"The news reached that Jerusalem was handed over 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 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 / 1256 CE) referred to with these words, when he spoke about the moment of handing over Jerusalem hand in hand to the Crusader occupiers, through A "suspicious deal" concluded with them by a Muslim Sultan 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 picture. Rather, we very much need to calm down 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 that were 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 / 1097-1291AD - the Levant and Egypt witnessed several treachery that led - or almost - to the fall of some Islamic regions and cities of great importance at the hands of the Crusader enemy.

The Crusader prince Baldwin I (d.512 AH / 1118 CE) - who was able to occupy the city of Edessa (= 'Urfa' today in Turkey) and establish the first Crusader principality in it in 491 AH / 1098 CE - 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 / 1244 CE) says in his book “The Compendium of the History of Islam”: “And the year of ninety and four hundred entered:… and in it the Franks opened Antioch and Sumusat.”

But Baldwin - before he embarked on the siege of Sumit - 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 Baldwin agreed and saw 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 / AD) in his book, The 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 / 1086 CE - the Seljuk prince Yagi Sayan (d. 491 AH / 1098 CE) in the name of the Seljuk Sultan Malikshah (d. 485 AH / 1092 CE).

Fatal betrayal and to


oppress Antioch, the Crusaders set up a fortress near a nearby hill to tighten the siege that lasted nine months, and Yagi Sian had entrusted an Armenian leader 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 / 1233 CE) says in al-Kamil: “When the Frankish campus reached Antioch, they wrote to one of the keepers of the towers, who is a Zirard (= armor-maker) known as 'Rozaba', and they spent money and fief for him, and it was He is responsible for keeping 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. "

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 / 1094 CE) - entered a new era called the era of ministerial control, in which powerful ministers, senior leaders and some governors struggled for power and authority under the weak Fatimid caliphs.

The most famous of these conflicts was what happened - in Ramadan in the year 558 AH / 1163 CE - between the military commander Dergham bin Amer Al-Lakhmi (d. 559 AH / 1164 CE) and Minister Shawar bin Mujir al-Saadi (d.

As Durgham managed to grab the position of the Fatimid ministry

What was a consultation but set out towards Damascus to seek help and relief from the Zangid Sultan Nur al-Din Mahmud (d. 569 AH / AD), 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 in the country after the military boycotts, and he would be with him from The princes of the Levant are those who reside with him in Egypt, and he will act according to Nur al-Din's orders and his choice. "

As Al-Maqrizi (d.845 AH / 1441 CE) says in “Al-Hanaf’s teaching of the news of the Fatimid imams of the caliph.”

However, Shawer turned against that agreement with Nur al-Din, and he continued to treachery when he allied with the Crusaders, and they coveted to seize Egypt.

According to al-Maqrizi;

For what came in the year 564 AH / 1169 CE except when “the Franks gained control over the lands of Egypt and ruled unfairly in them, and they rode the Muslims with great harm, and they were certain that there was no protector for the country, and the weakness of the state was revealed to them, and the shame of the people was revealed to them.”

Were it not that Sultan Nur al-Din sent - again and in an urgent manner - the leaders Asad al-Din Shirkuh (d. 564 AH / 1169 CE) and Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH / 1193 CE) to crush this alliance and eliminate Shawar and the Crusader presence;

The Crusaders occupied Egypt as they occupied Palestine and the coasts of Levant.

A stab for the grandparents,


however, what is surprising and astonishing in the incidents of betrayal of rulers on that date is that it came from children after the honorable grandparents' inheritance in the battlefields, and when their blood dried up in order to support their religion and protect their homelands.

Rather, the fruit 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 / 1187 AD, with a long preparation and a great struggle;

Some of his relatives returned and handed it over to the Crusader occupiers, so that their action would be "a mark of shame in the life of kings."

As he rightly said one of the poets.

The betrayal of handing over Jerusalem has been repeated twice.

The first of them was in 626 AH / 1229 CE in what was known as the Sixth Crusade, when the complete Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt Muhammad ibn al-Adil (d.635 AH / 1237 CE) handed it over 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 the lands of Al-Jazirah Al-Ashraf Musa (d.635 AH / 1237 AD) 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 to prevent them from what they wanted ... And you know that our uncle, Sultan Saladin, opened the sacred house, so we have this beautiful remembrance on The hurricane and the passage of days pass, and if the Franks took it, what happened to us from the bad remembrance and ugliness of the modern day contradicts that beautiful remembrance that our uncle saved, and what aspect remains for us with the people and with God Almighty? !! And the historian Ibn Wasel al-Hamwi (d.697 AH / 1298 CE) says - “Mafrej al-Karroub in Bani Ayyub’s news,” quoting his father, who was in Jerusalem witnessing that betrayal - that “when the truce occurred, the Sultan sent from Jerusalem calling for the Muslims to leave and hand 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 for the Muslims, and they mourned the exit of Jerusalem from their hands, and they denied this action to the perfect king and encouraged him. The conquest of this honorable country and its salvation from the infidels was one of the greatest exploits of his uncle, King Al-Nasir Salah al-Din !!

Al-Quds remained in the hands of the Crusaders for more than ten years until he recovered it from them in 637 AH / 1239 CE by Sultan Al-Nasir Dawud Ibn Al-Mu’adam (d. In the same year, the historian Ibn Aybak Al-Dawadari (d. After 736 AH / 1335 AD) says in 'Treasure of Al-Durar and Jameh Al-Gharar': “And in it (= the year 637 AH / 1239 AD) Al-Nasir Dawood, 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.

Forgetting that he assigned the preacher to the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi to deliver an impious sermon in the Umayyad Mosque to condemn what his "complete" uncle did in terms of surrendering to Jerusalem!

Then Jerusalem remained captive to the Crusaders until the year 642 AH / 1244 AD.

As the righteous Sultan Ayyub was able to crush the Crusaders and Ayyubid Al-Sham allied with them in the "Battle of Gaza", where 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 erasing its effects was the minister Muayad al-Din bin Al-Alqami (d.656 AH / 1258 CE), who worked - politely and on several axes - To overthrow the Abbasids and erase their monuments, even in cooperation with the Tatar occupiers.

Ibn Al-Sa’i (d. 674 AH / AD) - 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 News of the Caliphs”: “And the Tatars (= Tatars / Mongols) and their greed in the country, it is said that (the Mongolian leader)) Hulaku (d. 663 AH / 1265 AD) when the minister's office reached him disguised himself and entered Baghdad in the uniform of a merchant and met with the minister and the chief of the 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 a year Fifty-six hundred (656 AH / 1258 AD), and the minister went out to them and trusted them over his family and himself, and said [to Caliph al-Mustasim, who died in 656 AH / 1258 CE]: This came to marry his daughter to your son. The largest of Baghdad, sect after sect, until they became full of the Tatars, so they placed the sword in them and killed the caliph. "

Ibn Al-Alqami thought that he would enjoy his betrayal and rise above his throats after reaching 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 vizier’s rug and addressed him as he wanted, and with the mare on the rug and the machine gun hit the minister's clothes while he was patient for this disgrace, 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 / 1363 CE) in al-Wafi Balufiyat.

And while Baghdad fell through treachery and deceit in 656 AH / 1258AD;

Damascus also fell in the following year by the same method, and the ruler of Damascus at the time, the Ayyubid King Al-Nasir II Yusuf (d.659 AH / 1261AD), 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 / 1269 AD) described him - In his book “Uyun al-Anbaa” - that he was "a coward who stopped war."

When he received the letter of Hulagu in which he says according to Ibn al-Abri's narration (d.685 AH / 1286 CE) in “The History of the Country Brief”: “King Al-Nasir knows that we came to Baghdad in the year fifty-six six hundred (656 AH / 1258 AD), and opened it with the sword of God Almighty, and we brought its owner. ... so let you be respected in the past, and with what we have mentioned and we have said is contemptible.

And with the cheese of King Nasser;

His Minister, Doctor Zain Al-Din Al-Hafithi (d.662 AH / 1264 AD), and Prince Najm Al-Din, who was his guardian, were among the weak and cowardly men who were closer to positions of betrayal than them to confrontation and steadfastness in order to protect the homelands, and they incited King Al-Nasir to surrender.

In depicting the motives of that position, Ibn Abi Issa'ah says: “The messengers of the Tatars came from the east to King Al-Nasir, asking for the country and making a condition for him with what he brought to them from the money and other things. So Zain al-Din al-Hafithi 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 several times [between them and Al-Nasser], and the Tatars in the country greedily, 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. "

Foolishness and exaggeration, and the


historian Gerges bin al-Ameed (d. 672 AH / 1273 CE) 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-Hajib, who appeared to be opposed to Baybars (d. 676 AH / 1277 CE) and the leaders The Mamelukes in favor of a 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 / 1326 CE) - in his history “The Tail of the Mirror of Time” - says about the fate of the second Nasser after his betrayal of his nation: “The Tatars pocketed him with it, and most of his companions separated from him, then some of his companions trusted him and walked to them (= the Tatars), He was with them in humiliation and disgrace. "Then they took him with them - after their defeat at Ain Jalut in 658 AH / 1260 AD - to the city of Tabriz (today it is located northwest of Iran). And he remained with them until Hulagu killed him in 659 AH / 1261 AD!

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.' 'When King Al-Muzaffar Qutuz (d.658 AH / 1260 AD), the owner of Egypt, arrived with him. Soldiers of Islam, and the Tatars were broken in the Canaan Valley, the famous great kasrah (= the incident of Ain Jalut), and the great and innumerable creation of the Tatars were 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 !!

However, 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 tampering with states, because you served the owner of Baalbek as a doctor that I confided in, and agreed with him. 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 / 1241 AD), which you were known by, so King Al-Nasir [the second] the owner of the Levant kept him until you drove him out of the Citadel of Jaabar, then you became to Serving King Nasser, so he did with you that which your ambitions did not name him of all good, so you betrayed him with me ...; then he commanded him and he was killed and all of his people! "

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, and they were about fifty, and among the reasons for that was written that he sent to al-Zahir [Baybars] and that was 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 have 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 regions.

When the Umayyad prince Al-Hakam bin Hisham (d.206 AH / 821 CE) ascended to the seat of government in the Umayyad state in Andalusia;

His uncles Suleiman (d. 184 AH / 800 CE) and Abdullah (d.208 AH / 823 CE) were not satisfied with the rise of this young prince at their expense, especially since his father Hishama had previously been preferred by their father Abd al-Rahman al-Dakhil (d.172 AH / AD) 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-A'la (whose capital was Zaragoza) north of Andalusia, and then in alliance with the Kingdom of the Franks and its leader Charlemagne (d. 198 AH / 814 AD).

The historian Muhammad Abdullah Anan (d.1407 AH / 1986 CE) speaks in his book 'The State of Islam in Andalusia', quoting from Latin sources and a manuscript that has not yet been verified of the book 'Al-Muqtasah' by Ibn Hayyan al-Qurtubi (d.469 AH / 1176 CE) dated to years before 233 AH / 848 CE. From this betrayal and alliance with the enemies, to the extent that those who carried it out bothered 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, crippling 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 helped him, and he responded to his call, and gave the opportunity to intervene in the affairs of Andalusia and fulfill his old ambitions. He seized the city of Girona (Giranda), and then penetrated into the state of Al-Thaghr Al-A'la, with the help of some of the Kharijite leaders, "from the rebels of 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 / 798 AD, 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, just 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 al-Tlemceni (d. 1041 AH / 1631 CE) - with insight - noted 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. 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 opened the door for the Christian Franks to establish a state called "the Spanish outpost" or "the Gothic outpost". 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 downfall 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 / 977 CE, and the ascension of his young son Hisham Al-Muayyad Billah (d.403 AH / 1013 CE) to the reign of power; The administration of the state was assigned to his companion Al-Mansur bin Abi Aamer (d. Ibn Abi Amer, with his wit, was able to exclude his rival, the Makin minister in the Umayyad court, Jaafar bin Uthman al-Mushafi (d.372 AH / 983 CE).

In front of Ibn Abi Amer’s ambitions, however, an enormous obstacle remained, which was his son-in-law, the powerful military commander Ghaleb bin Abdul Rahman al-Nasiri (d. Defended by him ", as Ibn Adhari al-Marrakchi (d. Roughly 695 AH / 1296 CE) 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) as a discipline that I forgot the people of the Presence of the people of Al-Kifah 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), the 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 Ibn Abi Aamer did what was found for him, 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 Taifas (422-484 AH / 1032-1091AD) 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 / 1108 AD) who threw terror into the hearts of the kings of the sects and on their head Al-Mu'tamid bin Abbad (d. 488 AH / 1095 CE) is a king of Seville and Cordoba.

The scholar Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (d. 456 AH / 1065 AD) 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 in the 'Risalah al-Tajsil al-Wajh al-Ridiyat': “By God, if they knew that in the worship of the crosses, their affairs would walk, they would hasten to do it. God made them all and cast a sword on them from His swords.

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 homeland, such as al-Ma'mun ibn Dhi al-Nun, king of Toledo (d. 467 AH / 1074 CE) and his grandson, Prince al-Qadir bin Dhul-Nun (d. By handing over some of his forts close to the border, from which he has already received secret, fatwa and Qanals forts, all of that and the one who is able is unable to respond, is forced to satisfy him. "

According to Anan’s account, quoting a historical study on Ibn Abbad written by the Dutch orientalist Reinhart Dozy (d. 1300 AH / 1883 CE).

The al-Qadir was not satisfied with betraying the forts to his enemy, but also 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 / 1085 CE;

Rather, he continued to betray him by providing military aid to Alfonso to occupy Valencia.

Al-Maqri 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 they commanded 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 his sale 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 / 1086 CE, and they declared their Thomists in 479 AH / 1086 CE. They arrested him, so the leader of that revolution Jaafar bin Jahaf (d. 488 AH / 1095 CE) killed him in his hand… and his head was carried on a stick around the markets and rails. He buried him without a shroud "in the month of Ramadan in the year 485 AH / 1092 AD, at a hideous end that was repeated in different ways with many 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 defeated Yusef bin Tashfin (d. Al-Andalus since the early forties of the sixth century AH, but the defeat of the Almohads in the famous 'Battle of Punishment' (= the plural of Aqaba) in 609 AH / 1212 CE opened the door wide for the emergence of many traitorous governors and princes and accomplices with the Christian enemy, determined to restore Andalusia to its rule and expel Muslims from it .

Employment and Christianity:


The Almohad princes were divided among themselves after the ascension of Sultan Abd al-Wahid bin Yusef bin Abd al-Mu'min al-Muhdi in the year 620 AH / 1223 CE, when his nephew, the governor of the Andalusian East - and his capital Morsia - Abu Muhammed Abdullah bin Yaqoub al-Muhadi (d.624 AH / 1227 CE) objected to his allegiance. Who declared himself a new sultan, dubbed "Al-Adil," and was owed to him most of the Andalusian island, and his cousin pledged allegiance to him, the Wali of Jian and Bayasah Abdullah bin Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Mu'min al-Muhdi (d.623 AH / 1226 AD).

As for Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad al-Muhadi - the governor of Valencia, Dania, Shatiba, and the brother of al-Bayasi - he refused this pledge of allegiance.

Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH / 1406 CE) - in his history of 'Al-Abr' - says that because of this division between these brothers, “the discord aggravated, and each sought the tyrant (= Fernando III), and they revealed to him many openings, and the consciences of the people worried about that. Andalus"!!

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 he fortified it when he sensed the strength 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 exerted. Without reservation, besides submission and obedience. Al-Bayasy 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 those countries ... so they acquired money and killed the men and insulted the harem and children, then entered with them the fortress of Beja, Walusha and other Islamic forts.”

The Moroccan historian Ibn Abi Zara al-Fassi (d. 726 AH / 1326 CE) - in 'Anis al-Mutarrib' - comments on what this traitor did by saying: “Al-Bayasi gave the Shalbatara fort to the Christians, and yesterday the (Almohad Sultan) Al-Nasir (d.610 AH / AD) gave in taking money Venerable even the Muslims king !!

Al-Bayassi's betrayal did not stop there.

Indeed, Ibn Abd al-Mun'im al-Hamiri (d. 900 AH / 1506 CE) says - in 'Al-Rawd al-Maatar' - that he “walked with Alvensh (= Fernando III) to take the strongholds of Islam in his name, so he entered Qayyta (= a city near Jian) ​​with the sword and killed the enemy there by creating and capturing others And her speech was horrific, alienated from hearing and hearts; 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 - to achieve his ambitions in power - he committed "heinous things, including that he entered the religion of Christianity and was an old sheikh. 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 / 1226 AD "and his head was carried to Seville."

In Al-Bayasi’s footsteps, to join the alliance of enemies, hand them over as 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 / 1239 AD) 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 the religion of Christianity; may God protect us from that.”

As Ibn Khaldun says.

ويضيف عنان -نقلا عن المصادر النصرانية الإسبانية- أن أبا زيد هذا "نبذ اسمه المسلم واختار اسما نصرانياً هو ‘بثنتى‘ (= القديس بثنتي San Vicente)…، وكان يُسمَّى في الوثائق النصرانية: ‘بثنتى ملك بلنسية وحفيد أمير المؤمنين‘"!!

إدمان الخيانة
أتت الخلافات الداخلية للموحدين على مُلكهم في المغرب والأندلس، بيد أن ذلك لم يُغنِ من ظاهرة الخيانة شيئًا؛ فقد انقسمت الأندلس بعد الموحدين بين رجلين: هما محمد بن يوسف ابن هود الجذامي (ت 635هـ/1237م) الذي استولى على شرقي الأندلس، ومحمد بن يوسف ابن الأحمر الخزرجي (ت 671هـ/1272م) الذي سيطر على جنوب ووسط الأندلس.

ورغم وقوع الصلح بين الرجلين؛ فإن القشتاليين استطاعوا محاصرة قرطبة لعدة أشهر دون أن يمدها ابن هود –الذي كانت تابعة له- بأي نوع من المساعدة والمقاومة!

ولئن صمتت أغلبية المصادر التاريخية الإسلامية عن أسباب إحجام ابن هود عن إنجاد قرطبة؛ فإن المصادر النصرانية الإسبانية –حسبما ينقله عنها عنان- تفيد بأنه كان يعتمد في جيشه على عدد من مرتزقة النصارى القشتاليين، وقد خوّفوه من صاحبهم ملك قشتالة فرناندو الثالث الذي كان يحاصر قرطبة بجيوشه الجرارة، وقد حملت هذه الخدعة ابن هود على ترك قرطبة عاصمة المسلمين في الأندلس تواجه مصير السقوط وحدها في شوال سنة 633هـ/1236م جراء خذلانها.

واللافت أننا نجدُ -في روايةٍ للمقَّري- أن كلا من المتنافسيْن على جثة الأندلس (ابن هود وابن الأحمر) قد سارعَ إلى معاونة فرناندو الثالث، وتقديم القرابين له وخيانة أوطانهم ورعيتهم؛ حيث تتابع سقوط مدن الأندلس وحواضرها الإسلامية الكبرى في أيدي الأعداء بمعاونتهم، ولاسيما ابن الأحمر الذي أصبح بمثابة التابع لفرناندو.

يقول المقّري: "وكان ابن الأحمر أول أمره وصل يدَه بالطاغية (فرناندو الثالث) استظهارًا على أمره فعضّدَه، وأعطاه ابن هود ثلاثين حصنًا في كفّ غَرْبِه (= يأمن شرّه) بسبب ابن الأحمر، وليعينه على ملك قُرطبة، فتسلمها ثم تغلّب على قرطبة سنة ثلاث وثلاثين وستمئة، أعادها الله؛ ثم نازَل (فرناندو الثالث) إشبيلية سنة ست وأربعين وابن الأحمر معه، ثم دخلها صُلحًا وملَك أعمالها، ثم ملك مُرسية سنة خمس وستين، ولم يزل الطاغية [القشتالي] يقتطع ممالك المسلمين كورة كورة، وثغرًا ثغرًا"!!

لم يهنأ ابن هود بتلك الخيانة؛ فقد توفي سنة 635هـ/1237م فانفرط عِقد مملكته شرقي الأندلس إثر وفاته، وظل بعده ابن الأحمر أسير التبعية لفرناندو الثالث يعاونه في تسليم بلدان الأندلس إليه، حتى إذا لاح له أن هذا الملك القشتالي يطمح إلى ضم كل الأندلس استصرخ بدولة بني مَرِينْ في المغرب فأنجدوه وصدوا عنه القشتاليين، ثم توفي ابن الأحمر سنة 671هـ/1272م بعد سنوات طويلة من الخيانة وبيع الأوطان، وهو ما ورثه عنه -طوال قرنين- عدد من أحفاده أمراء دولة غرناطة!

السقوط الأخير
وإذا كانت الأندلس قد تعرضت لتلك المواقف في عصور بني أمية وملوك الطوائف والموحدين ومن تلاهم؛ فإن سقوطها بالكلية لم يكن نتاج ضعف وتشرذم فقط، بل كان -على نحو أقوى- إحدى ثمرات شجرة الخيانة الملعونة بممالأة العدو النصراني طمعا من الأمراء الأندلسيين المتصارعين في حيازة الحكم والثروة.

وقد عاشت الأندلس هذه الحقبة السوداء في عصر ملوك بني الأحمر عقودا عددا، وكانت مأساتها الكبرى في مشهد النهاية بين الأمير محمـد بن علي الشهير بأبي عبد الله الصغير (ت 933هـ/1527م) وعمه محمد بن سعد المعروف بـ"الزَّغل" (ت بعد 895هـ/1490م).

فقد كان أبو عبد الله ينقم على عمّه صعوده للعرش بعد وفاة والده، والتفاف الجند وأهل غرناطة حوله، ودفاعه المستميت عن مقدرات الأندلس في وجه اتحاد أرغون وقشتالة بقيادة الملكة إيزابيلا (ت 910هـ/1504م) وزوجها الملك فرناندو الثاني الأرغوني (ت 922هـ/1516م).

وفي سعيه للاستئثار بحكم غرناطة؛ وقَع أبو عبد الله الصغير في مواقف الخيانة حين طلب الدعم والعون من النصارى الإسبان -وعلى رأسهم فرناندو- ضد عمه "الزغل"؛ حيث أمدّوه "بالرجال والأنفاط والبارود والقمح والعلف والبهائم والذهب والفضّة وغير ذلك؛ ليشد به عضد الفتنة ويُقوّي الشرّ"؛ كما يروي ذلك صاحب كتاب ‘نبذة العصر في انقضاء دولة بني نصر‘، وهو مؤلف مجهول كان شاهدَ عِيانٍ على تلك الأحداث.

وبسبب هذه الحرب الأهلية، ولجوء أبي عبد الله الصغير للاستنجاد بالأعداء؛ انقسمت مملكة غرناطة إلى شطرين: شرقي يحكمه الأمير "الزغل" وعاصمته مدينة ‘وآدي آش‘، وغربي تابع لأبي عبد الله الصغير وعاصمته غرناطة. وقد استغل ملك قشتالة هذه الأحداث فاستولى على عدة مدن وحصون، وما جاء عام 895هـ/1490م حتى وقَع أيضا الأمير "الزغل" في فخ الخيانة فتحالف مع فرناندو انتقاما من ابن أخيه؛ وهو انتقام فادح أودى بالأندلس كلها في النهاية!!

يقول مؤلف ‘نبذة العصر‘: "ثم خرج الأمير محمـد بن سعد (= الزغل) من مدينة وادي آش تابعًا لصاحب قشتالة، فلما لحقه بايعه ودخل في ذمّته وتحت طاعته على أن يُعطيه.. كل مدينة وحصن وقرية كانت تحت طاعته وحكمه، فأجابه إلى مطلبه، ورجع معه إلى وادي آش (سنة 895هـ/1490م) وهو فرح مسرور، فدخلها العدو وقبض قصبتها (= عاصمتها)…، ودخل في ذمّته جميع فرسان الأمير.. وجميع قواده، وصاروا له عونا على المسلمين، وطوّعوا له جميع البلاد والقرى والحصون التي كانت تحت طاعتهم"!!

بل إن ثمة رأيًا آخر قد تردد آنذاك مفاده أن الأمير "الزغل" قبض مع قوّاده وفرسانه ثمن هذه الخيانة مالا، يقول أحد شهود العيان: "وزعمَ كثير من الناس أن الأمير محمـد بن سعد وقواده باعوا من صاحب قشتالة هذه القرى والبلاد التي كانت تحت طاعتهم وقبضوا منه ثمنها، وذلك على وجه الفرصة والانتقام من ولد أخيه الأمير محمـد بن علي (= أبي عبد الله الصغير) وقوّاده؛ لأنهم كانوا في غرناطة ولم يكن تحت طاعتهم غيرها، وكان في صلح العدو؛ فأراد بذلك قطع علائق غرناطة لتهلك كما هلك غيرها".

ولم تمرّ سوى ثلاث سنوات على خيانة الأميريْن (العم وابن أخيه) إلا وقد حُوصرت غرناطة، وأخلف فرناندو وإيزابيلا وعودهما الكاذبة للأمير الصغير؛ فاحتلّوا غرناطة لتسقط نهائيا دولة الإسلام في الأندلس بعد ثمانية قرون من قيامها!

وقد سجل نتائج هذا الصراع بحسرةٍ المؤرخُ المصري ابن إياس (ت 930هـ/1524م) -في ‘بدائع الزهور‘- بقوله: "وفيه (= ذي الحجة سنة 886هـ/1481م) جاءت الأخبار من بلاد الغرب (= المغرب) أن.. ابن الأحمر قد ثار على أبيه.. صاحب غرناطة وملكها..، وجرت بينهما أمور يطول شرحها، وآل الأمر بعد ذلك إلى خروج الأندلس عن المسلمين وملكها الفرنج؛ والأمر لله في ذلك"!!

والمغرب أيضا
وغير بعيد من لأندلس؛ شهدت بلاد المغرب الأقصى بعض تلك الخيانات الشنيعة التي فتحت الأبواب أمام الأعداء، في مقابل مكاسب رخيصة؛ ولعل أشهرها ما وقع في عهد الدولة السعدية (956-1065هـ/1549-1655م) أيام السلطان المتوكل (ت 982هـ/1574م) الذي ارتقى العرش بعد وفاة والده عام 982هـ/1574م، لكن عمّيه المعتصم عبد الملك السعدي (ت 986هـ/1578م) وأحمد السعدي (ت 1012هـ/1603م) رفضا ذلك، واستنجدا بالدولة العثمانية التي كانت آنذاك تحكم الجزائر، فأمدته بقوات عسكرية استطاع بها السيطرة على معظم البلاد.

هرب المتوكل إلى طنجة التي كانت خاضعة لاحتلال البرتغاليين، وطلب العون منهم فاشترطوا عليه التنازل عن مدن الساحل المغربي كلها. يقول صاحب كتاب ‘تاريخ الدولة السعدية التكمدارتية‘ -وهو مؤلف مجهول توفي بعد مطلع القرن الـ11 الهجري- إن البرتغاليين "قالوا لمولاي محمد: نحن خارجون وأنت معنا، فإن ظفرنا بالبلاد فلا قِسْم لنا معك فيها إلا السواحل، وما دونها فهو لك، فأنعم لهم بذلك وتعاهدوا عليه، فعند ذلك حلفوا لهم في صُلبانهم وحلف لهم هو على ما ذكر".

وكان السلطان المخلوع المتوكل قد تنازل عن مدينة أصيلا للبرتغاليين عربونَ صداقة، وفي أثناء ذلك أرسل إليه علماء المغرب رسالة شديدة اللهجة يتهمونه فيها بالخيانة والكفر والتحالف مع الأعداء؛ ومما جاء فيها: "اتّفقتَ معهم (= البرتغاليين) على دخول أصيلا وأعطيتهم بلاد الإسلام، فيا لله ويا لرسوله هذه المصيبة التي أحدثتَها وعلى المسلمين فتقتها، ولكن الله تعالى لك ولهم بالمرصاد، ثم لم تتمالك أن ألقيتَ نفسك إليهم، ورضيت بجوارهم وموالاتهم…؛ وأما قولك في النصارى (= البرتغاليين) إنك رجعتَ إلى أهل العُدْوة (= الأندلس) -واستنكفتَ أن تُسمّيهم بالنصارى- ففيه المقت الذي لا يخفى"!

انطلق تحالف المتوكل مع جيش البرتغاليين -بقيادة ملكهم دون سباستيان (ت عام 986هـ/1578م)- فتوغّلوا في الأراضي المغربية للقضاء على السلطان الجديد عبد الملك السعدي، والتقى الجانبان عند ضفة ‘وادي المخازن‘ يوم 30 جمادى الأولى عام 986هـ/1578م، حيث دارت إحدى ملاحم التاريخ الإسلامي الكبرى؛ فقُتل فيها المتوكل وحليفه دون سباستيان وخصمهما السلطان عبد الملك، فسميت هذه الوقعة: ‘معركة الملوك الثلاثة‘.

انهزم البرتغاليون هزيمة ساحقة في هذه المعركة، وأمر السلطان الجديد المنصور أحمد السعدي "بسلخ جلد ابن أخيه مولاي محمـد وحشوه تِبْنًا، وأرسله إلى مراكش فطيف به ليُعاينه الناس على تلك الحالة ويعتبرون به، فمن يومئذ سُمي ‘المسلوخ‘" جراء خيانته وبيعه لوطنه ومحالفته لأعداء أمته.

تلك بعض مشاهد بارزة من ظاهرة خيانة الحكام للأمة في تاريخنا القديم؛ رأينا فيها أشكالا قاتلة من التحالف مع العدو، على حساب مصالح الأمة وعزّتها، وبدافع من الأنانية السياسية المقيتة. واللافت أن عاقبة كثير من هؤلاء السلاطين كانت خُسرانًا مبينا في دنياهم الفانية؛ قتلا أو طردًا ونفيًا أو احتقارًا من العدو الذي خدموه، ولعنة ومقْتاً في نفوس الشعوب وصفحات التاريخ!!