of the villages) in Qazwin, a fact which suggests that the people of Qazwin were especially acquainted with him."
We must cast a glance over contemporary period that the Abbasid caliph Mustanjid (d. 566/1170) was ruling in Baghdad at that time. The Seljuq sultan Arslan (d. 571/1176) was reigning in Iran. In Egypt, the last ruler of the Fatimid empire was al-Adid (d. 567/1171). The Muslim rules were submerging in declination, therefore, none among them had a courage to attack on Alamut.
According to Religion, Learning and Science in the Abbasid Period (ed. by Young, Latham and Ser Jeuit, London, 1990, p. 245), "Al-Hasan bin Sabbah's two da'i successors were followed at Alamut by Imam al-Hasan bin Qahir bin Mohtadi bin Hadi bin Nizar."
Ata Malik Juvaini (1126-1283) compiled Tarikh-i Jhangusha in 658/ 1260. He and later historians are responsible to distort the historical fact and produced an incredible image of the Ismaili history and doctrines. Juvaini's work, to quote W. Barthold in Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1928, p. 40), "has not yet been valued at his deserts." Barthold further writes, "Juvaini is not completely master of his materials; in his narrative there are sometimes flagrant contradictions to be found." (Ibid.) According to Historians of the Middle East (London, 1962, p. 136), "Juvaini's sources appear to have been purely oral." Sir John Glubb also writes in The Lost Centuries (London, 1967, p. 271) that, "Juvaini served under Halagu in Persia and was thus perhaps obliged to flatter him." Henry H. Howorth remarks in his History of the Mongols (London, 1876, 1:20-21) that, "His position prevented Juvaini from being anything but a panegyrist of the Mongols, whose conquests he excuses, and whose western campaign he argues was providentially arranged, so that by their means the religion of Islam might be widely disseminated." D'Ohsson was the first European to have examined the work of Juvaini critically, and accused him of extravagant flattery of the Mongols, vide Histoire des Mongols (Amsterdam, 1834, 1:20). In the words of Marshall Hodgson, "Juwayni read records in the Alamut Nizari library after its capture, before ordering its destruction. He wrote an account based on these sources, but altered in form to suit an anti-Nizari taste, and decked with curses." (op. cit., p. 26). It is therefore, difficult to determine any exactitude in the hyperbolic words of Juvaini.
Juvaini emphasized to make Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (Hasan II) as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug, in a doubtful manner. His objective was to connect the lineage of the Imams with Muhammad bin Kiya. Juvaini and the later historians however had to admit that when Imam Hasan II made his appearance before his followers, thronged at Alamut, none opposed or considered him as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. If there had been a little doubt, it is possible that they or a faction must have opposed without taking oath of allegiance, as it is a cornerstone of the Ismaili doctrines that an Imam must be a son of the Imam. No irrelevant person could venture on that occasion to claim for Imamate, and if it was true, it must have been claimed in other region, and not inside the castle, where his life was most possibly fraught in danger.
According to Dabistan al-Mazahib (comp. in 1653, p. 237), "Only the enemies of Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam considered him the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug." Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza writes in Syrian Ismailis at the time of the Crusades (an unpublished dissertation, University of Durham, 1963, p. 191) that, "During his (Hasan II) reign, his enemies spread false rumours that he was not a genuine descendant of Nizar, but these slanders were received by his followers with disgust and dissatisfaction. As for the Imam himself, he paid no attention to such slanders, but continued to send orders to his governors and da'is under his seal and signature which include his family trees, thus ignoring the propaganda of his calumniators."
Juvaini and others, who followed him attempted to equate Imam Hasan II with Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, making them one character, and tried to brush aside the historicity of Hasan II. Juvaini emphasized from beginning to end that Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya had impersonated as an Imam. The undeniable thing in the face of facts however reveals that these two persons, each known as Hasan at one time were two separate persons. Dr. Mustapha Ghaleb in The Ismailis of Syria (Beirut, 1970, pp. 73-74) has appended an important letter of Imam Hasan II, which had been circulated among the Ismailis in 558/1163. This letter itself asserts that both Imam Hasan II and Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya were two separate persons at one time. It reads:- "Our deputy, al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug is our da'i and hujjat. All those who follow our doctrine have to obey him in the religious and civic affairs, and to execute his orders and consider his speeches as ours. We hope that they will not disobey; but be abided by it and act as if it was issued by us."
There had been three hidden Imams (al-a'imma al-masturin) between Imam al-Nizar and Imam Hasan II during the period of dawr-i satr in Alamut, whose historicity had been also stamped in the work of Juvaini. One important Syrian manuscript has been discovered, whose author and date of writing are unknown. The copyist gives his date of writing in 1263/1846. According to Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza, "The only clues that can be obtained are from the literary style and from the biographical works of the Imams. These suggest that the date (of the above Ms.) may be taken as sometimes during the second half of the 14th century A.D." (p.176). On pp. 249-250, the author of this Ms. gives the genealogy of Imam Hasan II as "Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam bin al-Qahir bin al-Mohtadi bin al-Hadi bin al-Nizar." Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza concludes his remarks that, "This is the only available Syrian manuscript which gives the same genealogical tree of the Nizari Imams as the one accepted by the modern Aga Khani Ismailis." (p.176). Muhibb Ali Qunduzi compiled his Irshadu't-talibin di dhikr A'immati'l-Ismailiyya in 930/1523 and asserts that there were three hidden Imams between Hasan II and al-Nizar, viz. Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Ghiyasu-din bin Humami'd-din Khondamir (d.941/1534) compiled Habibu's-Siyar (Bombay, 1857, 3: 77) in 935/1528, also admits that there were three generations between Hasan II and al-Nizar, i.e., Hadi, Mohtadi and Qahir. Abu Ishaq Kohistani, who died in the beginning of the 16th century also writes in Haft Bab (tr. by W. Ivanow, Bombay, 1959, p. 23) that, "Mawlana Mustansir was succeeded by Mawlana Nizar, Mawlana Hadi, Mawlana Mohtadi, Mawlana Qahir and Mawlana Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam."
