"The news reached the handover of Jerusalem to the Franks, so the Resurrection took place in the countries of Islam, and the great things became so strong that funerals were held ...; [P] - O shyness of the Muslim kings !!" This is another scene from our history .. not from a site of victories nor crowned with honor and heroism, but rather another dark aspect that the historian Imam Ibn Sabt al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH) referred to with those words when he spoke about the moment of handing over Jerusalem hand in hand to the Crusader occupiers, through a "deal" It is a suspicious one that a Muslim Sultan has entered into with them in dark scenes, but it exudes a lot like its counterparts, with which it shares one obsession with every seller: the permanence of power and its fruits !!
The history of Muslims - like any history - is the history of people and life, and it should not be reduced to a glamorous idealistic image. Rather, we very much need to calm the pace of studying the history of glories and victories in favor of reviewing the history of defeats and betrayals, as moments of collapse may be more revealing of the truth from the moment of ascension. This article is an attempt to extrapolate some homeland sales in our history. Let's tell how the occupier penetrated? Did he enter across the border only, or also through internal pockets? By presenting details that tell the other side of the stories of the Crusades and the fall of Andalusia, and how it was not a story of an army that might be defeated, but rather a talk of a power whim and issues sold in "centuries-old deals" !!
Prolapse of the Crusaders
The Islamic East was not a precursor to the phenomenon of betrayal of the nation and homelands, yet we will start with it due to its centrality and the multiplicity of fronts for foreign invasion. During the era of the Crusades - which continued between 490-690 AH - the Levant and Egypt witnessed several treachery that led - or almost - to the fall of some Islamic regions and cities of great importance in the hands of the Crusader enemy, the Crusader Prince Baldwin I (d.512 AH) - who was able to occupy The city of Edessa (= 'Urfa' Turkish today) and the establishment of the first Crusader principality in it in 491 AH - headed towards the city of Sumitsat (its location today in southern Turkey) and occupied it. In this, Ibn Abi Al-Dam Al-Hamwi (d.642 AH) says in his book “The Compendium of the History of Islam”: “And the year ninety and four hundred entered:… and in it the Franks conquered Antioch and Sumusat.”
But Baldwin - before he embarked on the siege of Sumitsat - sent him the Seljuk ruler of the city - who is called "Buldak" according to Ghaleb Al-Dulaimi in his book "The Armenian Stance on the Crusades" - offering to hand over Sumait in exchange for ten thousand gold dinars (about 1.7 million US dollars now ), Which Baldwin agreed and saw as an irreplaceable opportunity. Sumusat thus fell due to the betrayal of that prince who sold it cheaply. According to a narration given by the contemporary historian of the Crusades, William Al-Suri (d.582 AH) in his book 'History of the Crusades'; And it was quoted by Ghaleb Al-Dulaimi in his aforementioned book.
And in the same year; Antioch - the largest coastal city of Levant at the time - fell into the hands of the Crusaders with treachery as well. The Crusaders besieged it in their first campaign when it was ruled - since 479 AH - by the Seljuk prince Yagi Sayan (d. 491 AH) in the name of the Seljuk Sultan Malakshah (d. 485 AH). To restrict it, the Crusaders set up a fortress near a nearby hill to tighten the siege that lasted for nine months, and Yagi Sian had entrusted an Armenian commander who finally converted to Islam to protect the city's towers, but this Armenian betrayed the Muslims and handed them over to the enemies in exchange for a bribe!
In this, the historian Izz al-Din Ibn al-Atheer (d.630 AH) says in al-Kamil: “When the place of the Franks was long over Antioch, they wrote to one of the keepers of the towers, who is a Zirard (= armor maker) known as a 'rouzba'. A tower next to the valley, which is built on a window in the valley. When the matter was decided between them and this cursed miter, they came to the window and opened it, and entered it. " And the city fell because of this treachery, so that the saying that "castles and forts do not fall except from within" can be confirmed!
Egypt almost fell into the hands of the Crusaders because of greed, betrayal, and its affection. Egypt - after the death of the Fatimid Caliph Al-Mustansir Billah (d. 487 AH) - entered a new era called the era of ministerial control, in which powerful ministers, senior leaders, and some governors struggled for rule and authority under the weak Fatimid caliphs.
The most famous of these conflicts was what happened - in Ramadan in the year 558 AH - between the military commander Durgham bin Amer Al-Lakhmi (d. 559 AH) and Minister Shawer bin Mujir al-Saadi (d. 564 AH). As Durgham was able to seize the position of the Fatimid ministry, he then set off towards Damascus to ask for help and relief from the Zangid Sultan Nur al-Din Mahmud (d. 569 AH), who honored him and determined to help him in exchange for "returning to his position, and Nur al-Din would have a third of his income after Sector boycotts, and among the princes of the Levant there will be someone who lives with him in Egypt, and he will act according to the orders of Nur al-Din and his choice. " As Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) says in “Al-Hanafah's memorization of the news of the Fatimid imams of the caliph.”
