“The caliphate after the extinction of the four rightly-guided caliphs was marred by the defects of usurpation and arrogance, and the pure right to the imamate became rejected, and the imamate became a broken monarchy!!”
This was a focused and expressive historical and jurisprudential summary written by
(d. 478 AH / 1185 AD) in his book 'Ghiath al-Ummam', to highlight one of the major facts on which our Islamic history was built during its prolonged eras and its successive states, and on the basis of which the phrase "died in prison" and its analogues became common. In the bellies of history books and translations, you find yourself looking at the biography of a sultan or a political opponent.
Although death in prison is one of the punishments that have been frequent in our Islamic history;
It is astonishing to find that this is repeated when tracing the biographies of caliphs, kings and sultans who ruled in all ages, and throughout the extension of Muslim countries, east and west;
As if imprisonment - and the death that often follows it - is the inevitable fate of everyone who has betrayed the balance of power in the game of power struggle, in the absence of a constitutional reference to which opponents will be tried with conviction and impartiality.
Reading the stories of the deaths of the deposed sultans in their prisons - and indeed the history of political prisoners in general - gives an ideal opportunity to learn about another aspect of Islamic political history, and an insight to examine the history of constitutional legitimacy not only through political jurisprudence, but also through reality by reviewing the stories of the removal from power following the seizure And influence, and the horrors of the darkness of cells after the luxury of the king and the pomp of power!!
The Arabs used to say that "king is sterile", meaning a break in the family and moral ties, seeking tyranny with the king and its fruits!!
The truth is that the conditions of dealing with the king by conquest were conclusive of Islamic ideals and values before uterine values were cut off.
It is a very weak aspect in our history and we must acknowledge it as a very negative impact of the absence of the principle of legitimate and peaceful transfer of power, and one of its manifestations is the killing of deposed sultans by slow death in prisons and the like of house arrest or a suffocating siege of a defenseless sultan.
In this article, we do not adopt comparisons between the models that we will present, nor do we aim to compare circumstances with circumstances or characters with characters;
Each event or prison has its own talk and circumstance derived from its environment, even if the motives are sometimes identical and the mechanisms are similar.
Moreover, these sultans - regardless of how they came to power - were uneven in eligibility to rule and rationality in its exercise.
But we present here the idea of the rotation of power between rulers in the history of Muslims in the absence of constitutional legitimacy, and the rule of wasting the principles of shura and justice;
To see when this painful phenomenon began?
What are the historical contexts in which it was repeated?
How did historians and jurists study and analyze it?
A dangerous precedent
even though Islam came to establish a political system based on allegiance, consultation, respect for the legitimacy of the nation, and obedience to its chosen leadership as long as it adheres to the truth and proceeds from it;
It quickly separated the foundations and political ethics from reality, and the distance between the two parties kept increasing until the breaches widened over the area in modern times.
One of the results of this separation was the phenomenon of killing the deposed caliphs, princes and sultans;
And one of the most severe forms of this phenomenon is what is sometimes after the ability of the "deposed ruler", so he spends his death while he is in a prison - or a place of house arrest - affiliated with his opponent who overthrew him, and he is one of his people and adherents of his religion!
The murder of the Rightly Guided Caliph Othman bin Affan (d. 35 AH / 656 AD) - may God be pleased with him - was confined to his house in the position of a prisoner, was the first form of this phenomenon in the history of Islam;
That is because the renegades of Uthman had besieged him for purely political reasons, after they attacked him as much as they could of
public opinion in the Islamic cities
In this regard, al-Tabari (d. 310 AH / 922 AD) says - in his history - that these opponents “made books to write to the cities with books that they put in the faults of their rulers, and their brothers write to them with the same, and the people of each of them write to Egypt another with what they do, so those in their cities read it and those in their cities, until they took over the city and expanded the land with broadcasts, and they want something other than what they show, and they are pleased with something other than what they reveal.”
Among their demands was the exclusion of Othman from his relatives who accused him of favoring him with positions at the expense of Muslims, as they claimed his departure from the conduct of public affairs from the way of his two companions, Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (d. 13 AH / 635 AD) and Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (d. 23 AH / 645 AD). Senior Companions - such as Ali, Talha and al-Zubayr, may God be pleased with them - refuted these accusations, and consequently the plan of the besieged failed by Uthman's rejection of the principle of abdicating the rule so as not to establish a precedent for those after him, "so that it becomes a Sunnah: whenever a people hates their caliph or imam, they kill him"; Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH / 855 AD) also mentioned in his book 'Virtues of the Companions'.
The besiegers tightened the cord on the Caliph's house for weeks in which he was a prisoner before he was finally killed; Uthman did not accept any armed defense of him so that the blood of Muslims would not be shed because of him, so that would be a current year in subsequent generations. Ibn Asaker (d. 571 AH / 1175 AD) narrates - in the History of Damascus - that al-Hasan bin Ali (d. 49 AH / 670 AD) - may God be pleased with them both - entered with his weapon on the Caliph Othman, and he said to him: "O Commander of the Faithful, here I am between Your hands, so give me your command, and Uthman said to him: O my nephew, have ties of kinship with you, for the people do not want anyone but me, and by God, I do not fear the believers, but I protect the believers in myself.”