Among the modern scholars, John Norman Hollister writes in The Shia of India (London, 1953, p. 314) that, "Nizarin records are scarce having been largely destroyed in the period of Hasan's grandson, or by Halagu Khan when the fortress of Alamut was taken, but the traditions of the sect indicate that there were three Imams during this period: Hadi, son of Nizar, Mahdi or Mohtadi, and Qahir." According to Margoliouth in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1974, 2:141) that, "Hasan II though supposed to be the son of the governor of Alamut, was in reality the heir of this Nizar." W. Ivanow also states in Ismailitica (Calcutta, 1922, p. 71) that, "The version that Hasan was a lineal descendant of Kiya Buzrug Ummid naturally cannot be of sectarian origin, even should it be true." Neal Robinson writes in Islam
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HASAN ALI (1071-1106/1660-1694), 42ND IMAMEncyclopedia TopicHasan Ali I, also known as Bakir Shah was born in Kahek. He had also gone to the city of Kirman with his father, but returned to Kahek after assuming the Imamate. In 1085/1674, he betrothed to a Safavid lady, and soon afterwards, there is likelihood that the Imam had taken certain interest in the political arena. In 1105/1693, he was made the governor of Kirman.
The cursory glance of the Iranian empire reveals that Shah Abbas II had died in 1077/1666. He was succeeded by Shah Suleman. Henceforward, the Safavid kingdom took a rapid march towards decline. Under weak and ineffective king, the ulema tended to reassert their independence of the political institution, and were at the height of their power. The mujtahids fully reasserted their independence of the Shah, and reclaimed their prerogative to be the representatives of their hidden Imam. The mujtahids moved gradually towards a position of actually controlling the king. Some sources suggest a direct religious rule by means of a concourse of mujtahids above the monarch.
The Russian ambassador also visited Iran to conclude a truce, and as a result, Mazandaran, Jurjan etc. went into the pocket of Russia. The Ottoman sultans in Turkey were also so weak that the whole empire had been isolated in different states. They however marched in Europe, near Vienna, but the Russians were devouring the Turkish territories behind the door.
Imam Hasan Ali directed the Ismaili mission in view of the changing situation of Iran. The names of few Ismaili da'is, viz., Pir Mihrab Beg, Pir Ali Asghar Beg and Pir Ali Akbar Beg are however located, but nothing is known about them. The Turkish word beg in their names however sounds that they would have preached in the Iranian regions inhabited by the Turkomans, or more possibly, had come into the contact of the Kizilbash circle in Iran.
In the flourishing liberty of the Shi'ite mujtahids in Iran, the latent differences came readily to the fore. Two major schools of theological thought emerged in Shi'ite society. The majority stressed constant reference to the first principles, to all the sources (usul) of law: these were the Koran, reports about the Prophet and the Imams. They became known as the Usuli. But a vigorously protesting movement arose, which threw doubt on the validity of reason as an independent basis of law; it stressed the massive use of reports (akhbar) were available from Prophet and the Imams, and they were known as the Akhbari. One of the most important features of this period is the greatly enhanced influence of the religious classes as they freed themselves from political control apart from the internal differences of the Usuli and Akhbari groups. Powerful theologians emerged, of whom a typical example is Muhammad Bakir Majlisi (1037-1110/1628-1699), who held the office of Shaikh al-Islam in 1687, and then as Mulla-bashi (head of the mullas) until his death.
It is a significant point that the Usuli and Akhbari Shi'ite groups jointly made the Sufis as their victims. Under these circumstances, the Ismailis had to change their Sufic mantles to the Shi'ite. It appears that Imam Hasan Ali also followed similar trend in Kirman, and adopted the Shi'ite sounding name, Bakir Shah few years before becoming the governor of Kirman in 1105/1693. It is also said that he had purchased some estates in Baghdad, Basra and Kazamain Sharif. The last will of the Imam, indicating his burial in Najaf also suggests a sort of taqiya in Shi'ite garb.
The Safavid Shah Suleman is reported to have used the fortress of Alamut as a state prison for the rebellious persons from among his courtiers, amirs and relatives. At that time, only a few Ismaili families resided in the lower Caspian region.
Imam Hasan Ali I executed the governorship of Kirman for one year, and died in 1106/1694, and his body had been taken to Najaf for interment.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HASAN ALI SHAH, AGA KHAN I (1233-1298/1817-1881), 46TH IMAMEncyclopedia Topic"Imam Hasan Ali Shah, known as Muhammad Hussain al-Hussaini Mahallati was born in Mahallat in 1219/1804, and assumed the Imamate at the age of 13 years in 1233/1817. His most renowned title was Aga Khan. His name was documented with Bombay Government as His Highness Aga Khan Mahallati. His name however in the Bill of 1830 was written as Pirzada i.e., the son of a saint.
His mother Bibi Sarcar Mata Salamat was the daughter of Pir Mirza Muhammad Bakir. On moving to Yazd, Imam Khalilullah Ali had left his wife and children at Mahallat to live on the proceeds of the family holdings in Mahallat and Kahek. When she found herself insecure in Mahallat, she had gone to Qumm with his son and made necessary arrangement for his elementary schooling, where his tutor was Ali Muhammad Qummi.
The governors of Mahallat and Qumm were inimical to the family of Imam Khalilullah Ali because of the regular thronging of the Indian pilgrims at his residence. According to Ibrat-i Afza, an autobiography of Imam Hasan Ali Shah, "The fortunes of the family were at low ebb when Imam Shah Khalilullah was killed in Yazd." Hence, Bibi Sarcar Mata Salamat came to the court at Tehran with his son to seek justice. Her pleadings were immediately successful. Shah Fateh Ali ordered his governor of Yazd, Haji Muhammad Zaman Khan to arrest Hussain Yazdi and his gang. Not content with this retribution, he also invited Imam Hasan Ali Shah at his palace and gave him due honour. Ahmad Mirza Adud'ud Dawla writes in Tarikh-i Adudi (Tehran, 1908, p. 69) that, "Finally, as conclusive sign of honour, Fateh Ali Shah gave one of his daughters, Sarv-i Jahan Khanum, in marriage to Imam Hasan Ali Shah, allotting 23,000 tumans of wedding expenses." The Imam was also invested the honorific title of Aga Khan in 1234/1818, including the governorship of Mahallat and Qumm.