However, Shawer turned against that agreement with Nur al-Din, and he continued to betrayal when he allied with the Crusaders, and they coveted to seize Egypt. According to al-Maqrizi; For what came in the year 564 AH unless “the Franks gained control of the lands of Egypt and ruled unjustly there, and rode the Muslims with great harm, and they were certain that there was no protector for the country, and the weakness of the state became apparent to them, and the shame of the people was revealed to them.” Were it not that Sultan Nur al-Din had sent - again and quickly - the leaders Asad al-Din Shirkuh (d. 564 AH) and Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH) to crush this alliance and eliminate Shawar and the Crusader presence; The Crusaders occupied Egypt as they occupied Palestine and the coasts of Levant.
Betrayal of grandparents
However, what is surprising and surprising in the incidents of betrayal of rulers on that date is that it came from children after the honorable grandfathers' inheritance in the yards of oppression, and when their blood dried up in order to support their religion and protect their homelands. Rather, the result of this betrayal is the surrender of a holy city the size of Jerusalem, which was the first destination of Muslims. After Sultan Saladin regained it in 583 AH, with a long preparation and a great jihad; Some of his relatives returned and handed it over to the Crusader occupiers, so that their act would be a "mark of shame in the life of kings." As he rightly said one of the poets.
The treachery of handing over Jerusalem has been repeated twice. The first of them was in the year 626 AH in what was known as the Sixth Crusade, when the complete Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt Muhammad bin Al-Adil (d.635 AH) delivered it to the German Emperor Frederick II (d.648 AH / 1250 CE), without sacrificing a single drop of blood in order to protect it! This would leave Frederick with control of cities such as Nablus and Hebron. The historian Ibn al-Atheer talked about the effect of that "deal" on the souls of Muslims at the time, saying: "The Franks took over the sacred house, and the Muslims glorified that and enlarged it, and found for him a weakness and pain that cannot be described; God is pleased to open him and his promises to the Muslims." He was followed in depicting this effect by the historian and preacher, the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi, in "The Mirror of Time". He said: “The news reached the handover of Jerusalem to the Franks, so the Resurrection took place in the countries of Islam, and the great things became so intense that funerals were held ...; [P] Oh shyness of the kings of the Muslims !!”
The strange thing is that Sultan Al-Kamil Russell - shortly before concluding his agreement with Frederick - his brother, the king of Diyar Al-Jazirah, Al-Ashraf Musa (d.635 AH); He said in what Ibn al-Atheer reported on him: “I did not come to this country (= the Levant) except because of the Franks, because there was no one in the country that would prevent them from what they wanted ..., and you know that our uncle, Sultan Saladin, opened the holy house, so we have this beautiful remembrance of The hurricane and the passage of days pass, and if the Franks took it, it happened to us from the bad remembrance and ugliness of the event that contradicts that beautiful remembrance that our uncle saved, and what aspect remains for us with the people and with God Almighty? !!
The historian Ibn Wasil al-Hamwi (d. 697 AH) - in 'Mafrej al-Karroub in the news of Bani Ayyub', quoting his father, who was in Jerusalem witnessing that betrayal - says that “when the truce occurred, the Sultan sent from calling in Jerusalem for the departure of the Muslims and handing him over to the Franks ...; he said: When Jerusalem was called for the exit of the Muslims and the surrender of Jerusalem to the Franks, there was noise and crying among the people of Jerusalem, and this was magnified by the Muslims, and they mourned the exit of Jerusalem from their hands, and they denied the complete king this act and encouraged him, as the conquest of this honorable country and its rescue from the infidels was one of the greatest exploits of his uncle King Al-Nasser Salahaddin"!!
Al-Quds remained in the hands of the Crusaders for more than ten years until Sultan Al-Nasir Daoud Ibn Al-Mu’adam (d.656 AH) took it back from them in 637 AH, but - to spite his cousin, the good Sultan of Egypt Ayyub (d.647 AH) - he returned and handed it over to the Crusaders again in the same year, says the historian. Ibn Aybak Al-Dawadari (d. After 736 AH) in the 'Treasure of Al-Durar and Jameh Al-Gharar': “And in it (= in the year 637 AH) Al-Nasir Dawud, the owner of Al-Karak, delivered Al-Quds Al-Sharif to the Franks."
Al-Nasir Dawood did this as a betrayal and pursued his personal interest in order for the Crusaders to maintain an alliance with him against the good Ayoub. He forgot that he assigned the preacher to the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi to deliver an impassioned sermon in the Umayyad Mosque, denouncing what his "complete" uncle did in terms of surrendering to Jerusalem! Then Jerusalem remained captive to the Crusaders until the year 642 AH. As the righteous Sultan Ayyub was able to crush the Crusaders and Ayyubid Al-Sham allied with them in the "Battle of Gaza", as they walked "under the flags of the Franks and on their heads the crosses" !! According to the description of the tribe of Ibn Al-Jawzi.
Subordination to the Tatars
, the Abbasid state was subjected to a long series of betrayals throughout its history that spanned more than five centuries. However, the most famous of those who caused its elimination and erased its effects was the minister Muayad al-Din Ibn Al-Alqami (d.656 AH), who worked - politely and on several axes - to overthrow the Abbasids And erase their monuments, even in cooperation with the Tatar occupiers.
