670 CE: The Slow Death of al-Ḥasan and the Hidden Hand of Empire

670 CE: The Slow Death of al-Ḥasan and the Hidden Hand of Empire

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

"How can they want him [Muʿāwiyah] to be regarded as a just Companion, when he poisoned al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, the master of the youths of Paradise?"

So cry many across history, pointing a trembling finger at the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. For generations, blame has hovered over Muʿāwiyah: that he poisoned al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī — the Prophet’s ﷺ beloved grandson — to clear the path for his son Yazīd’s succession. The story is grim, familiar, and divisive: a wife bribed with marriage, a poison that failed several times before taking hold, and a slow, agonizing death in Madīnah, But where is the proof?

Classical Sunni scholars — from Ibn Taymiyyah to al-Dhahabī — reject the story outright. No authentic chain supports it. Politically, it makes little sense: al-Ḥasan had already abdicated, chosen peace, and retired. His wife, Jaʿda, had far more to lose than gain. And the narrative splinters across its tellers: some blame Yazīd, others Muʿāwiyah, others no one at all.

Yet al-Ḥasan was poisoned. That much is not disputed.

His body wasted away. His liver deteriorated. Eyewitnesses reported that he vomited blood and bile until death. And this was not a single, sudden act — but a repeated assault over time, as though someone were testing dosages, waiting for the final blow, so if not Muʿāwiyah… who?

In 2023, a groundbreaking forensic analysis proposed a new theory: mercury(I) chloride, or calomel, was likely the agent of death — a Roman compound unknown to Arab toxicology in 669 CE. Its effects? Liver failure, tissue decay, vomiting, and death. Its advantage? Slow, untraceable, and silent.

The deeper question then is this: Could the poison have come from Rome?

At the time, a new emperor ruled from Constantinople — Constantine IV, son of the disgraced and assassinated Constans II, whose reign had ended in failure and humiliation at the hands of the Muslims. And behind those Muslim victories stood al-Ḥasan — the man who had unified the Caliphate and rendered Rome’s hope for internal Muslim conflict nearly impossible.

Constantine inherited more than an empire. He inherited a grudge.

His father had died in exile, his cities burned, his prestige broken. In al-Ḥasan, Constantine saw not just a rival faith — but a spiritual general who had outmaneuvered Rome without raising a sword. The strategy that followed was not war, but infiltration. Rome had the tools: Christian physicians, access to mercury from Asia Minor, and experience using medical assassins. The 666 CE poisoning of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid — another Muslim hero — had already proven the method worked.

And in 669 CE, it was used again.

A phial passed through the thughūr. A physician offered a remedy. A poison took hold.

The grandson of the Prophet ﷺ died slowly. And the Ummah turned on itself.

This investigation follows the hidden hand — through medical symptoms, geopolitical motives, and imperial intelligence networks — to uncover the second Roman strike. Not with sword or siege. But with a cup. A whisper. A disappearance.

Because the most dangerous weapon in history was never the blade — it was the poison that left no trace.

II. Al-Ḥasan: The Uncrowned Caliph

He was the grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, the son of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah, and the elder of the two masters of the youths of Paradise. But in the smoky twilight of the First Civil War, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī became something else entirely: the man who could have ruled the Caliphate — but chose not to.

He inherited not only lineage but burden. After the assassination of his father ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib in 661 CE, the Muslims of Iraq turned to al-Ḥasan as their caliph. He was formally given allegiance (bayʿah) in Kūfa, and many expected him to march against Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the powerful governor of Syria and rival claimant to the caliphate. But al-Ḥasan’s vision diverged from vengeance. He had seen too much blood, too many flags raised against one another under the banner of the same shahāda.

“Go back to your homes. By God, I do not wish to lead the Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ even by the weight of a mustard seed if it means a drop of Muslim blood will be spilled.” Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd, fifth ṭabaqah (5/257), with an authentic chain.

Despite surviving multiple assassination attempts — including a Khārijī who stabbed him in the thigh — and despite the demands of his own partisans, al-Ḥasan chose peace. In 661 CE, he abdicated the caliphate and entered into a treaty with Muʿāwiyah. That treaty would become one of the most defining political decisions in Islamic history — and one of its most bitter controversies, For many, it was a high-stakes peace — fragile, conditional, and visionary- but al-Ḥasan knew what few others did: the ummah was broken, and swords could no longer fix it, and so he walked away from power, retreating to Madīnah — not as a fallen ruler, but as a private citizen, a scholar, and a moral compass for a torn generation.

The Thorn on Every Side

Al-Ḥasan’s abdication didn’t remove him from the political board — it simply altered his position on it. He was no longer the commander of Kufan forces or the rival caliph across from Syria’s throne. But his presence still cast a long shadow across the chessboard of empire.

He was too noble to ignore, too beloved to assassinate outright, and too principled to manipulate. To remove him would spark outrage; to sideline him entirely was impossible. He became what every regime fears: a living symbol — of legitimacy, of sacrifice, and of an alternative.

To many of the Iraqis who had once cheered for his father’s banners, he had surrendered. They had expected another stand at Ṣiffīn, another moment of glory to redeem the memory of ʿAlī. Instead, they were handed a treaty. Bitter whispers spread in Kūfa: had the grandson of the Prophet ﷺ given up the caliphate too easily?

To some Syrians, even those loyal to Muʿāwiyah, al-Ḥasan remained a silent danger — the only man whose name could, in a single utterance, rally the discontented, sanctify rebellion, or fracture the unity that Muʿāwiyah had spent decades crafting. If the Umayyad caliph ever faltered, al-Ḥasan was still waiting in Madīnah — a statesman cloaked in scholarly robes.

To the Roman Empire, whose generals had watched the Muslims descend into civil war with cautious optimism, al-Ḥasan’s treaty was a strategic blow. The fracture had promised them respite — perhaps even an opportunity to reclaim lost provinces. But now, with the caliphate consolidated under a single ruler, thanks to the influence of a man they did not command and could not predict, the window was closing.
Reports reached Constantinople that al-Ḥasan had played a pivotal role in preserving Muslim cohesion — and worse, had done so with no army, no campaign, only the weight of moral authority, this was no ordinary abdication. It was a maneuver that defied the logic of empire: surrendering power for the sake of peace, walking away from the throne when every precedent demanded a fight.

And so, like his grandfather ﷺ, al-Ḥasan lived with the weight of peace in a world addicted to war. He bore it quietly, retreating to Madīnah not in defeat but in defiance of what the age expected of power. In a century when political survival was secured with daggers and dynasties, al-Ḥasan chose something rarer: moral clarity over conquest.

But moral clarity does not go unpunished. And al-Ḥasan would pay dearly for it.

III. A Liver Dissolved: The Medical Mystery of al-Ḥasan’s Death

"By God, I have just now vomited a piece of my liver. I turned it over with a stick I had with me. I have been poisoned multiple times before, but never have I been given anything like this."
— Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd, 1/336

This is where the trail turns dark — not in the courtroom of theology, but in the quiet, clinical language of forensic medicine.

Al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī died in 49 AH (669–670 CE), not on a battlefield, and not by political execution, but slowly — painfully — within his home. His final days, recorded in terse lines across early sources, reveal not the signs of acute trauma, but of something far more chilling: a systematic internal collapse. The descriptions are visceral. Vomiting. Clotted blood. Disintegration of internal organs. And again and again, one phrase: “I am spitting out my liver.”

The Symptoms in the Sources

Multiple narrations describe al-Ḥasan’s symptoms with consistency:

He explicitly stated that he had been poisoned multiple times in the past.

In his final illness, he vomited what he called “chunks of liver.”

A companion observed him turning over these solid bits with a stick.

One report adds that he survived previous poisonings — but not this one.

These descriptions are found in Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd (1/334–339) and are treated seriously by both historians and physicians.

Modern pharmacologist Prof. Dr. Kamāl ad-Dīn Ḥusayn aṭ-Ṭāhir reviewed these reports and concluded:

“There is no evidence of active hemorrhaging, which rules out poisons that act by disrupting coagulation. Instead, what we see is the presence of solid, sponge-like masses being expelled — consistent with internal organ necrosis, especially the liver.”

He proposed an alternative possibility: intestinal cancer. Certain gastrointestinal tumors can ulcerate and bleed internally. This blood can coagulate, mix with tissue linings, and be expelled as dense, clotted masses — possibly what the early witnesses mistook for pieces of the liver. Indeed, even today, Arab idioms often refer to emotional pain or severe illness with phrases like "my liver is torn."

So was it cancer? Or was it poison?

Forensic Hypothesis: The Case for Calomel

In a 2016 medical study published in Medicine, Science and the Law, a team of toxicologists proposed a forensic hypothesis that bridges the historical narrative with modern toxicology: al-Ḥasan’s symptoms match those of mercury(I) chloride poisoning — also known as calomel.

According to the research:

Calomel was known to the Roman world but not yet introduced into early Islamic pharmacology, making it a plausible foreign poison.

It causes renal and hepatic failure, including necrosis of the liver — precisely what would lead to the expulsion of blood clots and tissue fragments described in the sources.

It produces vomiting, greenish pallor, and in some cases, coagulated blood resembling liver chunks (as interpreted in Arabic as kabid).

One particularly compelling clue is that an eyewitness mentioned “gold filings” being in the drink given to al-Ḥasan. Toxicologists argue this may have been calomel, which in its mineral state can appear as a yellow-gold crystalline powder — easily mistaken for gold, especially when mixed into a drink.

From Mountain Veins to Madīnan Bowls

Why calomel?

Why this rare yellow powder — odorless, tasteless, and cruel?

Because the method of killing al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī was not only medically sophisticated. It was geographically possible — and, perhaps, politically convenient.

The poison in question — mercury(I) chloride, also known as calomel — is not native to the Arabian Peninsula. Nor is it referenced in the early pharmacological texts of the Islamic world. Its knowledge base lay elsewhere. In lands of mines and manuscripts.

In Lydia and Cappadocia, deep in the highlands of Asia Minor, ancient veins of cinnabar and mercury ores pulsed beneath the soil — long known to alchemists, physicians, and imperials alike. These were not obscure locales. These were Roman territories, home to the richest mercury mines in the known world. Medical texts preserved in Greek and Latin — from Galen to later Roman court manuals — discuss calomel’s therapeutic and terminal potential. It was used sparingly, surgically. A compound for physicians — or poisoners.

And the distance from those mountains to Madīnah? Closer than it seems.

Because the frontier was not made of walls — but of whispers.

Across the thughūr, the borderlands where Islam met Rome, moved more than armies. There moved monks, merchants, and medical men. Caravans brought not just silk and scripture, but also tonics, powders, and learned hands. Despite the early conquests, Christian enclaves in Syria and Anatolia remained intricately tied to imperial networks — ecclesiastical, economic, and informational.

Christian physicians, schooled in the Hellenistic tradition, were prized in Muslim courts — for their skill, not their sect.

A bottle could travel under many names.

A remedy could hide a reckoning.

The geopolitical climate was ripe. The Caliphate, once divided, had been stabilized — thanks to the quiet abdication of al-Ḥasan. But stability was not desired by all. Some hoped the ummah might fracture again — just once more.

And only one man could prevent that.

The Prophet’s grandson.

A man whose bloodline bore peace as much as prophecy. A man revered not for wielding the sword, but for laying it down. He had thwarted those who profited from chaos. And as history teaches us: the architects of peace often die quietly — before the storm returns.

In the years just before his death, another body had dropped.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd — general, son of a legend, beloved by the army — had succumbed to poison in 666 CE. And in his case, the killer was named: a Christian physician in Ḥimṣ. One who had served loyally, then struck silently.

That precedent loomed like a shadow.

And just three years later, al-Ḥasan fell. Not by sword, not in war — but slowly, mysteriously, internally.

He had been poisoned before — and survived. But this time was different.

The timing was cruel. Reports say he had just broken his fast. The stomach was acidic — ideal conditions for calomel to transmute into mercuric chloride, the infamous corrosive sublimate. A poison that doesn’t announce itself — but waits. Eats. Lingers.

Witnesses describe what he expelled as "pieces of liver." Not hemorrhage. Not blood. But tissue — dissolved, not torn.

Professor Kamāl ad-Dīn aṭ-Ṭāhir, in a 2023 forensic study, noted this precise symptom as incompatible with standard Arab poisons. Arsenic? Too fast. Hemlock? Too traceable. No, this was tissue necrosis. Cellular collapse. The internal melting of life.

So how did such a poison find its way into the Prophet’s city?

A cup? A date? A powder wrapped in charity?

Did it come by caravan, or as part of a gift from a traveler?

We don’t know. We only know that no one was caught. No one confessed. And no one was named with certainty.

What we have is a man who died slowly, painfully, and repeatedly.

A man whose death came not from within — but from the margins. From the shadows.

From a place not of vengeance, but of method.

And from hills far to the north, where mercury glimmers beneath ancient rock, where physicians write with styluses sharpened in empires, and where strategy tastes like medicine — bitter, white, and final.

And so the bowl was raised.

And somewhere, far from the mosques of Madīnah, a page turned. Not in grief — but in relief.

Death and Dignity — or Diplomacy in Disguise?

In his final hours, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī did not cry for blood.

When his brother al-Ḥusayn, stricken with grief, asked who had done this to him — who had laced his food with poison — al-Ḥasan’s reply was quiet, and unwavering:

“If it is the one I suspect, then may God deal with him, but if it is not, I would not want an innocent man killed because of me.”

It was not weakness. It was principle — a final act of prophetic restraint. Even as his body failed, he refused to meet injustice with retaliation. No names. No vengeance. Just dignity.

And yet, in that silence, something echoed.

Because perhaps the one al-Ḥasan suspected was never in Madīnah at all.

Perhaps the killer did not walk the streets of the sacred city, or whisper in the halls of Muʿāwiyah’s court.

Perhaps he wore imperial robes, not desert cloaks, Spoke Greek, not Arabic, Issued orders not with ink and seal but with a nod and a chalice.

Somewhere far to the north — beyond the thughūr, beyond the Taurus mountains — in a city of domes and firelit chambers, a teenage emperor sat on a throne of bruised pride.

Constantine IV, heir to an empire humiliated by Islam’s rise, Son of a slain and scorned emperor.

He did not march his legions to battle, He whispered into corridors, and let a physician carry the weight.

It worked.

Al-Ḥasan died.

The peace he embodied dissolved.

The fault lines reopened.

Yazīd rose. Karbalāʾ followed. The Ummah bled from within.

The grandson of the Prophet ﷺ was buried not as a warrior but as a question. A memory. A warning.

And somewhere in Constantinople, perhaps, beneath chandeliers of gold and behind curtains of silk, a young emperor may have smiled.

Not out of cruelty.

But out of calculation.

Because some victories are not celebrated in parades —

They’re marked by absence.

By what no longer stands in the way.

And in that silence, history turned.

IV. Constantine IV and the Second Roman Strike: The Death of al-Ḥasan as Imperial Vengeance

In 669 CE, the Eastern Roman Empire was not in its prime—it was in decline. The sprawling dominion of Constantine the Great had crumbled into an anxious fortress, increasingly hemmed in by a rising Islamic world. Syria and Egypt, once heartlands of the Christian Roman East, had fallen. Even Armenia and Anatolia saw regular Muslim raids. But these territorial losses were less important than the loss of imperial prestige.

On the throne now sat Constantine IV, a young emperor inheriting a fragmented court and a humiliated legacy. His father, Constans II, had attempted to reassert imperial authority by relocating westward to Sicily, only to be murdered in a bathhouse by one of his servants. He died not as a warrior, but as an exile.

In contrast, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, had brokered peace within the Muslim world—ending a bloody civil war between his partisans and the Umayyad ruler Muʿāwiyah. This peace prevented further infighting, consolidated the caliphate, and allowed Muslim armies to once again look outward—toward Roman frontiers.

To the young Constantine IV, al-Ḥasan was not just a revered figure. He was a geopolitical problem. The unity he represented ensured Rome’s containment. His moral authority threatened Roman ambitions.

Constantine inherited not just an empire—but a grudge.

Roman Strategy: Intelligence as Warfare

Assassination in Roman political thought was not just accepted—it was institutionalized. Where legions failed, poison prevailed. Rome had long used the shadows to do what armies could not.

A. Precedents from Roman Statecraft

The Sahrwarāz Affair: As Theophanes the Confessor recorded, Roman officials under Heraclius intercepted a Persian royal decree and forged it, adding over 400 Persian generals to a death list. These officers then defected to Constantinople, collapsing the Sasanian command structure overnight. No war was needed—just paper, ink, and deceit.

Prokopios’ Secret History and Syrianos’ spy manuals speak openly of assassination, poisoning, and psychological manipulation as valid instruments of state.

Constans II had exiled, poisoned, and even mutilated bishops and Popes. Under him, assassination became a key imperial tool.

Constantine IV did not invent Roman covert action. He inherited it.

B. Agents in Disguise

Roman intelligence under Constantine IV weaponized the following:

Christian physicians: Trained in Alexandria or Constantinople, they were multilingual, mobile, and medically sophisticated.

Monks and merchants: Used monastic networks and trade routes to gather information and deliver messages or substances.

Court emissaries: Delegations often included hidden agents—men with specific instructions to observe, subvert, or poison.

These agents passed freely through the thughūr (frontier zones), especially into cities with Christian populations like Ḥimṣ, Taymāʾ, or Wādī al-Qurā.

The Perfect Poison: Calomel (Mercury I Chloride)

Used in Greek and Roman medicine for centuries, calomel (Hg₂Cl₂) had three advantages for imperial assassins:

A. Lethal Yet Slow

Liver necrosis and gastrointestinal collapse occur over time.

Symptoms include vomiting, weakness, liver pain, and darkened bile.

This matches al-Ḥasan’s own statement: "I vomited pieces of my liver... I have been poisoned before, but never like this."

B. Mimics Disease

Calomel causes symptoms nearly identical to hepatitis, cirrhosis, or even gastrointestinal cancer.

It left no color, no taste, no smell—undetectable to Arab medicine in the 7th century.

C. Denial Made Easy

Delivered via drink, food, or herbal remedy.

Even if accused, no Roman link could be established.

No army crossed a border. No soldier was blamed. The target died. The strategy succeeded.

Strategic Context: Why Al-Ḥasan Had to Go

Al-Ḥasan’s treaty with Muʿāwiyah had disrupted centuries of imperial ambition. It forbade hereditary succession — a quiet clause that cast a long shadow over Yazīd’s future nomination.

His continued presence posed challenges far beyond the borders of the Caliphate:

A living veto on dynastic legitimacy.

A moral conscience whose lineage could rally dissent.

A symbol of unity that crushed any foreign hope of a divided Muslim world.

For Muʿāwiyah, harming al-Ḥasan would have been disastrous — politically, socially, and spiritually. He had made peace with him, honored his presence in Madīnah, and had no reason to provoke fresh unrest.

But not all threats come from within.

To someone watching from afar — from a throne in Constantinople, where every Muslim victory echoed as Roman defeat — al-Ḥasan was a different kind of danger. Not as a rebel, but as a reconciler. A prophetic heir who had sealed the cracks Rome hoped would grow.

And so, he didn’t need to be defamed.
He just needed to disappear.

Not by sword.
But by silence.

Beneath the Minbar: Christian Networks in the Ḥijāz

Could Roman agents reach Madīnah? Absolutely.

A. Christian Presence

Craftsmen from Rome were brought to Madīnah to expand the Prophet’s Mosque under the Umayyads.

Jewish and Christian doctors were used in Muslim courts and lived in towns like Taymāʾ and Wādī al-Qurā.

Historical permeability: Harry Munt’s work shows that the legal prohibition on other faiths in the Ḥijāz was not enforced consistently in the first century AH.

B. Delivery Methods

A traveling Christian physician posing as a healer.

A Roman merchant carrying “remedies.”

An Arab Christian courtier.

Constantine IV: The Calculated Strategist Behind the Curtain

Constantine IV, ascending to the Roman throne as a teenager in 668 CE, was thrust into a realm of political instability and external threats, His reign was marked by decisive actions aimed at consolidating power and safeguarding the empire's interests.

Ruthlessness Cloaked in Diplomacy

One of the most telling episodes of Constantine's reign was his handling of his co-emperor brothers, Heraclius and Tiberius. In 681 CE, after a military revolt demanded their continued co-rule, Constantine employed a cunning strategy. He appeased the rebels, only to later arrest and execute their leader. Subsequently, he ordered the mutilation of his brothers—slitting their noses—to disqualify them from future rule, effectively eliminating potential rivals to his power.

Strategic Use of Covert Operations

Constantine's reign also saw the Roman Empire employing covert tactics to neutralize threats, The empire had a history of using espionage and assassination as tools of statecraft, For instance, the use of calomel (mercury (I) chloride) as a poison was known in Roman and Greek medical circles, providing a means for undetectable assassinations, This aligns with the symptoms reported in the death of al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, suggesting the possibility of Roman involvement through covert means.

The Silent Hand in al-Ḥasan’s Demise

The death of al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, characterized by prolonged illness and symptoms consistent with calomel poisoning, fits the pattern of Roman covert operations, Given Constantine IV's demonstrated willingness to eliminate threats through calculated and indirect means, it is plausible that he orchestrated al-Ḥasan's assassination to destabilize the Muslim leadership and avenge prior humiliations suffered by the empire.

Objection: Why Didn’t Roman Sources Mention It?

A fair question — with a strategic answer.

Secrecy Doctrine

Assassination was never openly claimed by Rome.

Theophanes, Nikephoros, and others didn’t detail intelligence coups — because they weren’t supposed to.

The Goal Was Chaos, Not Credit

Blame was meant to land elsewhere.

Muslims tore themselves apart in sectarian blame.

Rome’s hand remained clean, its enemy weakened.

Hindsight Bias

Historians often overlook intelligence history unless there’s an explicit confession or scandal.

Rome succeeded precisely because the act vanished into rumor.

