روايات اعتراض امام حسين (ع) به صلح امام حسن (ع) در ترازوي نقد

A criticism about the traditions denoting Imam Husayn's protest against Imam Hasan's peace treaty روايات اعترا الإمام الحسين علي صلح الإمام الحسن في ميزان النقد

از حوادث مهم صدر اسلام - كه گاه در غبار تحريف فرو رفته - صلح امام حسن 7 است. يكي از چالش هاي مربوط به اين صلح روايات نسبتاً فراواني است كه از اعتراض امام حسين 7 به اين صلح سخن مي گويند. اين روايات از دو جهت نقدپذير هستند: نخست، نقد بيروني يا سندي و دوم، نقد دروني يا محتوايي. در نقد بيروني، مشخص گرديده كه اسنادِ يك به يك روايات ضعيف هستند. نقد دروني يا محتوايي با دو دسته معيار: 1. درون ديني، 2. برون ديني محقق شده است. در نقدهاي درون ديني - كه مهم ترين معيارهاي نقد در اين پژوهش است - روايات اعتراض، با بهره گيري از: الف) روايات عام معارض، ب) روايات خاص معارض، و در نقد برون ديني با نقدي تاريخي نقد شده اند. بررسي ها حكايت از آن داشت كه امويان با هدف نشان دادن اختلاف ميان رهبران ديني و ايجاد سستي ميان پيروان، به جعل اين روايات روي آوردند.

One of the important events of the early Islam that has been afflicted with distortion is the peace treaty of Imam Hasan (a.s.). A challenge related to this peace treaty is the existence of relatively numerous traditions denoting Imam Husayn's protest against this it. These traditions can be criticized from two aspects: externally or from the aspect of isnads, and internally or from the aspect of content. As for external aspect, the isnads of each and every of these traditions proved to be weak. The internal or the content-oriented criticism was made within two standard categories of confessional and non-confessional (or lit. intra-religious and extra-religious). In confessional criticisms – that constitute the most important criterion of criticism in this research – the traditions of protest have been criticized by taking advantage of a) general contradictory traditions, and b) particular contradictory traditions. In non-confessional criticism, the traditions were criticized by making use of a historical criticism. It is concluded eventually that the Umayyads have fabricated these traditions with the purpose of showing difference between religious leaders and creating frailty and weakness among the followers and adherents.