Imam Hasan Ali Shah led a peaceful life in Mahallat, and enjoyed honour at the Qajarid court until the death of Shah Fateh Ali on 19th Jamada I, 1250/October 23, 1834. Shah Fateh Ali was succeeded by his grandson, Muhammad Shah (1250-1264/1834-1848). The Imam attended the coronation of Muhammad Shah in Tehran on January 31, 1835, where he happened to see Major Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895), vide George Rawlinson's Memoir of Sir Henry C. Rawlinson (London, 1892, p. 52). The new king Muhammad Shah had consulted with his chief minister, Farahani (d. 1251/1835) and appointed the Imam as the governor of Kirman in 1251/1835.
The province of Kirman was then in the hands of the rebellious sons of Shuja al-Saltana, a pretender to the throne, and it was also regularly raided by the Afghans and Baluchis. The Imam diplomatically restored order in Kirman with his own resources. Both Bam and Narmashir held for a long time by the rebellions were also taken back. The Imam sent report of his victories to Tehran, but he obtained no appreciative words due to the rumours that he was extending his influence in southern Iran. The Imam had paid half the expenses incurred in the campaign upon the words of the Prime Minister, Mirza Aqasi that he might recoup himself from the revenues of that province, but the Imam did not touch the revenues and made his claim in the above report. Despite his valuable services, his governorship was short-lived in Kirman.
In 1252/1837, about twenty months after his arrival in Kirman, the Imam was replaced by another governor, Firuz Mirza Nusrat ad-Dawla, and was recalled to Tehran. Trusting on the rumours, Muhammad Shah also took field against the Imam in command of Suhrab Khan. Instead of making an investigation, the king's militant stance had been a surprise to the Imam. It induced the Imam to take arms for defensive purpose. The fortress of Bam near Kirman was then in the hands of the king's artillery men, who had betrayed their chief. The Imam was capable to occupy this fort without difficulty in September, 1937. He refused to withdraw with his forces from the citadel of Bam until the principal cause of the court intrigues followed by his dismissal was not shown to him. The Iranian empire turned a deaf ear to him. Rather, his defensive actions were branded a rebellion. Obviously, the accusations were utterly exaggerated. The Iranian chronicler, Rida Quli Khan Hidayat, for instance in Raudat-us-Safa'i Nasiri (Tehran, 1922, 10:260) has lebelled the actions of the Imam as an act of revolt. An important analyst of the fact will be able to judge how much truth there was in the biographical work, Ibrat-i Afza (Tehran, 1946, p. 20) of the Imam, in which he disclaimed any desire for temporal power and said: "Through the grace of God and the blessing of my immaculate forefathers and ancestors, I am able, from the wide and lofty expanse of darwishhood, to disdain and despise all monarchy." Thus, the Imam was driven to desperate straits and had to take up arms in self-defence. He had however a large and substantial following in Iran. Had he chosen, he could have mustered a big army to shake the Qajarid throne, but he was loath to fight with the king for whom he had a regard.
The Imam's dismissal from the governorship of Kirman is also occasioned by the rivalries for the headship of the Nimatullahi order in Iran. It is said that Muhammad Jafar, known as Majdhub Ali Shah (d. 1239/1823) was succeeded by Zain al-Abidin Shirwani, known as Mast Ali Shah (1196-1253/1782-1837). Once the Imam, during Fateh Ali Shah's rule had given refuge to Mast Ali Shah in the village of Daulatabad, near Mahallat, who had escaped the violent persecution of the Shi'a ulema of Fars. During the coronation of Muhammad Shah, Mast Ali Shah, who had been enjoying the Imam's hospitality at Mahallat, accompanied a certain Ismaili friend to Tehran. Muhammad Shah too, had certain Sufic loyalties, and joined the Nimatullahi order before his coronation. Soon afterwards, Mast Ali Shah came to know Haji Mirza Aqasi, the prime minister, as his powerful rival, who as Nimatullahi aspired to the leadership of the order. It resulted Mast Ali Shah to incur the disfavour of the king, and was driven from the court. Since the Imam had continued to support his friend, Mast Ali Shah, he arose the enmity of Mirza Aqasi, who intrigued against him and caused his removal from the governorship of Kirman.
It is also said that a certain Abdul Muhammad Mahallati had demanded one of the daughters of the Imam in marriage to his son, which was declined. Thus, Abdul Muhammad Mahallati, initially in the service of the Imam, rose to a high position in the service of Mirza Aqasi in Tehran, aroused him against the Imam. Mirza Aqasi, the prime minister was responsible to have stirred up Muhammad Shah, the Qajarid king against the Imam. E.G. Browne in his A Literary History of Persia (London, 1930, 4:147-9) also admits the bone of contention between the Imam and the Iranian king due to the arrogant behaviour instigated by Mirza Aqasi, who being an old tutor of the king wielded more influence over him.
In the meantime, Rida Quli, the grandson of Fateh Ali Shah, had taken refuge with the British in Baghdad, reported alleged details of news to Palmerston through the British resident Col. Taylor, claiming that the Imam had formed an alliance and mutual league with the people of Sistan and the army of Baluchis. This further boosted the rumours of the rebellion of the Imam.
In a letter to Viscount Falkland (1803-1884), the governor of Bombay, the Imam had also disclosed on April 18, 1851 that, "The cause of my having been blamed before was the hot disposition of Haji Mirza Aqasi who had obliged me to leave the Persian court."
It is an undeniable fact that Iran was a thick arena of the bigoted Shi'ite ulema, where an Ismaili Imam hardly rule the country in peace, and as such, the notion that the Imam had revolted for capturing the Qajarid throne seems absolutely irrational.
The animosity of the Qajarids became more and more virulent, therefore, the Imam at once recalled his brother Sardar Abul Hasan Khan from Baluchistan, where he was conducting military campaigns, and his another brother Muhammad Bakir Khan from Rawar. He prepared to resist the royal forces. He was besieged 14 months at Bam, a town in the province of Kirman, about 120 miles south-east of the city of Kirman on the western edge of the great salt desert, Dasht-i Lut. Thus, the Imam was detained to house-arrest in Kirman, and during which time, he continued to see his followers of Badakhshan, Khorasan and India.
Meanwhile, Muhammad Shah returned from his unsuccessful campaign against Herat in 1254/1838, therefore, the Imam was allowed to proceed to Tehran towards the end of 1254/1838. He presented his case before the king with innumerable evidences of his loyalty. T. MacKenzie, the British envoy, however, reported from Kharrak to the Secret Committee that, "The Aga Khan was induced to surrender himself under solemn promises which were shamefully violated by the Persian government, and instead of being restored to his government, he was kept a prisoner at Tehran at the king's camp." Finally, the Imam was made free provided he retired peacefully to his family lands at Mahallat.
Assured of his safety, the Imam however found that he was being socially ostracized by the orders of his implacable enemy, Mirza Aqasi, and had to fight even for food. This fresh provocation embittered the situation. In the meantime, once again the cloud of rumours began to thicken in Tehran that the Imam had built a palace with a huge army to extend his influence in southern Iran. It was exaggerated and ultimately took the shape of a report that the Imam intended to rebel against the Qajarids. The Imam led a tranquil life at Mahallat for about 2 years following his dismissal from the governorship. Early in 1256/1840, Muhammad Shah himself went to Dalijan near Mahallat on the pretence of recreation, to verify the truth of the rumours. At that time the Imam was out of Mahallat for hunting. He however, sent his messenger to Mirza Aqasi, requesting for royal permission to proceed to Mecca for pilgrimage. Permission was granted and a first batch of the Imam's family including his mother and son were sent to Iraq. He himself then moved from Mahallat for ever in Rajab, 1256/September, 1840 with his brothers, nephews, and a number of relatives, dependents and followers.
The Imam reached Yazd after leaving Mahallat. It is reported in Riach's diary of September 25, 1840 that, "Bakhsh Ali Khan from Shiraz came to siege the Aga Khan, but he was defeated by the followers of the Aga Khan. Muhammad Shah, the king who was at that time in Ispahan, also sent two messengers to arrest the Aga Khan. The Aga Khan ordered both hands of one of them to be cut off which was done, the other by entreating mercy was not injured." When the Imam was on the borders of Kirman and Yazd, Bahman Mirza Baha ad-Dawla, the governor of Yazd, and the brother of the king, attacked with the royal force on Imam's caravan, but was defeated in his incursion. Robert Grant Watson writes in History of Persia (London, 1866, p. 333) that, Bahman Mirza had divided his force into three parts and thus gave an opportunity to the Imam to defeat each detachment in detail. Among the first troops of Bahman Mirza, there were many who secretly held the tenets of Ismailis, the rest was that in the action, which ensued, they went over in a body to Imam, and their leader Isfendiar, was killed.
By the end of 1840, the southern Iran had become a bed of hatching rebellions. It was however rumoured that an Iranian prince Suleman Mirza, residing at Baghdad, had arrived in Kirman to assist the Imam. Even Ali Shah, the king's uncle, who was spreading his influence in the mountains of Fars, was also in contact of the Imam. Muhammad Taki Khan, the chief of the Bakhtiyari tribe, and the governor of Khuzistan, also generated close ties with the Imam with a view to help him against the Iranian empire. Meanwhile, Muhammad Shah failed to get his revenue in advance from Muhammad Taki Khan, and accused him of having supplied the Imam with his means and resources; therefore, Ali Naqi Khan replaced him to the governorship. A.H. Layard, on the other hand writes in Early Adventures (London, 1887, p. 322) that, when he was in the mountains, he received news that the British government also supported the Aga Khan. There is no foundation to believe that the Imam had ever acquired aids from the rebellions of the southern Iran, or the British authority to engineer rebellion against the Iranian empire. In December 31, 1841 after resuming his office in Tehran, the British agent McNeill had written to Aberdeen that, "It may be almost unnecessary for me to add that the charges brought against the British government or its agents, of having secretly aided the Aga Khan, are without foundation, and the Persian government must have been deceived by its informants."
In 1257/1841, the Imam defeated the royal forces of 4000 at the command of Isfandiyar Khan, the brother of Fazal Ali Khan near Dashtab. In the interim, Fazal Ali Khan had collected a force of 24000 to compel the Imam to flee from Bam to Rigan on the border of Baluchistan and followed the Imam close upon his heels like a shadow, and blockaded the way to the Bunder Abbas. The Imam found himself between the horns of a dilemma and decided to move to southern Khorasan to Afghanistan. Starting at Rawar, he transversed the arid Dasht-i Lut to Qain. In June, 1841 Muhammad Shah sent Abdullah Khan, the commander of his artillery from Tehran with orders to burn and demolish the towns and villages that were suspected of assisting the Imam. He also sent Khan Ali Khan, the governor of Lar against the campaign. In the meantime, Habibullah Khan, the governor of Yazd also came out to fight with the Imam, with eight guns and a body of troops. Thus, his enemies embosomed the Imam on all sides. In a battle with Khan Ali Khan, he was repulsed, and had to fly to the mountains of Baluchistan. During the night, however, the Imam returned the mountain with reinforcements and surprised the troops of Khan Ali Khan in ambushing upon them at full gallop and turned them back.
Accompanied by his brothers and many soldiers and servants, the Imam proceeded eastward, and after having adventured on a long perilous journey through central Iran, he crossed the borders, and arrived at Lash in Afghanistan in 1257/1841, marking an end of the longer Iranian period of Ismaili Imamate. After facing heavy odds and finding himself out-numbered, the Imam forced his way through the king's army and reached Afghanistan. Naoroji M. Dumasia writes in The Aga Khan and his Ancestors (Bombay, 1939, pp. 27-28) that, "His exile from Persia was a loss to that country, but Persia's loss was the gain of the British Empire, and his comradeship in arms with the British army cemented the ties of friendship.....The part which the Aga Khan played as an ally of the British in that disastrous war was in every way worthy of the heroic deeds of the great martyrs of Islam whose blood flowed in his veins."
About the time that the Imam was having troubles in Iran, the British were deeply involved in Afghanistan, and their efforts were aimed at establishing in Kabul a rule that would be friendly to Britain, and prevent the Russian influence penetrating the borders of India, that would possibly threaten the existence of British empire. The First Anglo-Afghan War, or First Afghan War (1255/1838 to 1258/1842), which is called for heavy sacrifices and untold hardship and suffering, was undertaken partly to counter the Russian advance in Central Asia and partly to place on the throne at Kabul the dethroned ruler, Shah Shuja, in place of Dost Muhammad (1791-1863). Thus, the British occupied Afghanistan on August 7, 1839, and placed Shah Shuja (1780-1842), the amir of Sadozai tribe on the throne of Kabul and Kandhar. Sir William MacNaghten (1839-1891) was designated as the British envoy at the court of Shah Shuja.
Inside Afghanistan, the Imam began to trek from Girishk to Kandhar. On August 6, 1841 the intelligence from Girishk reached Rawlinson, reporting the arrival of the Imam and his horsemen. Rawlinson in turn informed to MacNaghten of the Imam's influence and of his importance as an Iranian refugee in Afghanistan. Henceforward, a close relation developed between the Imam and the British. From Girishk, the Imam reported his arrival to Muhammad Taymur, the Birtish appointed governor of Kandhar, and also to Major Henry Rawlinson. The Imam stayed on as a guest of Muhammad Taymur at Kandhar.
The internal revolts in Kandhar were put down by October, 1841 by Nott, in which Akram Khan, the chief of Durrani tribe was executed, resulting a disaffection among the other tribes, and a very serious outbreak took place at Kabul too in November, which gradually spread to Kandhar. The British position became critical and in the ensuing struggle, the Imam as the ally of the British, was necessarily involved. Rawlinson also made use of the Imam's influence among the Shi'ite group, to bring about the success.
In November, 1841, the eastern Gilzays broke into revolt near Kabul in protest against the reduction of their allowances, and occupied the passes on the road to Jalalabad, plundered and cut off the communications of Kabul, and the condition of the British at Kabul became very critical.
The insurrection spread slowly towards Kandhar. To put down the rising, William Nott (1782-1845) on January 12, 1842 fought with the rebels and defeated them. The Imam also joined Nott and Rawlinson in the skirmish of Killashek with his horsemen. One of the Imam's men was killed and few others were wounded. Rawlinson, in his report mentioned regarding the event of January 12, that, "On this occasion, Agha Khan, having volunteered the services of his hundred men, was present and was engaged in skirmishing with the enemy."
After two months, the rebel group near Kandhar, prepared for a big incursion under the direction of Mirza Ahmad. The British were in a difficult state. On March 7, 1842, Nott resolved to give a severe blow to the rebels. On this occasion, Rawlinson in consultation with Nott formed a Parsiwan troop, with the horsemen of the Imam and other Shi'a chiefs, Nabi Khan and Mirza Ibrahim and placed altogether 300 cavalry under the command of the Imam. Nott with his forces marched out of Kandhar in pursuit of the enemy and some small skirmishes took place on March 9. On the following day, Nott continued his onwards marching. Rawlinson in his report, dating December 20, 1842 to Governor General, also mentioned that the services at that time of the Imam were such consequence, "that the general thought him deserving of special notice in the report that was forwarded to the government on the occasion." As the year 1258/1842 progressed, the state of Afghanistan still remained more critical. In July, Kandhar and Jalalabad were still under the British advanced posts, and the intervening valleys and defiles were in the hands of the Afghans.
Meanwhile, Lord Ellenborough (1841-1844), the Governor-General had arrived in India in succession to Auckland and he decided that the British troops should evacuate Afghanistan. In July, 1842 the Imam too learned the evacuation programme of the British. Nott with his troops retreated via Ghazna, Kabul and Jalalabad, and the remaining troops were to return to India via Quetta and Sukkur. The charge of Kandhar was left in the hands of Safdar Beg.
After the departure of the British forces from Kandhar on August 9, 1842 for Quetta, the Imam stayed on in Kandhar for about six weeks with Sardar Sherdil Khan. Rawlinson who sympathized with him, had advised him to retreat to India. Hence, the Imam reached Quetta on October 5, 1842 and then went to stay with the Khan of Kalat, Mir Shahnawaz Khan for more than a month. Before he left, he had been given a letter of recommendation to Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853) by MacNaghten. By the end of November, the Imam reached Sukkur and met Sir Charles Napier, who had been commissioned a general officer to the supreme civil, political and military control of both upper and lower Sind. In January, 1843, the Imam went with Napier to the British camp at Bhiria and then to Hyderabad with his sixty horsemen. In Hyderabad, he was employed in the British service during the battles of Miami and Dubba.
Sind had a population of little over a million in the time of the Mirs. During the Anglo-Afghan War, the Mirs of upper and lower Sind had allowed the British forces to pass through their territories. In 1840, James Outram was appointed as the British political agent to the Mirs of lower Sind in place of Henry Pottinger. Outram was also made political agent of upper Sind in place of Ross Bell in 1841. Sir Charles Napier held many meetings in December, 1842 and January, 1843 with the Mirs for the negotiations. However, on January 11, 1843, Napier stormed the deserted fortress of Imamgarh. The Baluchi tribes of one of the Mirs were embittered and on February 14, 1843, attacked the British residency in Hyderabad. On February 17, Napier marched with his forces on Hyderabad and defeated the Mirs of Hyderabad, Khairpur and Mirpur in the battle of Miami. The Mirs of upper and lower Sind surrendered except Mir Sher Muhammad of Mirpur. On March 26, 1843, at the battle of Dubba, Napier defeated Sher Muhammad, and the annexation of Sind to the British territories was formally announced on August, 1843. In Sind, the Imam placed his cavalry at the disposal of the British, and tried to convince Nasir Khan, the then Talpur amir of Kalat, to cede Karachi to the British. Nasir Khan refused to cooperate, the Imam disclosed his battle plan to James Outram. As a result, the British camp was saved from a night attack. For his valuable services, the Imam was granted an annual pension from Charles Napier with a title of His Highness.
