Izz al-Din Omar
"The caliphate after the four adult caliphs became extinct, marred by the impurities of seizure and transcendence, and the pure right to the imamate became rejected, and the imamate became a king." This is a concise and expressive historical and jurisprudential summary that Imam Al-Juwaini (d. 478 AH) wrote in his book 'The Relief of Nations' to highlight one of the major facts on which our Islamic history was built on by its long eras and successive countries, and on the basis of which the phrase "died in prison" and its counterparts became common in the stomachs of history books and translations He met you while you were looking for a biography of a jurist or a political opponent. Death in prison is one of the punishments that have been frequent in our history a lot. But it is strange to find that this is repeated when tracing the biographies of the caliphs, kings and sultans who ruled in the history of Muslims.
Exactly one year from now (June 17, 2019); The death of President Mohamed Morsi - the first elected civilian president in the history of Egypt - was announced in Tora Prison Complex, south of Cairo, after he spent five years fluctuating between "trials" in a number of cases under the circumstances of justice and humanity contested by the testimony of international human rights organizations, which is renewed His annual memoir is the history of political prison prisons in our history.
Reading the stories of the death of the deposed sultans in their prisons and the history of political prisoners in general gives an ideal opportunity to get acquainted with another aspect of Islamic political history, and a knowledge look to examine the history of constitutional legitimacy not only through political jurisprudence, but also through stories of deprivation of power after power and influence, and the darkness of cells after the well-being King and pomp of authority.
The Arabs used to say that "the king is sterile," meaning to boycott the family and moral womb, seeking the tyranny of the king and his fruits. The truth is that the conditions of deliberation over the king by overpowering were unequivocal for Islamic ideals and values before the intra-uterine values were cut off; It is a very weak aspect of our history, and we must recognize it as a very effective impact of the absence of the principle of the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power. One of its manifestations is the killing of the ousted sultans by slow death in prisons and the equivalent of house arrest or stifling siege of unarmed sultan.
In this article, we do not rely on assays and comparison of circumstances with the circumstances or personalities with personalities, for each event or prison has its own talk and its circumstance that is derived from its environment and that the motives are identical and the mechanisms are similar, then these sultans - regardless of their way of power - were equal in eligibility to rule and rationality in its practice. But here we present the idea of the rotation of power among rulers in the history of Muslims in the absence of constitutional legality, and the rule of wasting the principles of Shura and justice; To see when this painful phenomenon started? What are the historical contexts in which it was repeated? How did historians and jurists approach it with study and analysis?
despite the fact that Islam came to establish a political system based on allegiance, consultation, and respect for the legitimacy of the nation, and obedience to its chosen leadership, as long as it remains attached to the right and is based on it; The political foundations and morals soon departed from reality, and the distance between the two sides continued to increase until the breach spread to the people in modern times. Among the results of this divergence was the phenomenon of killing the deposed caliphs, princes and sultans; One of the harshest forms of this phenomenon is that it is sometimes after the ability to "deposed ruler", and he decides to die while he is in prison - or a place of house arrest - that belongs to his opponent, who overthrew him, and he is among the people of his skin and the people of his religion!
The killing of the Right Caliph Othman bin Affan (d. 35 AH) - may God be pleased with him - was trapped in his home as a prisoner, the first form of this phenomenon in the history of Islam; This is because Othman's cronies surrounded him for purely political reasons. In that, al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) - in his history - says that these opponents "made writers to write to the writers, putting them in the defects of their rulers, and their brothers wrote them like that, and the people of all of Egypt wrote to them to another Egypt as they did, so those in their writings and those in their paths read it." So they took up that city and expanded the land broadcasting, and they wanted other than what they appear, and they pleased other than what they showed. "
Among their demands was the exclusion of Othman to his relatives, who accused him of favoring them with jobs at the expense of Muslims, and they also claimed that he was distancing himself in the conduct of public affairs by the way of his companions Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (d.13 AH) and Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 23 e). Senior companions - such as Ali, Talha and Al-Zubayr, may God be pleased with them - have refuted these accusations, and thus the trapped plan failed to reject Uthman's principle of abdication so that he does not establish a precedent for those after him "so it will be Sunnah: whenever a people hates their caliph or their imam they kill him"; Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH) also mentioned in his book 'The Virtues of the Companions'.
The besiegers stressed the cordon to the caliph's house for weeks in which he served as a prisoner before his eventual death; Osman did not accept any armed defense for him so as not to shed the blood of Muslims because of him, so this will be a current year in later generations. Ibn Ibn Asaker (d. 571 AH) recounts - in 'The History of Damascus' - that Al-Hassan bin Ali (d. 49 AH) - may God be pleased with them - entered his weapon on the caliph Uthman, and he said to him: "O Commander of the Faithful, here I am in your hands, and make me aware of your command; Uthman said to him: O son of my brother, and you have mercy. The people do not want others, and by God, I do not fear the believers, but I protect the believers myself.
The besieged then further restricted him until he reached the point where food and drink were banned. Even Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 40 AH) stood among them one day - according to al-Tabari - and said: "O people, what you do is not like the commanding of the believers nor the commandment of the unbelievers! Do not cut off from this man the article (= food and drink), for the Romans and Persia To be enthralled, you shall be vaccinated and irrigated, and what this man has been subjected to you, so what do you take for confining him and killing him ?! The people were "one hand in evil" - as Ibn Saad (d. 230 AH) describes them in the 'great classes' - and they killed Osman (z) a prisoner in the headquarters of his "house arrest", where they inserted one of them "and strangled him and strangled him before he struck [-] With a sword "; According to the narration of Khalifa bin Khayyat Al-Basri (d. 240 AH) in his history.
An early breakup
thus Caliph Uthman died in defense of the nation’s right to keep its constitutional legitimacy in place even if its symbol was killed. Nevertheless, his killing, may God be pleased with him, was "one of the greatest reasons that caused strife among people, and because of him the nation was dispersed to this day"; Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) is also mentioned in Majmoo 'al-Fatwa. One of the effects of this separation was the battles of the Camel and Siffin after a deep division between the companions and the followers into two camps, one of them led by the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib and the other led by Amir al-Sham Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (d. 60 AH), and then the death of the caliph Ali 40 years of migration.
The “Year of the Community” in the year 41 AH was a milestone in that dangerous division. In it, Hassan bin Ali waived the claim to the caliphate and handed it over to Mu’awiya, provided that the matter returns Shura to the nation after Mu’awiya, so that they choose for their rule those who see it as the best and most rational for that. However, Muawiyah - with the passage of time - decided to keep the authority in his Umayyad house by assuming his son, increasing the rule of the covenant, and Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH) explained that - in the 'Introduction' - by saying that "who called Muawiyah to favor his son increases the covenant - without anyone else - but he is Taking into account the interest in meeting people, and the agreement of their desires with the agreement of the people of the solution, and then the contract was made by the people of illiteracy, because the people of illiteracy at that time will not be satisfied with them while they are the gang of Quraish - and the people of the whole community - and the people of the majority of them. "
Regardless of the safety of Ibn Khaldun’s explanation, The rise of Yazid - after the death of his father in the year 60 AH - to the position of the caliphate was not with the approval of all the companions, but was opposed by famous people such as Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr (d. 73 AH) and Hussein bin Ali (d. 61 AH) and Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq (d. 58 AH). Therefore, his reign witnessed hot events, foremost among which was the martyrdom of Imam Al-Hussein - may God be pleased with him - at the beginning of the year 61 AH in Karbala, and then the Al-Hurrah incident in Medina when its people revolted in the year 63 AH to overthrow the rule of Yazid.
Meanwhile, Abdullah bin al-Zobayr announced his departure from the rule of the Umayyads, and then decided to seek refuge in Makkah Al-Mukarramah, where he “collected .. to him the faces of the people of Tihama and the Hejaz, so he invited them to sell it and pledged allegiance to all of him, and Abdullah bin Abbas (d. 68 AH) and Muhammad bin Hanafi (= Muhammad) Bin Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 81 AH) ... [then] he ordered the expulsion of workers who increased from Makkah and Madinah, and [the Governor of Madinah] Marwan (Ibn al-Hakam, died 65 AH) left the city with his son and his household until he joined the Levant. ” According to the narration of Abu Hanifa al-Dinuri (d. 282 AH) in Al-Akhbar Al-Twal.
From here, the spark of a battle for legitimacy started that will last nine years (64-73 AH) between Ibn Al-Zubayr who was able to control the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Yemen, and the Umayyads - starting from Yazid bin Muawiya (d. 64 AH) and ending with Abd al-Malik bin Marwan (d. 86 AH) - the controllers Ali al-Sham and Egypt, but in the end the Umayyads seized Iraq in the year 71 AH, and Ibn al-Zubayr was trapped in Makkah al-Mukarramah for a full seven months, all of which was during the rule of the prisoner.
