and even if he did so on the basis of an interpretation, his interpretation is more corrupt than that of one who reviles ʿAlī. If a person who reviles them on the basis of an interpretation is not blameworthy, then Muʿāwiyah’s followers were not blameworthy either. But if he is blameworthy, then the Shīʿah who reviled all three deserve greater censure than the Nāsibah who reviled ʿAlī alone. In every case, these people are further from the truth.

It is reported in the two Sahih collections that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“Do not revile my Companions. By Him in whose hand is my soul, if one of you were to spend as much gold as Mount Uhud, it would not equal a mudd given by one of them, or even half of one.” (1)

As for his claim, “Muʿāwiyah poisoned al-Hasan,” some people have alleged this, but it has not been established by any legally valid evidence, admissible confession, or report that permits certainty. There is no way to know that; asserting it is to speak without knowledge.

In our own time, we have seen kings and others who were said to have been poisoned and to have died from poisoning (2), yet people disagreed about what happened—even in the very place and fortress where that king died. You find each person relating an account contrary to another’s. One says, “So-and-so poisoned him,” while another says, “No, someone else poisoned him” (3), because such-and-such occurred. Yet the incident took place in your own time, and those who were in his fortress are themselves the ones relating it to you.

As for al-Hasan—may Allah be pleased with him—it has been reported of him (4) that he died from poisoning. This is something that could