After the conquest of Sind in 1259/1843, the British attempted to subjugate neighbouring Baluchistan, in which the Imam again helped them militarily and diplomatically. From Jerruk, where the Imam was staying after February, 1843, he contacted the various Baluchi chieftains, advising them to submit to the British rule. He also sent his brother Muhammad Bakir Khan together with a number of his horsemen to help the British against Mir Sher Khan, the Baluchi amir. Soon afterwards, the Imam was given a post in Jerruk to secure the communications between Karachi and Hyderabad. Charles Napier writes in his diary on February 29, 1843 that, "I have sent the Persian Prince Agha Khan to Jherruk, on the right bank of the Indus. His influence is great, and he will with his own followers secure our communication with Karachi. He is the lineal chief of Ismailians, who still exist as a sect and are spread all over the interior of Asia."
On March 23, 1843, the Imam and his horsemen were attacked by the Jam and Jokia Baluchis, who killed his many followers and plundered 23 lacs of rupees worth of Imam's property. Napier, in April and May, 1843, sent warnings to the Jam and Jokia Baluchis, asking to return the plunder and surrender. In May, 1843, Napier ordered his commander at Karachi to attack and recover the property of the Imam, which was done.
Meanwhile, the Imam left Jerruk, and proceeded to Kutchh via the port of Karachi on Ramzan, 1260/October, 1844, which was his first marine trip. Maharao Shri Deshalji, the ruler of Kutchh feted him with due consideration at Mandvi, and took him to Bhuj and gave him a state bungalow for his stay. The Imam then moved to Kathiawar, where Jam Saheb Shri Ranmalji received him in Jamnagar. For a year, thereafter, he traveled through Kathiawar and came to Bombay via Surat and Daman on December 16, 1845 and was well received with the cordial homage of the whole Ismaili population of the city and its neighbourhood.
Soon after his arrival in Bombay, the Iranian government demanded Imam's extradition from India, citing the Anglo-Persian Treaty negotiated between Iran and India on November 25, 1814. The British India was placed on the horns of a dilemma. It could not, on the one hand, risk a breach of the friendly relation established with Iran, and on the other, surrender to his enemies one who regardless of personal losses and risk of life, had stood by the British as a faithful ally in their greatest hour of trial. At length, however, through the intervention of the British envoy, it was agreed that the Imam should be allowed to remain in India provided he stayed at Calcutta from where he could not be a menace to the Iranian government as from Sind.
Thus, the Imam was reluctant to go to Calcutta on April 19, 1847 with his 52 followers. Sir Orfeur Cavenagh (1821-1891) had arranged for a house at Dumdum in Calcutta under the care of Bengal Presidency. He had to stay in Calcutta for 18 months until the death of Muhammad Shah in 1264/1848. He learnt of this after one month, and immediately approached Maddock, that he should be furnished facility to return to Bombay. On December 6, 1848, the Indian Government agreed to send the Imam to Bombay. He quitted Calcutta on December 8, 1848 with his wife and a suite of 40 retainers, in the Peninsular and Oriental Steamer, Lady Mary Wood, which sailed from Calcutta and reached Bombay on December 26, 1848. On September, 1850, the deputy Secretary in the Iranian Department of Bombay personally asked the Imam, who stated that he was willing to stay in Bombay. The members of the India Board also approved it on January 22, 1851.
In India, the Imam retained his close relation with the British empire. On a rare occasion, the Aga Hall was visited by the Duke of Edinburgh, the future king Edward VII (1901-1910), as Prince of Wales, during a state visit to India. The Prince of Wales inspected the Imam's cups won on the Indian turf and his son's trophies of the Indian chase, and talked over some of the events of a life as varied and adventurous as that of the Imam's ancestor. It was an honour, which, with the exception of the leading ruling princes, was accorded to no other nobleman and was acknowledged of his princely birth and the admirable services he had rendered to the British government.
Imam Hasan Ali Shah spent his final years peacefully in Bombay, with seasonal stay in Poona, and sometime in Banglore. While on visits to Banglore, he had formed a friendship with the then ruler of Travancore, and subsequently represented that important state in Bombay. He used to visit the Indian communities all over India. He invariably attended the Jamatkhana every morning at Bombay and lectured on the moral and religious precepts they should follow. He used to recite some passages of the Koran and then explain them in Persian. Next to him would stand Varas Ghulu, who knew Persian and translate the Imam's words into Sindhi.
Apart from his three wives, four sons and six daughters, the Imam also looked after a thousand or more relatives and retainers who had come with him from Iran. His elder son was Aga Ali Shah succeeded him. The second son was Aga Jhangi Shah (d. 1314/1896), whose sons were Zayn al-Abidin Shah, Shamsuddin Shah and Shah Abbas; and Haji Bibi and Shahzadi Begum were his daughters. The third son of the Imam was Aga Jalal Shah (d.1288/1871), who had two sons, viz. Muchul Shah and Kuchuk Shah, and two daughters, Shah Bibi and Malek Taj Begum. Akbar Shah (d. 1322/1905) was the fourth son, whose two sons were Shah Rukh Shah and Furukh Shah.
Imam Hasan Ali Shah died on Tuesday, April 12, 1881 at 9.45 p.m. His son and successor, Aga Ali Shah was in Karachi at that time, who was informed by urgent telegram. In the meantime, the body of Imam Hasan Ali Shah was shifted to the Darkhana Jamatkhana of Bombay on April 13, 1881 at 10.00 a.m. On Sunday, June 5, 1881 the Ismaili leaders held a meeting to decide where to bury the body. Sharif Gangji made an impressive speech in the meeting. Mukhi Ladak Haji offered the plot on the north of Hasanabad, measuring 16000 square yards alongwith a cash of Rs. 5000/- Kamadia Bandali gave Rs. 5000/- and thus, Rs. 25,000/- had been generated in the meeting from different individuals. The Ismailis of Zanzibar and Karachi also remitted huge funds. In sum, with the consent of the leaders and Imam Aga Ali Shah, it was decided to inter the body in Hasanabad, where a splendid mausoleum was erected.
The body of Imam Hasan Ali Shah buried on July 1, 1881. The Ismailis had closed their business and transactions. A grand gathering of over 6000 people assembled at Dharkhana Jamatkhana's premises, including the ambassadors of Turkey and Persia, the leaders of Europe, Parsis, Muslims and Hindus. The coffin was transferred to Hasanabad at 2.00 p.m. when it was raining. The body was buried at 4.00 p.m. A mausoleum alike Taj Mahal was constructed at the cost of three lacs rupees. The Ismaili men and women had worked very hard in its construction, otherwise its cost had exceeded more than it. Rahim Zain al-Abidin had donated its silver doors. Ababhai Narsi donated its golden zumar, and Mukhi Pirbhai Rahim gave zumar for its two minarets, the height of each is 90 feet.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral HASAN BIN ALI BIN ABU TALIBEncyclopedia Topic"Abu Muhammad Hasan, or Hasan, the elder brother of Imam Hussain was born in 3/625 in Medina. He was also brought up with Imam Hussain in the household of the Prophet until the latter's death when Hasan was about 7 years old. It emerges from the extant traditions that the Prophet had a great fondness for his two grand-children. Hasan and Hussain, whom he referred to as the "chief of the youths of paradise." Another tradition relates, "Both Hasan and Hussain are for me the fragrance in the world" (Masnad, 2:85).
Hasan was 37 years old when his father fell at the hands of the assassin at Kufa. Qais bin Sa'd was the first to swear allegiance to Hasan on the day when Ali died, and then it was followed by 40,000 Kufans, acclaiming Hasan as the fifth caliph. Tabari (2:5) writes that the oath of allegiance taken by those present stipulated that, "They should make war on those who were at war with Hasan, and should live in peace with those who were at peace with Hasan." This clearly suggests that the oath sworn by the Kufans was political. Thus, the temporal power that had been with the Prophet, joined with the caliphate of Ali about 24 years, 8 months and 28 days after the death of the Prophet. When Ali died, the same powers, though remained with the Ahl al-Bayt, were separated once again. The temporal authority had gone to the hands of Hasan, and the spiritual authority was inherited by Hussain and in his Hussainid progeny.
Hasan's acclamation as caliph was a great cause of alarm to Muawiya, who had been working for the office since the death of Uthman. He dispatched his agents and spies to arouse the people against Hasan in Yamen, Hijaz, Iran and Iraq. He also began preparations for war and summoned all the commanders of his forces in Syria, Palestine and Trans-Jordan to join him. Not longer after, the Syrian leaders marched against Hasan with an army of 60,000 men. Muawiya's purpose of this prompt action was twofold. Firstly, by demonstration of arms and strength, he intended to force Hasan to come to terms; and secondly, if that course of action failed, he would attack the Kufan forces before they had time to consolidate their position. It was for the first reason that Muawiya moved towards Iraq at a very slow pace, while sending letter after letter to Hasan, asking him not to fight but come to terms. If Hasan was defeated, this would give Muawiya only power and authority; but if Hasan abdicated, this would provide Muawiya with a legal base and legitimize his authority as well.
Hasan left Kufa with his forces and reached Madain, where he pitched his camp in the outskirts of the city. Qais bin Sa'd and his vanguard had already reached Maskin, facing Muawiya's army. The Syrian governor tried to bribe Qais by offering him a million dhirams if he would defect from the ranks of Hasan and join him. Yaqubi (2:214) writes that Qais rejected the offer, saying: "You want to deceive me in my religion." Muawiya then made a similar offer to Ubaidullah bin Abbas, who accepted it and went over to him with 8000 soldiers. Qais was thus left only 4000 soldiers, waiting at Maskin for the arrival of Hasan.
While Hasan himself faced a serious situation at Madain. Some of his troops hatched rebellion against him, plundered his tent, and fell upon him. Different versions of this rebellion are given in the sources. According to Yaqubi (2:115), "As soon as Hasan reached Madain, Muawiya sent Mughira bin Shuba, Abdullah bin Amir and Abdur Rahman bin Umm al-Hakama to Hasan as his mediators. After they talked to Hasan privately, and while leaving his camp, they spread the news that Hasan had agreed to relinquish the power in favour of Muawiya, whereupon Hasan's soldiers fell upon him and plundered his tent." Yaqubi also records that Muawiya sent his men to Hasan's camp to spread the news that Qais had made peace with Muawiya at Maskin and had come over to his side, while simultaneously he spread the rumours in the army of Qais at Maskin that Hasan had made peace with Muawiya. In this case, again, Muawiya's machinations are responsible for the mutiny in Hasan's army. Another reason of rebellion is given by Dinawari (d. 276/889) in his Kitab al-Akhbar at-Tiwal (Cairo, 1960, p. 216) that when Hasan left Kufa, he reached Sabat, in the outskirts of Madain, and discerned that some of his troops were showing fickleness, lack of purpose and withdrawn attitude to the war. Hasan therefore halted at Sabat for a while, and made a following speech:-
"O people, I do not entertain any feeling of rancour against a Muslim. I am as much an overseer over yourselves as I am over my own self. Now, I am considering a plan; do not oppose me in it. Reconciliation, disliked by some of you, is better than the split that some of you prefer, especially when I see that most of you are shrinking from the war and are hesitant to fight. I do not, therefore, consider it wise to impose upon you something which you do not like."
When his people heard the above speech, they silently looked at each other, reflecting their suspicions. Dinawari continues to write that those among them who were of Kharijite persuasion said: "Hasan has become infidel as had become his father before him." They suddenly rushed upon him, pulled the carpet from under his feet, and tore his clothes from his shoulder. Hasan called for help from among his faithful followers from the tribes of Rabia and Hamadan, who rushed to his assistance and pushed the assailants away from him. The disheartened and shaken Hasan found it dangerous to stay in the army camp. He rode away with his trusted men towards the White Castle of Madain, the residence of his governor, Sa'd bin Masud. He was however wounded on his way by Jarrah bin Sinan Asadi with a dagger. Hasan, bleeding profusely, was carried to the White Castle, where he was cared for by his governor.
Qais at Maskin was facing Muawiya's army and waiting for Hasan's arrival. When he heard of the attack on Hasan, Qais thought it wise to engage his soldiers in battle with the Syrians, so that they should not have a chance to brood over the situation, and become more demoralized. Thus, an encounter between the two armies took place, resulting some losses on both sides. According to Ibn Atham (d. 314/926) in Kitab al-Futuh (4:156), the envoys of Muawiya then came forward in the battlefield and addressed Qais, saying: "For what cause are you now fighting with us and killing yourself? We have received unquestionable word that your leader has been deserted by his people and has been stabbed with a dagger and is on the verge of death. You should therefore refrain from fighting until you get the exact information about the situation." Hence, Qais was forced to stop fighting and had to wait for the official news about the incident from Hasan himself. But by this time, his soldiers began defecting to Muawiya in large number. When Qais noticed this large scale desertion, he wrote to Hasan about the gravity of the situation. When Hasan received the letter from Qais, he lost his heart, and immediately summoned the Iraqi leaders and nobles and addressed them, according to Ibn Atham (4:157) in dejection and disgust as under:-
"O people of Iraq, what should I do with your people who are with me? Here is the letter of Qais bin Sa'd, informing me that even the nobles from among you have gone over to Muawiya. By God, what shocking and abominable behaviour on your part! You were the people who forced my father to accept arbitration at Siffin; and when the arbitration to which he yielded (because of your demand), you turned against him. And when he called upon you to fight Muawiya once again, then you showed your slackness and lassitude. After the death of my father, you yourself came to me and paid me homage out of your own desire and wish. I accepted your homage and came out against Muawiya; only God knows how much I meant to do. Now you are behaving in the same manner as before. O people of Iraq, it would be enough for me from you if you would not defame me in my religion, because now I am going to hand over this affair to Muawiya."
Soon after his plausible speech, Hasan sent word to Muawiya, informing him of his readiness to abdicate the rule. When the news reached to Qais officially, he told to his soldiers that, "Now you must choose between the two, either to fight without a leader or to pay homage to the misled." They replied that, "Paying homage is easier for us than bloodshed." Hence Qais withdrew from the field along with those who were still with him, and left Maskin for Kufa.
Hasan sent Abdullah bin Nawfal bin Harith to Muawiya at Maskin for the terms. Hearing this, Muawiya took a blank sheet of paper, affixed his signature and seal, and said to Abdullah to take it to Hasan and ask him to write on it whatever he wanted. Ibn Atham (4:159) writes that when the blank sheet had been presented to Hasan, he called his secretary, and asked him to write: "These are the terms on which Hasan bin Ali bin Abu Talib is making peace with Muawiya bin Abu Sufian, and handing over to him the state or government of Amir al-Mominin Ali:- 1) that Muawiya should rule according to the Book of God, the Sunnah of the Prophet, and the conduct of the righteous caliphs. 2) that Muawiya will not appoint or nominate anyone to the caliphate after him, but the choice will be left to the shura of the Muslims. 3) that the people will be left in peace wherever they are in the land of God. 4) that the companions and followers of Ali, their lives, properties, their women, and their children, will be guaranteed safe conduct and peace. 5) that no harm or dangerous act, secretly or openly, will be done to Hasan bin Ali, his brother Hussain, or to anyone from the family of the Prophet." This agreement is witnessed by Abdullah bin Nawfal, Umar bin Abu Salama and so and so.
The agreement having been concluded, Hasan returned to Kufa where Qais joined him. Soon afterwards, Muawiya entered the city with full force of his army. He held a general assembly, and different groups of people, one after the other, paid him homage. The speech of Hasan in Kufa delivered at the insistence of Amr bin al-A'as and Muawiya is worth noting. Abul Faraj quotes the speech in his Maqatil (p. 72) which reads: "The caliph (khalifa) is one who dedicates himself to the way of God and the Sunnah of His Prophet, and not the one who is an oppressor and aggressor; the latter is only a king (malik) who rules a kingdom (mulk), whose enjoyment is little, and whose pleasure is short-lived, leaving behind only a trace of it. I do not know if this is a trial for you and a grant of livelihood to you for a period." It is interesting to note that if this quotation is historically correct, it might be the origin of the use of the word mulk (king) instead of khalifa (caliph) for Muawiya and his successors, used by the historians from the earliest times. There are however numerous instances, where Muawiya is recorded as saying, in reference to himself, "I am the first king of Islam." (Bidaya wa'n Nihaya by Ibn Kathir, Cairo, 1939, 8:135). Thus, Muawiya grabbed the power and founded the Umayyad rule in Syria. He lived on a scale of royal splendour comparable only to the pomp and pageantry of the Byzantine emperors.
The extant sources specify the causes of Hasan's renunciation as love for peace, distaste for politics and its dissensions, and the desire to avoid widespread bloodshed among the Muslims. He relinquished the power in 41/661 after ruling for 6 months and 3 days, and the year of his abdication became known as the "Year of the Community" (am al-jama'a). Tabari (2:199) quotes a tradition to this effect, attributed to the Prophet, who is reported as saying: "This son of mine is a lord (syed) and he will unite two branches of the Muslims."
Hasan had certainly prevented a bloody military solution of the conflict by abdicating in favour of Muawiya. His abdication had far-reaching consequences for the later development of Shi'ism. Now the wheel turned on reverse side, as the Uthmaniya branch, with Muawiya its head, became the central body, while the Shiat-i Ali was reduced to the role of a small opposition party.
Hasan, after his abdication in 41/661 retired to Medina and led a quiet life. His attitude could be understood from the fact that during his journey back to Medina, at Qadisiya, according to Baladhuri (d. 279/892) in Ansab al-Ashraf (Cairo, 1955, 4:138), he received a letter from Muawiya, asking him to take part in a campaign against a Khariji revolt which had just erupted. Hasan replied that he had given up fighting in order to restore peace, and that he would not take part in a campaign at his side.
Muawiya's ambitious plans to perpetuate the caliphate in his own house and nominate his son Yazid as his heir-apparent, were not so possible, because of the terms on which Hasan had abdicated to Muawiya. To carry out his plan, Muawiya had to remove Hasan from the scene. The sources admit that the cause of Hasan's death was poison administered by one of his wives, Juda bint al-Ash'ath. Muawiya is reported to have suborned her with the promise of a large sum of money and of marrying her to his son Yazid. After she had completed the task, Muawiya paid her the promised sum of money but refused to marry her to Yazid, saying that he would also value the life of his son. Thus, the death of Hasan took place in 49/669 at the early age of 46 years.
Encyclopaedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddingeneral