Question: It has been alleged that either Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or his son Yazid was involved in the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). It is claimed that one of them persuaded one of Sayyiduna Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) wives to administer poison to him. What is the truth of this claim?
Answer: Any claim of a historical nature must be substantiated with proof. An accusation made without providing proof is slanderous, and should accordingly be dismissed as such.
But even the mere presentation of evidence is not sufficient to prove the claim. There is one very important condition that has to be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant not only to provide evidence for his claim, but also to authenticate his evidence. For as long as he fails to prove its authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation.
This is a general rule which applies to all historical claims, and not only those to do with alleged misdeeds of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhu). Let us look, for example, at the issue of the “satanic verses” which was so maliciously taken advantage of by the notorious Salman Rushdie (Shaitaan Khabees). Mr. Rushdie Khabees did not suck the incident out of his thumb; he found it in historical books. However, what he failed to do was to authenticate. Why? The reason is obvious. He had his own (satanic) agenda and his own pre-conceived notions.
Thus when someone accuses Sayyidunah Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or anybody else of poisoning Sayyiduna Ḥasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and does not care to examine the authenticity of the evidence for his accusation for no reason other than the fact that he dislikes Sayyidunah Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he is no less guilty than Salman Rushdie Khabees and his satanic ilk. Let not your enmity for a person become your only motivation for finding him guilty.
And do not ever let enmity for a people carry you away into injustice. Be just; that is closer to piety. And fear Allah. Verily Allah is aware of what you do. (al-Ma’idah: 8)
It is authentically narrated that when Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his brother, Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) came to him and asked him: “Brother, tell me who is the one who poisoned you.” Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “Why? That you may kill him?” Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Yes,” to which Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) responded: “I will not tell you anything. If it is the one I think it is, then Allah’s revenge is harsher. And if it is nothe, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of me.” [al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41]
This authentic narration shows that even Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was not exactly sure of the identity of the poisoner. Over and above that, herefuses to tell his own brother who he suspects. It is strange that Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself displayed such great caution in the matter, fearing that he might be accusing an innocent person, but that people today can blurt out, without the blink of an eye, that “Mu’awiyah poisoned Hasan”.
The greatest concern Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had was the preservation of the ummah’s unity. It was on account of this concern that he made peace with Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in 41 A.H. It was also this outstanding accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in the well known hadith:
This son of mine is a Sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile two great masses of Muslims.
He had this concern of not causing strife in the ummah, right up to the time of his demise. It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in the room of Sayyidah ‘Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anha), but he instructed Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) not to resort to violence in the event Banu Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to bury him with his mother in Jannah al-Baqi’. Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was prepared to sacrifice the things nearest and dearest to him in order to preserve the peace and unity of the ummah.
Therefore, if it was Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) whom he suspected of having him poisoned he would rather have been expected to tell Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) something like “I fear that you will cause civil war if you try to revenge yourself upon the one I suspect”. In the fact that he does not allude to the prospect of disunity and sedition at all, but rather expresses fear at an innocent person being killed on account of him, we therefore have reason to see that the one whom Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) suspected of poisoning him was not Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah.
Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) lived for ten more years after the passing of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). In all that time the valiant and fearless Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) was alive, and so was his brother, Muḥammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (rahimahullah), his cousins ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far and ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma), and numerous other members of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, not a single one of them ever confronted Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) on the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). In fact, they maintained cordial relations with him, especially Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu). They never uttered a word about Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) alleged involvement in the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), neither in public nor to their closest followers. This gives us so much more reason to dismiss the allegation against Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as unfounded.
Now let us look at the material in the books of history on the basis of which the allegation is made. The only report in which Mu‘awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is implicated in the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) is narrated by the historian, Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi. This report appears as follows: [Al-Waqidi] says:
I heard some people saying that Mu’awiyah secretly made one of his servants administer poison to him. [Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251]
As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the universally recognised untrustworthiness of al-Waqidi. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several paragraphs, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam al-Shafi’i (rahmatullah alayh), who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Al-Shafi’i (rahmatullah alayh) has the following to say:
In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi. [Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p.194]
The second defect is much more glaring. Note that al-Waqidi does not mention the names of his informants, and that he merely says “I heard some people say”. This particular report comes after a number of other reports in which al-Waqidi clearly mentions the names of his informants. When he comes to this one, he merely says “I heard some people say”. Is it on the basis of such flimsy evidence that people today are bold enough to level an accusation of murder? Indeed, this smacks of a total disregard for academic integrity for the sake of nothing but personal sentiments and prejudice.
There is another report in which the wife of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), namely Ja’dah bint al-Ash’ath, is implicated in his murder by poisoning. This report has it that it was Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah who set her up to do it, promising to marry her thereafter. This report is narrated by Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi. It is reproduced by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal as follows:
Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi narrates on the authority of Ibn Ju’dubah that Ja’dah, the daughter of Ash’ath ibn Qays, was the wife of Hasan ibn ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). A message was sent to her in secret by Yazid, telling her: “Poison Hasan and I will be your husband.” So she did it. When Hasan died she sent a message to Yazid asking him to fulfil his pledge. But he told her: “By Allah, we did not approve of you as Hasan’s wife. Shall we approve of you as our own wife?” [ibid. vol. 6 p. 253]
This is the way the report is found in the history books. To the uncritical reader who has no knowledge of the criteria of authenticity and their application, it might well appear to be acceptable evidence. To the one whose emotions have already caused him to be favourably disposed towards Sayyiduna Hasan, and unfavourably disposed towards Yazid, it is nothing less than incontrovertible evidence. But the true scholar never lets emotion make his decision for him. He first weighs the evidence, examines it and scrutinises it, and only if it merits approval and acceptance will he accept it. To the discerning scholar, emotions are shaped by evidence and not evidence by emotions.
Now we return to the report under discussion. Ibn Ju’dubah, who is Muhammad ibn Salam’s source for this report, is properly known as Yazid ibn ‘Iyad ibn Ju’dubah. He lived in Madinah during the time of Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh). Imam Malik’s student, ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, once asked his opinion about a person called Ibn Sam’an. The Imam replied: “He is a liar.” Ibn al-Qasim then asked: “And Ibn Ju’dubah?” Imam Malik replied: “An even bigger liar, an even bigger liar.” [ibid. vol. 32 p. 223]
All other rijal critics who ever expressed themselves on his status as a narrator have concurred with Imam Malik in some way or the other.
Furthermore, Ibn Ju’dubah died in the days of the ‘Abbasid Khalifah, al-Mahdi, whose reign came to an end in 169 A.H. If we assume that he died in 165 A.H, and that he lived a life of 70 years, we could say he was born in about 95 A.H. In other words, by the time of his birth, almost a half a century had passed after the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). The “Yazid-Ja’dah plot” therefore either came to his knowledge through sources whom he refrains to mention, or it was the product of his own mendacious and fertile imagination.
In light of what his contemporaries thought of him, Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, for example says of him “I think he used to invent hadith for the people.” [ibid. vol. 32 p. 224]
one is inclined to believe that the whole plot was of his own invention. Looking at the times in which he lived — the early ‘Abbasid period —, we find more reason to believe that the report is a forgery by Ibn Ju’dubah. During the early ‘Abbasid times sentiments were running high against the recently ousted Umayyads, and a person like the notorious Yazid would have been the perfect scapegoat.
To come back now to the alleged involvement of Ja’dah bint Ash’ath: There is one other report which implicates her in the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan, but it does not mention anything about Yazid. [ibid. vol. 6 p. 253]
It is narrated from Umm Musa, who was a bondswoman of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). [Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 543 ] The chain of narration up to Umm Musa is reliable. However, we might pose a question here with regard to Umm Musa herself: Did she identify Ja’dah as the culprit out of knowledge of her guilt, or must her words here be construed as the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of her bereavement?
We do not pose this question out of unnecessary scepticism. There are two things which prompt us to ask it: Firstly, Sayyiduna Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) own reluctance to name the person he suspected. Keep in mind also that he himself merely suspected, and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Ja’dah bint Ash’ath, no man would readily marry her, especially a man of the Ahl al-Bayt. But with Ja’dah we find that after the demise of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) she was married by his father’s cousin Sayyiduna ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), and that she bore him a son, Muhammad, and a daughter, Quraybah. [al-Tabaqah al-Kubra’ vol. 5 p. 241]
From the above discussion we may then draw the following conclusions:
» The report implicating Mu‘awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)is narrated by an extremely unreliable narrator— al-Waqidi— from unnamed people.
» The report implicating Yazid and Ja’dah are narrated by a known liar— Ibn Ju’dubah— who was born almost 50 years after the incident and names no sources at all. His report comes into circulation during the early ‘Abbasid period in which anti-Umayyad sentiments, and more particularly anti-Yazid sentiments, are common.
» The report from Umm Musa which implicates Ja’dah is more likely the emotional outburst of a bereaved woman than an allegation based on factual knowledge.
» Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself refused to disclose the identity of the one he suspected. He restrained his brother Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) from taking any action.
» After the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) the Ahl al-Bayt maintained good relations with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in Damascus.
In light of the above we fully endorse the statement by Ibn Kathir that none of these reports are authentic. [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41]
We hope that this demonstration — of how the words of a bereaved woman, a report by unknown reporters, and a forgery by a known liar came to be regarded as factual history — will bring to light the need of critically examining historical sources before levelling accusations against anybody.
Then who poisoned Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)??
Various parties have been accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), with the most famous being that it was his wife, Ja’dah bint Ash’ath,
instigated either by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), with the promise of marrying her to his son, Yazid, or instigated by her own father Ash’ath ibn Qais, who in turn was instigated by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Despite this view being mentioned in many unverified historical narrations, the accusations against Ja’dah and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) fails to answer the following questions:
a) What benefit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) could ever derive from from the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)? In fact, as long as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) remained alive, there remained no fear of the Iraqis instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) , since it was common knoqledge that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was totally against in-fighting, and for that very reasonhad agreed to hand over the Caliphate. Had hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) been alive at the time when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) decided to elect his son, Yazid, as the next Caliph, there is a great possibility that he would have ensured that none opposed Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), since his life ambition was to keep the unity of the Ummah, and to seal all the doors that could lead to in-fighting.
In attempting to answer this, certain narrations have been concocted to show that in the truce made between Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). It was agreed that after the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), the caliphate would be returned to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) motive in having him assassinated (radhiyallahu anhu) was thus to protect himself from having to fulfil this condition. (Na’udhubillah) The stupidity and absurdness of this ‘made-up motive’ is more than evident, since if such a condition had ever been laid, it would have been common knowledge amongst all the Sahaba and Tabi’een present during that era, and it would surely have found some mention in authentic narrations.
b) Why can no narration be found wherein Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) accuses Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) of having killed his brother? Rather, what can be found is even after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would visit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) atleast once a year, and accepting from him gifts, just as he would do during the lifetime of his brother.
c) The wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah, was herself a princess, being the daughter of Ash’ath bin Qais, chief of the famous and mighty tribe of Kindah, and loyal friend of Hadhrat ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). She had the honour of being in the marriage of the prince of both the worlds, the most handsome man of the time, the grandson and beloved of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a man who every woman desired of that time desired entering into his wedlock. Due to being the wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), she was also blessed to be the daughter-in-law of Hadhrat Fatima Zahra (radhiyallahu anha), and of the close household of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Having acquired all this prestige and honour, what benefit could there now possibly be for her to forfeit all this glory and honour, merely so that she could be married to Yazid, who was absolutely no match whatsoever in front of the leader of the youth of Jannah, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)!.
d) Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or Yazid ever thought of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), they would have never done it through his wife. Would they ever take a chance of having themselves humiliated in front of the entire Ummah, and branded as traitors, knowing full well the wife’s love for her husband, especially a husband like that of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), would surely have her exposed their evil intentions? When no weak-minded man would ever take such a chance, where then could such an unwise plot ever emit from the mind of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), who has been declared as one of the most wise of the Arabs.
e) If the motive behind the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was to clear the path for his son, Yazid, to become Caliph, why then did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) also not make some sort of effort to have the few standing in opposition to Yazid’s election also murdered. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well aware that the only true opposition that Yazid would have to face was that of Hadhrat Hussain and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma). If assassination Hadhrat Hasan was so easy, why did he then not have the same done with these illustrious two as well?
f) Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would yearly present himself, together with his brother, in front of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ever intended having him assassinated, he could have easily ordered that they be ambushed during one of the journey’s and killed. In this way, their would be no fear of a woman ever exposing the men behind the killing, nor any concern of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up for any retaliation.
g) According to one narration, the father of Ja’dah, i.e. Ash’ath ibn Qais, having been bought off by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), instigated his daughter to poison Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). From all the narrations, this one is the most preposterous, since Ash’ath ibn Qais passed away approximately nine years before the demise of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and according to some narrations, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself performed his Janazah Salah.
Due to the above eight factors (a-g) it seems only right that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid and Ja’dah ibn Ash’ath be absolved from having played any role in the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and other subjects now be brought under investigation. The suspects with the greatest motive, who would attain the most benefit throught the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously be none other than the very ones who had been behing all the wars and assassinations thus far, i.e. the Satanist/Persian/Khawarij/Jewish forces operating primarily from Iraq, but whose forces of hypocrites had now spread all over the Muslim world.
Their motive would be obvious, i.e. only with the removal of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) could their hopes of re-ignitong the flames of war ever be realized. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had already made it clear that he was never going to lend support to any Iraqi movement, and as long as he was alive, he would ensure that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) too never inclines towards them.
A narration, with a sound and strong chain, which supports this in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed concern that in his absence he feared that the people of Iraq would easily instigate his brother against the present government and thus re-ignite the flames of war amongst the Ummah.
Another indicating factor towards the involvement of this group is the fact that as soon as the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) spread, letters from parties in Iraq started pouring in, expressing regret over his death, but at the same time instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to join them in opposing the government. An example of this has also previously passed, the gist of which is as follows:
(When the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the people of Kufa, the leaders of Kufa sent their condolences to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) via letters, Ja’dah ibn Hubeira, who would display the most love for the Ahle-bayt, wrote,
Such friends of yours are present here (i.e. in Kufa and Iraq), who are eagerly awaiting your coming, who regard none as your equal! They are well aware that the opinion of your brother, Hasan, was to avoid war, whereas you are a man who shows kindness to friends and severity against the enemy, a man who fights bravely for the Deen of Allah. Thus, if you are desirous of achieving these goals, come over to Kufa immediately, for we have, in your service, handed ourselves over to death!)
As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), no real change in his manner of governing occurred after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), which could in some way have indicated that he was just waiting for the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to carry out some new idea. It was only seven years later, when he felt that his death was fast approaching, that he began considering having Yazid elected as Caliph after him. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away in the 49th year after Hijrah, whilst the issue of having Yazid elected only began in the 56th year after Hijrah, four years before the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).
The crux of this discussion is that the accusation made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid regarding their involvement in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), this accusations have no real basis, and common logic also defies it. In fact, suring the entire era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), not a word was ever mentioned regarding his, or his son’s possible involvement in the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) for the next nine years, continued making his annual visits to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), but not for once did he even raise the issue of the death of his brother.
It was only years later that the evil segments had this absurd claim propagated, and without any verification, the simple-minded believers began repeating it, as though it was a decided truth. As for those against whom there definitely was some form of case, i.e. the liars of Iraq, their mention was hardly ever made in the lists of possible suspects.
As with regards to the women accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah bint Ash’ath, despite famous historians having painted her as the killer, without making any indication whatsoever that this accusation too has never been verified, if one were to merely ponder over her life-history alone, it would be more than sufficient to expose the fact that the accusation laid against her, forget not being proven, was never even mentioned during her lifetime.
A summary of her life, as mentioned in Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, and other sources, show:
1) She was the maternal niece of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).
2) She was married to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), while Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was still alive. She thus had the privilege of remaining in the wedlock of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) for over 9 years, getting separated only due to his death. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was well known for his habit of retaining women in his marriage for only short periods of time, and thereafter divorcing them and accepting others into his wedlock, merely with the intention of allowing more and more woman the opportunity of having some sort of share to be from the family of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Despite this habit, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) kept Ja’dah till the end. Why?
Can it be conceived that a man of such wisdom and foresight remain blinded from the evil hidden within this woman, thereby keeping her back and sending so many other righteous and pious women? Does the love and inclination which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed for this woman not offer any indication towards her nobility, piety, righteousness and sincerity? Has Qur’aan not hinted that the inclination, love and admiration expressed by a pure believing male for his female partner should be considered as a significant sign of the purity of the female herself? [Here the reference is being made to the verse 26 of Surah Nur, Wherein Almighty Allah says: “And pure souls shall surely only be inclined to that which is pure”]
3) After the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ya’qub ibn Talha, the son of Hadhrat Talha ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu, one of the ten who received the glad-tidings of Jannah during his life) extended his hand of marriage towards her. She remained with him in Madinah Munawwarah, till his death, and bore him three children. Ya’qub ibn Talha was a high-ranked Tabi’i, famous for his generosity. Would such a man ever think of marrying a woman who had been accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and thereafter residing with her in the very city in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had passed away?
4) During her stay in Madinah Munawwarah, with her new husband, a time came when the people of Madinah, including her husband, pledge their allegiance to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu). During this time, why did Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) not have her brought to trail? The only reason that comes to mind is that during that time, in Madinah Munawwarah, not a single accusation had been levelled against her by anyone, thus the need of an investigation never arose.
5) After the death of Ya’qub, the eldest son of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) married her, from whom she bore two children. Knowing the close relationship between Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu and the family of Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), could one ever imagine his eldest son marrying a woman accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). The fact that he married her and kept her with him in Shaam clearly shows that during that era, no accusation had been levelled against her, neither in Hijaz, nor in Shaam.
From the above, one can clearly gauge that during the era of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), no accusation had ever been made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), nor againsy Yazid, and neither against Ja’dah, at least not in the lands of Hijaz and Sham. No trail was ever held, no evidence was ever heard, and in fact, no finger was ever pointed at any of these three, regarding having played amy role in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). When this is the case, could one ever now dare lifting the finger of accusation against any of these three individuals, especially after being aware of the strict verdict of the Shariah regarding accusing without any valid proof!
To recogize who these Iraqis/Satanists are and how they created fitnah in a broader scope, please continue reading this article: Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and The Secrets Behind it