Realistic legitimacy,
and his steadfastness during this long period impressed even his Umayyad opponents; Ibn Al-Atheer (d. 630 AH) - in his book Al-Kamil - reported that Tariq bin Amr (d. 84 AH) - who is the Umayyad ruler of Medina and one of the besiegers of Mecca with the army of pilgrims bin Yusuf al-Thaqafi (d. 95 AH) - said: "I was not born Al-Hajjaj said: Do I praise the violator of the Commander of the Faithful? He said: Yes, he is an excuse for us, and without this we would not have had an excuse, we have been besieged for seven months and he is without soldiers, nor a fortress or immunity, so he will be fair to us, but he is preferred to us; The king shot a tariq. "
The killing of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr (d. 73 AH) and his crucification by the pilgrims was a complete and clear scene of the struggle for legality in that early history, and with his decisiveness in favor of the Umayyads, the way was opened to entrench the legitimacy of the "fait accompli" with which the desire for conquest and power prevailed over the logic of truth Fully judge the subordination of the political issue and the military power to the general Shura, and the right of the nation to choose; As this was considered practically impossible after the trend of defeats persisted and was adopted as an exclusive means of reaching power. That is why we see the historian of ideas al-Shahristani (d. 548 AH) say - in his book 'Boredom and Bees' - that "the greatest dispute between the ummah is that of the Imamate, as there is no sword in Islam on a religious basis, as was the case with the Imamate at all times."
Thus the nation entered the stage of "conquering", so the phenomenon of getting rid of rulers, princes and sultans - and they are in their prisons - has become a normal matter for everyone who overthrew his opponent from the reign of the king, and did not compel him to "pardon at the ability"; Especially since the "de facto" legitimacy that was adopted as the basis for rule in the Umayyad and Abbasid states - based on the principle of power succession - opened the door for the presence of other competitors, trying - relying on abstract strength - to independence from the central authority of the Umayyads in Damascus and the Abbasids in Baghdad.
At the end of the Umayyad era, The revolutionary poet Abdullah bin Muawiyah bin Jaafar bin Abi Talib (d. 129 AH) called for allegiance to himself as a caliph, taking advantage of the turmoil experienced by the Umayyads due to their struggle for power, and he forcibly took control of large areas of Persia and southern Iraq. Then he, as Ibn Asaker narrates, “was sold to him through the succession of Asban in the year twenty-seven and a hundred in the succession of Marwan bin Muhammad (d. 132 AH and he was the last ruler of the Umayyad state) .., and he followed him more and collected money ... and strengthened his command, and between him and Marwan’s workers was facts And there were many wars, and he was still there until the Abbasid state came, then Malik bin Al-Haytham (Al-Khuzai, who died after 137 AH), the owner of Abu Muslim (Khorasani, who died in 137 AH), fought against him, so he won and imprisoned and killed him, and he said, but he died in his prison.
Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 356 AH) - in his book 'The Talib’s Fighter' - quotes “some of the biographers that he (= Abdullah bin Muawiyah) was still imprisoned until he wrote to Abu Muslim his famous message, the first of which is:“ From the prisoner in his hands, imprisoned without crime. He has ... “When he wrote to him he ordered that he be killed.” The strange thing is that this revolutionary Alawite was, before his request to the king, a well-known poet praising the princes and governors, and he - as Abu Naim Al-Asfahani (d. 430 AH) says in the "History of Isfahan" - is the author of the two walking verses:
If you are my brother unless I have a need ** if I offer, I believe that no Brother Lea ?!
Both of us are rich on his brother's life ** We, if we die, are more than Ghana !!
An adventurous step
The Abbasids came to power aboard an overwhelming and well-organized armed revolution, so they in turn established their legitimacy to conquer and get rid of competitors, even if they were their cousins and participated in the revolt against the Umayyads, and their first victims were - as we have seen - Abdullah bin Muawiyah Al-Hashemi Al-Alawi Who died in prison.
However, since the Caliph al-Ma`mun (d. 218 AH) and his brother, the Caliph al-Mu'tasim (d. 227 AH), the Abbasids began to entice the Turkish elements to be their own guard, and the most prominent and strong core in the armies of the caliphate later, excluding them from the authority of the Arabs and Persians who had reached power and purpose in State joints; But what happened - as Rashid Rida (d. 1935 AH) says in his book "Caliphate" - is that he became "the Turkish soldiers in the Abbasids as the soldiers of the Janissaries in the Ottomans, it was a strength for them and then became a force against them and a spoiler for their king!"
As a result of the Turkish military elite’s control and near-absolute control of them over the reins of politics and administration and the joints of the Abbasid state; The phenomenon of arresting, killing, or imprisoning the Abbasid caliphs has emerged until they die in the darkness of the cells, beginning with the killing of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil (d. 247 AH) by his victorious son (d. 248 AH) and his aides from the Turkish soldiers, and passing through the pride of God (d. 255 AH) who was overthrown by Turkish leaders Because of his weakness and his inability to pay military salaries. Al-Tabari tells us about the horrendous end of this preacher, and he says that he was "pushed to the one who tortured him, and prevented food and drink for three days. He asked for a portion of the water of the well and forbade him, then they plastered a basement with thick plaster, then they inserted it and applied it to his door and became dead" !!
And the military did the same with his successor, al-Muhtadi Billah (d. 256 AH), who tried to put an end to the weakening of the caliphs by dispersing the Turks and striking each other, and in order to achieve that. "He made a ride in Bani Hashim, circled in the markets and asked people to win, and he says: These immoralists kill the caliphs." And they accounted for the loyalty, so appoint and support the Commander of the Faithful. As narrated by al-Tabari. But his call was not heard; The Turks arrested him, subjected him to house arrest, and asked him to resign. "He refused to take his breath away, so they removed his fingers and toes from his palms and feet ... until he died."
In conjunction with this case, the Turkish military elite has weakened the caliphs in Baghdad; The parties to the Islamic world were exploiting the conditions of turmoil in the center of the caliphate to form independent entities and countries, or to expand them at the expense of neighbors, even if they were Muslims, and they also began to use the principle of "conquest", as happened between Amr ibn al-Laith al-Saffar (d. 289 AH), the Emir of the Saffarid state in Persia Khorasan (= most of Iran and Afghanistan), and Ismail bin Ahmed al-Samani (d. 295 AH), the emir of the Samanids in the region beyond the river (= Uzbekistan and its environs).
And ultimately; A decisive battle took place between them, which ended with an overwhelming defeat for Al-Saffar. "So Ismail chose him and chose him between his stay with him and directing to the door of the aggressor in God (Al-Abbasi, who died 289 AH), so he chose guidance. From the chapel and ripped Baghdad by the door of Khurasan; and when he was known, his eyes were tearful and he raised his hands calling, and the people dispersed him! He ordered the aggressor to imprison him in the palace, and he was imprisoned until he died in prison "in the year 289 AH; According to the narration of Ibn Aybak Al-Dawadari (d. After 736 AH) in 'Al-Durar Treasure and Al-Gharr Mosque'.
weakness In Iraq, the caliphate's weakness remained a phenomenon hitting its borders throughout the swinging capital, located between Baghdad and Samarra; The most senior Turkish leaders were afraid of the Caliph Caliph Al-Abbasi (d. 322 AH) because they heard rumors that he wanted to kill them, and Abu Ali bin Maskoye (d. 421 AH) - in “Experiences of Nations and Succession of Determination” - tells us the arrest of this unfortunate caliph in the year 322 AH, Where he says that, "When the compelling person knew about the arrival of the two men in the house (= his palace), watch out for the intoxication and the horizons and he fled to the roof of a bathroom in the role of the sanctuary (= the harem), and he hid in it .., so they entered and found him .. In his hand a mere sword, and worked hard - for Companionship - to descend to them .. And he abstained from abstaining from descending, until one of them (= paid) with him with an arrow, and he said: If you do not descend, I put him in a slit; then he came down and arrested him .. and they took him to the place of confinement ... and locked him in it. " .
The Turkish leaders removed one of the princes of the Abbasid house from his prison, Muhammad ibn al-Khalifa al-Muqtadir and dubbed him “The Good God” (d. 329 AH), who wanted to bestow on the revolutionary scene that was forcibly yielded the legal and legal legacies, so he sent a group of senior judges to the deposed Caliph prison To witness to him taking off himself from the caliphate, but he refused to resign, and at that time one of these judges said - according to what Miskoye narrates - a saying that summarizes the dialectic of power since that era: "Bana (= judges) states are not held, but are done [with this] with the swordsmen, and we and we want to testify and verify " Just!
Indeed, the military intervened and imposed the punishment on the deposed caliph, the omnipotent God, for “his eyes were blown.” So he asked all of them, so my uncle, and a great thing was committed from him that was unheard of in Islam .., and the omnipotent remained imprisoned in Dar al-Sultan for thirty-three years [three hundred] .., so he was imprisoned and sometimes evacuated "until" he died in Jumada Al-Akhera this year (= 339 AH) "; According to what Ibn al-Jawzi narrated (d. 597 AH) in his 'regular' history.
Then the same thing was repeated with the caliph, which came after the death of Radi, God, and he was the one who feared God (d. 357 AH), whose era was marked by successive conflicts between Arab and Turkish military leaders; In the year 333 AH, the Turkish "Emir of the Princes" rebellion Tuzun (d. 334 AH) rebelled against this caliph while he was outside the capital, and he arranged a ploy until he "caught .. he got him and made him blind and entered Baghdad blind .., [then] Al-Mottaki died in prison" after 24 years he spent in prison ; As Al-Dhahabi narrates in Al-Sir.
The control of the Buyids on the reins of the Abbasid authority in Baghdad came in 334 AH, a new episode of overcoming the domination of the military power and the culture of "taking over" the logic of truth. The Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustakfi Billah (d. 338 AH) agreed to bring them from Iran to eliminate them from the domination of the Turks, but he did not know that by his step, he became "like the one who fled from Ramdhah with fire" because he would be their first victim.
Abu al-Hasan al-Hamdhani (d. 521 AH) - in 'Complementing the History of al-Tabari' - says that the Bohai leader Mu’izz al-Dawla (d. 356 AH) entered the caliph, “the one who sufficiency in God accepted the land and sat on my chair ... and two souls (= two people) came to the sufficiency, so he thought they wanted Kissing his hand, he stretched it out, so they pulled him, threw him to the ground, and carried him to the house of Moez al-Dawla. Al-Mustakfi in God remained imprisoned for four years after his eyes were blinded and blinded, "so he died there by blowing blood this year (= 338 AH)"; As reported by Ibn al-Jawzi in the 'regular'.
A compromise initiative
and once again the ruling legitimacy - which with the Umayyads, Abbasids, and the League established between conquest and orthodoxy and the necessity of the "fait accompli" - is entering a new phase in the succession of the sultanate states, be they Seljuk, Seljuk, Mamluk, or Ottoman. This is what made Imam Al Mawardi Al-Shafi’i (Judges) (d. 450 AH) come out - in his book 'The Royal Rulings' - with the theory of the “Ministry of Authorization”, which is intended to “enlighten the Imam (= Caliph) who is empowered to manage matters in his opinion and sign it on his diligence” , Explaining that as long as the motivation for this is the necessity of the de facto authority, then "the Ministry of delegation is valid in the seizure emirate (= force and compulsion), and it is not valid in the emirate of sufficiency (= the caliph's ability to assume the most competent)."
Al-Mawardi's motive for his theory was to correct the dysfunctional situation in the relationship between a successor claiming legitimacy as "the force of truth" and a sultan possessing the reality of "the right to force". It seems that his adaptation of the relationship between the weak caliphs and the overpowering sultans was a prelude to the entry of the Seljuks three years before the death of al-Mawardi three years ago, and even by his contribution to their coming when he led the negotiations between them and the then caliph at the time of God’s command (d. 467 AH). Hassan Al-Mawardi " As the Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) says in the biographies of the flags of the nobles.
Inspite of that; The phenomenon of stone and the killing of caliphs and independent princes remained evident throughout the Islamic world; He also signed the year 441 AH with the Emir of Mosul, Qarawash bin Muqallad Al-Aqili (d. 444 AH) when “Qarawash, his nephew, blessed and arrested and imprisoned in this year, and possessed [his place]. He died in the year of three, and after him king Abu al-Ma’ali Quraysh Ibn Badran (d. 453 AH) ... Qarawash bin Muqallad slaughtered patience, and it was said that he died in his prison. Al-Dhahabi also tells us in 'Al-Labr in Al-Ghabr'.
Al-Dhahabi narrates - in "History of Islam" - about Prince Qarawash, stories that reveal part of what many of the sultans of those ages used to underestimate forbidden and foremost among them blood. He said, “It was on the Sunnah of the Arabs (= Arabs), Ford said that he combined two sisters, so he told him: He told me,“ What do we use from the law until you speak about this matter ?! He once said: What in my neck other than the blood of five or six Arabs killed them, so either [People] the present, so what does God bother with them "!! As was Karoash poet brilliant, was sentenced Abu Saad Sam'ani At 'Alonsab'- that "his hair navigation nomadism and elegance of civilization", and Mostagad his hair:
God der female deputies , they * Steel villains and the Free Siql
you only Sberh Aftbanna * sword and fired Srvhn Grara
Andalusian models
As prevailed in the Islamic East, the phenomenon of liquidating the Sultans physically by slow death in prisons after their removal, they were repeated in various forms in Egypt and across the Islamic West region. When the disintegration of the Umayyad state in Andalusia was finally disintegrated in 422 AH, giving way to the beginning of the era of "Kings of the Sects", who distributed the country's civilizations with the dominance and seizure; The capital of Córdoba and the regions followed were an exception to this, as the Al Jahur family - of Persian origin - ruled with the consent of its people.
Al-Dhahabi tells us - in 'Al-Seir' - that in the year 435 AH, the founding prince Jahour bin Muhammad died, and authority was transferred to his son Abi Al-Walid Muhammad (d. 462 AH). "He ruled on Cordoba .., so he meant [Al-Mu'tamid] bin Abbad (Al-Lakhami, Prince of Seville, who died 488 AH) He defeated him and took the country (from it in the year 462 AH), then Abu Al-Walid was imprisoned in a fortress .., and he remained in Ibn Abbad prison until he died. This is despite the fact that Ibn Jahour was - and paradoxically - sought help from Ibn Abbad to protect his kingdom from his other Muslim neighbor, the king of Toledo, Al-Maamoun bin Dhul-Nun (d. 467 AH) !!
They are only two decades, and al-Mu'tamid bin Abbad meets the same fate that he had given to Ibn Jahour. When the Emir of the Almoravid dynasty Yusuf bin Tashfin (d. 500 A.H.) eliminated the denominations of sects in Andalusia in 484 AH, in the third Almoravid intervention to save Andalusia from the devastating invasions of the Christian leader Alfonso VI (d. 502 AH); Al-Mu'tamid was arrested - and he became the chief king of Andalusia - after he vetoed obedience and reneged upon the agreement concluded between him and the Almoravids. And in this the al-Muqri al-Tilmisani (d. 1041 AH) - in 'Nafh al-Tayyib' - says that Ibn Tashfin “transported him to [the town of] agony of proximity to Marrakech in the year eighty-four and four hundred, and arrested him there until he died” in his prison after four years.
Al-Dhahabi narrated to us - in the "History of Islam", quoting the Andalusian historian and scientist Abi Yahya Elisaa Ibn Hazm Al-Ghafiqi Al-Jiani (d. 575 AH) - what clarifies part of the context of the fate attained by King Ibn Abbad; His advisors feared him seeking help from the Almoravids (their second intervention in 481 AH); He answered them that "grazing the camels [by Ibn Tashfin] is better than grazing the pigs" by Alfonso! But in his last matter he allied with the Christians against the Almoravids - in their third and final intervention to save Andalusia in 483 AH - and this was an excuse for them to overthrow him and undermine his property forever.
The judge, the historian, Ibn Khaldan (d. 681 AH) - in 'Deaths of Notables' - commented on the painful end of Ibn Abbad, saying: "It is rare for the stranger that in his funeral he was called" to pray upon the stranger ", after the greatness of his authority and majesty !! Stay, pride and pride! " And before Ibn Khaldan; Ibn Abbad himself was the first to realize his tragedy, to which his family was after the demise of his broad king, and he said in his buzz poem on the occasion of the coming of feasts:
In the past, you were happy with the holidays ** and your Eid was long-lived and
you thought that the holiday was happy ** So the Eid went to
you in the traps of captivity Your daughters are hungry for children ** Spin for people what they have in Qatar!
Usually Mamluk and
return to the Levant region; We find that the Ayyubid state (567-647 AH) - which ruled Egypt, the Levant, the Hijaz, and Yemen - was no exception to its political environment in the mechanism of access to power, despite the great jihadist history of its founder, Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH). Therefore, we saw this phenomenon being repeated with a number of its young princes and one of its great sultans, led by the just king, the second bin bin al-Kamil al-Ayyubi (d. 645 AH) who took over the Sultanate of Egypt between 635 and 637 AH.
Al-Adil II was notorious for his recklessness, distraction, and lack of appreciation for his responsibility, and his brother, the good king, Najm al-Din Ayyub (d. 647 AH) was able to arrest and imprison him. To rise as successor to the throne of the Sultanate of Egypt. The King of Hama al-Muayyad al-Ayyubi (d. 732 AH) says in his history 'Al-Mukhtasar al-Bishr al-Bishr': “[Al-Adil II]” was imprisoned from the time he was arrested by Bilbis to this end (= 645 AH), so the duration of his stay in prison was about eight years, and his age was [ The day he died in custody] about thirty years. "
In the Mamluk era (648-923 AH) - in which power was established from the first day on the harsh cliffs of power and conflict - this phenomenon emerged on the surface of political events quite clearly, by arresting, imprisoning and killing weak sultans.
The Mamluk Sultan Baybars Al-Jashinkir (d. 709 AH) was among the prison dead. The reason for this was his persecution of Sultan Al-Nasir Muhammad bin Qalawun (d. 741 AH) in the Sultanate of the latter of the latter (AH 708-698 AH). He even forced him out of Egypt to Al-Karak - which is located today in southern Jordan - to complain to the princes loyal to him in the Levant. Narrowing of hand and lack of sacredness, and for this reason he left the king of Egypt and was persuaded to reside in the ball. ” Al-Maqrizi mentioned it in 'Behavior to Know the Countries of Kings'.
Baybars Jashnakir - with the support of the Mamluk princes in Egypt - announced his assumption of the Sultanate, but Nasser Qalawun returned - less than a year later - backed by overwhelming support from the Lords of the Levant, so he entered Egypt and arrested the Jashnakir and deposited him in the Great Tower Prison in Qalat al-Jabal in Cairo. The historian Ibn Tigray Bardi (d. 874 AH) - in 'The Bright Stars' - describes the moments of the end of Sultan Jashnakir - who is deposed deposited in prison - saying: "The Sultan, the victorious king [came to prison] and strangled [Baybars] between his hands with a tendency [bow] until almost Destroys, then exasperated him until he woke up, abused him, increased his insult, and then strangled him again until he died. "So his revenge was from him, torturing and killing !!
A family catastrophe,
while Nasser Qalawun killed his opponent, the Jashinkers; For the same fate has belonged to some of his son after him, the first of which is Sultan Al-Mansur Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Qalawun (d. 742 AH). Al-Mansur rose to the throne by the will of his father upon his death in the year 741 AH, but his rule was not prolonged due to his young age as he was twenty years old, and the princes around him and their use of him in the struggle for influence and feudalism, and then he was involved in "fun, drinking and hearing" Megaupload, so it was difficult for Prince Qusoon (Al-Saqi Al-Nasiri, died 742 AH), and others, because no king was entrusted with him before drinking wine. As Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) says in Al-Suluk.
Prince Qusun Al-Nasiri - who was then one of the senior princes and state mastermind at the behest of Nasser Qalawun - besieged Sultan Al-Mansur at the Citadel of the Mountain in Cairo, and when everyone realized the strength of Qusun and the support of the princes for him, the decision was issued to deny Al-Mansur to the city of Qus in Upper Egypt under "demarcation", meaning house arrest And after a short period of time, the decision to get rid of him was issued while in prison. Ibn Taghry Bardi says - in 'The Bright Stars' - that “Qusun [Prince] Abd al-Mumin Mitwalli Qus tucked him, so he killed him [at his house of residence] and held his head secretly to Qusun .., and they concealed that from the people.” The goal of Qusun was to eliminate his rival, the ousted Sultan, fearing that he would return to his throne again!
It is noteworthy that Qusun - who became the mastermind of the Sultanate and the commander of the army in it - appointed a young child of Al-Nasir Qalawun named Kujjak (d. 746 AH) as a sultan called "Al-Ashraf" while he was still seven years old, and thus Prince Qusun became the true Sultan of the country in "a residence At the prosecution office in the castle, and he disposed of the affairs of the Kingdom with what he chose. " According to the expression Ibn Iyas al-Hanafi (d. 930 AH) in Bada'i al-Zuhur. One of the poets of Egypt at the time - as Ibn Tigray Bardi narrated in 'The Bright Stars' - expressed this funny reality crying by saying: Our authority
today is a child and the eldest in a successor, and between them the devil has emerged,
so how do you aspire from the darkness of his oppression? They reached ?!
After he was able to power, Qusoon worked to exclude and persecute his rivals from the great princes and arrest them, so they decided to take revenge on him, and they besieged him in the castle, arrested him, and sent him to Alexandria prison in northern Egypt. Ibn Taghry Bardi says that Qusun "continued ... in Alexandria prison ... until King Nasser (Ahmad Qalawun (d. 745 AH)] came from Karak, and he sat on the king's chair in the castle of the mountain ..., and the princes agreed to kill Qusun and were prepared to kill him [Prince Shami] Shihab al-Din Ahmed bin Sobh (the Kurdish man who died after 759 AH) to Alexandria and went to it and strangled Qusoon [in his prison] "until he died.
And by killing him in that condition; Qusun drank from the assassination cup from which someone else watered, and after him Al-Nasir Ahmad drank when the Mamluks isolated him and installed in his place the good Sultan Ismail Ibn Qalawun (d. 746 AH), who enlisted armies to besiege him with Karak for two years, they arrested him and imprisoned him, then sent someone who held his head there and brought him To him while he is in Cairo!
Rather, the most honorable Sultan is Kujak - who is the child whose name his name (Küçük k بالتk in Turkish means: he did not realize or know what was going on around him!) - The old princes decided to take him off, so they isolated him and put him under house arrest in the sultan’s role under his mother’s custody, and he And his mother in the humiliation, junior, and humiliation "inside the castle of the mountain, and remained there until the full Sultan Shaban (d. 747 AH) decided to get rid of him after four years of that house arrest. Al-Maqrizi says - in 'The Behavior' - that your cage died "at the age of twelve, and the [perfect] [b] was accused of having sent those who killed him in his bed at the hands of four servants." Getting rid of this deposed authority - and he did not reach the dream - was nothing but fear for the throne !!
A continuous legacy, and
when the Ottomans defeated the Mamluks in the battles of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo, in the year 922 AH, then Raidaniyya, in Cairo, in the following year 923 AH, after a series of battles of desertion; The last Mamluk sultan Tuman Bey (d. 923 e) fell into captivity, and they directed him to the Ottoman Sultan Selim Shah I (d. 926 e) who ordered his imprisonment in a "tent, so he set up and surrounded him with janissaries with swords for conservation"; Ibn Iyas is also mentioned in Bada'i al-Zuhur, who is the historian who witnessed the events of this watershed stage. Then Batman was sentenced to any death penalty within about three weeks of his captivity, making it the last of the Mamluks sultans. Egypt followed the Ottomans - a fact or form - from that date (923 AH / 1517 AD) until it was declared an independent sultanate in 1914 CE.
When the Ottoman navy, led by Sinan Pasha (d. 1004 AH), seized Tunisia in the year 981 AH, and expelled the Spanish occupation from it, it was subjected to a group of the last of the Hafsid sultans. "The fate of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hafsi [- another Sultan Hafsi -] was that Sinan Pasha brought him to Istanbul, and he was arrested there for fear of his desertion and seeking help from the Spanish again, and he remained in detention there until his death." As Muhammad Al-Arousi Al-Mutawi says in his book 'The Hafsid Sultanate'.
The Ottoman Empire itself witnessed similar events, as happened with Sultan Osman II (d. 1031 AH); This young sultan attempted to introduce into the state structure fundamental reforms that were dictated by necessity at the time, including the establishment of a new military regime whose core would be a non-Janissary military contingent who became a burden on the state, and they failed to perform their duties in some military campaigns.
But the Janissaries knew about the matter, and they besieged Othman II, and in the end they took him "from Urta (= barracks), a mosque in Sulaymaniyah, and they went to [the prison] the hands of Kula (= the seven constellations Yedi kule), and there were ten executioners carrying it, although he was defenseless [he lost] ] Three of them were killed, and then he was strangled by a thread of silk, on the evening of May 22 [1622 AD]. According to Yilmaz Oztuna, in the 'History of the Ottoman Empire'. And the Janissaries erected after him his uncle Sultan Mustafa I (d. 1049 AH) - known as madness and dementia - which allowed them to rule from behind a curtain for a while.
Between two visions and
at the conclusion of this historical observation of the phenomenon of killing caliphs, kings, sultans and princes in their prisons and house arrest, either by direct action or by neglect to suffer a slow "natural" death; We can see - in the continuity of this painful phenomenon, which we stood on some of its famous models without a comprehensible investigation - the supremacy of the principle of power and its absolute domination of the principle of respect for the constitutional legitimacy of the nation, throughout the entire geographical area of the Islamic world, and through this long history that began with the caliph Al-Rashid Uthman bin Affan (z) until the end of the Ottoman era. We can also see that the fate of many of these sultans was a "recompense" for what they did to other sultans, who overthrew them by force and occupied power after them for a while!
Despite the entrenchment of this strange phenomenon; It is worth noting that the sultans - both predominantly and conquered - remained until the end of the Ottoman era ruling in countries that are subject - albeit formally - to the law of Islam, its regulations and supreme purposes, and sanctioning the principle of litigation to it, and the participation of the civil elite of jurists in governance and the management of scientific, educational and judicial institutions , And if accepting "conquest" was considered a matter dictated by the necessity of the authority of the authority to seize power, then it was not recognized in its jurisprudence in principle; This contrasts with the great estrangement, while acknowledging the exclusive reference to the provisions of Islam in the modern state.
The truth is that the civil elite of jurists and scholars were witnesses to these events in the era of the Mamluks, and the precedents and subsequent periods of which were dominated by military coups called in the language of jurists "conquering" and "conquest". It seems that the political jurisprudence in these times took a very realistic course, expressed by the Judge Judge in Egypt Badr al-Din Ibn al-Shafi’i group (d. 733 AH) - in a clear statement - when he saw “compulsory legitimacy” of the logic of overcoming his Mamluk image, by saying - In his book 'Editing rulings in the management of the people of Islam' - it is that “if the imamate was held with a thorn and victory for one and then another then the first one conquered his thorns and his soldiers, the first was isolated and the second became an imam, because we presented the interest of Muslims and gathered their word.”
However, there were still among the scholars who rejected the legitimacy of the "fait accompli" of the Sultans of conquest, whatever some of them said and people subjected to it as weak and "committed to the slightest of two evils"; This Hanafi Imam al-Zamakhshari (d. 538 AH) calls these sultans the “overpowering thieves”, and he says about them in his explanation 'The Scout': “When [God] instructed the governors to perform trusts to their people and rule with justice, he commanded people to obey them and come down on their issues…, and what is meant by "The first ruler" of you: The princes of truth ... like the rightly guided caliphs and those who followed them with charity ..., and the princes of injustice do not perform honesty and do not judge fairly .., but they follow their desires ... they are dissociated from the characteristics of those who are the commanders of God and His Messenger, and I deserve their names: thieves Overpowering "!!