The allegation regarding the treaty between Muʿāwiyah (RA) and Ḥasan (RA) has been widely discussed in Islamic history. One of the main conditions of the treaty was that Muʿāwiyah (RA) would not appoint a successor to the caliphate after his death; rather, the matter would be determined by the shūrā (consultation) of the Muslim Ummah. However, Muʿāwiyah (RA) appointed his son Yazid as his successor, which many consider a violation of this condition.
The mainstream Sunni scholars’ view on this issue can be summarized as follows: Most scholars regard it as an ijtihādī mistake (an erroneous decision), taken to avoid fitnah (chaos and disorder). Although it was not fully correct from a Sharīʿah perspective, it remains obligatory to respect Muʿāwiyah (RA) as a companion, and cursing or reviling him for this mistake is prohibited (haram).
Below is a table summarizing the opinions of major scholars (compiled from reliable sources):
The Main Condition of the Treaty and Its Violation
The treaty between Ḥasan (RA) and Muʿāwiyah (RA) in 41 AH (known as the “Year of Unity” or ‘ʿĀmul Jamāʿah’) included one of its main conditions as follows:
“After Muʿāwiyah (RA), the responsibility of the caliphate will pass to Ḥasan (RA). If Ḥasan is no longer alive, it will not go to any specific individual; rather, it will be determined through a shūrā (consultative council).”
(Sources: Al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya, Vol. 8, p. 79; Fatḥ al-Bārī, Vol. 13, p. 65; Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami (RA))
When Muʿāwiyah (RA) appointed his son Yazid as his successor before his death, this condition was apparently violated, because the succession was carried out hereditarily rather than through shūrā.
Sunni Scholars’ Perspective: Why and How?
Sunni scholars, when analyzing this event, focus on three main aspects:
a. Ijtihādī Mistake (Error in Judgment)
According to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) and Hafiz Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (RA), Muʿāwiyah (RA) believed that if no strong leader was designated after his death, the Ummah might again fall into a catastrophic civil war like Ṣiffīn.
Reasoning: He prioritized “unity of the Ummah” and loyalty of the Syrian army over Yazid’s personal competence. He intended to preserve peace, even though the method technically violated the treaty.
Historians and Sunni scholars cite this from various sources:
- Ibn Khaldun (Muqaddimah) notes that Muʿāwiyah (RA) appointed Yazid to prevent division in the Ummah and maintain allegiance under a single leader.
- Al-Khatīb and other scholars mention that, although shūrā would have been ideal, the fear of civil strife made the hereditary appointment a pragmatic necessity.
- Al-Suyūtī (Tārīkh al-Khulafāʾ) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (who was influenced by Shīʿa sources) criticized Muʿāwiyah (RA) for appointing Yazid, arguing it violated the treaty and opened the door to potential corruption. Al-Suyūtī does critique some of Yazid’s actions but still respects Muʿāwiyah (RA).
- Ibn Kathīr (Al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya) acknowledges the violation but considers Muʿāwiyah’s intention—to preserve unity—acceptable. Abu Hanīfa (RA) and other scholars emphasize the respect due to the Sahabah. Details of the treaty and its violation are also found in al-Ṭabarī.
b. Monarchy vs. Caliphate
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (RA) mentions in his book ‘Iẓālat al-Khafa’ that Muʿāwiyah’s (RA) decision effectively ended the era of the Rashidun Caliphate and marked the beginning of malikiyah (monarchy). Sunni scholars agree that it was an ideological deviation, but it does not remove him from Islam.
c. Position of Prominent Sahabah
According to Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā and Ibn Kathīr, many senior Sahabah (e.g., Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAbbās) pledged allegiance to Yazid only to avoid restarting civil war. They understood the breach of the treaty but remained silent for the greater good of the Ummah.
Analysis of Important Books and References
| Book Name | Author / Scholar | Comments / Position |
|---|---|---|
| Al-Bidāya wa’l-Nihāya | Ibn Kathīr | He clearly states that the appointment of Yazid was contrary to the treaty, but Muʿāwiyah (RA) did it for the stability of the Ummah. |
| Awāsim min al-Qawāsim | Imam Ibn al-‘Arabī | He takes Muʿāwiyah’s (RA) side, stating that this was his ijtihād (independent judgment). He considered Yazid the most effective choice given the circumstances of the time. |
| Al-‘Aqīdah at-Tahābiyya | – | Provides a strict warning against criticizing the Sahabah. It emphasizes that it is better to seek forgiveness for one’s mistakes than to dwell on one’s faults. |
Consultation Before Nominating Yazid: Authenticity and References
Before nominating Yazid, Hazrat Muʿāwiyah (RA) followed a lengthy political and consultative process. He did not make the decision hastily.
Nature of the consultations:
He consulted the leaders of Syria, the governor of Kufa, Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah (RA), and the governor of Basra, Ziyād ibn Abīhi. He then traveled to Mecca and spoke with prominent Companions such as ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar (RA), ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA), and others.
References:
- Al-Bidāyah wa’n-Nihāyah (Ibn Kathīr), Vol. 8, pp. 79–81: It is mentioned that he held discussions with leading figures to preserve the unity of the Ummah.
- Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, Vol. 5, p. 301: Details the counsel of Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah (RA).
A key consideration:
Although consultation did take place, the four leading Companions of Madinah—al-Ḥusayn (RA), Ibn al-Zubayr (RA), Ibn ʿUmar (RA), and Ibn ʿAbbās (RA)—did not agree with the decision. They criticized it as resembling a “Caesarian” or Roman-style monarchy.
According to Sunni Thought: Does Breaking a Treaty Make One a Hypocrite?
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted, he betrays.”
(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ḥadīth no. 6095)
Scholars unanimously agree that this refers to practical hypocrisy (nifāq ʿamalī), not doctrinal hypocrisy (nifāq iʿtiqādī).
According to Sunni scholarship (based on ḥadīth and fiqh), breaking a covenant or promise is a sign of hypocrisy, but it does not necessarily constitute disbelief or doctrinal hypocrisy. It can be of two types:
- Practical hypocrisy (nifāq ʿamalī):
Breaking a promise is sinful, but if it was not deliberate or if one repents, it is not disbelief. It is a sign of moral failing, not apostasy. - Doctrinal hypocrisy (nifāq iʿtiqādī):
If breaking a covenant stems from rejecting the fundamentals of Islam and concealing disbelief in the heart, then it is disbelief. Ordinary breaches of agreements do not fall into this category.
The distinction:
A doctrinal hypocrite hides disbelief in the heart while outwardly professing Islam (and is eternally condemned). Practical hypocrisy—such as breaking a promise—is a major sin, but it does not expel a person from Islam nor render them a disbeliever.
Sunni scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Imām al-Nawawī state that breaking a covenant does not automatically make one a hypocrite; it depends on intention and circumstance. If it was done due to political realities and for what was believed to be the welfare of the Ummah, then it is considered an ijtihādī error.
Did Breaking the Treaty Make Muʿāwiyah (RA) a Hypocrite or a Disbeliever?
According to the Sunni creed, Muʿāwiyah (RA) was an honored Companion and a believer. He cannot be labeled a hypocrite for the following reasons:
Status of Companionship:
The Qur’an and Sunnah contain numerous attestations to the faith of the Companions. Muʿāwiyah (RA) was a scribe of revelation. The Prophet ﷺ would not knowingly entrust the sacred duty of writing revelation to a hypocrite.
Ijtihād-based explanation:
Sunni scholars hold that Muʿāwiyah (RA) did not break the treaty with Ḥasan (RA) out of contempt or deliberate betrayal. Rather, he believed that preventing civil war and bloodshed in the Ummah was more urgent than strictly adhering to the agreement. In other words, he prioritized what he perceived as the greater public interest over a specific commitment. This may have been a mistake, but it was not treachery or hypocrisy.
The position of ʿAlī and Ḥasan (RA):
Ḥasan (RA) himself pledged allegiance to Muʿāwiyah (RA). Had Muʿāwiyah been a hypocrite, the grandson of the Messenger ﷺ would never have relinquished authority to him.
Summary: Sunni Position
- Acknowledgment of Treaty Violation: Most Sunni scholars agree that Yazid’s appointment contravened the terms of the treaty (such as selecting the Caliph through Shura). This move leaned toward monarchy, which does not fully align with Islamic ideals.
- Rationale: Muʿāwiyah (RA) did this to prevent fitna (civil strife), as division could have increased after his death. He consulted the Sahabah (like Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas), and many gave allegiance to Yazid. His intention was the welfare of the Ummah, even if it was not strictly correct from a Shariah perspective.
- Preserving Respect: While the historical mistake is acknowledged, cursing or criticizing Muʿāwiyah (RA) is prohibited. This was his ijtihād (independent judgment), which could be rewarded, since the intention was to protect the unity of the Ummah.
- Differences of Opinion: Some Sunni sources (e.g., al-Mahajja) suggest that Muʿāwiyah adhered to most conditions of the treaty and maintained good relations with Hasan and Husayn (RA), but avoided direct criticism regarding Yazid’s appointment.
These views are drawn from Islamic historical sources (Tabari, Ibn Asir). Remaining silent during periods of fitna is preferable, as Imam Malik (RA) stated. May Allah forgive all the Sahabah. Ameen.
What Should Be Our Position?
The Sunni stance can be summarized in three points:
- Acknowledgment: Yazid’s appointment was a deviation from the terms of the treaty with Hasan (RA). This is a historical fact.
- Intention: Muʿāwiyah (RA) intended to prevent bloodshed among the Ummah. He valued ending chaos over consolidating power.
- Respect: His status as a Sahabi remains intact. We may critique his decision, but cursing or insulting him contradicts our creed.
A famous statement by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) is noteworthy here:
“Do not speak about what happened among the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Their judgment is with Allah. Occupy yourself with your own deeds.”
May Allah grant us the ability to follow the correct path. Ameen.