Ibn Al-Sai (d. 674 AH) - a contemporary Baghdad historian of the events of the fall of his city - details some aspects of Ibn Al-Alqami’s betrayal by saying in “The Compendium of Caliphs News”: “And he wrote the Tatars (= Tatars / Mongols) and their greed in the country, so it is said that (the Mongolian leader) Hulaku ( D.663 AH) when the minister's office reached him, he disguised himself and entered Baghdad in the uniform of a merchant and met with the minister and the senior state, and decided the rules with them, and returned to his country and prepared them, and marched to Baghdad in great crowds of Mughals (= the Mongols), and they descended on the eastern side in the year fifty-six six hundred, The minister went out to them, so he trusted them with his family and himself, and said [to the caliph al-Mustasim, who died in 656 AH]: This had come to marry his daughter with your son. He did not leave with him until he brought him to him, so they put him in a tent, and made the minister take out to them the largest of Baghdad sect after sect until they were fed up with the Tatars, so they placed They included the sword and killed the caliph. "
Ibn Al-Alqami thought that he would enjoy his betrayal and rise above his throats after he had reached his goals, but history tells us that what happened was the opposite. The Mongols despised him until “he was sitting in the court, and some Tatars who did not have a standing entered his horse, so he drove until he stood with his mare on the rug of the minister and addressed him with what he wanted, and with the mare on the rug and the machine gun hit the minister's clothes while he was patient for this dishonor, showing the strength of the soul and that he had reached his goal "; According to the narration of Ibn Aybak Al-Safadi (d.764 AH) in Al-Wafi Balufiyat.
And while Baghdad fell through treason and deceit in 656 AH; Damascus also fell in the following year by the same means, and the ruler of Damascus at the time, the Ayyubid King Al-Nasir Yusuf (d.659 AH) was the grandson of the first Nasser, Salah al-Din, but this grandson was not like his grandfather, so Ibn Abi Usaiba (d.668 AH) describes him - in his book ' Ayyoun al-Anbaa '- that he was a "coward who stopped war." And when the message of Hulagu came in which he says according to the narration of Ibn al-Abri (d.685 AH) in “The History of the Summarized States”: “King Al-Nasir knows that we went to Baghdad in the year of fifty-six and six hundred, and opened it with the sword of God Almighty, and we brought its owner ... so let you have in the past not considered And what we have mentioned and said is derogatory. "
And with the cheese of King Nasser; His minister, doctor Zain al-Din al-Hafithi (d.662 AH) and his companion Prince Najm al-Din were among the weak and cowardly men who were closer to the positions of betrayal than them to confrontation and steadfastness in order to protect the homelands, and they incited King Nasser to surrender. In depicting the motives for that position, Ibn Abi Issa'ah says: “The messengers of the Tatars came from the east to King Al-Nasir while they were asking for the country and stipulating what he brought to them from the money and other things. So Zain Al-Din Al-Hafizi sent a messenger to Khaqan Hulagu, the king of the Tatars and the rest of their kings. Until it became from their side and mixed them, and hesitated in correspondence times [between them and Al-Nasser], and the Tatars in the country greedy, and began to exaggerate their affairs on King Nasser and glorify their affairs and glorify their kingdom, and describe the large number of their soldiers and diminish the status of King Nasser and his soldiers. "
Fooling and exaggeration, and
historian Gerges bin Al-Ameed ( d.672 AH) tells us - in his history, “News of the Ayyubids” - this delusion that took place - before the Mongols entered the Levant - by Najm al-Din al-Hajeb, who appeared to be opposed to Baybars (d. 676 AH) and the Mamluk leaders who supported the military confrontation With the Mongols; He addressed the attendees, saying: “Whoever says that he receives Halawn (= Hulagu) speaks and does not know what he is saying, and who is he who meets Halawn with two hundred thousand knights?"
And when the Mongols approached Damascus, Its king, Al-Nasir, fled to the direction of Egypt to seize it, then he was afraid of the Mamluks and headed to Jordan, then some of his aides betrayed him, and one of them indicated Hulagu where he was. The Greek Qutb al-Din (d. 726 AH) - in his history “The Tail of the Mirror of Time” - says about the fate of the second Nasser after his betrayal of his nation: “So the Tatars piled on him with it, and most of his companions separated from him. Then some of his companions trusted him and walked to them (= the Tatars), so he was with them. In humiliation and disgrace, "then they took him with them - after their defeat at Ain Jalut in 658 AH - to the city of Tabriz (today it is located northwest of Iran); And he remained with them until Hulagu killed him in 659 AH!
As for Minister Zain Al-Din Al-Hafithi - who has a history of betrayal and treachery - Ibn Abi explained to us the price that he received from the Tatars, and what he had of hatred in the hearts of Muslims as a result of his action. He says: “The Tatars (= the Tatars) possessed Damascus in safety and made it a representative on their side, and Zain al-Din also became there and commanded him, and he remained with him as a group of soldiers until they called him 'King Zain al-Din.' 'And when King Al-Muzaffar Qutuz (d.658 AH) arrived, the owner of Egypt, with the soldiers of Islam And the Tatars were broken in the Canaan Valley, the famous great kasrah (= the incident of Ain Jalut), and the countless great creation of the Tatars was killed; the deputy of the Tatars and those with him from Damascus were defeated, and Zain al-Din al-Hafizi went with them, fearing for himself from the Muslims !!
But this traitorous minister subsequently met the fate of King Al-Nasser when Hulagu accused him of corresponding with the Mamluks in Egypt. The historian Ibn al-Dawadari quotes this dialogue, which summarizes some of the endings of traitors in Islamic history: “And it was from the words of Hallawn (= Hulagu) to him - when he wanted to kill him - that he said to him: I have proven your misfortune and your manipulation of states, because you served the owner of Baalbek as a doctor that I confided in, and you agreed with His servants killed him until he was killed; then you moved to the service of King Al-Hafiz (= the owner of the castle of Jaabar Nur al-Din Arslan Shah bin Al-Adel, who died in 639 AH), whom you became known with, so King Al-Nasir [the second] the owner of the Levant concealed on him until you took him out of the castle of Jaabar, then you became the king's service Al-Nasir did with you that which your ambitions did not name him of all good, so you betrayed him with me ...; then he ordered it and he was killed and all of his family!
Al-Safadi provides - in 'Al-Wafi Al-Fatalia' - details explaining the fate and background of Al-Hafizi. He says: "He killed him and killed his children and relatives, who were about fifty, and one of the reasons for this was that he was sent to al-Zahir [Baybars], in the year sixty-two and six hundred."
Betrayals of Andalusia We have previously seen some scenes of rulers ’betrayal of trust in the countries of the Islamic East, but perhaps the Islamic West was earlier than this unfortunate phenomenon, and we delayed it in the remembrance in order to achieve geographical unity in the narration of events and their repercussions until the end, despite the divergence of their times.
The lands of Islam in Andalusia were subjected to a series of betrayals, even as if its history was an uninterrupted flow of it, and the palaces of government witnessed a group of leaders and princes who were in a high degree of lack of honor and hatred to the point of cooperating with the enemy against each other for the sake of short-term personal ambitions. Its punishment for the state of Islam and its civilization in those lands.
When the Umayyad Emir Al-Hakam bin Hisham (d.206 AH) ascended to the seat of government in the Umayyad state in Andalusia; His uncles Suleiman (d.184 AH) and Abdullah (d.208 AH) were not satisfied with the rise of this young prince at their expense, especially since his father Hisham had previously been favored by their father Abd al-Rahman al-Dakhil (d.172 AH) to take over the rule after him. Therefore, they decided to betray the operation by allying with the revolutionaries in the state of Al-Thaghr Al-Aala (whose capital was Zaragoza) north of Andalusia, then in alliance with the Frankish kingdom and its leader Charlemagne (d. 198 AH / 814 AD).
The historian Muhammad Abdullah Anan (d. 1986 CE) - in his book 'The State of Islam in Andalusia', citing Latin sources and a manuscript that has not yet been verified for the book 'Al-Muqtasar' by Ibn Hayyan al-Qurtubi (d.469 AH), dated to years before 233 AH - speaks of this betrayal and alliance with the enemies To the extent that those who took the trouble to travel from Cordoba to Germany and between the two cities a distance of 2,100 km !!
Annan says: “Abdullah [bin Abd al-Rahman the inside] marched to the upper gap, agitating the country and mobilizing supporters to fight the rulers, then across the Bernese Mountains to the countries of the Franks (= France), and sought to meet Charlemagne (Karl the Great) in the city of Ixla Chapelle (= xx). La Chapelle, which is currently the German city of Aachen), where he was holding his court at the time, and he sought help and support, so he honored the king of the Franks and served him, and he responded to his call, and gave the opportunity to intervene in the affairs of Andalusia and fulfill his old ambitions. Charlemagne marched an army with his son Louis Prince of Aquitaine, and he crossed the Bernese He seized the city of Girona (Giranda), and then penetrated into the state of Al-Thaghr Al-A'la Al-Aqla, with the help of some of the Kharijite leaders "from the rebels in those regions.
Despite the failure of the revolutions and the alliance of the two traitorous brothers Suleiman and Abdullah with the Frankish king Charlemagne, as the first was killed by the soldiers of the Umayyad rule in the year 182 AH, and the second fled to Valencia, seeking safety from his nephew, the prince. Then Charlemagne realized the weaknesses of the states of the upper Andalusian divide, as he took advantage of the internal Umayyad dispute between the prince al-Hakam and his uncle, so the calamity was the fall of a large city like Barcelona.
Al-Maqri (d.1041 AH) noted - with insightful insight - the implications of this. So he said in his book, 'Nafah al-Tayyib': “His possession (= the first ruling) escalated, and he proceeded with matters himself. And during a trial that was between him and his uncle, the infidel enemy seized the opportunity in Muslim countries, and they went to Barcelona, and they took possession of it in the year eighty-five [and a hundred], and the Muslim soldiers were late. Below it. "
The fallout loophole and the truth is that the fall of Barcelona had opened the door for the Christian Franks to establish a state called the "Spanish outpost" or "the Gothic outpost", and since then it has become a thorn in the side of the Muslims in Andalusia, and it has evolved with time until it became the "Canton of Catalonia" that later united with the Kingdom of Argun, and the eastern side of the Islamic presence in Andalusia ended later. The betrayal that appeared at the end of the second century AH was the cause of the fall and collapse of Andalusia over several centuries!
And when the grip of the Umayyad state in Andalusia weakened after the death of Caliph Al-Hakam Al-Mustansir in 366 AH, and the ascension of his young son Hisham Al-Muayyad Billah (d.403 AH) to the supremacy of power; The management of the state was assigned to his pilgrim al-Mansur bin Abi Amer (d. 392 AH), who was close to the mother of the little caliph named Sobh al-Bashkaniyyah (d. 390 AH approximately, and was attributed to the country of the Bashkans = the Spanish Basque region). Ibn Abi Amir, with his wit, was able to exclude his rival, the Makin minister in the Umayyad court, Jaafar bin Othman al-Mushafi (d.372 AH).
However, in front of Ibn Abi Amer’s ambitions, a stumbling block remained, which is his son-in-law, the powerful military commander Ghaleb bin Abdul Rahman al-Nasiri (d.371 AH), the owner of remarkable heroics and victories in the Andalusian and Moroccan arenas, as commander-in-chief of the land and sea forces and “the sheikh of the loyalist Qatbah and Persia of Al-Andalus at that time not defended. As Ibn Adhari al-Marrakchi (d. About 695 AH) says in his book, Al-Bayan Al-Maghrib. This was after the two men were filled with the exclusion of the journalist from the sphere of influence in the corridors of the Umayyad court.
Ghalib al-Nasiri realized the danger of the minister Ibn Abi Amer and his goals aimed at dominating the reins of power, especially as he “seized the city (= the capital, Cordoba), a discipline that I forgot the people of the Presence of the People of the Presence of the kuffa and the leaders of politics." In the words of Ibn Adhari. However, the Nazarene - instead of understanding with his opponent or engaging in an internal confrontation with him - decided immediately to declare an alliance with the Christian enemies whom he had repeatedly stunned and defeated them, led by Ramiro III (d. 375 AH / 985 CE), King of Lyon, who was allowed to seek refuge in him. Al-Maqri says: “Ghaleb caught up with the Christians and ran over them, and Ibn Abi Amer met him with those from the armies of Islam, so predestination ruled over Ghaleb’s demise, and what happened to Ibn Abi Amer, and his state got rid of impurities.”
However, this ancient betrayal in the history of the Umayyads in Andalusia; It became a phenomenon in the era of the kings of the sects (422 - 484 AH) and those who followed them. This is because they raced to present the obligations of loyalty, obedience and tribute to the Christian kings of Lyon and Castile, even at the expense of their religion and their homeland in the hope of defeating their opponents from the kings of other sects, and this was evident in the era of Alfonso VI (d. 502 AH) who threw terror into the hearts of the kings of sects, on top of whom is Al-Mu'tamid Bin Abbad (d. 488 AH) is a king of Seville and Cordoba.
The scholar Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (d.456 AH) witnessed this black period in the history of his country, and saw the betrayals of the collegial kings who paid tribute to the kings of Castile, who sold their homelands cheaply, so he wrote with sorrow and anger describing their unbridled willingness to betray. He said: “By God, if they knew that in the worship of the crosses, their affairs would proceed, they would have hastened to it. We see them deriving the Christians from the sanctities of the Muslims and their children and men carrying them as prisoners to their countries ... and perhaps they voluntarily gave them cities and castles, so they would free them from Islam and build them up with all of them, God curse them. ".
Demolition shovels
Alfonso VI managed to occupy many countries and castles of Andalusia without a fight, as Ibn Hazm mentioned; Rather, some of these kings joined his armies against the sons of their religion and their homeland, such as al-Ma'mun ibn Dhi al-Noon, king of Toledo (d.467 AH) and his grandson, Prince al-Qadir bin Dhi al-Noon (d. 485 AH), that cowardly good that the King of Castile was demanding "for money in turn, and by handing over some of his nearby forts From the border, and from which he has already received secret and fatarian fortresses and Qanalsh, all of that and the one who is able is unable to respond, forced to please him. " According to Anan’s account, quoting a historical study on Ibn Abbad written by the Dutch orientalist Reinhart Dozy (d.1883 AD).
Not content with betraying the handover of the fortresses to his enemy, but overthrowing Toledo, the capital of his kingdom, after he withdrew from it so that Alfonso entered it and lost it from the lands of Islam since 478 AH; Rather, he continued to betray him by providing military aid to Alfonso to occupy Valencia. Al-Maqqri says: “The tyrant Ibn Adfunesh (= Alfonso) had exacerbated his matter, when the atmosphere vacated the place of the controversial state (= the Umayyad Caliphate in Andalusia), and what was on his shoulders from the insistence of the Arabs, so he overwhelmed the means, and bothered Ibn Dhu al-Nun until he was taken from his hand Toledo, so he went out to him in the year of seventy-eight and four hundred, and he had to show him to the people of Valencia, so he accepted his condition, and Ibn Azfunesh received it; there is no power or power except with God Almighty.
Indeed; The Castilian forces entered Valencia and wreaked havoc, plunder and sabotage there, and ordered al-Qadir ibn Dhi al-Nun as their subordinate ruler over them, so the people of the city hated him and hated his betrayal and sold him to Toledo and his subordination and humiliated him to Alfonso, and they took advantage of the victory of the Almoravids over the Castilians in the 'Battle of Zallaqa' in 479 AH, so they declared their rebellion against him. Then, the leader of that revolution, Jaafar bin Jahaf (d. 488 AH), killed him “in his hand… and carried his head on a stick around which the markets and rails were carried, and Ibn Jahhaf contained what was with him, and his body was thrown into a sabkha, and a man from the merchants passed it over a door covered with a mats of creation, and buried him. Without a shroud "in the month of Ramadan in the year 485 AH, at the end of a hideous one that was repeated in different ways with many of the traitors of the rulers!
Perhaps Ibn Hazm's call - the aforementioned one - to these submissive kings was answered when the Almoravids intervened to protect what was left of Andalusia, so their Sultan Yusef bin Tashfin (d. 500 AH) defeated Alfonso VI in the famous Zallaqa battle in 479 AH, then the Almohads succeeded them in the rule of Andalusia since the beginning of the forties. The sixth century AH, but the defeat of the Almohads in the famous 'Battle of Punishment' (= the plural of Aqaba) in 609 AH opened the door wide for the emergence of many traitorous rulers and princes and accomplices with the Christian enemy, determined to restore Andalusia to its rule and expel the Muslims from it.
Employment and Christianity:
The Almohad princes were divided among themselves after the ascension of Sultan Abd al-Wahid bin Yusef bin Abdul-Mu'min al-Muhdi in the year 620 AH, when his nephew, the governor of the Andalusian East - and his capital Morsia - Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Yaqoub al-Muhadi (d.624 AH), who declared himself Sultan, objected to his allegiance Newly nicknamed "Al-Adil", and most of the Andalusian island owed him to him, and his cousin pledged allegiance to him, the Wali of Jian and Bayasah, Abdullah bin Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Mu'min al-Muhadi (d.623 AH). As for Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad al-Muhadi - the governor of Valencia, Dania, Shatiba, and the brother of al-Bayasi - he refused this pledge. Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH) - in his history of 'Al-Abr' - says that because of this division between these brothers, “the discord aggravated, and each took note of his command of the tyrant (= Fernando III), and they descended to him from many openings, and the consciences of the people of Andalusia worried about that. !!
Soon, Al-Bayasi turned against the pledge of allegiance to his cousin "Al-Adil" and called for himself and was nicknamed "Al-Zafar". Then he fled to the city of Bayasa near Jian, and fortified it when he sensed the helplessness and danger of the "just", so he was named since then "Al-Bayasi." As Annan says: Al-Bayasi to confront his cousin "he sent to Fernando III (d.650 AH / 1252 AD) the king of Castile to seek help, and we know - since the days of the sects - what was the price that the Christian kings charge for this aid, since [the price] has always been a piece of the remains of Andalusia being spent Without reservation, besides submission and obedience. Al-Bayasi did not deviate from this painful rule !!
Ibn Adhari al-Marrakchi says - in “Al-Bayan Al-Maghribi” - that Al-Bayasi “departed from the obedience of the Almohads, and sought help from the Christians over them and guided them to the shame of these countries ... so they acquired money and killed the men and insulted the harem and children, then he entered with them the fortress of Beja, Walusha and other Islamic forts.” The Moroccan historian Ibn Abi Zara al-Fassi (d. 726 AH) - in 'Al-Anis al-Mutarrib' - comments on what this traitor did, saying: “Al-Bayasi gave the Shalbatra fort to the Christians, and yesterday the (Almohad Sultan) Al-Nasir (d.610 AH) gave him in taking the great money until the Muslims owned it. "!!
Al-Bayasy’s betrayal did not stop there. Indeed, Ibn Abd al-Mun'im al-Hamiri (d. 900 AH) says - in al-Rawd al-Ma’tar - that he “walked with Alvensh (= Fernando III) to take the strongholds of Islam in his name, so he entered Qayta (= a city near Jian) with the sword and killed the enemy there, creating and capturing others. Her speech was horrific. Hearts and hearts were alienated from him. Then [Al-Bayasi] walked to Lusha - who worked in Granada - and he fought its people and fought him and heard him what angered him, so the Christians ruled over them, and they killed them with the most lethality. "
Indeed, Ibn Adhari accuses Al-Bayasi that - in order to achieve his ambitions in power - he committed "heinous things, including that he entered the religion of Christianity and was an old sheikh, so we ask God for good health and good punishment !!" Then Al-Bayasi wanted to seize the city of Seville and its environs, but he was defeated and returned to Cordoba, whose people had hated him for his betrayal and his alliance with the Christians, so they revolted against him and killed him in 623 AH, and his head was carried to Seville.
In Al-Bayasi’s footsteps, to join the alliance of enemies, hand them over to the fortresses of Islam, and even embrace their religion. His brother Abu Zayd walked when one of his leaders called Zayyan Ibn Mardanish (d.637 AH) revolted against him. “He sent him to court him to return, and he refused, and Mr. Abu Zayd joined the tyrant of Barcelona and entered Christianity; may God protect us from that.” As Ibn Khaldun says. Annan added - quoting from the Spanish Christian sources - that this Abu Zayd “renounced his Muslim name and chose a Christian name which is 'Bethany' (= Saint Pathanti San Vicente) ... and he was called in Christian documents: 'Bethany is the king of Valencia and the grandson of the Commander of the Faithful'" !!
Addiction to betrayal
The internal disputes of the monotheists over their property in Morocco and Andalusia, but this did not enrich the phenomenon of betrayal anything. Andalusia was divided after the Almohads, between two men: Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Hud al-Jadami (d.635 AH) who seized eastern Andalusia, and Muhammad bin Yusuf ibn al-Ahmar al-Khazraji (d. 671 AH) who took control of southern and central Andalusia. Despite the reconciliation between the two men, The Castilians were able to besiege Cordoba for several months without Ibn Hood - who was his subordinate - providing it with any kind of assistance and resistance!
And while most of the Islamic historical sources are silent about the reasons for Ibn Hood's reluctance to find Cordoba, The Spanish Christian sources - according to what Annan reported from it - indicate that he used to rely on his army on a number of Christian Castilian mercenaries, and they feared him from their friend, the King of Castile, Fernando III, who was besieging Cordoba with his powerful armies, and this trick led Ibn Hood to leave Cordoba, the Muslim capital in Andalusia faces the fate of its fall alone in Shawwal 633 AH, as a result of its abandonment.
It is noteworthy that we find - in Al-Maqqari's account - that both competitors over the corpse of Andalusia (Ibn Hood and Ibn al-Ahmar) rushed to assist Fernando III, and offered him sacrifices and betrayed their homelands and their flock. As the cities of Andalusia and its major Islamic metropolitans continued to fall into the hands of the enemies with their help, especially Ibn al-Ahmar, who became a vassal of Fernando.
Al-Maqri says: “Ibn al-Ahmar was the first of his command to reach his hand with the tyrant (Fernando III), as a demonstration of his command, and he supported him, and Ibn Hood gave him thirty fortresses in the palm of his west (= safe from his evil) because of Ibn al-Ahmar, and to appoint him to the king of Cordoba, and he took it and then defeated Cordoba in the year three Thirty and six hundred, God restored it; then (Fernando III) descended in Seville in forty-six, and Ibn al-Ahmar was with him, then he entered it peacefully and took over its business, then reigned in Murcia in the year sixty-five, and the tyrant [Castilian] was still cutting the Muslim kingdoms into a region, and a gaping hole !!
Ibn Hood was not content with that betrayal; He died in the year 635 AH, so the contract of his kingdom in eastern Andalusia fell apart after his death, and after him Ibn al-Ahmar remained a captive of subordination to Fernando III, assisting him in handing over the countries of Andalusia to him, even if it seemed to him that this Castilian king aspires to annex all of Andalusia, he cried out for the state of Beni Marin in Morocco, so they rescued him and turned away the Castilians from him. Then Ibn Al-Ahmar died in 671 AH after long years of betrayal and the sale of homelands, which was inherited from him - for two centuries - by a number of his descendants, the princes of the state of Granada!
The last fall, and
if Andalusia had been exposed to these situations during the ages of the Umayyads, the kings of the sects, the Almohads and those who followed them; Its fall completely was not the result of weakness and fragmentation only, but was - more strongly - one of the fruits of the tree of betrayal cursed by the adoration of the Christian enemy in the hope of the Andalusian princes fighting over the possession of power and wealth. Andalusia lived this black era during the era of the kings of Bani Al-Ahmar for several decades, and its major tragedy was in the final scene between Prince Muhammad bin Ali, famous for Abu Abdullah Al-Saghir (d. 933 AH) and his uncle Muhammad bin Saad, known as “Zaghal” (d. After 895 AH).
Abu Abdullah was revenging his uncle for his ascension to the throne after the death of his father, the gathering of the soldiers and the people of Granada around him, and his desperate defense of the capabilities of Andalusia in the face of the Union of Aragon and Castile under the leadership of Queen Isabella (d. 910 AH / 1504 AD) and her husband, King Fernando II of Aragon (d.922 AH / 1516 AD) .
And in his quest to monopolize the rule of Granada; Abu Abdullah Al-Saghir fell into treachery when he sought support and help from the Spanish Christians - headed by Fernando - against his uncle, "Zaghal". Where they provided him with “men, petroleum, gunpowder, wheat, fodder, cattle, gold, silver, and so on, in order to strengthen him with strife and to strengthen evil.” This is also narrated by the author of the book “The Brief of the Age at the End of the State of Bani Nasr,” an unknown author who was an eyewitness to those events.
Because of this civil war, and Abu Abdullah al-Saghir's resort to seeking help from the enemies; The Kingdom of Granada was divided into two halves: the east is ruled by Emir "Zaghal" and its capital is the city of "Adi Ash", and the west is subordinate to Abu Abdullah Al-Saghir, and his capital is Granada. The King of Castile took advantage of these events and seized several cities and fortresses, and what came in 895 AH until Prince "Zaghal" also fell into the trap of betrayal, so he allied with Fernando to avenge his nephew. It is a fatal revenge that ultimately killed all of Andalusia !!
The author of “The Brief of Asr” says: “Then Prince Muhammad bin Saad (= Zaghal) left the city of Wadi Ash, belonging to the owner of Castile, and when he followed him, he pledged allegiance to him and entered his responsibility and obedience to give him .. every city, fortress and village that was under his obedience and rule, and he answered him to His demand, and he returned with him to Wadi Ash (year 895 AH) and he was happy, so the enemy entered it and seized its reed (= its capital) ... and all the knights of the prince entered into his responsibility ... and all his commanders, and became his aid to the Muslims, and they obeyed him all the countries, villages and fortresses that were Under their obedience !!
There is even another opinion that was circulated at the time that Prince “Zaghal” took money with his pimps and his knights for this betrayal. One eyewitness says: “Many people claimed that Prince Muhammad bin Saad and his commanders sold from the owner of Castile these villages and countries that were under their obedience. And they seized its price from him, in the face of opportunity and revenge on the son of his brother Prince Muhammad bin Ali (= Abu Abdullah al-Saghir) and his pimps, because they were in Granada and there was no one else under their obedience, and he was in the peace of the enemy, so he wanted to cut the ties of Granada to perish just as others perished. .
Only three years have passed since the two princes (the uncle and his nephew) betrayed Granada and Granada was besieged, and Fernando and Isabella broke their false promises to the little prince; So they occupied Granada, to permanently overthrow the Islamic State in Andalusia, eight centuries after its establishment!
The results of this conflict were recorded with regret by the Egyptian historian Ibn Iyas (d. 930 AH) - in Badaa'i al-Zuhur - by saying: “And in it (= Dhu al-Hijjah year 886 AH) news came from the countries of the West (= Morocco) that .. Ibn al-Ahmar had revolted against his father .. the owner of Granada and its king .., and matters of lengthy explanation took place between them, and after that the matter perished to the departure of Andalusia from the Muslims and its Frankish king, and the matter is God in that !!
Morocco is also
not far from Andalusia. The countries of the Far Maghreb witnessed some of those hideous betrayals that opened the doors to enemies, in exchange for cheap gains. Perhaps the most famous of them occurred during the reign of the Saadia state (956-1065 AH) during the days of Sultan Al-Mutawakkil (d. 982 AH), who ascended the throne after the death of his father in 982 AH / 1574 CE, but his uncle Mu'tasim Abd al-Malik al-Saadi (d. 986 AH) and Ahmad al-Saadi (d.14141 AH) refused to do so. They invoked the Ottoman Empire, which was then ruling Algeria, and provided him with military forces that were able to control most of the country.
Al-Mutawakkil fled to Tangiers, which was under the occupation of the Portuguese, and he asked for help from them, and they stipulated that he give up all the cities of the Moroccan coast. The author of the book “The History of the Saadia Takmartite State” - an unknown author who died after the beginning of the 11th century AH - says that the Portuguese “said to Mawlai Muhammad: We are going out and you are with us, and if we win the country, we will not share it with you except the coasts, and what is below it is yours, so bless them. With that, they made a commitment to it, then they swore to them in their crosses, and he swore to them according to what was mentioned.
The deposed Sultan al-Mutawakkil had given up the city of Asilah to the Portuguese as a token of friendship, and in the meantime, the scholars of Morocco sent him a strong-language letter accusing him of treason, disbelief and alliance with the enemies. And from what it says: “You agreed with them (= the Portuguese) to enter the original country and gave them the countries of Islam. O God, O Messenger of His Messenger, this calamity that you caused and the Muslims have befallen it, but God Almighty is for you and they are on the lookout, then you did not manage to throw yourself to them, and you were satisfied with them and loyal to them ... As for your saying about the Christians (= the Portuguese) that you returned to the people of the enemy (= Andalusia) - and you refrained from calling them the Christians - in it the abomination that is not hidden! "
Al-Mutawakkil’s alliance with the Portuguese army - led by their king Don Sebastian (d. 986 AH / 1578 CE) - launched an incursion into the Moroccan lands to eliminate the new Sultan Abd al-Malik al-Saadi, and the two sides met at the bank of the 'Wadi al-Makhzen' on 30 Jumada al-Awwal in 986 AH, where one of the epics took place Major Islamic history; Al-Mutawakkil and his ally Don Sebastian and their opponent, Sultan Abdul-Malik, were killed in it, and this event was called: 'The Battle of the Three Kings'.
The Portuguese were defeated overwhelmingly in this battle, and the new Sultan Al-Mansour Ahmed Al-Saadi ordered to “flay the skin of his nephew Moulay Mohamed and stuff it with straw, and he sent him to Marrakesh, so that the people could see him in that situation and consider him. From that day he was called“ the slaughtered ”due to his betrayal and his sale of his homeland and his alliance with enemies His nation.
These are some prominent scenes from the phenomenon of rulers betraying the nation in our ancient history. We saw in it murderous forms of alliance with the enemy, at the expense of the nation's interests and pride, and motivated by abhorrent political selfishness. It is striking that the consequence of many of these sultans was loss, evident in their mortal world. Murder, expulsion, exile, or contempt from the enemy they served, and a curse and time in the souls of peoples and pages of history !!