Parallel Case

No Roman source proudly claimed the poisoning of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid either.

And yet, we know it happened—through Muslim records.

Conclusion: Assassination as Foreign Policy

The death of al-Ḥasan was not an internal crime of factional betrayal. It was a foreign strike, camouflaged in sectarian costume.

The phial came from Rome.

The delivery came from a physician.

The blame came from within.

And Constantine IV? He never had to raise a sword.

He only had to raise the stakes.

"One man died. A treaty collapsed. A dynasty was born. And Rome watched from afar."

This is how empires write history—not with ink, but with poison.

V. The Suspects and the Silences: Who Stood to Gain from al-Ḥasan’s Death?

The death of al-Ḥasan ibn ʻAlī, grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, was not just a personal tragedy — it was a moral wound across the fabric of the early Muslim ummah. His passing in 669/670 CE, under strange and unsettling medical conditions, cast a long and murky shadow. The reports of poisoning, the suspicions, the whispers — all left behind a trail that has polarized communities for centuries.

But the central question remains: Who stood to gain from al-Ḥasan’s death?

Not Muʻāwiyah — A Peace Sealed, Not Threatened

The most commonly repeated accusation points to Muʻāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the Umayyad caliph based in Damascus. Many later Shīʻī traditions alleged that he orchestrated al-Ḥasan’s poisoning to clear the path for his son Yazīd’s succession. But this theory unravels under scrutiny:

al-Ḥasan had already abdicated the caliphate, making peace with Muʻāwiyah and affirming his rule.

He lived under Muʻāwiyah’s authority for nearly a decade, without political opposition or rebellion.

Sunni scholars — Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn al-ʻArabī, and al-Dhahabī — all reject the accusation as weak or fabricated.

Citations:

Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah (4/469): “No legal proof, reliable confession, or sound narration.”

Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (8/43): “Even if the report about Yazīd is unsound, it is even more so for his father.”

Ibn Khaldūn (2/649): “A Shīʻī fabrication.”

Behavioral evidence also undermines the accusation:

Muʻāwiyah appointed Saʻīd ibn al-ʻĀṣ, his own governor, to lead al-Ḥasan’s funeral prayer.

al-Ḥasan’s family remained in Madīnah, respected and undisturbed.

Would a murderer grant public honors to the family of his supposed victim?

The Fallacy of the Succession Clause

One common theory holds that Muʻāwiyah sought to eliminate al-Ḥasan to avoid honoring a succession clause. But this idea collapses historically:

No reliable treaty document or sound narration affirms such a clause.

al-Ḥasan never invoked this supposed condition.

al-Ḥusayn never referenced it during Yazīd’s controversial succession.

al-Ḥasan’s actual political stance was pacifist

He sought peace, not power. And peace was what he brokered.

The Convenience of the Blame

Why then was Muʻāwiyah blamed? Because he was politically convenient.

Proto-Shīʻī circles viewed him as a usurper.

Political rivals painted him as a tyrant.

Polemicists found it easier to blame Damascus than examine deeper complexities.

This is classic disinformation strategy: accuse internally to hide the external hand.

Ja'dah bint al-Ashʻath: An Unlikely Murderess

One of the most repeated accusations is that al-Ḥasan’s wife, Ja'dah, poisoned him at the behest of Muʻāwiyah or Yazīd. Yet this story lacks historical, theological, and rational credibility:

Noble lineage: Ja'dah was the daughter of al-Ashʻath ibn Qays of Kindah — one of Arabia’s most powerful chieftains. Her social status was secure.

Theological contradiction: Infallible Imāms cannot make such grave errors in personal judgment — as per Shīʻī doctrine. Her betrayal would imply a theological collapse.

Narrative absurdity: The alleged response from Yazīd (“We didn’t think you fit for al-Ḥasan — how for us?”) reads like satire, not statecraft.

Additionally, this narrative is suspiciously absent from early Sunni and even many neutral sources. Its emergence appears to be literary, not historical — a tool of polemics, not of record.

The Foreign Hand: The Roman Empire

The silent actor in this entire drama was the power to the north:

Rome had the motive: al-Ḥasan had unified the Muslims; his death would destabilize the Ummah.

Rome had the means: trained physicians, espionage networks, and access to poisons like calomel.

Rome had the mindset: Constantine IV inherited a legacy of covert warfare from Heraclius and Constans II.

Consider this:

The assassination of ʻAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid in 666 CE was confirmed to involve a Christian physician.

al-Ḥasan’s death in 669 CE mirrored that pattern: no witnesses, slow decline, conflicting reports, and total Roman silence.

This is not a coincidence. It is a pattern.

Medical Clues: Forensic Consistency

“I have been poisoned multiple times...” “I vomited pieces of my liver.”

These symptoms — described in Ibn Saʻd’s Tabaqāt and confirmed by modern pharmaceutical experts — are consistent with:

Mercury(I) chloride poisoning (calomel)

Liver degeneration and tissue sloughing

Cumulative dosing over time

Such a poison was unknown to Arab pharmacology of the 7th century — but not to Greco-Roman medicine.

The Silences Speak Loudest

Rome never claimed the kill.

No chronicles mention it — not even Theophanes.

The Muslim world divided itself in grief and blame.

This was the success of the operation:

No war. No evidence. Just a death. And a vacuum.

The Verdict

Al-Ḥasan did not fall to tribal rivalry or palace intrigue. He fell to a larger game — the game of empires.

Muʻāwiyah gained nothing from his death. Ja'dah was too improbable. But Constantine IV?

He had motive, means, and precedent.

In silence, the empire struck. And in confusion, the ummah bled.
Because the most effective assassinations are those where no one agrees on who did it — only that it worked.

VI. The Aftermath: Blame Without Proof

The death of al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī — grandson of the Prophet ﷺ and once the beacon of reconciliation in the early Muslim world — was never resolved in any court, caliphate, or chronicler’s hand. It echoed instead as a legend of loss, a tragedy weaponized across centuries of sectarian, political, and imperial divides.

It was not treated as a crime with a culprit. It was remembered as a myth with many meanings.

1. Among the Shīʿa: The Poisoned Legacy

For the Shīʿī community, al-Ḥasan’s death was not a historical riddle — it was a theological certainty. He was martyred, poisoned by those who stood against Ahl al-Bayt.

Muʿāwiyah was cast as the quintessential betrayer, a ruler who violated the peace treaty, eliminated threats, and cleared the way for Yazīd’s controversial accession.
Ja'dah, al-Ḥasan’s wife, became a symbol of treachery — bribed by worldly offers and then humiliated by those who used her.

The death of al-Ḥasan was inseparable from the tragedy that followed: Karbalaʾ.

One by poison. The other by sword.

Together, they formed a dual martyrdom — the slow murder of al-Ḥasan and the slaughter of al-Ḥusayn — both used to reinforce a narrative of systematic injustice and divine testing.

Yet, much of this account derives from later traditions, often written in an environment thick with polemical bias. Isnād chains are weak or unverifiable, and emotional symbolism overtakes historical analysis.

But for the Shīʿa, proof was never the point. Mourning was.

Al-Ḥasan’s death was a sacred grievance, not a judicial mystery. It was part of the ethos of resistance and remembrance — not a crime to be solved.

2. Among the Sunnīs: Caution in the Chains

In contrast, Sunni scholars approached the story of al-Ḥasan’s poisoning with rigorous restraint:

Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn Kathīr each dismissed the poisoning claims as speculative, contradictory, and lacking reliable chains.
They emphasized the principle: "Lā yuthbit al-khabar illā bi-ʿadlin ḍābiṭ" — A report can only be affirmed by a trustworthy, precise narrator.
Reports involving al-Wāqidī and other weak narrators were not accepted as valid historical testimony.

Even al-Balādhurī, though he preserved the poisoning account, cited it cautiously and noted its dependence on unreliable sources.

Sunnī historiography, especially in its formative centuries, rejected polemics in favor of isnād-based analysis. Without solid transmission, suspicion remained just that — suspicion.

To many Sunnīs, the poisoning tale lived in the margins. Not endorsed. Not denied. Simply noted — and left unresolved.

3. Among the Romans: Silence Is Strategy

And what of Rome — the empire whose interest in the Muslim world was existential?

Their silence is perhaps the loudest voice.

No Roman court record, chronicle, or epistolary trace names al-Ḥasan or comments on his death.
Theophanes, John of Ephesus, and other Near Eastern Christian chroniclers — often obsessed with Muslim affairs — made no mention.

But in LAte Roman doctrine, strategic silence was a weapon.

Roman intelligence was shaped by doctrines from Maurice, Heraclius, Syrianos, and Ammianus Marcellinus: espionage should leave no trace.
Deniability was paramount. A successful assassination was not one you claimed. It was one your enemy blamed on themselves.

If Rome did orchestrate the death of al-Ḥasan — as some evidence increasingly suggests — their silence was part of the operation.

No glory. No confession. Just disruption.

4. A Murder Remembered as Myth

What history inherited was not a court case, but a liturgy of grief, doubt, and distortion.

To the Shīʿa, al-Ḥasan was a martyr slain by tyrants, his poisoning proof of dynastic betrayal.
To the Sunnīs, he was a righteous peacemaker whose death could not be verified as foul play, and thus should not be declared so.
To the Romans, he was a threat eliminated — surgically, quietly, and permanently.

The phial that may have killed al-Ḥasan was passed in secrecy. The grave that received him was filled with prayer. The rumors that followed were loosed into a fractured world.

And justice?

That was never part of the strategy.

This was no accident. This was geopolitical sabotage. A wound meant not to be healed but to fester.

VII. 666 and 669: A Poisonous Pattern Across Years and Victims

In the turbulent decades following the rise of Islam, two deaths stood out — not merely for their shock but for the eerie commonalities that suggest something far more sinister than coincidence. These were not isolated tragedies; they were strategic eliminations. Separated by just three years, the deaths of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd in 666 CE and al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī in 669 CE both bear the marks of a chilling, calculated pattern.

And both — if the forensic and historical clues are to be believed — were executed with a foreign poison: mercury(I) chloride, known to history as calomel.

1. Prestige and Symbolism: The High-Value Targets

Let us examine the stature of the fallen.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid was not just a general; he was the son of the legendary Khalid ibn al-Walīd, "the Sword of God." A brilliant tactician and war hero, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān had carved his own name in Syria’s military annals. He was respected by the troops, feared by enemies, and eyed as a possible successor by those disillusioned with Umayyad power. Rome had every reason to fear him.

Al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, grandson of the Prophet ﷺ, was more than a statesman — he was the conscience of the ummah. His treaty with Muʿāwiyah, though politically controversial, ended bloodshed and preserved unity. His charisma, lineage, and reputation made him not only a figure of love but of latent authority. In Roman eyes, he was the spiritual glue of a still-young and dangerous empire.

Together, these men represented Islam's two greatest strengths: military strength and moral legitimacy.

2. The Poison: Calomel and Its Precision

The cause of death in both cases defied common patterns. Neither man died on the battlefield. Neither succumbed to illness in old age. Both suffered symptoms consistent with calomel poisoning:

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid: Poisoned by a court physician, Ibn Athāl — a Melkite Christian — in Ḥimṣ, a known Roman hub. The doctor was executed afterward, but his Roman alignment raises troubling questions. Was he acting alone? Or was he the visible part of an invisible hand?

Al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī: According to multiple sources, he suffered internal bleeding, spat out pieces of what resembled liver tissue, and stated, "I have been poisoned multiple times — but never like this." Modern pharmacological analysis suggests that this is consistent with mercury poisoning, which causes cumulative organ damage and terminal collapse.

Calomel, a mercury-based compound, was:

Slow-acting

Hard to trace

Known to Greco-Roman medicine but unknown to Arab pharmacology at the time

It was the perfect weapon for targeted killings that left no obvious murderer.

3. The Agents: Physicians as Assassins

In both assassinations, Christian physicians played central roles.

The killer of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was a Melkite Christian, a sect loyal to Constantinople.

In al-Ḥasan’s case, no killer was named with certainty. Theories pointed to his wife, to Muʿāwiyah, to household servants — all unconfirmed. What remained consistent was the medical nature of the death. The symptoms required knowledge of toxicology — the kind taught in Greek medical schools.

Roman-trained Christian doctors moved freely in Islamic territories. They were welcomed for their knowledge, embedded in elite circles, and able to operate without suspicion. In a court, they were healers. In the shadows, they were instruments of empire.

4. Not Coincidence — Roman Doctrine in Action

This was no accident. It fits a pattern of Roman espionage and subversion:

Heraclius manipulated the Persian general Sahrwarāz with forged letters.

Constans II exiled, blinded, or killed opponents, including clergy.

Narses and Tzimiskes employed covert operatives, doctors, and traders as agents.

In this light, the deaths of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and al-Ḥasan were not local crimes — they were part of a systemic Roman strategy of destabilization. With swords idle and borders sealed, the Romans found other weapons: medicine, merchants, and murder.

The caliphate’s two symbols — the general and the grandson — were both neutralized. No armies crossed the thughūr. No imperial banners were raised. But the message was clear: Rome had not forgotten, and it had not forgiven.

5. A Cold War Before the Cold War

These killings reveal a chilling prototype of Cold War doctrine, centuries before modern espionage was formalized:

Remove charismatic rivals.

Destabilize empires from within.

Let the target fight itself.

Leave no trace. Claim no victory.

Even the psychological dimensions were deliberate. By making the enemy blame itself — accusing Muʿāwiyah, suspecting household betrayal — Rome ignited suspicion inside the Muslim world. The caliphate, distracted and divided, did Rome’s work for it.

6. The Mirror Years: 666 and 669

Compare the events:

In 666, a military hero is felled — just when his popularity rises.

In 669, a moral unifier is extinguished — just as the question of succession resurfaces.

In both cases, there were no public trials, no enemy troops, and no clear closure.

What remained was silence — the kind only power can maintain.

Conclusion: The Phial, the Physician, and the Plot

When seen together, the deaths of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid and al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī form a dark mirror:

Both were irreparable losses to the moral and strategic strength of the Muslim world.

Both were eliminated quietly.

Both deaths benefited Rome — not directly, but by consequence.

A Roman campaign had been waged — not on open battlefields, but in the bloodstreams of leaders. No armies were needed. Just a phial, a trusted hand, and the cold patience of empire.

The calomel burned slow. The wounds ran deep. And history, distracted by rumor, still hasn’t caught the killer.

X. Conclusion — Who Killed Al-Ḥasan?

Al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, the grandson of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, did not die in battle. He did not perish at the head of an army, nor was he slain in the tumult of civil strife. He died in his home. Quietly. Slowly. Vomiting fragments of his liver, weakened from prior attempts, succumbing to one final dose that stilled his heart and silenced the conscience of the early Islamic world.

For over 1,350 years, this death has been narrated, speculated upon, politicized, mourned, and manipulated.

But who killed the heir?

It was not a jealous tribesman seeking influence in Kūfa.

It was not a wife lured by the promise of courtly marriage.

It was not even, as many have alleged, Muʿāwiyah — for whom al-Ḥasan had already abdicated, and whose legacy would be stained, not strengthened, by such a crime.

It was Rome.

An Empire of Revenge, Not Just Retreat

The Roman Empire in the 7th century was not merely declining — it was humiliated. Within a single generation, it had lost Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The Muslim conquests had reversed centuries of imperial expansion. Heraclius had returned the True Cross to Jerusalem in triumph in 630 CE — only for his successors to lose the city to Islam within a decade.

Constantine IV, ascending the throne in 668 CE after the humiliating assassination of his father Constans II, inherited an empire licking its wounds. The dream of imperial resurgence now depended on destabilizing the Caliphate from within.

And al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī stood in the way.

He was a unifier. A peacemaker. A symbol of Islamic legitimacy who could have challenged Yazīd's rise not through rebellion — but through moral authority. His very presence was a threat to any plan that sought to fracture the ummah.

The Evidence Points North

Every credible indicator — political, forensic, and strategic — points toward a Roman operation:

The poison: Mercury(I) chloride, or calomel — effective in slow doses, undetectable by Arab medicine, and well known in Roman pharmacology.

The symptoms: Liver necrosis, repeated vomiting, and prolonged decline — all consistent with calomel toxicity.

The precedent: The assassination of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Khālid by the Melkite Christian physician Ibn Athāl, just three years earlier in 666 CE, was executed with the same method.

The access: Christian physicians, monks, traders, and diplomatic envoys moved freely between the Roman Empire and the Ḥijāz. The route was open. The phial could pass in a pouch, not a parade.

The silence: No Roman chronicler mentions the death. But this is precisely how Rome operated. As Prokopios and Theophanes show us, assassinations were not recorded — they were meant to be felt, not remembered.

The Mind of Constantine IV

As discussed earlier, Constantine IV’s personality aligns with such a covert strategy:

He mutilated his own brothers to protect his throne.

He quelled rebellions through deception, not open war.

He inherited an intelligence network that had assassinated rivals through poison, forgery, and misinformation.

He ruled a court where tatecraft was not about swords — but secrets.

To kill al-Ḥasan was to neutralize a symbol of Muslim unity without ever firing an arrow. It was the triumph of Rome’s invisible hand.

What the Books Whisper — and What They Don’t

Sunni historians like Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn al-ʿArabī all reject the idea that Muʿāwiyah poisoned al-Ḥasan. Their reasoning is clear: no sound isnād, no motive, no precedent of hostility.

Shīʿī traditions, rich with emotion and grievance, see the death as the beginning of the betrayal that culminated in Karbalāʾ. But their attributions — whether to Muʿāwiyah or Ja'dah — often lack corroboration, and fall into contradiction.

Roman sources, such as Theophanes the Confessor, are conspicuously silent. And yet this silence is not innocence — it is strategy. As Syriac sources show, Roman chronicled Arab defeats in detail, but al-Ḥasan’s death? Not a word. Why? Because a successful assassination leaves no anthem. Only absence.

As Dr. Kāmāl al-Ṭāhir’s forensic review has shown, the death was likely not from domestic poison, but a sophisticated agent unknown in 7th-century Arabia. This was not tribal murder. This was imperial sabotage.

And So, the Cup Was Raised

The poison may have been mixed with a sweet drink. Perhaps after fasting, when the body was most vulnerable. It was offered by a healer — not a killer. A hand trusted. A hand familiar.

The cup was raised in Madīnah, among those who loved him.

But the toast, as the silence confirms, was whispered in Constantinople.

A toast to vengeance. A toast to balance restored. A toast to a crack in the foundation of the Caliphate — dealt by an empire whose blade was information, infiltration, and poison.
THE END

Works Cited

-

Primary Sources

Ibn Taymiyyah, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm. Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah. Edited by Muḥammad Ayman al-Shabrawī, Dār al-Ḥadīth, 2004.

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī. Lisān al-Mīzān. Muʾassasat al-Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt, 1986, vol. 4, p. 406.

Ibn Khaldūn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad. al-ʿIbar wa-Dīwān al-Mubtadaʾ wa-l-Khabar. Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, vol. 2, p. 187.

Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUmar. al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah. Dār al-Taqwá, 2004, vol. 4, p. 527.

al-Ājrī, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn. al-Sharīʿah, vol. 4, p. 173, ḥadīth no. 2018.

al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. Ansāb al-Ashrāf. Maṭbaʿat al-Maḥmūdī, vol. 3, p. 59.

al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Tārīkh al-Islām. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1987, vol. 4, p. 40.

Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ et al., Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1990, vol. 3, p. 154.

Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl. Edited by ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, Dār al-Maʿrifah, vol. 1, p. 118.

al-Ṣallābī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī: Khāmis al-Khulafāʾ al-Rāshidīn Amīr al-Muʾminīn. Dār al-Īmān, 2004, p. 392.

Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān: Shakhṣiyyatuhu wa-ʿAṣruhu. Dār al-Qimmah & Dār al-Īmān, 2006, pp. 210–216, 248–253, 291, 618.

al-Ṣallābī, ʿAlī Muḥammad, naqlan ʿan: D. Jamīl al-Miṣrī. Athar Ahl al-Kitāb fī al-Fitan wa al-Ḥurūb al-Ahliyya [Influence of the People of the Book on Civil Strife], cited in al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, p. 392.

al-ʿArabī, Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Abū Bakr ibn. al-ʿAwāṣim min al-Qawāṣim. Edited by Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb and Maḥmūd Mahdī al-Istānabūlī, Dār al-Jīl, 1987, p. 327.

ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, ʿAbd al-Shāfī Muḥammad. al-ʿĀlam al-Islāmī fī al-ʿAṣr al-Umawī [The Islamic World in the Umayyad Era]. Dār al-Ittiḥād al-Taʿāwunī, 1999, quoted in Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, p. 216.

al-Fatḥ, al-Imām al-Nawawī, bi-Sharḥ: Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-Sharḥ al-Nawawī, vol. 9, p. 3692, ḥadīth no. 6416.

al-Kharāshī, Sulaymān ibn Ṣāliḥ. Ittihāmāt Lā Tuthbat [Unproven Accusations]. Maktabat al-Rushd, 2004, pp. 170–172.

al-Mizzī, Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl. Edited by Dr. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1992, vol. 32, pp. 223–225.

Secondary Sources

-

Burke, Nicole, et al. “A Forensic Hypothesis for the Mystery of al-Hasan’s Death in the 7th Century: Mercury(I) Chloride Intoxication.” Medicine, Science and the Law, vol. 56, no. 3, 2016, pp. 167–171. SAGE Publications.

Kaldellis, Anthony. A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from History’s Most Orthodox Empire. Oxford University Press, 2017.

---. The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome. Harvard University Press, 2015.

---. The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium. Oxford University Press, 2024.

---. Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019.

Kaldellis, Anthony, and Niketas Siniossoglou, editors. The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Munt, Harry. “No Two Religions: Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Ḥijāz.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 77, no. 2, 2014, pp. 249–270. Cambridge University Press.

Sarris, Peter. Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Stewart, Michael Edward, David Alan Parnell, and Conor Whately, editors. The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium. Routledge, 2022.