Then the besieged people tightened their grip on him until he reached the point of preventing him from eating and drinking. Even Ali bin Abi Talib (d. 40 AH / 661 AD) stood among them one day - according to al-Tabari - and said: “O people, what you do is not similar to the order of the believers or the order of the unbelievers! Do not cut off from this man the substance (= food and drink), for The Romans and Persia are captivated and given food and water, and this man has not been exposed to you, so why do you consider it permissible to confine him and kill him?!” The people were "one hand in evil" - as Ibn Saad describes them (d. 230 AH / 845 AD) in 'Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra' - so they killed Othman (Z) imprisoned in his "house of house arrest", where one of them "choked and strangled him before he was beaten] e] by the sword"; According to the narration of Khalifa bin Khayat al-Basri (d. 240 AH / 854 AD) in his history.
This is how Caliph Uthman died in defense of the nation's right to maintain its constitutional legitimacy even if its symbol was killed. Despite that, his killing, may God be pleased with him, was "one of the greatest causes that provoked strife among people, and because of it the nation has been divided to this day." As mentioned by
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
(d. 728 AH / 1328 AD) in 'Majmoo' al-Fatawa'. One of the effects of this dispersal was the Battle of the Camel and two ranks after a deep division between the Companions and the followers into two camps, one led by the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib and the other led by the Prince of Levant Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (d. 60 AH / 681 AD), then the killing of the Caliph Ali in the year 40 AH / 661 AD.
The “Year of the Community” in the year 41 AH was a defining moment in that dangerous division. In it, Al-Hassan bin Ali relinquished the claim of the caliphate and handed it over to Muawiyah, on condition that the matter returns to the nation after Muawiyah by consultation, so that they may choose for their rule whom they see as the best and most guiding for that. But Muawiyah - with the passage of time - decided to keep power in his Umayyad house by assuming his son Yazid the mandate of the covenant, and the
historian Ibn Khaldun
(d. 808 AH / 1406 AD) justified this - in the 'Introduction' - by saying that "whoever called Muawiyah to prefer his son Yazid to the covenant - without anyone else." It is only taking into account the interest in meeting people, and agreeing their whims with the agreement of the people of the solution and the contract on it at that time from the Umayyads, because the Umayyads at that time did not accept anyone but them, and they are the group of Quraysh - and the people of the religion as a whole - and the people of the majority from them.”
Regardless of how sound Ibn Khaldun's reasoning is; Yazid’s elevation - after his father’s death in the year 60 AH / 681 AD - to the position of caliphate was not with the approval of all the companions, but was opposed by famous ones such as Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr (d. 73 AH / 693 AD), Hussein bin Ali (d. 61 AH / 682 AD) and Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq (d. 58 AH / 679 AD). Therefore, his reign witnessed hot events, foremost of which was the martyrdom of Imam Hussein - may God be pleased with him - at the beginning of the year 61 AH / 682 AD in Karbala, and then the battle of Al-Harrah in Medina when its people revolted in the year 63 AH / 684 AD to overthrow the rule of Yazid.
Meanwhile, Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr announced his departure from the rule of the Umayyads, and then decided to resort to Makkah Al-Mukarramah, where he “gathered … to him the faces of the people of Tihama and the Hijaz, so he called them to pledge allegiance to him, so they all pledged allegiance to him, and Abdullah bin Abbas (d. 68 AH / 688 AD) and Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya (d. = Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib (died 81 AH / 701 AD)... [Then] he ordered the expulsion of the workers of Yazid from Mecca and Medina, and [the governor of Medina] Marwan (bin al-Hakam, who died 65 AH / 686 AD) traveled from Medina with his son and his family until he joined the Levant"; According to the narration of Abu Hanifa al-Dinwari (d. 282 AH / 995 AD) in 'Akhbar al-Tawwal'.
Hence the spark of a battle over legitimacy that will last for nine years (64-73 AH / 685-693 AD) between Ibn al-Zubayr, who was able to control most of the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Yemen, and the Umayyads - starting with Yazid ibn Muawiyah (d. 64 AH / 685 AD) and ending with Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan (d. 86 AH / 706 AD) - the rulers of the Levant and Egypt, but in the end the Umayyads seized Iraq in the year 71 AH / 691 AD, and Ibn al-Zubayr was besieged in Mecca for seven whole months, during which he was in prison.
His steadfastness during this long period impressed even his Umayyad opponents; Ibn al-Atheer (d. 630 AH / 1232 AD) reported - in his book 'Al Kamil' - that Tariq bin Amr (d. 84 AH / 704 AD) - the Umayyad governor of Medina and one of the besiegers of Mecca with the army of Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Thaqafi (d. 95 AH / 705 AD). - He said: “Women have not given birth remember this! Al-Hajjaj said: Do you praise those who are against the Commander of the Faithful? He said: Yes, he is an excuse for us, and if it weren’t for this, we would not have an excuse. It is preferred over us, so their words reached Abd al-Malik, and he aimed at Tariq.
The killing of Abdullah bin Al-Zubair (d. 73 AH / 693 AD) and his crucifixion by al-Hajjaj was a complete and clear scene of
the conflict over legitimacy
at that early date, and by his decisiveness in favor of the Umayyads, the way was opened for the establishment of the legitimacy of the “fait accompli,” with which the desire to conquer and power became preponderant over the The logic of complete right to subordinate the political issue and military force to public consultation, and the right of the nation to choose; This was considered practically impossible after the tendency to contend with and adopted it as an exclusive means of gaining power. That is why we see the historian of ideas al-Shahrastani (d. 548 AH / 1153 AD) saying - in his book 'Al-Milal and An-Nahl' - that "the greatest dispute between the nation is that of the imamate, as no sword has been drawn in Islam on a religious basis like what has been drawn upon the imamate at all times."
Thus, the nation entered the phase of "conqueror", and the phenomenon of getting rid of rulers, princes and sultans - while they were in their prisons - became a normal matter for everyone who overthrew his opponent from the throne, and did not force him to "pardon when able"; Especially since the legitimacy of the "fait accompli" that was adopted as a basis for rule in the Umayyad and Abbasid states - which are based on the principle of inheriting power - opened the door to the presence of other competitors, who, relying on mere force, tried to be independent from the central authority of the Umayyads in Damascus and the Abbasids in Baghdad.
At the end of the Umayyad era; The revolutionary Abdullah bin Muawiyah bin Jaafar bin Abi Talib (d. 129 AH / 748 AD) called for the pledge of allegiance to himself as a caliph, taking advantage of the turmoil that the Umayyads were experiencing as a result of their struggle for power, and he controlled by force large areas of Persia and southern Iraq. Then he - as Ibn Asaker tells - "was pledged allegiance to him in the caliphate in Isfahan in the year one hundred and twenty-seven in the caliphate of Marwan bin Muhammad (d. 132 AH / 751 AD and was the last ruler of the Umayyad state).., and his followers increased and
.. and his command was strong, and it was between him and the workers Marwan witnessed many incidents and wars, and he was still there until the Abbasid state came, then Malik bin Al-Haytham (Al-Khuza’i who died after 137 AH / 756 AD), the companion of Abu Muslim (Al-Khorasani who died 137 AH / 756 AD), fought him, so he imprisoned and killed him, and it is said that he died in his prison ".
And Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 356 AH / 967 AD) - in his book 'Muqatil al-Talibeen' - quotes on the authority of some of the biographers that he (= Abdullah bin Muawiyah) was still imprisoned until he wrote to Abu Muslim his famous letter, the beginning of which is: He has no offense… “When he wrote to him about that, he ordered his death.” The strange thing is that this Alawite revolutionary was, before the king’s request, a famous poet praising the princes and governors, and he - as Abu Naim Al-Isfahani (d. 430 AH / 1040 AD) says) in “The History of Isfahan” - the owner of the two walking houses: You are
my brother unless I have a need ** If you are presented, I will be certain Isn't that my brother?!
We are both rich in his brother's life ** and we, if we die, are more rich!!
An adventurous step,
An adventurous step,
the Abbasids came to power on the board of a massive and well-organised armed revolution, so they established their legitimacy to overcome and get rid of competitors, even if they were their cousins and their participants in the
revolution against the Umayyads
, and their first victim in that - as we saw - was Abdullah bin Muawiyah Al-Hashemi Al-Alawi. who died in their prison.
However, the Abbasids began - since the Caliph Al-Ma’mun (d. 218 AH / 833 AD) and then worsened during the reign of his brother, Caliph Al-Mu’tasim (d. 227 AH / 842 AD) - to bring in Turkish elements to be their own guard, and the most prominent and strongest nucleus in the armies of the caliphate later, excluding them from the authority of the Arabs the Persians who had attained strength and purpose in the joints of the state;
But what happened - as Rashid Rida says (d. 1354 AH / 1935 AD) in his book 'The Caliphate' - is that "the Turkish soldiers among the Abbasids became like the Janissaries in the Ottomans.
As a result of the dominance of the Turkish military elite and its almost absolute control over the reins of politics, administration and the joints of the Abbasid state; The phenomenon of arresting the Abbasid caliphs, killing them or imprisoning them until they died in the dark of their cells, emerged, starting with the killing of Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (d. 247 AH / 861 AD) at the hands of his son al-Muntasir (d. 248 AH / 862 AD) and his associates from the Turks, and passing through Al-Mutaz Allah (d. 255 AH/869 AD). He was overthrown by the Turkish leaders, citing his weakness and inability to pay the salaries of the military. Al-Tabari tells us about the ugly end of this Al-Moataz, saying that he “was given to the one who tormented him, and food and drink were prevented for three days, so he asked for a handful of water from the well, but they prevented him, then they plastered a basement with thick plaster, then they entered him in it and closed his door!!
The military did the same with his successor, Al-Muhtadee Billah (d. 256 AH / 870 AD), who tried to put an end to the weakness of the caliphs by scattering the Turks and striking each other. The caliphs.. and they took possession of the fay’, so they appointed the Commander of the Faithful and helped him.” According to al-Tabari. But his call was not answered; So the Turks arrested him, put him under house arrest, and asked him to resign. “He refused to take himself out, so they took off the fingers of his hands and feet from his hands and feet… until he died.”
In conjunction with this state of weakening the Turkish military elite of the caliphs in Baghdad; The parties of the Islamic world were exploiting the conditions of turmoil in the center of the caliphate to form independent entities and states, or expand them at the expense of neighbors, even if they were Muslims, and they also began to use the principle of “overpowering” to gain power, as happened between Amr bin Al-Layth Al-Saffar (d. 289 AH / 1002 AD), the prince of The Saffarid State in Persia Khorasan (= most of Iran and Afghanistan), and Ismail bin Ahmed al-Samani (d. 295 AH / 908 AD), the prince of the Samanids in the territory beyond the river (= Uzbekistan and its environs).
A decisive battle took place between them, which ended in a crushing defeat for al-Saffar. A camel and he carried him from the prayer hall and drove him to Baghdad from the Khurasan Gate, and when he was publicly known, his eyes shed tears while he raised his hands in supplication, so the people dispersed for him!
According to the narration of Ibn Aybak al-Dawadari (died after 736 AH / 1335 AD) in 'Kinz al-Durar and Jami' al-Gharar'.
Weakness In Iraq, the weakening of the Caliphs remained a phenomenon that spread throughout the vacillating capital, with its headquarters between Baghdad and Samarra.
The senior Turkish leaders were afraid of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Qaher Billah (d. 322 AH / 934 AD) after hearing rumors that he wanted to kill them.
Abu Ali bin Miskawayh (d. 421 AH / 1031 AD) - in 'The Experiences of Nations and the Succession of Determination' - narrates to us the scene of the arrest of this unfortunate Caliph in 322 AH / 934 AD, where he says that "when Al-Qahir learned of the occurrence of boys in the house (= his palace), beware of He got drunk and woke up and fled to the roof of a bathroom in the house of the sanctuary (= the harem) and he was hidden in it.. So they entered and found him.. In his hand was a naked sword, and they tried with it - as a matter of kindness - to come down to them.. So he kept refraining from descending, until he surpassed (= He pointed) one of them to him with an arrow, and he said: If you do not come down, I will put him in our drive, so he came down then and they arrested him.
The Turkish leaders expelled one of the princes of the Abbasid House from his prison, Muhammad ibn al-Khalifa al-Muqtadir, and nicknamed him “Al-Radhi Billah” (d. 329 AH / 941 AD), who wanted to bestow on the coup scene, which took place by force, a formal legal and legal privilege, so he sent a group of senior judges to the prison of the ousted caliph. Al-Qaher by God, to testify that he had removed himself from the caliphate, but he refused to resign. For certification and authentication only!
Indeed, the military intervened and inflicted the punishment on the deposed Caliph, the conqueror by God, so “his eyes were covered (= puzzled)… until they all asked, and he was blind, and a great thing was committed by him that is not heard of in Islam.. And the oppressor remained imprisoned in the Sultan’s house until the year thirty-three] [and ..., sometimes he was imprisoned and sometimes released" until "he died in Jumada al-Akhirah of this year (= 339 AH / 950 AD)";
According to what Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH / 1201 AD) narrated in his “Regular History”.
Then the same thing was repeated with the Caliph, who came after the death of Al-Radi Allah, who is Al-Muttaqi Allah (d. 357 AH / 968 AD), whose reign was marked by successive conflicts between Arab and Turkish military leaders;
In the year 333 AH / 945 AD, the Turkish “Prince of Princes” Tuzon (d. 334 AH / 945 AD) rebelled against this caliph while he was outside the capital, so he arranged a ploy for him to “arrest him and let him go and enter Baghdad blind.. [Then] Al-Muttaqi died in prison” after 24 years in prison;
As Al-Dhahabi tells in Al-Siyar.
The Buyids’ control over the Abbasid authorities in Baghdad in the year 334 AH / 945 AD came as a new episode of the episodes of conquest and the control of the hegemony of military power and the culture of “taking” over the logic of truth.
The Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustaqfi Billah (d. 338 AH / 949 AD) agreed to bring them from Iran to eliminate the domination of the Turks, but he did not know that with his step he became "like the one who sought refuge from the raging fire" because he would be their first victim.
Abu al-Hasan al-Hamadhani (d. 521 AH / 1127 AD) - in the 'Supplementary History of al-Tabari' - says that the Buyid leader Mu'izz al-Dawla (d. 356 AH / 967 AD) entered the caliph "who is satisfied with God, so he kissed the ground and sat on a chair..., and two souls (= two people) came to the one who was satisfied." So he thought that they wanted to kiss his hand, so he stretched it out, so they pulled him and threw him to the ground and carried him to the house of Moez al-Dawla.
Al-Mustakfi Billah remained imprisoned there for four years after his eyes were gouged out and he was blinded. "He died there of hemoptysis in this year (= 338 AH / 949 AD)";
As narrated by Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Muntazim.
A conciliatory initiative
A conciliatory initiative
Once again, the ruling legitimacy - which was established with the Umayyads and the Abbasids and united between conquest, the Quraish and the necessity of the "status quo" - is entering a new phase with the succession of the sultan states, whether it was Bouyah, Seljuk, Mamluk or Ottoman.
This is what made Imam Al-Mawardi Al-Shafi’i (d. 450 AH/1059AD) come out - in his book “Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniya” - with the theory of the “Ministry of Delegate”, which meant “that the Imam (= the Caliph) consults with whomever he delegates to manage matters according to his opinion and to sign it on His discretion,” explaining that as long as the motive for this is the necessity of a de facto authority, “the ministry of delegation is valid in the emirate of conquest (= force and compulsion), and it is not valid in the emirate of istifa (= the caliph’s ability to take over the most competent).”
Al-Mawardi's motive for presenting his theory was to correct the imbalanced situation in the relationship between a caliph who claims legitimacy as "the power of right" and a sultan who actually possesses "the right of power." It seems that his adaptation of the relationship between the weak caliphs and the victorious sultans was a prelude to the entry of the Seljuks into Baghdad in the year 447 AH/1056 AD, three years before the death of al-Mawardi, and even with his contribution to their arrival when he led negotiations between them and the caliph at the time, al-Qa’im bi Amr Allah (d. 467 AH/1074 AD). God be with the Judge of Judges, Abul-Hasan Al-Mawardi”; As Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1347 AD) says in 'Sir A'lam al-Nubala'.
Inspite of that;
The phenomenon of stone and the killing of independent caliphs and princes remained evident throughout the Islamic world.
It also occurred in the year 441 AH / 1050 AD with the Emir of Mosul, Qarwash bin Muqlid Al-Aqili (d. 444 AH / 1053 AD) when “Baraka’s nephew Qarawash jumped on him, and he was arrested and imprisoned in this year, and he took possession of [his place], and he died in the year three. Badran (d. 453 AH/1062 AD) .. So he slaughtered Qarawash bin Muqallad patiently, and it was said that he died in his prison.”
As Al-Dhahabi tells us in 'Lessons in the news of the dust'.
Al-Dhahabi - in "History of Islam" - tells of this Prince Qarawash stories that reveal part of what many of the sultans of those ages were underestimating the taboos, especially blood;
He said, "It was on the Sunnah of the Arabs (= the Bedouins), so that he combined two sisters, so they blamed him. He said: Tell me, what do we use from the Sharia so that you talk about this matter? And he said once: There is nothing on my neck but the blood of five or six Arabs I killed, as for [The people of] the present, so what does God care about 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
you only Sberh Aftbanna * sword and fired Srvhn Grara
Just as the phenomenon of the physical liquidation of the sultans by slow death in prisons after their removal prevailed in the Islamic East, it was repeated in various ways in Egypt and the entire Islamic West region.
When the bonds of the Umayyad state in Andalusia finally disintegrated in the year 422 AH/1032 AD, making way for the beginning of the era of the “kings of the sects” who distributed the cities of the country with conquest and conquest;
The capital, Cordoba, and the regions affiliated to it were an exception to this, as the "Al Johor" family - of Persian origin - ruled it with the consent of its people.
Al-Dhahabi tells us - in 'Al-Siyar' - that in the year 435 AH / 1044 AD, the founding prince, Jahour bin Muhammad, died, and the authority passed to his son, Abu Al-Walid Muhammad (d. 462 AH / 1070 AD) "and he ruled over Cordoba..., so [Al-Mu'tamid] bin Abbad (Al-Lakhmi, Prince of Seville, who died 488 AH/1095AD, conquered and took the country (from him in 462 AH/1070 AD), then imprisoned Abu al-Walid in a fortress.. so he remained in Ibn Abbad prison until he died. This is despite the fact that Ibn Jahour, paradoxically, sought the help of Ibn Abbad to protect his kingdom from his other Muslim neighbor, the king of Toledo, al-Ma’mun ibn Dhul-Nun (d. 467 AH/1074 AD)!!
And they are only two contracts, and Al-Mu'tamid bin Abbad will meet the same fate that he tasted to Ibn Jahour.
When the emir of the Almoravid state, Yusuf bin Tashfin (d. 500 AH / 1106 AD), eliminated the sect states in Andalusia in 484 AH / 1091 AD, in the third intervention of the Almoravids to save Andalusia from the devastating invasions of the Christian leader Alfonso VI (d. 502 AH / 1108 AD);
Al-Mu'tamid was arrested - and he became the chief king of Andalusia - after he violated obedience and violated the agreement concluded between him and the Almoravids.
Regarding this fate of Ibn Abbad, al-Maqri al-Tilmisani (d. 1041 AH / 1631 AD) - in 'Nafh al-Tayyib' - says that Ibn Tashfin "transferred him to [the town] Aghmat near Marrakesh in the year four hundred and eighty-four, and arrested him there until he died" in his prison after four years.
Al-Dhahabi narrated to us - in “History of Islam” quoting from the Andalusian historian and scholar Abu Yahya Elisha bin Hazm Al-Ghafiqi Al-Jiani (d. 575 AH / 1179 AD) - what clarifies part of the context of the fate that King Ibn Abbad became;
His advisors intimidated him from seeking help from the Almoravids (their second intervention in 481 AH/1088 AD);
He replied, "It is better to graze camels [of Ibn Tashfin] than to graze pigs" by Alfonso!
But at the end of his order, he
allied himself with the Christians against the Almoravids
- in their third and final intervention to save Andalusia in the year 483 AH/1090 AD - and that was a pretext for them to overthrow him and undermine his kingdom forever.
The Judge of Judges, the historian Ibn Khalkan (d. 681 AH / 1282 AD) - in 'Deaths of Notables' - commented on the painful end of Ibn Abbad, saying: "It is rare and strange that at his funeral he was called to 'pray for the stranger', after the greatness of his power and majesty!! So blessed be! Who has survival, pride and pride!
Before Ibn Khalkan; Ibn Abbad himself was the first to realize the tragedy that his family faced after the demise of his wide king, and he said in his buzzing poem on the occasion of one of the holidays:
In the past, you were happy with the holidays ** and your feast was filled with pleasures and
that the feast was happy ** So the feast has made
happy in the clouds,
you see Your daughters are hungry in the urns ** They flirt with people what they have!
Usually Mamluk and
Usually Mamluk and
back in the Islamic Mashreq; We find that the Ayyubid state (567-647 AH / 1174-1249 AD) - which ruled Egypt, the Levant, the Hijaz and Yemen - was not an exception from its political environment in the mechanism of access to power, despite the great jihadist history of its founder Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589 AH / 1193 AD). Therefore, we saw this phenomenon repeated with a number of its minor princes and one of its great sultans, led by King Al-Adil II Ibn Al-Kamil Al-Ayyubi (d. 645 AH / 1247 AD), who assumed the Sultanate of Egypt between 635-637 AH / 1237-1239 AD.
Al-Adil II was famous for his recklessness, playfulness and lack of appreciation for the responsibility entrusted to him, and his brother, the righteous King Najm al-Din Ayoub (d. 647 AH / 1249 AD) was able to arrest and imprison him;
To ascend his successor to the throne of the Sultanate in Egypt.
The King of Hama, al-Mu'ayyad al-Ayyubi (d. 732 AH / 1332 AD) says in his history 'Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bishr': "[Al-Adil II] was imprisoned from the time he was arrested in Belbeis until this end (= the year 645 AH / 1247 AD), and the period of his stay was about eight years. And his age [on the day he died in prison] was about thirty years.
the Mamluk era
(648-923 AH / 1250-1517 AD) - in which power was established from the first day on a cliff run of power and conflict - this phenomenon appeared on the surface of political events with complete clarity, by arresting the weak sultans, imprisoning them and killing them in it.
The Mamluk Sultan Baybars al-Jashankir (d. 709 AH / 1309 AD) was among the dead in prisons;
The reason for this is his persecution of Sultan Al-Nasir Muhammad bin Qalawun (d. 741 AH/1340 AD) in the latter’s second sultanate (698-708 AH/1299-1308 AD), to the extent that he was forced to leave Egypt for Karak - which is today south of Jordan - to complain to the princes loyal to him in Levant what “was in it from the tightness of the hand and the lack of sanctity, and for this he left the kingdom of Egypt and was content to reside in Karak”;
As mentioned by Al-Maqrizi in 'The Behavior to Know the Countries of the Kings'.
Baybars al-Jashankir announced - with the support of
the Mamluk princes in
Egypt - his assumption of the sultanate, but Nasser Qalawun returned - after less than a year - backed by the overwhelming support of the princes of the Levant.
The historian Ibn Taghri Bardi (d. 874 AH / 1479 AD) - in 'The Shining Stars' - describes the moments of the end of Sultan al-Jashankir - who was deposed and imprisoned - saying: "Sultan al-Malik al-Nasir came [to prison] and strangled [Baybars] in his hands with a bowstring. Until he was almost destroyed, then he slandered him until he woke up and violently abused him, then strangled him again until he died.” His revenge was torture and murder!!
A family catastrophe, and
A family catastrophe, and
if al-Nasir Qalawun killed his opponent, al-Jashankir; The same fate befell some of his sons after him, the first of whom was Sultan Al-Mansur Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Qalawun (d. 742 AH / 1341 AD). Al-Mansur ascended the throne on the will of his father upon his death in the year 741 AH / 1340 AD, but his rule did not last long due to his young age, as he was twenty years old, and the disputes of the princes around him and their use of him in the struggle for influence and feudalism, then he was engaged in “fun and drinking.” Drinking alcohol and listening to amusement parks, so it was difficult for Prince Qusun (the Nazarene waterman who died in 742 AH / 1341 AD) and others, because no king before him was known to drink alcohol. As Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH / 1441 AD) says in 'Al-Suluk'.
Prince Qusun al-Nasiri - who was at that time one of the senior princes and the ruler of the state on a bequest from al-Nasir Qalawun - besieged Sultan al-Mansur in the mountain castle in Cairo, and when everyone was convinced of Qusun's strength and the princes' support for him, the decision was issued to exile al-Mansour to the city of Qus in Upper Egypt under "demarcation", meaning house arrest. After a short period of time, a decision was taken to get rid of him while he is in prison.
Ibn Taghri Bardi - in 'The Glorious Stars' - says that Al-Mansur "trampled on him Qusun [Prince] Abdul-Mu'min Metwally Qus;
Qusun's goal was to eliminate his rival, the deposed Sultan, for fear that he would return to his throne again!
It is noteworthy that Qusun - who became the ruler of the Sultanate and the commander of the army in it - appointed a young child of Al-Nasir Qalawun's name, Kujk (d. 746 AH / 1345 AD), a sultan nicknamed "Al-Ashraf" when he was still seven years old. Thus, Prince Qusun became the real sultan of the country. “He lived in the prosecutor’s house in the castle, and he disposed of the affairs of the kingdom as he chose.” According to the expression of Ibn Iyas al-Hanafi (d. 930 AH / 1524 AD) in 'Bada'i al-Zuhur'. It has been through one of the
Egypt then -as narrated by
change in Bardi' stars Alzahrh'- this reality ironic saying:
Sultanna today in a
child and senior companions
behind **, including the
devil may Nzga
how coveted the dark overlay ** to reach Alswl and the Sultan Belgha?!
After gaining power;
Qusun worked on the exclusion and persecution of his rivals among the senior princes and arresting them, so they decided to take revenge on him, so they surrounded him in the citadel, arrested him and sent him to the Alexandria prison in northern Egypt.
Ibn Taghri Bardi says that Qusun "continued...to imprison Alexandria...until King Al-Nasir Ahmed [Ibn Qalawun (d. 745AH/1344AD)] came from Karak, and sat on the king's throne at the Castle of the Mountain..., and the opinions of the princes agreed to kill Qusun, so they prepared to kill him [Prince]. Al-Shami] Shihab al-Din Ahmad ibn Sobh (the Kurdish who died after 759 AH / 1358 AD) went to Alexandria and went to it and strangled Qusun [in his prison]” until he died.
By killing him in that case;
Qusun drank from the assassination cup from which others watered, and after him Al-Nasir Ahmed drank from it when the Mamluks isolated him and installed in his place the good Sultan Ismail Ibn Qalawun (d. 746 AH / 1345 AD), who recruited armies to besiege him in Karak for two years, so they arrested him and imprisoned him, then sent whoever had his head there And he came to him while he was in Cairo!
بل إن السلطان الأشرف كُجُك -وهو ذلك الطفل الذي وافق اسمُه مسمّاه (كُجُك küçük بالتركية معناها: صغير) فلم يكن يدرك ولا يعلم ما يجري حوله!- قرر الأمراء الكبار خلعه، فعزلوه ووضعوه تحت الإقامة الجبرية في "الدُّور السلطانية تحت كنف والدته، وهو ووالدته في ذُلّ وصَغار وهوان" داخل قلعة الجبل، وظل بها حتى قرر السلطان الكامل شعبان (ت 747هـ/1346م) التخلص منه بعد أربع سنوات من تلك الإقامة الجبرية. ويقول المقريزي -في ‘السلوك‘- إن كُجُك مات "عن اثنتي عشرة سنة، واتُّهِم السلطان [الكامل] [بـ]ـأنه بعث مَن قتله في مضجعه على يد أربعة خُدّام". ولم يكن التخلص من هذا السلطان المخلوع -وهو لم يبلغ الحُلم- إلا خوفًا على العرش!!
وحين انتصر العثمانيون على المماليك في معركتيْ مرج دابق شمال حَلب سنة 922هـ/1516م ثم الريدانية بالقاهرة في العام التالي 923هـ/1517م، بعد سلسلة من معارك الفر والكر؛ سقط السلطان المملوكي الأخير طومان باي (ت 923هـ/1517م) في الأسْر، وتوجّهوا به إلى السلطان العثماني سليم شاه الأول (ت 926هـ/1520م) الذي أمر بسجنه في "خيمة، فأقام بها وأحاط به الإنكشارية بالسيوف لأجل الحفظ"؛ كما يذكر ابن إياس في ‘بدائع الزهور‘، وهو المؤرخ الشاهد على أحداث تلك المرحلة الفاصلة.
ثم أنزِلت بطومان باي عقوبة الإعدام خلال نحو ثلاثة أسابيع من أسره، ليكون بذلك آخر سلاطين المماليك وتتبع مصر للعثمانيين -حقيقة أو شكلا- منذ ذلك التاريخ (923هـ/1517م) وحتى إعلانها سلطنة مستقلة سنة 1332هـ/1914م.
وحين استولت البحرية العثمانية بقيادة سنان باشا (ت 1004هـ/1595م) على تونس سنة 981هـ/1573م، وطردوا منها الاحتلال الإسباني الذي خضع له نفرٌ من آخر سلاطين الحفصيين؛ كان "مصير محمـد بن الحسن الحفصي [-وهو آخر سلطان حفصي- أنْ] حملَه معه سِنان باشا إلى إسطنبول، واعتُقل هناك خشية فِراره واستنجاده بالإسبان مرّة أخرى، وظلَّ في اعتقاله هناك إلى وفاته"؛ كما يقول محمد العروسي المطوي في كتابه ‘السلطنة الحفصية‘.
ولقد شهدت الدولة العثمانية ذاتها أحداثًا مشابهة مثلما وقع مع السلطان عثمان الثاني (ت 1031هـ/1622م)؛ فقد حاول هذا السلطان الشاب أن يُدخل في بنية الدولة إصلاحات جذرية أملتها الضرورة حينذاك، بما فيها إقامة نظام عسكري جديد تكون نواته فرقة عسكرية من غير جنود الإنكشارية الذين أصبحوا عبئا على الدولة، وتقاعسوا عن أداء واجبهم في بعض الحملات العسكرية.
لكن الإنكشارية عرفوا بالأمر فحاصروا عثمان الثاني، وفي نهاية الأمر أخذوه "من أورطة (= ثُكنة) جامع في السليمانية وتوجهوا به إلى [سجن] يدي كولة (= الأبراج السبعة Yedi kule)، وهناك حمل عليه عشرة جلادين، ورغم أنه كان أعزل [فقد] قتل ثلاثة منهم، ثم قُتل خنقًا بخيط من حرير، وذلك مساء يوم 22 مايو/أيار [1622م]"؛ وفقا لما أورده يلماز أوزتونا في ‘تاريخ الدولة العثمانية‘. ونصب الإنكشارية من بعده عمه السلطان مصطفى الأول (ت 1049هـ/1639م) -الذي عُرف بالجنون والخرف- مما أتاح لهم أن يحكموا من وراء ستار إلى حين.
وفي ختام هذا الرصد التاريخي لظاهرة قتل الخلفاء والملوك والسلاطين والأمراء في سجونهم وإقاماتهم الجبرية، إما بالفعل المباشر أو بالإهمال ليعانوا موتا "طبيعيا" بطيئا؛ يمكننا أن نرى -في استمرارية هذه الظاهرة المؤلمة التي وقفنا على بعض نماذجها الشهيرة دون استقصاء مستوعِب- سيادةً لمبدأ القوة وهيمنته المطلقة على مبدأ احترام الشرعية الدستورية للأمة، في جميع أنحاء الرقعة الجغرافية للعالم الإسلامي، وعبر هذا التاريخ الطويل الذي بدأ مع الخليفة الراشد عثمان بن عفان (ض) وحتى نهايات عصر العثمانيين. كما نستطيع رؤية أن مصير كثير من هؤلاء السلطين إنما كان "جزاءً وفاقا" لما فعلوه هم بسلاطين آخرين خلعوهم بالقوة واحتلوا السلطة بعدهم إلى حين!!
ورغم ترسخ هذه الظاهرة الغريبة؛ فإنه جدير بالذكر الإشارة إلى أن هؤلاء السلاطين -سواء الغالب منهم والمغلوب- ظلوا حتى نهاية عصر العثمانيين يحكمون في دول خاضعة -ولو شكليا- لشريعة الإسلام ونظمها ومقاصدها العليا، ومُقرّين لمبدأ التقاضي إليها، ومشاركة النخبة المدنية من الفقهاء في الحكم وإدارة المؤسسات العلمية والتعليمية والعدلية، وإن اعتُبر قبول "التغلب" أمرًا أملته ضرورة احتكام ذوي السلطة إلى القوة فإنه لم يُسلَّم فقهاً بصوابيته من حيث المبدأ؛ وهو ما يباين القطيعة الكبيرة مع الإقرار بالمرجعية الحصرية لأحكام الإسلام في الدولة الحديثة.
والحق أن النخبة المدنية من الفقهاء والعلماء كانت شاهدة على تلك الأحداث في عصر المماليك وما سبقه ولحقه من عهود سادتها الانقلابات العسكرية المسماة بلغة الفقهاء "التغلب" و"الاستيلاء".
ويبدو أن الفقه السياسي في تلك الأزمنة اتخذ -في مساره الأعم- منحىً شديد الواقعية عبّر عنه قاضي القضاة في مصر بدر الدين ابن جماعة الشافعي (ت 733هـ/1333م) -في عبارة واضحة- حين رأى "شرعية اضطرارية" لمنطق التغلب في صورته المملوكية، وذلك بقوله -في كتابه ‘تحرير الأحكام في تدبير أهل الإسلام‘- إنه "إذا انعقدَت الإمامةُ بالشوكة والغلبة لواحدٍ ثم قام آخر فقهر الأول بشوكته وجنوده، انعزل الأول وصار الثاني إمامًا؛ لما قدّمنا من مصلحة المسلمين وجمع كلمتهم".
However, there were still among the scholars who rejected the legitimacy of the “fait accompli” of the overpowering sultans, no matter what some of them said and the people submitted to it as weakness and “committing the lesser of two evils”;
This imam al-Zamakhshari al-Hanafi (d. 538 AH / 1143 AD) calls these sultans “
the conquering thieves
,” and he says about them in his interpretation of “Al-Kashshaf”: “When [God] commanded the governors to pay trusts to their people and to rule with justice, he commanded people to obey them and take their cases…, What is meant by “one of you in authority” is: the princes of truth..like the rightly-guided caliphs and those who follow them in goodness.. and the rulers of oppression do not perform trust and do not rule with justice.. they only follow their own desires.. they are alienated from the attributes of those who are in authority with God and His Messenger, and their truest names. : Thieves overpowered!!Keywords: