Justice Ibn Al-Arabi tackles some of the accusations that have been circulated over a long period of time about Mu’awiyah and his rule. The first of these is the allegation that Mu’awiyah masterminded a plot against Al-Hasan and killed him by poisoning. Ibn Al-Arabi says that this is totally false, for two reasons: the first is that he did not fear anything from Al-Hasan, because the latter relinquished all claims to be the caliph and pledged his loyalty to Mu’awiyah.
Secondly, if it were true, it was done secretly, and no one other than God knows the truth about it. How could such people confirm its being true and done by a particular person at a time long removed from their own time. Moreover, it was a period when no reporter could be trusted without corroboration. There were too many people with vested interests, and there was much chaos. Often people attributed to others what could not be true. Hence, nothing could be accepted unless it can be verified and corroborated on good authority.
On this point Al-Khatib quotes Ibn Taymiyah’s refutation of the allegation of poisoning Al-Hasan: “This has not been confirmed by any admissible evidence or voluntary confession, or by an authoritative report. It is something that cannot be known for certain. Hence, to maintain it is to maintain something that has not been corroborated.” Al-Khatib adds: “In our present times we have often heard of people, Turks and others, who are said to have died by deliberate poisoning. People differ on this even within the same place or the same prison where the death occurs, with some people saying one thing and others saying a different thing.” Ibn Taymiyah adds that Al-Hasan died in Madinah, while Mu’awiyah was in Damascus.
Next Justice Ibn Al-Arabi mentions the objections raised against Mu’awiyah’s choice of his son, Yazeed, to be his successor as caliph, when he was not competent. Al-Khatib discusses this, saying: “If competence means that the chosen successor should attain the standard of Abu Bakr and Umar, combining their virtues, we say that no caliph in Islamic history attained such a standard, not even Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz. But even if we hope for the best and say that such a competent person is chosen, we maintain that he would not benefit by the same environment which existed during their time. On the other hand, if competence means being of good conduct, keen to implement Islamic law, administer justice, serve the community’s interests and fight its enemies, opening horizons for its faith and being kindly to all individuals and groups, then verification and authentication of the reports about Yazeed’s policies and conduct will prove that he was not less than many rulers on whom history heaps much praise.
There are numerous reports on how Mu’awiyah managed to confirm his son as his successor in the face of opposition by senior figures in the Muslim community, including Al-Husain, the grandson of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr and Ibn Abbas. Many provide details that cannot stand to casual, let alone careful examination. Ibn Al-Arabi mentions several of these before condemning them as sheer fabrication. These reports contradict each other in many significant details and attribute to some of the Prophet’s companions what could not be their conduct or their statements. We will overlook these and move to stating Ibn Al-Arabi’s view about Yazeed’s appointment as successor to Mu’awiyah. He says:
“Mu’awiyah did not take up the better choice of leaving the matter of his succession to be settled through consultation, without nominating anyone from his own relatives, let alone his son. Instead he nominated his son and people pledged their loyalty to him, except those who chose not to follow suit. Thus, his appointment became valid because the pledge of loyalty becomes valid even when given by one person, or by two people as some scholars say.
“If it is said that he should have chosen someone who meets the conditions necessary for a person holding the position of ruler, we say that age is not one of these conditions. Moreover, it is not confirmed that Yazeed was too young for the post.
“To the suggestion that justice and knowledge are two of its conditions which were not met by Yazeed, we reply: ‘How do we know that he was neither just nor a man of knowledge? Had he been deprived of these two qualities, the three personalities who advised Mu’awiyah not to go ahead with his plans for Yazeed’s appointment would have mentioned that. However, they preferred to argue against it as an act of imposition. They wanted the choice to be made through consultation.”
Al-Khatib discusses Yazeed’s appointment. He says that among the Quraysh people there were many of Yazeed’s generation who considered themselves possible candidates for the post of caliph. Even Saeed ibn Uthman ibn Affan and others of even lesser standing might have aspired to that. There is no doubt that the choice of caliph through consultation is much better than nominating someone as a ‘crown prince’. Mu’awiyah might have thought that opting for consultation, without nominating a successor, might have led to much division which could erupt into battles that could have affected the entire Muslim community. Mu’awiyah was fully aware that the qualities required for a Caliph were shared out between many such young aspirants, with some having qualities that others did not have. Yazeed, who had some of these qualities, had the advantage of being supported by the military power. Besides, he had wide tribal support.
